An apology for the Baptists. In which they are vindicated from the imputation of laying an unwarrantable stress on the ordinance of baptism; and against the charge of bigotry in refusing communion at the Lord's table to paedobaptists. / By Abraham Booth. ; [Four lines of quotations] Booth, Abraham, 1734-1806. Approx. 336 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 180 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI : 2011-05. N16344 N16344 Evans 20976 APZ0204 20976 99037820

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 20976. (Evans-TCP ; no. N16344) Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 20976) Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 20976) An apology for the Baptists. In which they are vindicated from the imputation of laying an unwarrantable stress on the ordinance of baptism; and against the charge of bigotry in refusing communion at the Lord's table to paedobaptists. / By Abraham Booth. ; [Four lines of quotations] Booth, Abraham, 1734-1806. 179, [1] p. ; 14 cm. (18mo) Printed [by Henry Taylor] for Thomas Dobson, at the stone house, in Second Street., Philadelphia: : MDCCLXXXVIII. [1788] Printer's name supplied by Evans. Error in paging: p. 121 misnumbered 221. Bookseller's advertisement, p. [180].

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Baptists -- Doctrinal and controversial works. Baptism. Close and open communion. Booksellers' advertisements -- Pennsylvania -- Philadelphia. 2008-11 Assigned for keying and markup 2009-01 Keyed and coded from Readex/Newsbank page images 2009-11 Sampled and proofread 2009-11 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2010-04 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BAPTISTS IN WHICH THEY ARE VINDICATED FROM THE IMPUTATION OF LAYING AN UNWARRANTABLE ST •••• ON THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM, AND AGAINST THE CHARGE OF BIGOTRY IN REFUSING COMMUNION AT THE LORD's TABLE TO PAEDOBAPTISTS.

BY ABRAHAM BOOTH.

There is—on Baptiſm.

EPHES. iv.

They who are not rightly baptized, are, doubtleſs, not baptized at all

TERTULLIAN.

No unbaptized perſon communicates at the Lord's Table.

THEOPHYLACT.

PHILADELPHIA: PRINTED FOR THOMAS DOBSON, AT THE STONE HOUSE, IN SECOND STREET. MDCCLXXXVIII.

THE PREFACE.

IT was not a fondneſs for controverſy, but a deſire to vindicate the honour of Chriſt, as lawgiver in his own kingdom; to aſſert the ſcriptural importance of a poſitive inſtitution in the houſe of God; and to exculpate himſelf, together with a great majority of his brethren of the Baptiſt perſuaſion, from charges of an odious kind, that excited the author to compoſe and publiſh the following pages. If theſe deſigns be anſwered, the writer obtains his end; and if not, he has the teſtimony of his own conſcience to the uprightneſs of his intentions.

As we are expreſsly commande to contend our eſtly for the Faith once delivered to the ſaints; it can hardly be queſtioned, whether a ſincere concern for the purity and permanence of our Lord's appointments in the goſpel church, be not an indiſpenſable duty. For they are no leſs the expreſſions of his dominion over us, th n of his love to 〈◊〉 •• leſs intended as means of his own glory, than of our •• ppineſs. The ſubject, therefore, that is here-preſented to the reader's notice, though not of the greateſt, yet is far from being of little importance in the Chriſtian religion.

It is entirely on the defenſive that the author takes up his pen; for had not the principles and practice of thoſe profeſſors who are invidiouſly called, Strict Baptiſts, been ſeverely cenſured, by many that maintain, and by ſome who deny, the divine authority of Infant Baptiſm, theſe pages would never have ſeen the light.

That He ho is King in Zion may reign in the hearts and regulate the worſhip of all his profeſſing people; that the Spirit of wiſdom, of holineſs, and of peace, may dwell in all the churches of Chriſt; and that the ſame divine Agent may direct the reader's inquiries after truth, engage his affections in the performance of duty, and enable him to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameleſs; is the ſincere deſire and fervent prayer of his willing ſervant in the goſpel of Chriſt,

A. BOOTH. GOODMAN'S FIELDS, March 3, 1778.
AN APOLOGY FOR THE BAPTISTS.
SECTION I. The Baptiſts not chargeable with laying an unwarrantable Streſs on the Ordinance of Baptiſm.

MANY reflections are caſt on the Baptiſts, the various charges are laid againſt them; reflections and charges of ſuch a kind, as greatly impeach the truth of their doctrinal principles, and the candour of their chriſtian temper. They are frequently repreſented by their Paedobaptiſt brethren, as uncharitably rigid, as incorrigible bigots to a favourite opinion, and as putting baptiſm in the place of our Lord's atoning blood and the ſanctifying agency of the divine Spirit.—To give them epithets and load them with charges of this kind, the generality of their opponents agree; whether they be members of our National Eſtabliſhment, or in the number of Proteſtant Diſſenters.

But why ſuch unfriendly ſurmiſes and bold accuſations? What is there in our principles or conduct that lays a foundation for ſuch hard ſuſpicions and ſuch ſeverity of ſen •• re? As to making baptiſm a ſubſtitute for a ••• tonement of Jeſus Chriſt, and the ſanctifying gency of the Holy Spirit, it is manife tly contrary to our avowed ſentiments; ſo contrary, that all the world, one would have thought, muſt agree to acquit us of ſuch a charge.I ſpeak of the Particular Baptiſts. How far any of thoſe who are called General Baptiſts, may have given occaſion for ſuch imputations, I neither take upon me to affirm nor deny. For it is too notorious to admit a plea of ignorance in any of our opponents, that we conſider no one as a proper ſubject of that inſtitution, who does not profeſs repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; who does not, in other words, appear to be in a ſtate of ſalvation. Nay, ſo far from making baptiſm a ſaving ordinance, we do not, we cannot conſider any one as a proper ſubject of it, who looks upon it in that light.

Yet were an imputation of this kind as juſt and pertinent, as it is groundleſs and ungenerous; did we really aſcribe a regenerating efficacy and ſaving effects to that ſacred appointment; we ſhould hardly forbear concluding, that theſe complaints and charges came with an ill grace from our brethren of the Eſtabliſhment; eſpecially from the clergy, who have ſolemnly declared their aſſent and conſent to all that is contained in the book of Common Prayer. For they, immediately after baptizing an infant, addreſs firſt the people, and then the omniſcient God, in the following remarkable words; Seeing dearly beloved brethren, that this child IS REGENERATE and grafted into the body of Chriſt's church, let us give thanks to Almighty God for theſe benefits— We yield thee hearty thanks, moſt merciful Father, that it hath pleaſed thee to REGENERATE this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for THINE OWN CHILD by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church—Thus the clergy moſt ſolemnly profeſs to believe, when they adminiſter baptiſm to infants. And, when giving catechetical inſtructions to children, they inculcate on their tender minds the ſame things, as truths and facts of great importance. For thus they interrogate each young catechumen, and thus they teach him to anſwer. Who gave you this name? My Godfathers and Godmothers in my baptiſm, WHEREIN I WAS MADE a member of Chriſt, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. How many ſacraments hath Chriſt ordained in his church? Two only, as GENERALLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION, that is to ſay; baptiſm and the ſupper of the Lord. What is the inward and ſpiri •• al grace? [i. e. of baptiſm ] A death unto ſin, and a new birth unto righteouſneſs; for, being by nature born in ſin, and the children of wrath, we are HERDBY MADE the children of grace See the 〈◊〉 for Public Baptiſm, of Infants, and the Catechiſm. Wh •• 〈◊〉 the doctrine here advanced be conſiſtent with the ••• timents of Proteſtant Paedobaptiſts in general, or calculated to inſtruct the ignorant and edify believers, I muſt leave the reader to judge. I will take the liberty however, of ſubjoining a quotation from the celebrated WITSIUS, and another from the no leſs excellent Dr. OWEN, relating to this point. The former thus expreſſes himſelf: Communio cum Chriſto et corpore ipſius myſtico in electis infantibus baptiſmum antecedere videtur; ſaltem judicio charitatis. Paedobaptiſmo enim UTI FUNDAMENTUM ſubſtruitur. Hoc quippe argumento paſſim pugnatur ab orthodoxis: ad quos pertinet foedus gratiae, et commun •• Chriſti, atque eccleſiae, et quorum eſt regnum coelorum, eos oportet baptizari. Atqui haec omnia infantibus electis, et o der ••• e competunt.—BODIUS Roman e eccleſiae doctores in graviſſimo errore verſarl u tmat, qu ••• ſtatount baptizandos, priuſquam ho ſignac ••• obſigneatur. Chriſti membra no eſſe, ad o •• s corpas et communionem non pertinere, ſed tum demum e poteſtate diaboli liberari, inque Chriſti familiam tran •• e. Miſe Sac. Tom. II. Exercit. XIX. § XXI.—The latter thus: Neque fanè dogma pernitioſius, a •• quod peccat •• un animis praeſentius veneaum propinaret, facilè excogitaret ipſe-mendaciorum pa er. Dùm c m miſeri homines mortui peccatis ſibi adblandiuntur quod in baptiſmo renati ſuerint, atque in utranique aurem tio e dormiant; nece •• itatem abſoluta •• et indiſpenſabile ſpiritualis totius hominis renovationis ſuſque déque habeates, ſtatum ſuum miſerri um aghoſot ae, et ad gratium Chriſti viviſteantem confug ••• e negligunt atque ita: pernitioſiſſima ſecu it 〈◊〉 ſop ti aeter •••• pereunt. Th ol g •• m. l. vi . c. v. p. 179 478. Thus children are taught by the pariſh miniſter; and in the firm perſuaſion of theſe t ings they are confirmed by the biſhop. For, immediately before he lays upon them his epiſcopal hand, he recognizes, in a ſolemn addreſs to God, the great bleſſings ſuppoſed to be conferred and received by them at the time of their baptiſm. Thus he prays; Almighty and ever living God, who haſt vouchſafed to REGENERATE THESE THY SERVANTS by water and the Holy Ghoſt, and haſt given unto them FORGIVENESS OF ALL THEIR SINS'—.And, after impoſition of hands; We make our humble ſupplications unto thee [the divine Majeſty] for theſe thy ſervants, upon whom (after the example of thy holy apoſtles) we have now laid our hands, to CERTIFY THEM (by this ſign) OF THY FAVOUR AND ORACIOUS GOODNESS TOWARDS THEM. Once more; As the church of England ſuggeſts a painful doubt, relating to the final happineſs of ſuch infants as die without baptiſm; ſo ſhe abſolutely forbids her Burial Service to be read over any who die unbaptized; placing them, in this reſpect, on a level with thoſe that die under a ſentence of excommunication for the moſt enormous crimes, or are guilty of felo de ſe. For thus ſhe inſtructs her members, and thus ſhe directs her miniſters: It is certain by God's word, •• at children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual ſin, are undoubtely ſa ••• —Here it is to be NOTED, that the office enſuing [i. e. the burial office] is not to be uſed for any that die UNBAPTIZED, 〈◊〉 EXCOMMUNICATE, OR HAVE LAID VIOLENT HAND UPON THEMSELVES. Order for Conſ ••• ation Ru ••• c, at the concluſion of the office for Public •••• iſm of Infants, and R •• ri prefixed to Order for Burial of the Dead. Nay, ſo confident is our National Church of theſe things being agreeable to the word of God, that ſhe boldly pronounce the following ſentence on all who ••• e to call them in queſtion: Whoſoever ſhall hereafter affirm, that the form of God's worſhip contained in the book of Common Prayer, and adminiſtration of the ſacraments, containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the ſcriptures, let him be excommunicated ipſo facto, and not reſtored but by the biſhop of the place, or archbiſhop, after his repentance and public revocation of ſuch his wicked errors. Conſtit •• ions and Cononi No. IV.—While hearing the thunder of this Canon Eccleſiaſtical I am reminded of that an •• hematizing decree eſtabliſhed by the Council of Trent: Si quis dixerit baptiſmum liberum eſſe, hoc eſt no •• ceſſa ••• m ad ſalutem mathema ſit. Seſſ. VII. Can. V. That is, If any one •• all aſſert, that baptiſm is free, 〈◊〉 not neceſſa •• 〈◊〉 ſalvation, let him be accurſed. Thus our National Church teaches, and thus her clergy profeſs, moſt ſolemnly profeſs to believe. Conſequently, were we really chargeable with repreſenting baptiſm as a ſaving ordinance, our brethren of the eſtabliſhment could not, conſiſtently, lodge a complaint againſt us on that account.

If we conſult the writings of the moſt eminent preachers among the Methodiſts we ſhall find, that their ſentiments harmonize with the doctrine of the National Church, in regard to the efficacy and abſolute neceſſity of baptiſm. The late pious and extenſively uſeful Mr. George Whitefield, thus expreſſes his views of the ſubject before us; Does not this verſe [John iii. 5] urge the abſolute neceſſity of water baptiſm? Yes, when it may be had; but how God will deal wi •• perſons unbaptized we cannot tell. What have we to do to judge thoſe that are without. Works, Vol. iv. p. 355, 356. —Our miniſtring brethren of the Tabernacle have ſometimes taken the liberty of making reflections upon us, as if our opinion relating to baptiſm greatly intrenched on the offices and honour of Jeſus Chriſt. Had they met with language and ſentiments like theſe in any of our publications, eſpecially in thoſe of the late Dr. Gill; they would, undoubtedly, have thought themſelves fully warranted in uſing their utmoſt efforts to expoſe the dangerous error, and to guard their hearers againſt us, as making a ſaviour of baptiſm. But while ſome of them, being Conformiſts, have ſolemnly profeſſed their cordial conſent to the various articles contained in the book of Common Prayer and adminiſtration of the ſacraments, and while they all unite in revering the character of the late Mr. Whitefield; they could not be either candid or conſiſtent in condemning us, were we really chargeable with repreſenting baptiſm as neceſſary to ſalvation. What, then, muſt we think of their conduct, when there is no proof, nor the leaſt ſhadow of proof, that we have ever done any ſuch thing?—As I have a ſincere and high regard for many who preach the goſpel and unite in public worſhip at the Tabernacle, and as it is my earneſt prayer that a divine bleſſing may attend them; ſo it would give me real pleaſure to find, that they who fill the pulpit in that place, are more cautious in cenſuring the Baptiſts, and more conſiſtent with their loud profeſſions of candour and a catholic ſpirit; leſt, through a miſtake, they be ſtill culpable of bearing falſe witneſs againſt their brethren.

Mr. John Weſley, enumerating the benefits we receive by being baptized, ſpeaks in the following language: By baptiſm we enter into covenant with God, into that everlaſting covenant, which he hath commanded for ever. By baptiſm we are admitted into the church, and conſequently made members of Chriſt, its head.—By baptiſm we, who were by nature children of wrath, are made the children of God. And this regeneration is more than barely being admitted into the church.—By water, then, as a means, the water of baptiſm, we are regenerated or born again. Baptiſm doth now ſave us, if we live anſwerable thereto; if we repent, believe, and obey the goſpel. Suppoſing this, as it admits us into the church bore, ſo into glory hereafter—If infants are guilty of original ſin, in the ordinary way, they cannot be ſaved, unleſs this be waſhed away by baptiſm. Preſervative, p. 146—150. So Mr. Weſley teaches; ſo, ſays a learned cardinal, the church has always believed Semper Eccleſia credidit, infantes perire, ſi a ſque Baptiſmo de hac vita recedant. Bellarm. apud Ameſium, Bell. Enervat. Tom. III. p. 64.; and the Council of Trent confirms the whole. In the firm perſuaſion of this doctrine, Mr. Weſle is alſo deſirous of ſettling the members of his very numerous ſocieties. For theſe poſitions are contained in a book, profeſſedly intended to preſerve the reader from unſettled notions in religion. Now, as I cannot ſuppoſe this author imagines, with Dodwell, that infants who are without baptiſm, are not immortal; I know not whether he chooſes to lodge them in the limbus puerorum of the PapiſloForbeſii Inſtruct. Hiſt. Theolog, p. 493. ; or whether, with Auſtin, he conſigns them over to eternal damnation; though the one or the other muſt be the caſe. For, that millions die without baptiſm, is an undoubted fact; and that God in favour of ſuch, ſhould be frequently departing from the ordinary method of his divine procedure, much oftener departing from, than acting according to it, is hard to conceive; is abſolutely incredible, as it involves a contradiction. Yet, on Mr Weſley's principles, it muſt be ſo, if the generality of thoſe that have died, ſince baptiſm was inſtituted, be not excluded the kingdom of heaven. For he who conſiders what multitudes of Jews and Heathens have peopled the earth, ever ſince the Chriſtian diſpenſation commenced; what an extenſive ſpread Mahomet's impoſture has had for more than eleven hundred years; and what numbers of infants die without baptiſm, even in Chriſtian countries, cannot but conclude, even admitting Paedobaptiſm to have been practiſed by the apoſtles, that a vaſt majority of deceaſed infants have left the world without being baptized.Mr. Weſley, it is well known, is a very warm defender of general redemption. He muſt. conſequently, believe, that thoſe infants who die without baptiſm, were as really redeemed by the death of Chriſt, as thoſe that have the ordinance adminiſtred to them. In regard, therefore, to all that periſh for want of baptiſm, it ſhould ſeem, on his principles, as if our divine Lord we •••• cis careful to provide an adminiſtrator to confer an ordinance, than to offer a propitiatory ſacrifice; and more ſparing of a little water, than of his owm blood: even though he knew the latter would be of no avail, in millions of inſtances, without the former. But whether ſuch ſentiments be agreeable to the ſcriptures, or honourable to our Lord's atonement, the reader will be at no loſs to determine. Now who could ſuppoſe an author and a preacher, that aſſerts the efficacy and exalts the importance of baptiſm at this extravagant rate, ſhould charge the Baptiſts with placing an unlawful dependence on that ordinance? Yet, that he has frequently done ſo, in his pulpit diſcourſes, if not in his numerous publications, is beyond a doubt; is known to thouſand . Where, then, are his conſiſtency, his candour, his catholic ſpirit!

Nor are we conſcious of attributing any degree of importance to Baptiſm, which our Paedobaptiſt Diſſenting brethren do not allow, and for which they do not plead. Do we conſider it as a divine appointment, as an inſtitution of Chriſt, the adminiſtration and uſe of which are to continue to the end of the world? So do they. Do they conſider it as an ordinance which, when once rightly adminiſtred to a proper ſubject, is never to be repeated? So do we. Do we look upon it as indiſpenſably neceſſary to communion at the Lord's table? So do they. Do we actually refuſe communion to ſuch whom we conſider as unbaptized? So do they. No man, I preſume, if conſidered by them as not baptized, would be admitted to break bread at the Lord's table, in any of their churches; however amiable his character, or how much ſoever they might eſteem him in other reſpects.

Nor is this a new opinion, or a novel practice for ſuch has been the ſentiment and ſuch the conduct of the Chriſtian church in every age. Before the grand Romiſh apoſtacy, in the very depth of that apoſtacy, and ſince the Reformation, both at home and abroad; the general practice has been, to receive none but baptized perſons to communion at the Lord's table. The following quotations from ancient and modern writers, relating to this point, may not be improper. Juſtin Martyr, for inſtance, when ſpeaking of the Lord's ſupper, ſays; This food is called by us, the Euchariſt; of which it is not lawful for any to partake, but ſuch as believe the things that are taught by us to be true, and have been baptized. Apolog. II. p. 162. Apud Suicerum, Theſ. Eccleſi. Tom. II. col. 1135. Jerom; "Catechumens cannot communicate" i. e. at the Lord's table, they being unbaptized. Catechumeni—communicare non poſſunt. In cap. VII. Epiſt. II. ad Corinth. Auſtin, when aſſerting the abſolute neceſſity of infants receiving the Lord's ſupper, ſays; 'Of which, certainly, they cannot partake, unleſs they be baptized.' Quod niſi baptizati non utique poſſunt. Epiſ ad Bonifacium, Epiſt. CVI.B de informs us, that three young princes among the eaſtern Saxons, ſeeing a biſhop adminiſter the ſacred ſupper, deſired to partake of it, as their deceaſed and royal father had done. To whom the biſhop anſwered; If ye will be waſhed, or baptized, in the ſalutary fountain, as your father was, ye may alſo partake of the Lord's ſupper, as he did: but If you deſpiſe the former, ye cannot in any wiſe receive the latter. They replied, We will not enter into the fountain, or be baptized; nor have we any need of it; but yet we deſire to be refreſhed with that bread. After which the hiſtorian tells us, that they importunately requeſting, and the biſhop reſolutely refuſing them admiſſion to the holy table, they were ſo exaſperated, as to baniſh both him and his out of their kingdom. Si vultis ablui fonte illo ſalutari, quo pater veſter, ablutus eſt, poteſtis etiam panis ſancti, [quem] participabat, eſſe participes. Sin autem lavacrum vitae contemnitis, nullatenus va •• tis panem vitae participare. At illi nolumus, inquiunt, fontem intrare, qui nec illo opus no habere novimus, ſed tamen pane illo refiei volumus. Cumque diligenter ac ſaepè ab illo eſſent admoniti, equaquam fieri poſſe, ut abſque purgatione ſacroſancta quis oblationi ſacroſanctae communicet, ad ultimum furore commoti aiebant; Si non vis aſſentire nobis in tam facili caufa quam petimus, non poteris jam in noſtra provincia demorari. Et expulerunt cum, ac de ſuo regno cum ſuis abire juſſ runt. Hiſt. Eceleſ. lib. II. cap. V. p. 63.Theophylact; 'No unbaptized perſon partakes of the Lord's ſupper'. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In cap. XIV. Matt. p. 83.Bonaventure; Faith, indeed, is neceſſary to all the ſacraments, but eſpecially to the reception of baptiſm: becauſe baptiſm is the firſt among the ſacraments, and the door of the ſacraments.Fidem quidem eſſe neceſſariam omnibus ſacramentis, ſed ſpecialiter appropriari baptiſmo: quoniam baptiſmus eſt primum inter ſacramenta et janua ſacramentorum. Apud Forbeſium, Inſtruct. Hiſtoric. Theolog. lib. X. cap. IV. § 9.

Quotations of this kind might, no doubt, be greatly multiplied: but that none were admitted to the ſacred ſupper in the firſt ages of the Chriſtian church, before they were baptized, we are aſſured by various learned writers, well verſed in eccleſiaſtical antiquity. For inſtance: Erid. Spanheimius aſſerts, That none but baptized perſons were admitted to the Lord's table'.Subjecta ad euchariſtiam admiſſa, ſoli baptizati. Hiſt. Chriſtian. col. 623. Lord Chancellor King; 'Baptiſm was always precedent to the Lord's ſupper; and none were admitted to receive the euchariſt, till they were baptized. This is ſo obvious to every man, that it needs no proof.' Enquiry, Part II. p. 44.—Dr. Wall; 'No church ever gave the communion to any perſons before they were baptized —Among all the abſurdities that ever were held, none ever mantained that, that any perſon ſhould partake of the communion before he was baptized. Hiſt. Infant Bap. part II. chap. IX. —Dr. Doddrige; It is certain that Chriſtians in general have always been ſpoken of, by the moſt ancient Fathers, as baptized perſons:—and it is alſo certain, that as far a ••• ur knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized perſon received the Lord's ſupper. Lectures, p. 511.

That the Proteſtant churches in general have always agreed in the ſame ſentiment and conduct, is equally evident. Out of many eminent writers that might be mentioned, the following quotations may ſu •• ce. Urſinus, for inſtance, aſſerts; That they who are not yet baptized, ſhould not be admitted to the ſacred ſupper. Nondum baptizati, ad coenam non ſunt admittendi. Corp. Doct. Chriſt. p. 566. Ravenellius, when ſpeaking of the Lord's ſupper, ſays; Baptiſm ought to precede; nor is the holy ſupper to be adminiſtered to any, except they be baptized'. Baptiſmus debet praecedere; coena vero nonniſi baptizatis eſt danda. Bibliotheca Sacra, Tom. I. p. 301.Zanchius; 'We believe that Baptiſm, as a ſacrament appointed by Chriſt, is abſolutely neceſſary in the church'. Credimus baptiſmum in eccleſia omnino neceſſarium eſſe tanquam ſacramentum a Chriſto inſtitutum. Opera. Tom. VIII. col. 516.Hoornbeekius; 'No one is admitted to the ſacred ſupper, unleſs be is baptized. Nemo ad coenam admittitur, niſi baptizatus. Socin. Confut. Tom. III. p. 416.Turrettinus; 'It is one thing to have a right to thoſe external ordinances of the church, which belong to a profeſſion; and it is another to be intereſted in the internal bleſſings of ſaith. Unbaptized believers have actually a right to theſe, becauſe they are already partakers of Chriſt and his benefits; though they have not yet a right to thoſe, except in obſerving the appointed order, by baptiſm'. Aliud jus habere ad ſacra eccleſiae, quae ad profeſſionem referuntur: Aliud ad interna fidei. Catechumeni credeutes actu jus habent ad iſta, quia jam participes ſunt Chriſti et beneficiorum ejus; licet nondum habaent jus ad illa, niſi ordine ſevato et poſito baptiſmo. Inſtitut. Theolog. Tom. III. Loc. XVIII. Quaeſt. IV. §. 10. Maſtricht; 'As no uncircumciſed male was admitted to the typical ſupper, that is the paſſover; ſo, under the New Teſtament, no unbaptized perſon is admitted to the Lord's table.Ad coenam typicam, h. e. ad paſcha, non admittebatur ullus—praeputiatus, Exod. xii. 40. ſicut ſub N. T. non admittitur non-baptizatus, Act. ii. 41, 42. Theolog. lib. VII. cap. V. §. 29.Leydecker; Baptiſm is neceſſary, not only in a way of expediency, but by virtue of a divine precept. They, therefore, who reject it, reject the counſel of God againſt themſelves'. Baptiſmus neceſſarius eſt neceſſitate praecepti, non ſolum expedientiae. Quare, qui cum rejiciunt, concilium Dei adverſus ſe ipſos rejiciunt. Idea Theolog. p. 225.Benedict. Pictetus; The ſupper of our Lord ought not to be adminiſtered to perſons that are unbaptized: for before baptiſm, men are not conſidered as members of the viſible church.'Non debet adminiſtrari coena—non baptizatis; nam ante baptiſmum non cenſentur homines eſſe in eccleſia. Theolog. Chriſtiana, p. 959, 960.Mar •• ius; 'The dying, and the unbaptized, are not to be admitted to communion'.Ad communionem hanc admittendi ſunt, non —expirantes, aut non baptizati. Chriſt. Theolog. Medulla, p. 406.—Dr. Manton; In foro eccleſiae, before the church, none but baptized perſons have a right to the Lord's table. Sapplem. Morn. Exerciſ. p. 199. —Mr. Baxter; If any ſhould be ſo impudent as to ſay, it is not the meaning of Chriſt, that baptizing ſhould immediately, without dela , follow diſcipling, they are confuted by the conſtant example of ſcripture. So that I dare ſay, that this will be out of doubt with all rational, conſiderate, impartial Chriſtans. Plain Scripture Proof. p. 126. —Once more: Dr. Doddridge, thus expreſſes his views of the ſubject. The law of Chriſt requires that all who believe the goſpel ſhould be baptized—For any to abſtain from baptiſm, when he knows it is an inſtitution of Chriſt, and that it is the will of Chriſt that he ſhould ſubject himſelf to it, is ſuch an act of diſobedience to his authority, as is inconſiſtent with true faith.—How excellent ſoever any man's character is, he muſt be baptized before he can be looked upon as completely a member of the church of Chriſt. Lectures, p. 508, 512. Diſcourſes on Regen. Poſtſcript to Pref. p. 12, 13.

Perfectly conformable to theſe teſtimonies, are the Catechiſms and Confeſſion of faith, that have been publiſhed at any time, or by any denomination of Chriſtians: for if the poſitive in •• itutions of Chriſt be not entirely omitted, baptiſm is not only always mentioned firſt; but generally mentioned in ſuch a way, as intimates that it is a prerequiſite to the Lord's table. And ſo, even in our common forms of ſpeaking, if we have occaſion to mention both thoſe ſolemn appointments of our Lord, baptiſm ſtill has the priority. Thus generally, thus univerſally, is it allowed, that baptiſm is neceſſary to communion at the Lord's table.—Nay, many of our Proteſtant Diſſenting brethren conſider the ordinance in a more important light than we. For they frequently repreſent it, as a ſeal of the covenant of grace; as a mean of bringing their infant offspring into covenant with God; and ſome of them ſeverely cenſure us, for leaving our children to the uncovenanted mercies of the Moſt High, merely becauſe we do not baptize them. Expreſſions and ſentiments theſe, which we neither adopt nor approve; becauſe they ſeem to attribute more to the ordinance, than the ſacred ſcriptures, in our opinion, will warrant.

It appears, then, to be a fact, a ſtubborn, inconteſtable fact, that our judgment and conduct, relating to the neceſſity of baptiſm in order to communion, perfectly coincide with the ſentiments and practice of our National Church, and with all Paedobaptiſt churches in theſe kingdoms. Nor have I heard of any ſuch church now upon earth, with which we do not, in this reſpect, agree: for none, of whom I have any intelligence, be their ſentiments or modes of worſhip whatever they may, in rega d to other things, admit any to the ſacred ſupper 〈◊〉 have not, in their opinion, been baptized.—A ••• on the other hand, when the importance of baptiſm co ••• under conſideration between us and them, it is manifeſt, that both Conformiſt and Nonconformiſt Paedobaptiſts in general, aſcribe more to it than we, and place a greater dependence upon it. Conſequently, neither candour, nor reaſon, nor juſtice will admit that we ſhould be charged, as we have frequently been, with laying an unwarrantable ſtreſs upon it.

The point controverted between us and our Paedobaptiſt brethren is not, Whether unbaptized believers may, according to the laws of Chriſt, be admitted to communion; for here we have no diſpute; but, What is baptiſm, and who are the proper ſubjects of it? In the diſcuſſion of theſe queſtions there is, indeed, a wide and a very material difference; but in regard to the former we are entirely agreed. —Why, then, do our brethren cenſure us as uncharitably rigid, and incorrigible bigots? The principal reaſon ſeems to be this: They, in general, admit, that immerſion in the name of the triune God, on a profeſſion of faith in Jeſus Chriſt, is baptiſm, real baptiſm while our fixed and avowed perſuaſion will not permit us to allow, that infant ſprinkling, The reader is deſired to obſerve, that when I make uſe of the phraſe nfant ſprinkling, or any expreſſion of a ſimilar import, it is merely by way of diſtinction without annexing any ſecondary, or obnoxious idea to it. though performed with the greateſt ſolemnity, is worthy of the name. Conſequently, though they, conſiſtently with their own principles, may receive us to communion among them, yet we cannot admit them to fellowſhip with us at the Lord's table, without contradicting our profeſſed ſentiments. For it appears to us, on the moſt deliberate inquiry, that immerſion is not a mere circumſtance, or a mode of baptiſm, but eſſential to the ordinance: ſo that, in our judgment, he wh •• 〈◊〉 immerſed, is not baptized. This is the prin ••••• which we proceed, in refuſing communion to our P •• debaptiſt brethren; whom, in other reſpects, we highly eſteem, and towards whom we think it our duty to cultivate the moſt cordial affection.—Nor can we ſuppoſe but they would act a ſimilar part, were they in our ſituation. Were they fully perſuaded, for inſtance, that the great Head of the church had not commanded, nor any way authorized, his miniſtering ſervants to require a profeſſion of faith prior to baptiſm; and were they equally certain that the ordinance never was adminiſtered by the apoſtles to any but infants, nor in any other way than that of aſperſion, or pouring; would they not look upon the immerſion of profeſſing believers as a quite different thing from baptiſm? And, were this the caſe, would they not conſider us as unbaptized, and refuſe to have communion with us on that account? I am perſuaded they would, notwithſtanding their affection for any of us, as believers in Jeſus Chriſt. Conſequently, if we be really culpable in the eyes of our brethren, it is for denying the validity of infant baptiſm; not becauſe we refuſe communion to Paedobaptiſts—for an error in our judgment, which miſleads the conſcience; not for perverſeneſs of temper, or a want of love to the diſciples of Chriſt.

Nor was the Lord's ſupper appointed to be a teſt of brotherly love among the people of God; though ſeveral objections that are made againſt us, ſeem to proceed on that ſuppoſition. It muſt, indeed, be allowed, that as it is a ſacred feaſt and an ordinance of divine worſhip, mutual Chriſtian affection, among communicants at the ſame table, is very becoming and highly neceſſary; and ſo it is in all other branches of ſocial religion. But that ſitting down at the holy ſupper ſhould be conſidered as the criterion of my love to individuals, or to any Chriſtian community, does not appear from the word of God. No, the ſupper of our Lord was deſigned for other and greater purpoſes. It was intended to teach and exhibit the moſt intereſting of all truths, and the moſt wonderful of all tranſactions. The deſign of the Great Inſtitutor was, that it ſhould be a memorial of God's love to us, and of Immanuel's death for us: that, the moſt aſtoniſhing favour ever diſplayed; this, the moſt ſtupendous fact that angels ever beheld. Yes, the love of God, in giving his dear, his only Son; and the death of Chriſt, as our divine ſubſtitute and propitiatory ſacrifice, are the grand objects we are called to contemplate at the Lord's table.—As to a proof, a ſubſtantial proof of our love to the children of God, it is not given at ſo cheap and eaſy a rate, as that of ſitting down with them, either accaſionally or ſtatedly, at the holy table. Numbers do that, who are very far from loving the diſciples of Chriſt, for the truth's ſake. To give real evidence of that heavenly affection, there muſt be the exerciſe of ſuch tempers, and the performance of ſuch actions, as require much ſelf-denial; and without which, were we to commune with them ever ſo often, or talk ever ſo loudly of candour and a catholic ſpirit;—we ſhould, after all, be deſtitute of that charity, without which we are "nothing". The reader, therefore, will do well to remember, that the true teſt of his love to the diſciples of Chriſt, is, not a ſubmiſſion to any particular ordinance of public worſhip; for that is rather an evidence of his love to God and reverence for his authority; but ſympathizing with them in their afflictions; feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and taking pleaſure in doing them good, whatever their neceſſities may be. For this I have the authority of our final Judge, who will ſay o his people; Come, ye bleſſed of my Father, for—what? Ye have manifeſted your love to the ſaints and your faith in me, by holding free communion at my table with believers of all denominations? No ſuch thing. But, I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirſty and ye gave me drink; I was a ſtranger and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was ſick, and ye viſited me; I was in priſon, and ye came unto me.. Matt. xxv. 34—40. Luke xiii. 25, 26, 27.

Our opponents often inſinuate, that we are more zealous to eſtabliſh a favourite mode and make proſelytes to our own opinion and party, than to promote the honour of Jeſus Chriſt and the happineſs of immortal ſouls. Were this the caſe, we ſhould, indeed, be much to blame and greatly diſgrace our Chriſtian character. But why are the Baptiſts to be thus repreſented? Do they affirm that the kingdom of Chriſt is confined to them? that they only have the true religion among them? and that, unleſs men are of their party, they will not be ſaved? Do they wiſh ſucceſs to none that are employed in the vineyard, but themſelves? or ſay of others, engaged in the ſame common cauſe, Maſter forbid them, becauſe they follow not with us? On the contrary, do they not profeſs a warm eſteem and affection for all thoſe of whatever communion, who love the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and aim to promote his cauſe in the world? and do they not give proof of this, by holding a friendly correſpondence with them as opportunities offer; and by cordially joining them in occaſional exerciſes of public worſhip? It is not the diſtinguiſhing tenet of Baptiſm, how much ſoever they wiſh it to prevail, that is the main band that knits them in affection to one another: it is the infinitely nobler conſideration of the relation they ſtand in to Chriſt as his diſciples. They hope therefore to be believed when they declare, that they moſt cordially embrace in the arms of Chriſtian love the friends of Jeſus, who differ from them in this point; and to be further believed when they add, that they hold the temper and conduct of the furious zealot for Baptiſm, who fails in his allegiance to Chriſt, and in the charity he owes his fellow Chriſtians, in ſovereign contempt.Dr. Stennett's Anſwer to Mr. Addington, Part II. p. 284. 285.

Nor are they who plead for infant baptiſm the only perſons under whoſe cenſure the generality of us have the unhappineſs to fall. So very peculiar is our ſituation, that ſome even of our Baptiſt brethren, charge us with being too ſtrict and rigid, becauſe we do not receive Paedobaptiſts into communion; a practice which they have adopted and warmly defend. Nay, ſome of them have boldly declared, that our conduct by refuſing ſo to do, is greatly prejudicial to the honour and intereſt of rue religion, and not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity. Candidus and Pacificus, in their Modeſt Plea for free Communion. This, it muſt be allowed, is a home thruſt. We have need, conſequently, to be provided with armour of proof; with Robar et •• s triplex. Eſpecially, conſidering, th t this charge is laid againſt us, by two of our brethren, under thoſe reſpectable characters, The Candid, and The Peaceful. For when ſuch amiable and venerable perſonages as Candour and Peace, unite in preferring a bill of indictment againſt a ſuppoſed offender, the grand jury can hardly forbear prejudging the cauſe, by finding it a true bill, before they have examined ſo much as one witneſs on either ſide.—Mr. Bunyan alſo, who zealouſly pleaded the cauſe of free communion, when it was yet in its infancy, and who intitled one of his publications in defence of his favourite hypotheſis, Peaceable principles and true; did not fail to charge his Baptiſt brethren, who differed from him in that particular, in a ſimilar way. Yes, notwithſtanding Mr. Bunyan's candid, catholic, peaceable principles; and though he was, at that very time, pleading for candour, catholiciſm, and peace, in the churches of Chriſt; he draws up a long liſt of hateful conſequences, and charges them to the account of his brethren's conduct, merely becauſe they did not admit Paedobaptiſts into communion with them. The deſign of the following pages, therefore, is to ſhew, That we cannot receive Paedobaptiſts into communion at the Lord's table, without doing violence to our profeſſed ſentiments, as Baptiſts; and to anſwer the principal objections which theſe our brethren have ſtarted againſt us. In doing of which, I ſhall argue with them on their own principles, as Proteſtant Diſſenters and Antipaedobaptiſts; which kind of argumentation is always eſteemed both fair and forcible, when rightly applied.

My reader will not here expect a diſcuſſion of the mode and ſubject of Baptiſm; for it is not that ordinance conſidered in itſelf, or as detached from other appointments of Jeſus Chriſt; but the order in which it is placed, and the ennection in which it ſtands with the Lord's ſupper, that are the ſubject of our enquiry. Nor will my Paedobaptiſt bre •• ren be offended, if I aſſume, as truths and facts, things which are controverted between them and us: becauſe I do not here diſpute with them, but with ſuch as profeſs themſelves Baptiſts, yet practiſe free communion. And though I look upon the former as under a miſtake, in regard to baptiſm; I conſider them as acting, not only conſcientiouſly but conſiſtently with their own principles, in reſpect to that ordinance: while I view the conduct of the latter, not only as contrary to the order of the primitive Chriſtian churches, but as inconſiſtent with their own avowed ſentiments; which diſorder and inconſiſtency I ſhall now endeavour to prove.

SECTION II. The general grounds on which we proceed, in refuſing Communion at the Lord's Table, to Paedobaptiſt believers— Novelty of the Sentiment and Practice of our Brethren, who plead for Free Communion: and the Inconſiſtency of ſuch a Conduct with their Baptiſt Principles.

THE following poſitions are ſo evidently true, and ſo generally admitted by Proteſtant Diſſenters, that they will not be diſputed by thoſe of our brethren who plead for free communion.

Our divine Lord, in whom are hid all the treaſures of wiſdom and knowledge, is perfectly well qualified to j ••• e, what ordinances are proper to be appointed, and what meaſures are neceſſary to be purſued, in order to obtain the great deſign of religion among mankind—Being head over all things to the church, he poſſeſſes th higheſt authority to appoint ſuch ordinances of divine worſhip, and to enact ſuch laws for the government of his houſe, as are agreeable to his unerring wiſdom, and calculated to promote the important objects he has in view; which appointments and laws muſt bind the ſubjects of his government in the ſtricteſt manner—Having loved the church to the moſt aſtoniſhing degree, even ſo as to give himſelf a ranſom for her; he muſt be conſidered, as having made the wiſeſt and the beſt appointments, as having given the moſt ſalutary and perfect laws, with a view to promote her happineſs, and as means of his own glory—Theſe laws and ordinances are committed to writing and contained in the Bible: which heavenly volume is the rule of our faith and practice, in things pertaining to religion; our complete and only rule, in all things relating to the inſtituted worſhip of God and the order of his houſe. So that we ſhould not receive any thing, as an article of our creed, which is not contained in it: do nothing as a part of divine worſhip, not commanded by it; neither omit, nor alter any thing that has the ſanction of our Lord's appointment—Nor have we any reaſon to expect, that our divine Lawgiver and ſovereign, Judge will accept our ſolemn ſervices, any further than we follow thoſe directions which he has given, without addition, alteration, or diminution. What thing ſoever I command you, obſerves to do it: thou ſhalt not add thereto, nor diminiſh from it; were the injunctions of Jehovah to the an •• ent Iſraelitiſh church. Teaching them to obſerve all things, whatſoever I have commanded you; is the requiſition of Jeſus Chriſt, to all his miniſtering ſervants Deut. xii. 32. Matt. xxviii. 20.—Smith's Compend. Acc. of the Form and Order of the Church, p, 5, 16.

In the worſhip of God there cannot be either obedience or faith, unleſs we regard the divine appointments. Not obedience; for that ſuppoſes a precept, or what is equivalent to it. Not faith; for that requires a promiſe, or ſome divine declaration. If, then, we act without a command, we have reaſon to apprehend that God will ſay to us, as he did to Iſrael of old, "Who hath required this at your hand?" And, on the contrary, when our divine Sovereign enjoins the performance of any duty, to deliberate is diſloyalty; to diſpute is rebellion.— Believers, who really attend to communion with Jeſus Chriſt, ſays a judicious author, do labour to keep their hearts chaſte to him in his ordinances, inſtitutions, and worſhip. They will receive nothing, practiſe nothing, own nothing, in his worſhip, but what is of his appointment. They know that from the foundation of the world he never did allow, nor ever will, that in any thing the will of the creatures ſhould be the meaſure of his honour, or the principle of his worſhip, either as to matter or manner. It was a witty and true ſenſe that one gave of the ſecond commandment; Non imago, non ſimulachrum prohib tur; ſed, non facies tibi. It is a making to ourſelves, an inventing, a finding out ways of worſhip or means of honouring God, not by him appointed, that is ſo ſeverely ••• bidden'.—Dr. Owen on Sommunion with God, p. 170. To ſerve God otherwiſe than he requireth, ſays another learned writer, is not to worſhip, but to rob and mock him. In God's ſervice, it is a greater ſin to do that which we are not to do, than not to do that which we are commanded. This is but a ſin of omiſſion; but that a ſin of ſacrilege and high contempt. In this we charge the law only with difficulty; but in that with folly. In this we diſcover our weakneſs to do the will, but in that we declare our impudence and arrogancy to controul the wiſdom of God. In this we acknowledge our own inſufficiency; in that we deny the all-ſufficiency and plenitude of God's own law—We ſee the abſurdity and wickedneſs of will-worſhip, when the ſame man who is to perform the obedience, ſhall dare to appoint the laws; implying a peremptory purpoſe of no further obſervance than may conſiſt with the allowance of his own judgment. Whereas true obedience muſt be grounded on the majeſty of that power that commands, not on the judgment of the ſubject, or benefit of the precept impoſed. Divine laws require obedience, not ſo much from the quality of the things commanded (though they be ever holy and good) as from the authority of him that inſtitutes them.Bp. Reynold's Works, p. 163, 422.

That the goſpel ſhould be preached in all nations for the obedience of faith; and that, under certain reſtrictions, they who receive the truth, ſhould be formed into a church ſtate, few can doubt: and it is equally clear, from the foregoing poſitions, that it belongs to the ſupreme, royal prerogative of Jeſus Chriſt, to appoint the terms and conditions on which his people ſhall have a place in his houſe and a ſeat at his table. For we cannot ſuppoſe, with any appearance of reaſon, that theſe conditions are arbitrary; or ſuch as every diſtinct community may think fit to impoſe. No; a goſpel church has no more power to fix the terms of communion, or to ſet aſide thoſe preſcribed by Jeſus Chriſt, than to make a rule of faith, or to ſettle ordinances of divine worſhip. This is one characteriſtic of a church, a diſtinguiſhed from a civil ſociety; the terms of admiſſion into the latter are diſcretional; provided they do not interfere with any divine law; but thoſe of the former are fixed by him who is King in Zion. No congregation of religious profeſſors, therefore, has any authority to make the door of admiſſion into their communion, either ſtraiter, or wider, than Chriſt himſelf has made itDr Ridgley's Body of Divinity, p. 343. Glaſgow Edition. .—The original form of this houſe, [i. e. the church of Chriſt] was not precarious and uncertain; to be altered, and changed, and broke in upon by man, or by any ſet of men, at pleaſure. This would reflect on the wiſdom and care, as well as on the ſteadineſs of Chriſt; who is in his houſe, as well as in the higheſt heavens, the ſteady and the faithful Jeſus; the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever, and not in the leaſt given to change: but its form is fixed, particularly in the New Teſtament. Had not Moſes, nor any of the elders of Iſrael, ſo much power over the tabernacle a •• ot to alter or change a pin thereof? and with what face can man pretend to a power to model and alter at pleaſure goſpel churches? As if Chriſt, the true Moſes, had forgot, or neglected, to leave with us the pattern of the houſe.Mr. Bragge, 〈◊〉 Church Diſcipline, p. 9.

Baptiſm and the Lord's ſupper are poſitive appointments in the Chriſtian church, about which we cannot know any thing, relating to their mode of adminiſtration, ſubject, or deſign, except from the revealed will of their Great Inſtitutor. For, as a learned writer obſerves, All poſitive duties, or duties made ſuch by inſtitution alone, depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the perſon, who inſtitutes and ordains them, with reſpect to the real deſign and end of them; and conſequently, to the due 〈◊〉 of performing them. It behoves us, ther •• 〈◊〉 ell to conſider the rule which our Lord ha given relating to theſe ordinances. Becauſe we can have no other direction in this ſo of duties; unleſs we will have recourſe to mere invention, which makes them our own inſtitutions and not the inſtitutions of thoſe who firſt appointed them.Bp. H •• dley's Pl •• n ••• cco •••• , p. 3.

That there is a connection between the two poſitive inſtitutions of the New Teſtament, is manifeſt from the word of God; and that one of them muſt be prior to the other, in order of adminiſtration, is evident from the nature of things: for a perſon cannot be baptized and receive the ſacred ſupper at the ſame inſtant. Here, then, the queſtion is, (if a doubt may be moved on a point ſo evident, without affronting common ſenſe) which of them has the previous claim on a real convert's obedience? Baptiſm, or the Lord's ſupper? If we appeal to the perſu •• 〈◊〉 and practice of Chriſtians in all nations and in every age, it will clearly appear, that the former was univerfally conſidered, by the churches of ChriſtThat there were people of different denominations in the ſecond and third centuries, who pretended a regard to the name of Jeſus Chriſt, and yet rejected baptiſm, is readily allowed; but then, it may be obſerved, that many of them had as little eſteem for the Lord's ſupper. Nay, as a learned writer aſſerts, the generality of them renounced the ſcriptures themſelves. Nor am I ignorant that Socinus, in the latter end of the ſixteenth century, conſidered baptiſm as an indifferent thing, except in reference to ſuch as are •••• verted fro ••• Judaiſm, Paganiſm, or Manome •• niſm 〈◊〉 but our brethren with whom I am now concerned will hardly allow, that ſocieties formed on the principles of thoſe ancient corrupters of Chriſtianity, 〈◊〉 yet on thoſe of S inus, are worthy to be called, Churches of Chriſt. Vid. Suicerum, Theſour Eccleſ. ſub voce Ba •• io d; and Dr. Wall's Hiſt, Inf. Bap. Part. II. Chap. V. as a divinely appointed prerequiſite for fellowſhip in the latter, till about the middle of the laſt century, here in England; when ſome few of the Baptiſts began to call it in queſtion, and practically to deny it. This our brethren now do, who defend and practiſe free communion. For they admit Paedobaptiſts to the Lord's table; though, on their own principles, infant ſprinkling is not baptiſm.

This appears from hence. That only is baptiſm which Chriſt appointed as ſuch. That, therefore, which eſſentially differs from what he appointed, cannot be baptiſm. But they believe, as well as we, that Paedobaptiſm, as now practiſed, eſſentially differs from the appointment of Chriſt, both as to mode and ſubject: yet a mode of adminiſtration, and a ſubject to whom it ſhould be adminiſtered, are neceſſary to the exiſtence of baptiſm, as an ordinance of Chriſt; for without theſe it is only an abſtract notion. If, then, the proper ſubject be a profeſſing believer, and the appointed mode immerſion in water, which they maintain as well as we; it is not real baptiſm where theſe are wanting. Agreeable to that ſaying, of an ancient writer: They who are not rightly baptized, are, doubtleſs, not baptized at allBaptiſmum quum rite non habeant, ine dubio non habent. Tertull. de Baptiſmo, cap. xv. pag. 230..—But that our brethren do not conſider infant ſprinkling as having the eſſentials of Chriſtian baptiſm in it, is put beyond a doubt by their own conduct. For they no more ſcruple to baptize profeſſing believers, who have been ſprinkled in their infancy, than we do: and yet, I preſume, they are not very fond of being conſidered, or called, Anabaptiſts; which, notwithſtanding, is their proper character, if they allow that the aſperſion of infants has the eſſentials of baptiſm in it.

This, then, is a fact, a notorious, undeniable fact, that our brethren practically deny the neceſſity of baptiſm in order to communion at the ſacred ſupper: for they do not, they cannot believe the aſperſion of infants to be Chriſtian baptiſm, without rendering themſelves obnoxious to the charge of Anabaptiſm. A ſentiment ſo peculiar, and a conduct ſo uncommon as theirs are, in regard to this inſtitution, require to be well ſupported by the teſtimony of the Holy Ghoſt. For were all the Chriſtian churches now in the world aſked, except thoſe few that plead for free communion; whether they thought it lawful to admit unbaptized believers to fellowſhip at the Lord's table? there is reaſon to conclude they would readily unite in that declaration of Paul; We have no ſuch cuſtom, neither the churches of God that were before us. Yes, conſidering the novelty of their ſentiment and conduct, and what a contradiction they are to the faith and order of the whole Chriſtian church; —conſidering that it never was diſputed, ſo far as I can learn, prior to the ſixteenth century, by orthodox or heterodox, by Papiſts or Proteſtants, whether unbaptized believers ſhould be admitted to the Lord's table; they all agreeing in the contrary practice, however much they differed in matters of equal importance; it may be reaſonably expected, and is by us juſtly demanded, that the, truth of their ſentiment, and the rectitude of their conduct, ſhould be proved, really proved from the records of inſpiration. A man may eaſily ſhew his fondneſs for novelty, and the deference he pays to his own underſtanding, by boldly controverting the opinions and reſolutely oppoſing the practice of the wiſeſt and the beſt of men in every age; but, if he would avoid the imputation of arrogance, he muſt demonſtrate, that the things he oppoſes are vulgar errors, which have nothing to recommend them but great antiquity and general cuſtom. Our perſuaſion, therefore, concerning the neceſſity of baptiſm as a term of communion, having had the ſanction of univerſal belief and univerſal practice for almoſt ſixteen hundred years, it lies on our brethren to prove that it is falſe and unſcriptural; and to ſhew, from the New Teſtament, that theirs has the ſtamp of divine authority.

But is it not ſtrange, ſtrange to aſtoniſhment, if the ſcriptures contain their ſentiment, and vindicate their conduct, that it never was diſcovered by any who acknowledged the proper Deity, the eternal dominion, and the complete ſatisfaction of Jeſus Chriſt, till the latter end of the laſt century? ſeeing, long before then, almoſt every principle of the Chriſtian faith, almoſt every branch of Chriſtian worſhip, had been the ſubject, either of learned, or unlearned controverſy, among ſuch as thought themſelves the diſciples of Jeſus Chriſt. The Quakers aroſe, it is well known, about the time when this new ſentiment was firſt adopted in England; and they entirely renounced baptiſm, as well as the Lord's ſupper. But, ſo far as appears, the people of that denomination never ſuppoſed, that they who thought it their duty to celebrate the ſacred ſupper, were at liberty to do it before they were baptized.—Here I cannot but remark, with how little affection and reverence the poſitive inſtitutions and the authority of Chriſt were treated, in this iſland, in the laſt century. The ingenious author of the Pilgrim's Progreſs was one of the firſt, in this kingdom, who dared to aſſert, that the want of baptiſm is no bar to communion, and acted accordingly. The Quakers ariſing a little before him, proceeded a ſtep further, and entirely caſhiered both baptiſm and the Supper of our Lord; looking upon them, as low, carnal, temporary appointments. Much reſpect, I allow, is due to the character of Bunyan. He was an eminent ſervant of Jeſus Chriſt, and patiently ſuffered in his Maſter's cauſe. Many of his writings have been greatly uſeful to the church of God, and ſome of them, it is probable, will tranſmit his name, with honour, to future ages. But yet I cannot perſuade myſelf, that either his judgment or piety appeared in this bold innovation. The diſciples of George Fox, though leſs conformable to the word of God, acted more conſiſtently with their own principles, than did the juſtly celebrated Dreamer then, or our brethren who practiſe free communion now.

But I forgot myſelf. The laſt century was the grand aera of improvement in this nation; of prodigious improvement in light and liberty. In light; as well divine, as philoſophical. In real philoſophical ſcience, by the labours of a Bacon, a Boyle, and a Newton. In pretended theological knowledge, by thoſe of a Jeſſey and a Bunyan. Did the former, by deep reſearches into the ſyſtem of nature, ſurpriſe and inſtruct the world by diſcoveries, of which mankind had never before conceived? The latter, penetrating into the goſpel ſyſtem, amuſed mankind, by caſting new light on the poſitive inſtitutions of Jeſus Chriſt, and by placing baptiſm among things of little importance in the Chriſtian religion; of which no ancient theologue had ever dreamed—none, we have reaſon to think, that loved the Lord Redeemer. In liberty; not leſs religious than civil; in the church as well as the ſtate. Did the ſtruggles of real patriotiſm, and the abdication of a Popiſh Prince, make way for true liberty in the latter? The repealing of Chriſt's poſitive laws by Fox and Barclay, and the practical claim of a diſpenſing power by Jeſſey and Bunyan, made way for the inglorious liberty of treating poſitive inſtitutions in the houſe of God juſt as profeſſors pleaſe.

Some of the Popiſh miſſionaries among the Indians have been charged, by reſpectable authorities, with concealing the doctrine of the croſs from their hearers, leſt they ſhould be tempted to deſpiſe the great Founder of the Chriſtian religion, becauſe he made his exit on a gibbet; and with making it their principal aim, to perſuade the poor ignorant creatures to be baptized; imagining that they would be ſufficiently chriſtianized, by a ſubmiſſion to that ordinance. As if being baptized, and converſion to Jeſus Chriſt, were one and the ſame thing! What a deſtructive deluſion this! What an impious exaltation of a poſitive inſtitution, into the place of redeeming blood, and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit!—But were one of our miniſtering brethren, who plead for free communion, to be ſent as a miſſionary into thoſe parts of the world; he, I preſume, would not be in the leaſt danger of thus over-rating baptiſm, and of depreciating its great inſtitutor. No; he would boldly preach a crucified and riſen Jeſus, as the only foundation of hope for his hearers; and, if the energy of God attended his labours with conſiderable ſucceſs, he would think it his duty to lay before ſuch as believed in Chriſt, what he had learned from the New Teſtament, relating to a goſpel church—its nature and ordinances, its privileges, duties, and great utility. In doing of which, he could hardly forbear to mention baptiſm, as an appointment of his divine Maſter: but though he might mention it, yet, on his hypotheſis, he could not require a ſubmiſſion to it, as previouſly neceſſary to their incorporating as a church, and their having communion together at the Lord's table. He might, indeed, recommend it to his young converts, as having ſomething agreeable in it; but if they did not ſee its propriety; or if, on any other account unknown to him, they did not chooſe to comply, and yet were deſirous of being formed into a church ſtate, and of having communion at the Lord's table; he could not refuſe, though not one of them was, or would be baptized. For if it be lawful to admit the believer to communion, purely as a believer, and without baptiſm; it cannot be criminal to admit all ſuch, if they deſire it: that which is proper and right for one, being ſo to a million, if they be in the ſame circumſtances. Thus he would gather a church in perfect contraſt with thoſe formed by his fellow miſſionaries. For, while they put baptiſm in the place of the Saviour, he would reject his command, and lay the ordinance entirely aſide: they make it all and he make it nothing.—And were a narrative of ſuch proceedings to fall into the hands of a Paedobaptiſt, who had never heard of any that practiſed, or pleaded, for free communion, what a ſingular figure it would make in his view! A miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt, he would ſay, gathering a church among the Indians, and adminiſtering the ſacred ſupper, yet all his communicants unbaptized! Strange, indeed!—A Chriſtian miniſter, called a Baptiſt, entirely omitting that very ordinance from which he takes his denomination! This is ſtranger ſtill! For the Baptiſts, of all men, are ſaid to love water and to be fond of baptiſm. It exceeds the bounds of credibility: but, if it be a fact, he is the oddeſt mortal and the moſt unaccountable Baptiſt that ever lived. For he does violence to his own diſtinguiſhing ſentiment, and is guilty of Felo de ſe. Like Job's leviathan, he has not his equal on earth: an unheard-of phenomenon in the religious world, and will probably be the wonder of ages yet unborn. But the ambiguity of his character is ſuch, that I ear the pen of eccleſiaſtical hiſtory will alays be doubtful what to call him, or under what denomination of religious profeſſors he claims a place? Such would be the ſurpriſe and ſuch the reflections of the learned and the vulgar, who had not heard of Baptiſts that plead for free communion; they being the only Chriſtians now in the world, for aught appears, that are capable of realizing ſuch a report.

But were ſuch a ſingular conduct warranted by the laws of Chriſt, or agreeable to the truly primitive pattern; the ſurpriſe and the cenſure of weak, fallible mortals, would be of little importance. For it is not the approbation of men, but the revelation of God, that is our only rule in the adminiſtration of divine inſtitutiòns. To that revelation, therefore, we muſt appeal, and by it the ſentiment and practice, now in diſpute, muſt ſtand or fall.

SECTION III. Arguments againſt Free Communion at the Lord's Table.

IT muſt, I think, be allowed, that the order and connection of poſitive appointments in divine worſhip, depend as much on the ſovereign pleaſure of the great legiſlator, as the appointments themſelves: and if ſo, we are equally bound to regard that order and connection, in their adminiſtration, as to obſerve the appointments at all. Whoever, therefore, objects to that order, or deviates from it, oppoſes that ſovereign authority by which thoſe branches of worſhip were firſt inſtituted.—For inſtance: Baptiſm and •• e Lord's ſupper, it is allowed on all hands, are 〈◊〉 ordinances: and, as ſuch, they depend for their very exiſtence on the ſovereign will of God. Conſequently, which of them ſhould be adminiſtered prior to the other, (as well as, to what perſons, in what way and for what end) muſt depend entirely on the will of their divine Author. His determination muſt 〈◊〉 their order; and his revelation muſt guide our practice.

Here, then, the queſtion is, Has our ſovereign Lord revealed his will, in regard to this matter? To the law and to the teſtimony—How rea ••• t thou? To determine the query, we may firſt conſider the order of time, in which the two poſitive inſtitutions of the New Teſtament were appointed. That baptiſm was an ordinance of God, that ſubmiſſion to it was required, and that it was adminiſtered to multitudes, before the ſacred ſupper was heard of, or had an exiſtence, are undeniable facts. There never was a time, ſince the miniſtry of our Lord's forerunner commenced, in which it was not the duty of repenting and believing ſinners to be baptized. The venerable John, the twelve Apoſtles, and the Son of God incarnate, all united in recommending baptiſm, at a time when it would have been impious to have eaten bread and drank wine as an ordinance of divine worſhip. Baptiſm, therefore, had the priority, in point of inſtitution; which is a preſumptive evidence that it has, and ever will have, a prior claim on our obedience.—So, under the ancient economy, ſacrifices and circumciſion were appointed and practiſed in the patriarchal ages; in the time of Moſes, the paſchal feaſt and burning incenſe in the holy place, were appointed by the God of Iſrael. But 〈…〉 former, being prior in point of inſtitution, always had the priority in order of adminiſtration.

Let us now conſider the order of words, in that commiſſion which was given to the ambaſſadors of Chriſt. He who is king in Zion, when aſſerting the plenitude of his legiſlative authority, and giving direction to his miniſtering ſervants, with great ſolemnity ſays; All power is given to me in heaven and earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt: teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. Such is the high commiſſion, and ſuch the expreſs command, of Him who is Lord of all, when addreſſing thoſe that were called to preach his word, and adminiſter his inſtitutions.—Here, it is manifeſt, the commiſſion and command are, firſt of all to teach: then—what? To baptize? or to adminiſter the Lord's ſupper? I leave common ſenſe to determine. And, being perſuaded ſhe will give her verdict in my favour, I will venture to add; A limited commiſſion includes a prohibition of ſuch things as are not contained in it; and poſitive laws imply their negative. For inſtance: When God commanded Abram to circumciſe all his males, he readily concluded, that neither circumciſion, nor any rite of a ſimilar nature, was to be adminiſtered to his females. And, as our brethren themſelves maintain, when Chriſt commanded that believers ſhould be baptized, without mentioning any others; he tacitly prohibited that ordinance from being adminiſtered to infants: ſo, by parity of reaſon, if the ſame ſovereign Lord commanded, that believers ſhould be baptized—baptized immediately after they have made a profeſſion of faith; then he muſt intend, that the adminiſtration of baptiſm ſhould be prior to a reception of the Lord's ſupper: and, conſequently, tacitly prohibits every unbaptized perſon having communion at his table.

The order of adminiſtration in the primitive and apoſtolic practice, now demands our notice. That the apoſtles, when endued with power from on high, underſtood our Lord in the ſenſe for which we plead, and practiſed accordingly, is quite evident. For thus it is written; Then they that gladly received his word were" what? admitted to the Lord's table? No; but baptized. And the ſame day there were added unto them about three thouſand ſouls. And they continued ſtedfaſtly in the apoſtle's doctrine and fellowſhip, in breaking of bread and in prayer.Acts ii. 41, 42. — Now, in regard to the members of this firſt Chriſtian church, either our opponents conclude that they were all baptized, or they do not. If the latter, whence is their concluſion drawn? Not from the ſacred hiſtorian's narrative. For thence we learn, that they whoſe hearts were penetrated by keen convictions, were exhorted to be baptized—that they who gladly received the truth were actually baptized—and that they who were baptized, and they only, for any thing that appears to the contrary, were added to the church. Either, therefore, our brethren muſt, in this caſe, infer without premiſes and conclude without evidence; or they muſt have recourſe to ſome divine declaration, not contained in this context. But, in what book, in what chapter, in what verſe is any declaration found, relating to this church at Jeruſalem, that can warrant ſuch a concluſion?—If, on the other hand, our brethren allow, that all the members of this truly apoſtolic church were baptized; then, either they conſider the conſtitution of it, in that reſpect, as expreſſive of the mind of Chriſt, and as a model for ſucceeding churches, or they do not. If the former, either Jeſus Chriſt diſcovered ſome defect in that plan of proceeding, and, in certain caſes, countermanded his firſt order, or the conduct of our brethren muſt be wrong; they admitting perſons to communion, who; on their own principles, are not baptized. But if they do not look upon this apoſtolic precedent, as expreſs;ive of the mind of Chriſt, and as a pattern for future imitation to the end of the world; they muſt conſider the apoſtles, either as ignorant of our Lord's will, or as unfaithful in the performance of it. Conſequences theſe, which cannot be admitted, without greatly prejudicing the honour and intereſt of true religion, and not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity: for which reaſon they will, no doubt, be abhorred by all our brethren.

Again: It is manifeſt from that firſt and moſt authentic hiſtory of the primitive Chriſtian church, contained in the Acts of the apoſtles; that after ſinners had received the truth and believed in Jeſus Chriſt, they were exhorted and commanded, by unerring teachers, to be baptized without delay. For thus we read; Repent and be baptized every one of you— When they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jeſus Chriſt, they were baptized, both men and women—And Philip ſaid, If thou believeſt with all thy heart, thou mayeſt. And he anſwered and ſaid, I believe that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to ſtand ſtill: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him—And was baptized, he and all his ſtraightway—Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized —And now, why tarrieſt thou? Ariſe and be baptized—Can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghoſt, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.Acts ii. 38. viii. 12, 37. xvi. 33. xviii. 8. xxii. 16, x. 47. —Hence it is abundantly evident, that baptiſm, in thoſe days, was far from being eſteemed an indifferent thing; and equally far from being deferred, till the Chriſtian converts had enjoyed communion at the Lord's table for months and years. Yes, it appears with the brighteſt evidence, that a ſubmiſſion to baptiſm was the firſt, the very firſt public act of obedience, to which both Jews and Gentiles were called, after they believed in Jeſus Chriſt. And it is equally clear, from the laſt of thoſe paſſages here tranſcribed, that the higheſt evidence of a perſon's acceptance with God, though attended with the baptiſm of the Holy Spirit in the beſtowal of miraculous gifts, was ſo far, in the account of Peter, from ſuperſeding the neceſſity of a ſubmiſſion to the ordinance of baptiſm; that he urged the conſideration of thoſe very facts, as a reaſon why they who were ſo bleſſed and honoured ſhould ſubmit to it immediately. Conſequently, while our brethren revere the authority by which the apoſtles acted, and while they believe that infant ſprinkling is not baptiſm; they are obliged, in virtue of theſe ancient precedents, and by all that is amiable in a conſiſtent conduct, to admit none to communion at the Lord's table, whom they do not conſider as really baptized according to the command of Chriſt—Nor have we the leaſt reaſon to believe that the apoſtles were inveſted with a diſcretional power, to alter our Lord's inſtitutions as they might think proper; either as to mode, or ſubject, or their order and connection one with another. No; they never pretend to any ſuch power; they utterly diſclaim it. Let us hear the declaration of one, as the language of all, and that in regard to the ſacred ſupper. "I have received of the Lord, that which alſo I delivered unto you." And again, relating to his doctrine in general, when writing to the ſame people and in the ſame epiſtle, he ſays; I delivered unto you that which I alſo received 1 Cor. xi, 23. xv. 3.. The apoſtles being only ſervants in the houſe of God, had no more authority to alter or diſpenſe with an ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, than any other miniſter of the word. Their apoſtolic gifts and powers did not at all inveſt them with a right of legiſlation in the kingdom of their divine Lord. They were ſtill but ſtewards; as ſuch they claimed regard from the churches, in which they laboured and to which they wrote: at the ſame time freely acknowledging, that it was their indiſpenſable duty to "be found faithful" in the whole extent of their office; they being accountable to the great Head of the church. They acted, therefore, in the whole compaſs of their duty, under the command, and by the direction of the aſcended Jeſus. Nay, the more they were honoured and bleſſed by him, the more were they bound to obey the leaſt intimation of his will.

Once more: If we regard the different ſignification of the two inſtitutions it will appear, that baptiſm ought to precede. In ſubmitting to baptiſm, we have an emblem of our union and communion with Jeſus Chriſt, as our great repreſentative, in his death, burial and reſurrection: at the ſame time declaring, that we reckon ourſelves to be dead indeed unto ſin, but alive to God; and that it is our deſire, as well as our duty, to live devoted to him. And as, in baptiſm, we proſeſs to have received ſpiritual life; ſo in communicating at the Lord's table, we have the emblems of that heavenly food by which we live, by which we grow, and in virtue of which we hope to live for ever. And as we are born of God but once, ſo we are baptized but once: but as our ſpiritual life is maintained by the continued agency of divine grace, and the comfo t of it enjoyed by the habitual exerciſe of faith on the dying Redeemer, ſo it is our duty and privilege frequently to receive the holy ſupper. Hence theological writers have often called baptiſm, the ſacrament of regeneration, or of initiation; and the Lord's ſupper, the ſacrament of nutrition.—Whether, therefore, we conſider the order of time, in which theſe two inſtitutions were appointed; or the order of words, in the great commiſſion given by our Lord to his miniſtering ſervants; or the order of adminiſtration in the apoſtolic practice; or the different ſignification of the two ſolemn appointments, a ſubmiſſion to baptiſm ought ever to precede a reception of the Lord's ſupper. Or, ſhould any one queſtion the validity of this inference, I would only aſk; Whether, in regard to the ſacred ſupper he might not as well deny the neceſſity of always bleſſing the bread, before it be broken; or of breaking the bread, before it be received; or of receiving the bread, before the wine? Or, by what better arguments, he would prove the oppoſite conduct, either unlawful or improper? Nay, if theſe declarations, and facts, and precedents, be not ſufficient to determine the point in our favour; it will be exceedingly hard, if not impoſſible, to conclude with certainty, in what order any two inſtitutions that God ever appointed, were to be adminiſtered. For, ſurely, that order of proceeding which agrees with the time in which two inſtitutions were appointed; with the words in which the obſervation of them was enjoined; with the firſt adminiſtration of them by unerring teachers; and with their different ſignification, muſt be the order of truth, the order of propriety, and the order of duty, becauſe it is the order of God. And our brethren will do well to remember, that when Paul commends the Corinthians for keeping the ordinances as they were delivered to them; it is plainly and ſtrongly implied, that divine ordinances are given us to keep; that they who keep them as they were inſtituted, are to be commended; and that they who do not keep them at all, or obſerve them in a different order or manner from that at firſt appointed, are worthy of cenſure. Nor is the order in which the two poſitive inſtitutions of Jeſus Chriſt ſhould be adminiſtered, leſs clearly expreſſed in the New Teſtament, than the mode and ſubject of baptiſm. This, however, is a notorious fact, that while the latter have been much and warmly diſputed, the former does not appear to have been ever called in queſtion by the real diſciples of Chriſt; except in the conduct of thoſe few that plead for free communion. They, indeed, practically deny that which appears clear as the ſun, to all other Chriſtians, by frequently admitting perſons to the Lord's table, and baptizing them afterwards: for they do not refuſe to baptize their Paedobaptiſt m mbers, if they deſire it, though they may have been 〈◊〉 f •• lowſhip with them for ten, or twenty, or fifty ye rs.—But have not—I appeal to the underſtanding and the conſcience of my brethren themſelves;—have not the Paedobaptiſts as good a warrant for their practice, as you have for inverting the plain, the eſtabliſhed, the divinely appointed order, in which the two poſitive inſtitutions ought to be adminiſtered? They baptize and then teach; you adminiſter the ſacred ſupper and then baptize. They baptize thouſands whom they never admit to the Lord's table; you receive to that ſacred ordinance numbers who, on your own principles, never were, nor ever will be baptized. Do they argue in defence of their practice and endeavour to prove their point, not by expreſs commands, or plain facts, recorded in the New Teſtament; but by inferences, and that, ſometimes, from ſuch paſſages of holy writ, as have not, in our opinion, any relation at all to the ſubject? ſo do you. For it is not pretended, that there is any expreſs command to receive unbaptized believers into communion; and as to a plain precedent, our brethren are equally ſilent. The whole of their arguing, therefore, muſt be either analogical or inferential. Yet the deſign of it is to ſhow, what is our duty in regard to a poſitive inſtitution; an appointment about which we cannot know any thing at all, but from revelation. But what can that be in divine revelation, relating to a poſitive ordinance, which is neither commanded in a precept—a precept relating to the ordinance in queſtion; nor exhibited in an example? What I demand, can it be, or how ſhould it direct our conduct? If our brethren's way of argui •• be juſt, we may turn Paedobaptiſts at once; for it 〈◊〉 poſſible to ſtand our ground in a conteſt with them.

It would, no doubt, have been highly offenſive to God, if the prieſts or the people of old had inverted the order appointed by him, for the adminiſtation of his own ſolemn appointments. For inſtance; firſt admit to the paſſover, afterwards circumciſe; burn incenſe in the holy place, then offer the propitiatory ſacrifice. This, I conceive, our brethren muſt allow. Have they any reaſon, then, to imagine, that a ſimilar breach of order is not equally diſpleaſing to God, under the New Teſtament economy? If not, it muſt be ſuppoſed, that the Moſt High has not ſo great a regard to the purity of his worſhip, is leſs jealous of his honour, and does not ſo much inſiſt on his eternal perogative now, as he did under the former diſpenſation: ſuppoſitions theſe, which they who acknowledge his univerſal dominion and abſolute immutability, will hardly admit.

It muſt, I think, be acknowledged, even by our brethren themſelves, that we have as good a warrant for omitting an eſſential branch of an ordinance, or to reverſe the order in which the conſtituent parts of an ordinance were originally adminiſtered; as we have to lay aſide a divine inſtitution, or to change the order in which two different appointments were firſt fixed. And if ſo, were a reformed and converted Catholic, ſtill retaining the Popiſh tenet of communion in one kind only, deſirous of having fellowſhip with our brethren at the Lord's table; they muſt, if they would act conſiſtently on their preſent hypotheſis, admit him to partake of the bread, though from a principle of conſcience, he abſolutely refuſed the wine, in that ſacred inſtitution.—Or, ſuppoſing, which is quite the reverſe, that any of thoſe who are in actual communion with them, finding the maſtication and ſwallowing of ſolid food a little difficult, ſhould conſcientiouſly approve the condeſcending indulgence of Pope Paſchal, in the twelfth century; who ordered, that ſuch perſons ſhould partake only of the wine Dr. Prieſtley, on giving the Lord's ſupper to children, page 25, 26. :—Or, if any of their people ſhould imagine, that the wine ought always to be adminiſtered before the bread; and ſhould, from an erring conſcience declare, that if the ordinance were not ſo adminiſtered they could not partake of it; they muſt, according to the tenour of their arguing, comply. They could not refuſe; becauſe the perſons in queſtion are conſidered, as real believers in Jeſus Chriſt, and ſincerely deſirous to be found in the way of their duty, to the beſt of their knowledge.

The ſentiment which our brethren adopt, if ſuffered to operate in its full extent, would exclude both baptiſm and the Lord's ſupper from the worſhip of God. As to baptiſm, whether infant or adult, it ought never to be made a term of communion in the houſe of God, on the pri •••• le eſpouſed by our opponents. For, according to them, the grand, the only query, that is really neceſſary relating to a candidate for communion, is; Has God received him? Is he a believer in Jeſus Chriſt? And, ſo certain are they of this being an unerring rule, that if we dare to queſtion a believer's right of communion, becauſe we think he is not baptized; we might almoſt as well deny the doctrine of tranſubſtantiation in the face of the Council of Trent: for we immediately expoſe ourſelves to the dreadful cenſure of acting in a way greatly prejudicial to the honour and intereſt of true religion, and not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity. When I read the title of a certain publication a few years ago, I was ready to ſay; If the title page do not promiſe more than the author performs, we are now in a fair way to have infidelity ruined for ever. But, alas! I have ſince found that my expectations were too ſanguine. For infidelity ſtill exiſts; and the principles of it lurk in every breaſt, that will not allow unbaptized believers to have a right of communion at the Lord's table: of which obnoxious ſentiment, almoſt the whole of the Chriſtian church now is and has ever been. Pacificus, I preſume, knows the book to which I refer; and verbum ſat ſapienti. I think myſelf happy, however, that the anathema ſit of the one, is deſtitute of power to enforce it; as the opprobrious charge of the other, wants evidence to prove it.

If, then, our brethren's grand rule of proceeding be right, we are bound to receive believers, as ſuch, and have communion with them at the Lord's table, tho' they do not conſider themſelves as baptized. And here I would beg leave to aſk, Whether they would receive a candidate for communion, whom they eſteem as a believer in Jeſus Chriſt, who has not been baptized in infancy; nor, looking on baptiſm as a temporary inſtitution, is willing to be baptized at all? The ſuppoſition of a perſon, in ſuch circumſtances, applying for fellowſhip at the Lord's table, is far from being improbable; nay, I have known it a real fact. What, then, would our brethren do in ſuch a caſe? As to Pacificus, he has informed us plainly enough what would be his conduct in ſuch an inſtance; he pleading expreſsly for admitting believers of all denominations to communion at the Lord's table. Yes, The very title of his piece, is; A modeſt Plea for Free Communion at the Lord's table, between true believers of all denominations.

Nor is the title of the ſame plea, under the ſignature of Candidus, any way different in its real import, for it runs thus: A modeſt plea for Free Communion at the Lord's table; Particularly between the Baptiſts and Paedobaptiſts. For it is manifeſt that the emphatical word, Particularly, if not quite impertinent, defends free communion, between Baptiſts and Paedobaptiſts; yet that he is far from denying, nay, that he really pleads for the ſame free communion, with thoſe that are neither the one or the other. And who can they be but Katabaptiſts, or thoſe in the ſame circumſtances with the perſon in the caſe here ſuppoſed? So that whether they be Quakers, or Catholics; whatever their diſtinguiſhing ſentiments or modes of worſhip may be; they conſider themſelves as bound to admit them to the ſacred ſupper if they look upon them as true believers, and they requeſt communion with them. But as all our opponents are not entirely of their mind in this reſpect, I ſhall proceed with the argument.—If, then, they receive a perſon, in the ſuppoſed caſe, they avowedly reject baptiſm, as unneceſſary to fellowſhip in a church of Chriſt; for if it be not requiſite in every inſtance, it is not ſo in any. If they refu e him, it muſt be becauſe he is not baptized: for according to the ſuppoſition, they conſider him as a partaker of divine grace and a believer in Jeſus Chriſt. But if they reject him purely on that ground, they ought, on their Antipaedobaptiſt principles, to reject all who have had no other than infant baptiſm; becauſe they conſider it as a very different thing from the appointment of Chriſt. Yes, they declare to all the world, every time they adminiſter baptiſm on a profeſſion of faith, to any of their Paedobaptiſt friends, that they do not believe infant ſprinkling to be an ordinance of Chriſt.

It may, perhaps, be objected; The two caſes are not parallel: becauſe the ſuppoſed candidate for communion, is not only unbaptized, but oppoſes the ordinance itſelf. True: but, admitting a ſmall diſparity, he acts on a principle of conſcience; for he ſuppoſes, with the Quakers, that baptiſm was not intended, by Jeſus Chriſt, as a ſtanding ordinance in his church; though he has a very different view of the Lord's ſupper. And, to adopt a method of arguing uſed by our brethren, when pleading for free communion; What have you to do with another man's conſcience, in a matter that is non-eſſential? To his own Maſter he ſtands or falls. He conſiders the Lord's ſupper as a very important ordinance, and longs to partake of it. And have not you told us, repeatedly, that it was deſigned for all believers; that all believers are capable of improvement by it; and that they have a right of communion, entirely independent of our judgment? Is he to be refuſed one ordinance, in the enjoyment of which he has reaſon to expect the preſence of Chriſt and the bleſſing of heaven; merely becauſe a ſovereign God has not been pleaſed to ſhew him his duty and privilege in regard to another? And though you may not pay ſo great a regard to the reaſoning of one whom you call a rigorous baptiſt, yet you cannot be deaf to the arguing of a friend, an ally, and one of the firſt advocates for free communion. Hear, then, I beſeech you, what Mr. Bunyan ſays, who ſpeaks to the following effect. None can, 'render a bigger reaſon than this,' for not ſubmitting to baptiſm, 'I have no light therein.' Such a perſon has an invincible reaſon, one that all the men upon earth, and all the angels in heaven, are not able to remove. For it is God that creates light; and for him to be baptized without light, would only prove him unfaithful to his own conſcience, and render him a tranſgreſſor againſt God. Bunyan's Works, Vol. I. p. 135, 136. 8 vo. edit. What, will you keep him from celebrating the death of his Lord, in the ſacred ſupper, only becauſe he does not ſee baptiſm with your eyes! Conſider, I beſeech you, that he is in your own judgment, a ſincere, a conſcientious man; that he is born of God, and fervently loves our deareſt Lord. Yes, the ſincerity of his heart and his diſpoſition to obedience are ſuch, that, could he be once perſuaded of baptiſm being a permanent ordinance in the Chriſtian church, he would not heſitate a moment to be baptized. Nay; he would rejoice in an opportunity of ſo manifeſting his cordial ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt, were he convinced, that he is under an equal obligation to be baptized, as he is to receive the Lord's ſupper, and that prior to this. And muſt, after all, the ba e want of a little water be an inſurmountable bar to this having communion with you? Shall this one circumſtance of water Drown and ſweep away all his excellencies; not counting him worthy of that reception that with hand and heart, ſhall be given to a novice in religion, becauſe he conſents to water?'—Nay, 'a man can reject him; he can not be a man if he object againſt him; not a man in Chriſt; not a man in underſtanding.'—How unreaſonable it is to ſuppoſe, that he muſt not uſe and enjoy what he knows, becauſe he knows not all! And it will appear yet more unreaſonable when it is conſidered, that baptiſm gives neither being nor well-being to a church. Bunyan's Works, Vol. I. page 134. 169, 174. Is this your kindneſs to a Chriſtian brother! Is this your charity, your candour, your catholic ſpirit! Away with ſuch rigid and forbidding notions; with ſuch an unreaſonable attachment to an external rite, and let your communion be free indeed! univerſally free, for Quakers, for Papiſts, for whomſoever appears to be born of God and deſires fellowſhip with you. For though a converted Quaker may happen to be no friend to baptiſm; and though a reformed Catholic may ſtill be prejudiced againſt wine, at the Lord's table; yet, as both may have communion with you, in other reſpects, why ſhould you object againſt it? Beſides, do you not hope to have communion with them in heaven? On th 〈◊〉 principle, you might refuſe communion to En •••• or Elijah, or Paul, were any one of them now upon ••• th, if he would not ſubmit to baptiſm! Were you aware how much this uncharitable and dividing ſpirit has a tendency to injure real religion, and how much it contributes to the cauſe of infidelity; ſuch is your veneration for the revelation of God, and ſuch your affection for Jeſus Chriſt, that, I am perſuaded, you would never ſay a word about baptiſm, nay, you would wiſh it out of the world, rather than give ſuch occaſions of ſcandal and miſchief, as you unwittingly do. For the author to whom I have juſt appealed aſſures us, and lays it down as a maxim, which you ought never to violate; that in ſuch caſes, baptiſm, though an ordinance of God, is it be prudently ſhunned. Let the cry be never ſo loud, Chriſt, order, the rule, the command, or the like; carnality is but the bottom, and they are but babes that do it; their zeal is but a puff. What ſhall we ſay? All things muſt give place to the profit of the people of God; yea, ſometimes laws themſelves, for their outward preſervation, much more for godly edifying. Bunyan's Works, Vol. I. page 136, 141, 144. —Further; Though, in the caſe ſuppoſed, the candidate for communion oppoſes baptiſm, yet there is not ſo great a difference between the two inſtances as may, at firſt view, be imagined. For, on our brethren's Baptiſt principles, infant baptiſm not being an appointment of Chriſt, they who have had no other are unbaptized. In this reſpect, therefore, the caſes are parallel. Beſides, they are equally unwilling to ſubmit to what our opponents conſider as the only true baptiſm; and are equally conſcientious in their refuſal. The genuine, the neceſſary conſequence, therefore, is, (if our brethren would act conſiſtently) they muſt either accept both, or neither; for, in the judgment they form of each, God has received the one, as well as the other. But, as before hinted, by the ſame rule that we receive one to communion, who is not baptized; who does not conſider himſelf as baptized; who does not pretend to be baptized; we may receive all: for as there is but one Lawgiver, there is but one law, relating to this matter; and he who has a right to diſpenſe with it once, may do as often as he pleaſes. Conſequently, the principle adopted, by thoſe who plead for free communion, has a natural tendency to exclude baptiſm from the worſhip of God.

Again: Though our brethren plead, that the perſons whom they receive and continue in communion with them, are, in their own judgment, baptized; yet we may venture to query, whether this be always the caſe. The following is a well authenticated fact. Several perſons, being convinced of believers baptiſm, and wiſhing for fellowſhip with the people of God, related their Chriſtian experience to a church and her paſtor who practiſe free communion. It was agreed to receive them. But when the time appointed for their being baptized came, and the paſtor was ready to adminiſter the ordinance to them, one of them was abſent; and, conſequently, was not baptized with his brethren. The ſtated ſeaſon for celebrating the death of Jeſus at his own table quickly approaching, he was, notwithſtanding, received into fellowſhip, had communion at the Lord', table, and was baptized afterwards.If I be not greatly deceived, the Paſtor of this church has pleaded the cauſe of free communion, under the name of Pacificus. A character, no doubt, very happily choſen, to expreſs that peculiarly peaceful temper and admirably condeſcending conduct, which are ſo clearly diſplayed in this little anecdote. But, as a perfectly conſiſt nt character is hard, exceedingly hard to be found among mortals, my reader will not be much ſurpriſed if I obſerve; That Pacificus himſelf has failed, in one particular, to anſwer his name. Yes, he and his coadjutor Condidus have, in a very unpeaceful, uncandid manner, charged a vaſt majority of their Baptiſt brethren, with not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity, merely becauſe they do not practiſe this Remarkable free communion. Peace and Candour are, indeed, very excellent things, as Pacificus and Candidus are moſt amiable names: yet I would take the liberty of hinting, that peace and unity, without truth and righteouſneſs, are an illicit combination; a wicked conſpiracy againſt both God and man. Amicus Pacificus, amicus Candidus, ſed magis amica Veritas. —Now this perſon was not a Paedobaptiſt; this perſon was not even in his own judgment, baptized, when he took a ſeat at the Lord's table. No; by deſiring to be immerſed on a profeſſion of faith, he declared that he was unbaptized; as ſuch he approached the holy table; and as ſuch the paſtor, in the name of the church, gave him the right hand of fellowſhip. Hence we ſee, that our opponents can admit ſuch perſons to the ſacred ſupper, as confeſs themſelves to be unbaptized, if occaſion require; that is, if their Chriſtian friends do not approve of the old, eſtabliſhed mode of proceeding.—Beſides, as it is not uncommon for the Paedobaptiſt members of thoſe Churches that practiſe free communion, to deſire baptiſm upon a profeſſion of faith, after they have been in fellowſhip many years; ſo it is probable, that ſome ſuch members may be convinced, that infant ſprinkling is not a divine appointment, and conſequently, that they themſelves are not baptized; yet live in the neglect of baptiſm for months and years, having communion at the Lord's table all the while. We will, therefore, ſuppoſe an inſtance of this kind in that Chriſtian community of which Pacificus is paſtor; and that he and the church in general are acquainted with it. What, then, muſt be done in the caſe? Done? why Pacificus will undoubtedly remonſtrate againſt the ſhameful neglect. But if his remonſtrances do not produce the deſired effect, what them? What? why things muſt remain in ſtato quo. Becauſe Pacificus cannot move to have him excluded, with any appearance of candour or conſiſtency; he openly pleading for communion with believers of all denominations. Beſides, he very well knows, that his brother is as much baptized now as he was when firſt received into communion; and the whole that is laid to his charge relates to baptiſm: and to 'pull him into the water' will never do, whatever a witly and polite opponent may have ſaid to the contrary.Dr. Mayo, in his True Scrip. Doc. of Bap. p. 33. Beſides, as Mr. Bunyan obſerves, the law is not made for a righteous man, neither to debar him from communion, nor to caſt him out, if he were in. Bunyan's Works, Vol. I. page 134. So very pliable, ſo ſuperlatively complaiſant, is free communion, that it cannot bear the thought of refuſing fellowſhip at the Lord's table to any believer, even though he conſider himſelf as unbaptized: far leſs can it endure the thought of giving any one much diſturbance, who has a place at the Lord's table; even though he ſtand convicted in the eyes of God and man, in the court of his own conſcience, and before the church to which he belongs, of being unbaptized, and of living in the total neglect of that divine inſtitution.

Nor would the ſacred ſupper be long practiſed in the church of God, or be eſteemed a branch of divine worſhip, were the ſame principle applied to it and ſuffered to operate without reſtraint. Suppoſe, for inſtance, that a weak but well meaning man, is a candidate for fellowſhip, with a church that practiſes free communion; that he gives the community full ſatisfaction, as to his being a partaker of divine grace, and has been baptized in infancy; but, at the ſame time, frankly declares, I ſee no propriety, nor any utility, in receiving bread and wine, under the notion of its being an appointment of Jeſus Chriſt. I conſider the Lord's ſupper as a temporary inſtitution; intended for the Chriſtian church in the apoſtolic age, as a happy mean of attaching ſuch perſons to her worſhip and intereſts, as were newly converted from the antiquated ceremonies of Judaiſm, or the deteſtable ſuperſtitions of Paganiſm; and that the command to obſerve it, ceaſed long ſince to be obligatory. Admitting, however, that I am under a miſtake in this particular; yet, as I have a natural averſion to wine, Bellarmine gives it as one reaſon for withholding the cup from the laity, that Multi abhorrent à vine. Apud Ameſium. Bell. Enerv t. Tome III. page 172. and as the bread and wine are mere emblems of the body and blood of Chriſt, and the reception of them an external ceremony; I think it is quite ſufficient for me, if admitted into your fellowſhip, to behold the bread as broken, and the wine as poured out: which may, perhaps, if there be any thing uſeful in thoſe outward ſigns, aſſiſt my meditations on the ſufferings and death of our crucified Lord. But though I cannot partake with you of bread and wine, in your monthly communion; yet I ſhould hope for advantage, great advantage, by having fellowſhip with you in every other public act of devotion; in the expreſſions of mutual, brotherly love; and in the exerciſe of holy diſcipline, according to the laws of Chriſt. Nor need I inform you, that it is the dev tion of the heart, real affection one for another as brethren, and a ſtrict regard to the moral conduct of all the members of a religious community, that are the capital things in a Chriſtian church. And ſhould you, for a moment, heſitate on the propriety of granting my ſincere requeſt; I would beg leave to remind you, that as being, on your principles, unbaptized, is no bar to my having fellowſhip with you; ſo your well known candour muſt plead in my favour with equal force, though, at preſent, I cannot conſcientiouſly partake with you at the Lord's table. For what is there—I appeal to that catholic ſpirit, for which you are ſo remarkable—what is there eſſential to a church of Chriſt, in a participation of bread and wine, any more than in immerſion in water? for upon your own principles, the holy ſupper may as well be celebrated without the former as baptiſm can be adminiſtered without the latter. Or, what authority is needful for you to diſpenſe with the Lord's ſupper, which is not included in that warrant by which you diſpenſe with baptiſm?

Now, in ſuch a caſe, what muſt be done? Here is a perſon whom that very church conſiders as a believer in Chriſt and received of God. But this is her grand criterion of a qualification for church-fellowſhip. So that if ſhe violate, deliberately and openly violate, this capital rule of her conduct, ſhe contradicts herſelf; ſhe, according to her wonted application of the rule, diſobeys God, and leaves free communion at the mercy of every oppoſer. She muſt, therefore, give him the right hand of fellowſhip: ſhe cannot put a negative on his requeſt, without expoſing herſelf to thoſe very cenſures which our brethren ſo freely paſs upon us; not excepting that ſevereſt of all in which we are charged, with not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity. But this, even the ſtrict Baptiſts will charitably ſuppoſe, ſhe would not do on any account; and that ſhe would be equally careful to ſtand clear of that keen rebuke;— Thou art inexcuſable who judgeſt. For wherein thou judgeſt another, thou condemneſt thyſelf; for thou that judgeſt, doeſt the ſame thing. I conclude, then, though ſuch a proceeding. ••• ld be quite novel, abſolutely unexampled in the churches of Chriſt, and would, probably, both aſtoniſh and offend her ſiſter communities, ſhe muſt receive him. But if it be lawful in one inſtance, it muſt be ſo in a thouſand: and, therefore, a church might thus go on, till the Lord's ſupper were entirely rejected by all her members, and baniſhed from the worſhip of God, as it is among the Quakers.

The church of England has juſtly incurred the cenſure of all Proteſtant Diſſenters, for her arrogant claim of 'power to decree rites or ceremonies', in the worſhip of God, and of authority in controverſies of faithArticles of the Church of England. No. xx. ; becauſe ſuch a claim infringes on the prerogative royal of Jeſus Chriſt. But do not our brethren tacitly aſſume a ſimilar power, when they preſume to ſet aſide an ordinance of Chriſt, or to reverſe the order of divine inſtitutions? it being demonſtrable, that as great an authority is neceſſary to lay aſide an old, eſtabliſhed rite; or to invert the order and break the connection of ſeveral rites; as can be required to inſtitute one that is entirely new. 'For it is a maxim in law'; and holds good in divinity, That it requires the ſame ſtrength to diſſolve, as to create an obligationBlackſtone's Comment. on the Laws of England. Vol. I. Book I. ch. 2. .—Such a practice, therefore, as that of our brethren, were it adopted by the Baptiſts in general, would render our ſeparation from the Eſtabliſhed Church very ſuſpicious. It would ſeem like the fruit of obſtinacy, rather than the effect of a tender conſcience, like a determined oppoſition to the eccleſiaſtical hierarchy, more than a d ure of purer worſhip and ſtricter diſcipline. For, while we o •• it a plain and poſitive appointment of Jeſus Chriſt, and connive at what we ourſelves conſider as a human invention; we have little reaſon to ſcruple the lawfulneſs of ſubſcribing the article to which I have juſt referred: and if we can do that, with a good conſcience, we have not much reaſon to diſſent, on account of any thing elſe that is required in order to eccleſiaſtical conformityDiſſenting Gent. lett. to Mr. White. Let. I. p. 2. . For if it be lawful to diſpenſe with an appointment of God, out of regard to our •• aker brethren; we cannot reaſonably think it unlawful to practiſe the appointments of our National Church, out of regard to the ruling powers; ſubmiſſion to the latter, being no leſs plainly required, in ſcripture, than condeſcenſion to the former. And if we may ſafely connive at one human invention, ſo as to ſuperſede and take place of a divine inſtitution; why may not the Church of England make what appointments ſhe pleaſes? A little reflection will convince us, that he whoſe authority is competent, to the ſetting aſide, or altering of one divine inſtitution, has a power equal to his wiſhes—may ordain times, and forms, and rites of worſhip; may model the houſe of God according to his own pleaſure. But can ſuch an authority belong to any beſides the Great Supreme? No: to ſuch an ordaining, or diſpenſing power, neither church nor ſynod, neither parliament nor conclave, neither king nor pope, has the leaſt claim. For as the exertion of Omnipotence was equally neceſſary to the creation of a worm, as an angel; of an atom, as a world; ſo the interpoſition of divine authority is no leſs neceſſary to ſet aſide, or to alter, one branch of inſtituted worſhip; than to add a thouſand religious rites, or eſſentially to alter the whole Chriſtian ſyſtem.

Nor are thoſe writers who have appeared in vindication of our national eſtabliſhment, ignorant of their advantage over ſuch Proteſtant Diſſenters as proceed on the principle here oppoſed. For thus they argue; If, notwithſtanding the evidence produced, that baptiſm by immerſion is ſuitable, both to the inſtitution of our Lord and his apoſtles; and was by them ordained to repreſent our burial with Chriſt, and ſo our dying unto ſin, and our conformity to his reſurrection ſurrection by newneſs of life; as the apoſtle doth clearly maintain the meaning of that rite: I ſay, if notwithſtanding this, all our [Paedobaptiſt] Diſſenters do agree to ſprinkle the baptized infant; why may they not as well ſubmit to the ſignificant ceremonies impoſed by our church? For ſince it is as lawful to add unto Chriſt's inſtitution a ſignificant ceremony, as to diminiſo a ſignificant ceremony which he or his, apoſtles inſtituted, and uſe another in its ſtead, which they never did inſtitute; what reaſon can they have to do the latter, and yet reſuſe ſubmiſſion to the former? And why ſhould not the peace and union of the church be as prevailing with them to perform the one, as in their mercy to the infant's body to neglect the otherDr. Whitby's Proteſtant Reconciler, p. 289.?—I leave the intelligent reader to apply this reaſoning to the caſe before us, and ſhall only obſerve; That if this learned writer had been addreſſing thoſe Diſſenters who practiſe free communion, his argument would have had ſuperior force. Becauſe our Diſſenting Paedobaptiſt brethren believe that infant ſprinkling is real baptiſm, and practiſe it as having the ſtamp of divine authority; whereas thoſe Diſſenters with whom I am now concerned, believe no ſuch thing. They conſider it as a human invention; and yet receive Paedobaptiſts into their churches, as if they were rightly and truly baptized, according to the command of Chriſt. Now, as Mr. Thomas Bradbury obſerves, There is a great difference between miſtaking the divine rule, and totally laying it aſide. The reaſon, adds he, why we do not act as ſome other Chriſtians [i. e. the Baptiſts] do, is, becauſe we think theſe demands [relating to a profeſſion of faith and immerſion, as neceſſary to baptiſm] are not made in ſcriptureD ty and Doct. of Bap. p. 25, 26.

As the ſovereign authority and univerſal dominion of God, over his rational creatures; as his abſolute right, not only to worſhip, but alſo to be worſhipped in his own way; are more ſtrongly aſſerted and brightly diſplayed in his poſitive inſtitutions, than in any other branches of his worſhip; ſo, it is manifeſt, that we cannot diſobey his revealed will concerning them, without impeaching his wiſdom and oppoſing his ſovereignty. Becauſe a ſpecial interpoſition of divine authority, and an expreſs revelation of the divine will, conſtitute the baſis, the only baſis, on which ſuch inſtitutions reſt, in regard to their mode and ſubject, their order and connection one with another. Surely, then, ſuch of our brethren who admit, as a divine inſtitution, what they verily believe is a human invention, cannot but act an unjuſtifiable part. For, on their own principles, infinite wiſdom choſe and abſolute ſovereignty ordained profeſſing believers as the ſubjects, and immerſion as the mode of baptiſm: and it appears, by their frequently baptizing perſons who were ſprinkled in their infancy, that they look upon ſuch à ſubject and ſuch a mode of adminiſtration, as eſſential to the ordinance. By their conduct, in many inſtances, it alſo appears they are no leſs perſuaded, that unerring wiſdom and ſupreme authority united in appointing baptiſm to be adminiſtred prior to the Lord's ſupper: for, where the views and the inclinations of the candidates for fellowſhip with them do not interfere, they always baptize, before they admit to the holy table. Thus, then, ſtands the caſe with our brethren, in regard to the poſitive appointments of heaven. They are verily perſuaded that the wiſdom and ſovereignty of God united in ordaining, that immerſion ſhould be the mode of baptiſm, yet they connive at ſprinkling; that profeſſing believers ſhould be the ſubjects, yet they admit of infants; that baptiſm ſhould be adminiſtered to a believer, before he receive the Lord's ſupper, and yet they permit unbaptized perſons to have communion with them in that ſacred ordinance. A paradoxical conduct this, which nothing in my opinion, ſhort of a plenary diſpenſing power can poſſibly vindicate.Some of my readers will be pleaſed, I doubt not, with the following thoughts of Orobius, a learned Jew, on the ſubject of poſitive inſtitutions. Lex ritualis ex Legiſlatoris arbitrio duntaxat pendet, aliquando, vel in plurimum nullo fundamento in naturali ratione invento: ſed non ob id inſeriorem perfectionis gradum obtinet ſuppoſita Legiſlatoris infinita Sapientia et Bonitate: altioris potius, et ſublimioris ordinis cenſcri debet: ſiquidem ſuppoſito, quod ſumme bonus, et ſapiens Deus vanas et ineptas Leges homini praeſcribere nequit; quantum nobis earum ratio magis abdita, tantum ad divinae Sapientiae ſecretum magis pertinere, oportet credamus: quod nobis nec curioſe, nec philoſophice ſcrutari licet, ſed obedienter ejus imperio ſubjici, quo noſtrum amorem, et debitam reverentiam ſummo Creatori praeſtemus: omnia quae nobis obſervanda proponit, ſua infinita ſapientia digna, valde bona, t perfectiſſima, toto corde credentes: ſive ea poſſit, ſi vellet, diſpenſare, ſive pro aliqua occaſione intermittere: et inſignioris eſt obedientiae ea obſervare quam quae a Deo etiam imperata in ratione noſtra fundata invenimus: iſta ſiquidem, etiamſi De •• on juſſit, homines ſ irent, et obſervare poſſent, ot p urimi ex gentibus nullo ad Deum habito reſpec u ſecerunt, Apud Stapferum, Inſtitut. Theolog. Polem. Tom. III. Chap. XI. § 238..

Again: as the ſovereign will of God is more concerned and manifeſted in poſitive ordinances than in any other branches of holy worſhip; ſo it is evident, from the hiſtory of the Jewiſh church, which is the hiſtory of Providence for near two thouſand years; that the divine jealouſy was never ſooner inſlamed, nor ever more awfully expreſſed, than when God's ancient people failed in their obedience to ſuch commands, or deviated from the preſcribed rule of ſuch inſtitutions. The deſtruction of Nadab and Abihu, by fire from heaven: the breach that was made upon Uzzah; the ſtigma fixed and the curſes denounced on Jeroboam; together with the fall and ruin of all mankind, by our firſt father's diſobedience to a poſitive command, are among the many authentic proofs of this aſſertion.—Nor need we wonder at the divine procedure, in ſeverely puniſhing ſuch offenders. For knowingly to diſobey the poſitive laws of Jehovah, is to impeach his wiſdom, or his goodneſs, in ſuch inſtitutions; and impiouſly to deny his legiſlative authority and abſolute dominion over his creatures. And though the methods of Providence, under the goſpel economy, are apparently much more mild and gentle, in regard to offenders in ſimilar caſes; yet our obligation to a conſcientious and punctual obedience are not in the leaſt relaxed. For that divine declaration, occaſioned by the dreadful cataſtrophe of Aaron's diſobedient ſons, is an eternal truth, and binding on all generations; I will be ſanctified in them that come nigh me See Levit. x. 1, 2, 3.. When God ſpeaks, we ſhould be all attention; and when he commands, we ſhould be all ſubmiſſion. The clearer light which God has aſſorded, and the richer grace which Chriſt has manifeſted, under the preſent diſpenſation; are ſo far from leſſening, that they evidently increaſe our obligations to perform every divine command relating to Chriſtian worſhip. For, certainly, it muſt be allowed, that they on whom greater favours are beſtowed and higher honours conferred, are ſo much the more obliged to revere, love, and obey their divine benefactor. And, as a certain author juſtly obſerves, To take advantage of dark ſurmiſes, or doubtful reaſoning, to elude obligations of any kind; is always looked upon as an indication of a diſhoneſt heartDr. Oſwall's App al to Common Senſe, p. 21.. Accurſed, then, is the principle, and rebellious is the conduct of thoſe profeſſors, who think themſelves warranted, by the grace of the goſpel, to trifle with God's poſitive appointments, any more than the prieſts or the people were of old. For whether Jehovah lay his commands on Gabriel in glory, or on Adam in paradiſe; whether he enjoin the perſormance of any thing on Patriarchs, or jews, or Chriſtians, they are all and equally bound to obey, or elſe his commands muſt ſtand for nothing. Neither diverſity of economy, nor difference of ſtate, makes any alteration in this reſpect: for we muſt be abſolutely independent of God, before our obligations to obey him can be diſſolved. But as the former is impoſſible, ſo is the latterWitſii Miſcal Sac. Tom. I. Lib. II. Diſſert. II. § 3..

When I conſider myſelf as contending with Pacificus, I cannot but eſteem it a happineſs to find, that my reaſoning, in the laſt paragraph, is very ſtrongly ſupported by the following quotation; which is taken from a little publication that received ſomething more than a bare imprimatur, from Mr. John Ryland. And as Pacificus pays an uncommon regard to Mr. Ryland's judgment, in matters of this kind; I ſhall not be thought aſſuming, if I ſummons his attention to what the latter avows, as expreſſing his own opinion. The paſſage to which I reſer, is this: The ordinances of the goſpel are eſtabliſhed by the authority of Chriſt, as king and ſupreme law-giver in his church; they are particularly enforced by his own example, and his will expreſsly declared: and as they have no dependance on any circumſtances, which are liable to vary in different countries, or diſtant periods of time, it neceſſarily follows that the primitive model of adminiſtration ſhould be ſtrictly and conſcientiouſly adhered to. No pretence to greater propriety, nor any plea of inconveniency, can juſtify our boldly oppoſing the authority of God by the alteration of his law, and ſubſtituting a human ordinance inſtead of a divine. In a former diſpenſation in which the ritual was numerous and burden ſome, the great Jehovah was particularly jealous of his honour as Supreme Lawgiver, and looked upon the leaſt innovation as a direct oppoſition of his authority. Moſes, we are informed, was admoniſhed of God to make all things according to the pattern ſhewed him in the mount. And thoſe unfortunate youths who preſumed to alter the form of his religion, and worſhipped him in a way he had not commanded, fell under the ſevereſt marks of his diſpleaſure; which ſhews that he looked upon the leaſt innovation in the ceremonial part of his precepts, as an impious and daring oppoſition and contempt of his authority, and as deſerving of peculiar and diſtinguiſhed vengeance, as a direct and open violation of the moral law. And as the great King of the univerſe required ſuch exactneſs and punctuality, and inſiſted on ſuch ſcrupulous exactneſs in the performance of the minuteſt rite belonging to the legal diſpenſation; it would be extremely difficult to aſſign a reaſon why he ſhould be more lax and careleſs, and allow a greater ſcope to human diſcretion under the Chriſtian [economy]. The greater light which ſhines in our religion, the ſmall number and ſimplicity of its ceremoniala, and the end and deſign of thoſe inſtitutions being more clearly revealed; are reaſons which ſtrongly indicate the contrary. And if it be further obſerved, that the religion of Jeſus is particularly calculated to ſet aſide worldly wiſdom and mortify the pride of man; it cannot, without great abſurdity, be ſuppoſed, that the ſublime author of it will diſpenſe with the performance of his poſitive laws, or admit of the leaſt variation, to honour that wiſdom, or indulge that pride which the whole ſcope of his goſpel hath a manifeſt tendency to abaſe. Surely then it behoves Chriſtians, in an affair of ſuch conſequence, to be circumſpect and wary; it will certainly be well for them, if they can give a good account of their practice, and a ſatisfactory anſwer to that important queſtion, Who hath required this of your hand? Six Views of Believ. Bap. p. 17, 18, 19, 20.?—Had Mr. Ryland only recommended that little piece to the public, which contains this excellent paſſage, he would certainly have deſerved my ſincereſt thanks. For the quotation produced may be juſtly conſidered as a compendious anſwer to all that Pacificus has wrote, and to all that he can write, in defence of free communion, ſo long as he profeſſes himſelf a Baptiſt. Whether he will make a reply to the animadverſions of my feeble pen, I cannot pretend to ſay; but I think he will hardly have courage, in any future publication on the ſubject before us, openly to confront and attack his deareſt and moſt intimate friend Mr. Ryland.

Though the Lord's ſupper is a poſitive inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, and though we cannot know any thing at all about it, but what we learn from the New Teſtament; yet our brethren make, not the word of revelation, but the meaſure of light and the diſpoſitions of a candidate for fellowſhip, the rule of admiſſion to it.—This appears from hence. A perſon applies to one of their churches for communion in the ordinances of God's houſe; the paſtor of which community, and a great majority of its members, are Baptiſts. He gives a reaſon of the hope that is in him, to general ſatisfaction. His moral conduct is good, and his character amiable. The paſtor in the name of the church, deſires to know, what are his views of baptiſm. He declares himſelf a Paedobaptiſt; ſays he was baptiſed in his infancy, and is quite ſatisfied with it. Now, neither the paſtor, nor the generality of his people, can look upon this as baptiſm; but conſider it as an invention of men, and a corruption of the worſhip of God. Conſequently, they would be glad if his views, in that reſpect, were otherwiſe. They agree, however, to receive him into communion. And why? Becauſe they believe that Chriſt commanded, or that the ſcriptures warrant infant ſprinkling? No ſuch thing. Becauſe the New Teſtament plainly informs them, that unbaptiſed converts were admitted to the Lord's table in the apoſtolic churches? not in the leaſt. Becauſe Jeſus Chriſt has expreſsly granted them a diſpenſing power, in regard to baptiſm? They diſclaim any ſuch grantThe Church of Rome frankly acknowledges, by her delegates aſſembled in the Council of Trent, that our ſovereign Lord, when he inſtituted the holy ſupper, adminiſtered in both kinds, and that it was ſo adminiſtered for ſome time; ſhe, however, expreſ ly claims an authority to diſpenſe with that order. Now, though I would by no means inſinuate, that our brethren are equally culpable with that mother of abominations; yet it may admit of a query, whether, in this particular, ſhe be not more conſiſtent with herſelf, than they? Council of Trent. Seſſ. XXI. Cap. I, II, III.. What, then, is the ground on which they proceed? Why, truly, the candidate believes, is fully perſuaded, that infant ſprinkling is real baptiſm; and has been informed, that he was actually ſprinkled in the firſt ſtate of his life. On this foundation they admit him to the Lord's table: and, which is very remarkable, they receive him with a cordial good will, to have him baptized afterwards, if ever he diſcover an inclination towards it. Their charity forbids them treating a Chriſtian as unbaptized, if he do but heartily believe himſelf to be baptized. As if that could not be wrong, which a ſincere diſciple of Chriſt firmly concludes to be right! Or, as if we were bound, in certain caſes, practically to allow that to be right, which we are fully perſuaded is really wrong!—But might not the paſtor of ſuch a church, on the ſame principle, and with equal countenance from the ſcripture, baptize a perſon deſirous of it, without a profeſſion of faith, and without any evidence that he is a believer in Jeſus Chriſt? For, as Pacificus and Candidus argue, in regard to baptiſm, Who is to be the judge of what is, or is not faith? Moſt certainly every man for himſelf, and not one for another; elſe we deſtroy the right of private judgment, and go about to eſtabliſh a Popiſh infallibility againſt the liberty of the goſpel. I have no buſineſs with any man's conſcience but my own, unleſs in endeavouring, in a proper manner, better to inſtruct it where it appears to be wrong. If my Paedobaptiſt brother is ſatisfied in his own mind that he is rightly baptized [or truly converted] he is ſo to himſelf.—What is there in a falſe perſuaſion, relating to baptiſm, that merits the regard of a church; any more than in a deception about faith and converſion, to deſerve the connivance of a miniſter? for the ſelf-deception is ſuppoſed to be as real in the one caſe, as in the other; though the ſtate of the two candidates, and the danger attending their reſpective miſtakes, are undoubtedly very different. If, notwithſtanding, our ſovereign Lord has not virtually forbidden us to baptize any without a profeſſion of faith, what right have we ſo to limit the adminiſtration of that ordinance? And if our divine Lawgiver has ac tly prohibited unbaptized believers approaching his table, by what authority do we admit them? Now I appeal to the reader, I appeal to Chriſtians in general, whether there be not as much evidence in the New Teſtament, that baptiſm was adminiſtered by the apoſtles, to ſuch whom they did not conſider as believers in Jeſus Chriſt; as there is to conclude, that they received any to communion, before they conſidered them as baptized believers. It is not the meaſure of a believer's knowledge, nor the evidence of his integrity; nor is it the charitable opinion we form about his acceptance with God, that is the rule of his admiſſion to the ſacred ſupper; but the precepts of Jeſus Chriſt, and the practice of the apoſtolic churches. To depart from this only rule of our conduct, through ignorance, is a culpable error; and knowingly to deviate from it, is nothing ſhort of rebellion againſt the ſovereign majeſty of Zion's King.

To diſpenſe with the poſitive appointments of Jeſus Chriſt, or to reverſe the order of their adminiſtration, in condeſcenſion to weak believers, and with a view to the glory of God, cannot be right. For as an •••• ment author obſerves. They muſt be evaſions paſt underſtanding, that can hold water againſt a divine order—God 〈◊〉 gave power to any man, to change his ordina •• or to diſ onſe with them. God is a jealous God, and careful of his ſovereignty 'Tis not for any inferior perſon to alter the ſtamp and impreſſion the prince commands. None can coin ordinances but Chriſt; and, till he call them in, they ought to be current among usCharn ck's Works, Vol. II. p. 763, 773, 774. •• it. 1..—To which I may add the teſtimony of another learned writer, who ſays, when ſpeaking of baptiſm; As the ſalvation of men ought to be dear unto us; ſo the glory of God, which conſiſteth in that his orders be kept, ought to be much more dear Ca twright, in W ••• s Hiſt. Inf. Bap. Part I. Chap. 15..—Yet here, I humbly conceive, our brethren are ſaulty. For what is diſpenſing with a poſitive appointment, but laying it aſide, or conniving at a neglect of it, on ſuch occaſions in which it was commanded to be adminiſtered? Now, on their Antipaedobaptiſt principles, they admit unbaptized perſons to the Lord's table; many of whom are never baptised. In regard to ſuch, therefore, they lay entirely aſide, they annul the ordinance. That they reverſe the order of two poſitive inftitutions, is equally clear; numbers of thoſe whom they admit to the Lord's table, having communion with them in that ordinance for many years, before they are baptized. And that this very ſingular conduct procoeds from a regard to the edification of ſincere, but leſs informed believers, and in hopes that God will be glorified by it; they often aſſert. Diſpenſe with a divine inſtitution, for the edification of weak believers! Invert the order of God's appointments and break his poſitive laws, with a view to his glory! Theological paradoxes theſe, which ſeem to border on that hateful, Antinomian maxim; "Let us do evil that good may come." A poſition, which the pen of inſpiration execrates; which every virtuous mind abhors. But that no pretence of doing honour to God, nor any plea of being uſeful to men, can poſſibly deſerve the leaſt regard, if the meaſures which muſt be purſued to obtain the end interfere with the divine revealed will, we learn from various facts recorded in the Bible. Uzzah, for inſtance, when he put forth his hand to ſupport the tottering ark, thought, no doubt, he was doing honour to him who dwelt between the Cherubim , over the mercy-ſeat; and, at the ſame time, as that ſacred coffer was of the laſt importance in the ancient ſanctuary, he ſhewed an equal regard to the edification of his fellow worſhippers, by endeavouring to preſerve it from injury. But, notwithſtanding this fair pretext; nay, though the man after God's own heart ſaw little amiſs in his conduct; (perhaps, thought he deſerved praiſe) as the ark, with all that pertained to it, and its whole management, were of poſitive appointment; he, whoſe name is JEALOUS, was greatly offended. The ſincere, the well meaning man, having no command, nor any example for what he did, fell under Jehovah's anger, and loſt his life, as the reward of his officiouſneſs. And as the Holy Ghoſt has recorded the fact ſo circumſtantially2 Sam. vi. 1—11., we have reaſon to conſider it as a warning to all, of the danger there is in tampering w ••• poſitive ordinances; and as a ſtanding evidenc , 〈◊〉 God will have his cauſe ſupported and his appoint 〈◊〉 adminiſtered, in his his own way.—The caſe of Saul, and the language of Samuel to that diſobedient monarch, inculcate the ſame truth. The people, ſaid Saul to the venerable prophet, took of the ſpoil, ſheep and oxen—to ſacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel ſaid, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and ſacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than ſacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the ſin of witchcraft, and ſtubbornneſs in as iniquity and idolatry1 Sam. xv. 21, 22, 23..— Remarkable words! The king of Iſrael, we find, pleaded a regard to the worſhip and the honour of God. The cattle were ſpared, that Jehovah's altar might be furniſhed with plenty of the fineſt ſacrifices. But Samuel ſoon overruled this fair pretence. He quickly informed the infatuated prince, that obedience to divine appointments, eſpecially in ſuch duties as depend entirely on an expreſs command (as the utter deſtruction of Amalek did, and as communion at the Lord's table now does) is better in the ſight of God, than hecatombs of bleeding ſacrifices, or clouds of ſmoking incenſe: and, conſequently, better than a miſapplied tenderneſs to any of our fellow creatures, or a miſguided zeal to promote their pence and edification. At the ſame time the prophet aſſures him, that when the Moſt High commands, nothing can excuſe a non-performance: becauſe diſobedience to a plain, poſitive, known command is juſtly cloſſed with idolatry and witchcraft.

A very ſenſible writer, in the concluſion of a diſcourſe upon this paſſage, obſerves; That we may learn from this text, what are the true characteriſtics of acceptable obedience. It muſt be implicit; founded immediately on the authority of God. We muſt not take upon us to judge of the moment and importance of any part of his will, further than he hath made it known himſelf. It is a very dangerous thing for us to make compariſons between one duty and another; eſpecially with a view of diſpenſing with any of them, or altering their order, and ſubſtituting one in another's place.'—Another 'character of true obedience is, that it be ſelf-denied and impartial; that it be not directed or qualified by our preſent intereſt—It is too common, that our own intereſt both points out the object, and aſſigns the meaſure of our obedience; and in that caſe, it does not deſerve the name of obedience to God at all. When the Chriſtian is devoted to God, ready at his call, and equally diſpoſed to any employment aſſigned him in providence, he then may be ſaid indeed to do his will,—It muſt 'be univerſal, without any exception. Saul, and the children of Iſrael, had complied ſo far with the order given them, that the greateſt part both of the people and ſubſtance of Amalek was deſtroyed, but he ſtopped ſhort, and knowingly l ſt unfiniſhed what had been enjoined him by the ſame authorityDr. Witherſpoon's Practic. Diſc. Vol. 1. p. 335, 336..

When a Paedobaptiſt applies for communion with Baptiſts, he acts upon a perſuaſion that he has been rightly and truly baptized: for there is reaſon to believe, that the generality of our Paedobaptiſt brethren would ſtart at the thought of partaking at the Lord's table, while they conſider themſelves as unbaptized. Conſequently, when our opponents admit one of them to communion, they confirm him in what they conſider as a falſe preſumption, and practically approve of what, at other times, they boldly pronounce a human invention, a tradition of men, and will-worſhip; for ſuch infant ſprinkling muſt be, if not a divine appointment. Nor can they exculpate themſelves; in this reſpect, unleſs they were profeſſedly to receive him, as unbaptized. Becauſe he conſiders himſelf as baptized; he deſires communion as baptized; nor has he any idea of ſitting down at the Lord's table, as unbaptized; well knowing, that ſuch an attempt would be contrary to the apoſtolic pattern, and to the ſenſe of the Chriſtian church in general.

That circumciſion was, by divine command, an indiſpenſable qualification, in every male, for a participation of the Jewiſh paſſover, and communion in the ſanctuary worſhip, is generally allowed. And though I am far from thinking that baptiſm came in the place of circumciſion, as many of our Paedobaptiſt brethren ſuppoſe; yet that the former is equally neceſſary to communion at the Lord's table, under the Chriſtian economy, as the latter was to every male, in order to partake of the paſchal feaſt, and to unite in the tabernacle ſervice, I am fully perſuaded. Nor is my opinion ſingular. It has been the ſenſe of the Chriſtian church in every age; and, excepting thoſe Baptiſts who plead for free communion, it is the voice of the Chriſtian world in general at this day.—I do not find that the neceſſity of circumciſion, for the purpoſes juſt mentioned, was ever controverted, either by the ancient or modern Jews. We will ſuppoſe, however, for the ſake of argument, that it was diſputed in the Jewiſh church; and that, amidſt a great variety of intereſting intelligence, which the Rabbinical writers pretend to give, concerning ancient cuſtoms and ancient diſputes, they are found to ſpeak as follows: In the days of our maſter, Moſes, diſputes aroſe about the nature and neceſſity of circumciſion: that is, whether the ancient rite was to be performed on the foreſkin, or on a finger; and, whether it was an indiſpenſably requiſite qualification, in every male, for a ſeat at the paſchal feaſt, and admiſſion to the ſanctuary worſhip. The generality of our fathers maintained, that no male, though a ſon of Abraham; that no Gentile, though he might acknowledge and ſerve Abraham's God; had any claim to communion in thoſe joyful and ſolemn ſervices, if he was not circumciſed according to the divine command, Others contended, with no leſs aſſurance, that circumciſion being only an outward ſign of what is internal and ſpiritual; every male, whether a deſcendent from the loins of our father Abraham, or one of the Gentile race, who knew and feared the God of Iſrael, had an undeniable claim to fellowſhip, though it were not the foreſkin of his fleſh, but a finger that was circumciſed. The latter aſſerted, with great confidence, that the holy bleſſed God having accepted ſuch; as plainly appeared by their having the internal and ſpiritual circumciſion; it would be abſurd and uncharitable to refuſe them communion. And when diſputing with their opponents, they would with an air of ſuperior confidence demand; Will you reject from fellowſhip thoſe whom God has received!—Abſolutely reject thoſe who have the thing ſignified, barely becauſe, in your opinion, they want the external ſign!—Thoſe who poſſeſs the ſubſtance, perhaps, to a much greater degree than yourſelves, merely becauſe they want the ſhadow! What, will you refuſe communion to a brother Iſraelite, or a pious Gentile, in the tabernacle here below, with whom you hope to enjoy everlaſting fellowſhip in the temple above! Strange attachment to the manner of performing an external rite!—Beſides, great allowances muſt be made for the prejudices of education. Theſe our brethren whom you reject, as if they were Heathens, as if they were abſolutely unclean; have been educated in the ſtrongeſt prejudices againſt what we think the true circumciſion. They have been taught from their earlieſt infancy, that though our fathers, for a few centuries after the rite was eſtabliſhed, generally circumciſed the foreſkin; yet that the part on which the ceremony was firſt performed, is by no means eſſential to the ordinance. And, therefore, at various inconveniences were found to attend the mode of adminiſtration then generally practiſed; inſtead of cutting off the praeputium, many began to circumciſe a finger; which has been the cuſtom in ſome of our tribes ever ſince, and which, they ſtrenuouſly plead, is not forbidden by any divine revelation. This, we readily acknowledge, is a miſtake; nor dare we, on any account, imitate their proceedings in that reſpect: becauſe, with us, there is no doubt, that the God of our fathers ordained it otherwiſe. But yet, as all have not the ſame opportunities of information, nor an equal meaſure of light; and as our brethren are verily perſuaded that they have been circumciſed according to the divine command; (for if they were not, they would readily comply with our mode of proceeding) it is our indiſpenſable duty to receive them in love, and not harraſs their minds with "doubtful diſputations" about a matter that is not eſſential. For we all worſhip the ſame God; and, ſo far as his moral worſhip is concerned, in the ſame way; though we happen to differ about an external rite, that is by no means eſſential, either to ſpiritual worſhip here, or to the ſalvation of our ſouls hereafter.—Beſides, though it be admitted that the divinely appointed mode of adminiſtering the ſacred rite is of ſome importance; yet it muſt be admitted, that the edification of ſuch as truly fear God is of infinitely greater importance. But, if you exclude them from the ſolemn ſanctuary worſhip, you debar them from a capital mean of their ſpiritual benefit. You ſhould alſo conſider, who is to be the judge of what is, or is not, the true circumciſion. Every man, moſt certainly, muſt judge for himſelf, and not one for another; elſe you deſtroy the right of private judgment; you invade the ſacred prerogative of conſcience; and tacitly advance a claim to infallibility. If your brethren, who circumciſe a finger inſtead of the part appointed, be ſatisfied in their own minds, they are circumciſed to themſelves: and while the anſwer of a good conſcience attends it, God will and does own them in it, to all the ends deſigned by it; ſo that while they conſider it as laying them under the ſame obligations to holineſs of heart and life, as we conſider our circumciſion to do us, why ſhould you not have fellowſhip with them?—Nor are you ſufficiently aware, how much you injure the cauſe of real religion, and promote the baneful intereſts of infidelity, by being ſo ſtrict and rigid. Were you to be more candid and charitable, in regard to this matter, it might be expected that numbers of our brethren, who, it muſt be allowed, adminiſter this rite in a very improper manner; would cordially unite with us, and, in time, utterly renounce their miſtake. We ſhould alſo have reaſon to hope, that many of our Gentile neighbours, who deteſt circumciſion, as performed by us, might become proſelytes to the Jewiſh religion, and worſhip the moſt high God in fellowſhip with us. But ſo long as you inſiſt, not only on the rite itſelf, (for that we ourſelves are not willing to give up entirely) but on that mode of adminiſtration which is ſo obnoxious to them, as indiſpenſably neceſſary to communion with you; it will be, not only a wall of partition between us and them, but a bone of contention among the choſen tribes themſelves. Conſequently it muſt impede, greatly impede, the exerciſe of that love to God, and that affection for man, which are of much greater importance than the moſt accurate performance of a merely external rite.

Now ſuppoſing our brethren in the courſe of their reading to meet with ſuch an account, what would they think of it? What would they ſay? They would, undoubtedly, ſuſpect the truth of the whole. They would conſider it as a Rabbinical fable. But how would their indignation riſe, were the fabulous narrator to proceed and aſſert; That Moſes and Joſhua, warmly eſpouſing this latter opinion, added much to its credit! This, they would ſay, is abſolutely incredible, and a vile aſperſion on the characters of thoſe illuſtrious ſaints. Had Nadab and Abihu been mentioned as the abettors of this unſcriptural practice, there would have been leſs reaſon to deny the truth of the whole relation; becauſe they were guilty of innovating in the worſhip of God, and were awfully puniſhed for it. But thus to repreſent the moſt pious, exemplary, and excellent men in all the Iſraelitiſh camp, is beyond the bounds, not only of credibility, but alſo of decency. Reflections of this kind, I am perſuaded, they would readily make, were they to find ſuch a narration in the Talmud, or in any Rabbinical author.—And now give me leave again to remind them; That, according to the judgment of the Chriſtian world in general, circumciſion was not more neceſſary for all the males, who deſired communion at the paſchal ſupper and in the ſolemn ſervices of the tabernacle, than baptiſm is to fellowſhip in the Chriſtian church, and a ſeat at the Lord's table—That there is, on their own principles, a wider and a more material difference between baptiſm, as now adminiſtered to infants, and baptiſm, as appointed by Jeſus Chriſt; than there would have been, between cutting off the foreſkin, and circumciſing a finger: becauſe the latter would have been circumciſion, and the circumciſion of a proper ſubject alſo, though not of the part required; but ſprinkling, whether infants or adults, is no more baptiſm, in their account, than it is immerſion —And that, had any members of the ancient ſynagogue introduced, or admitted, ſuch an alteration as that ſuppoſed; they might have defended it on the ſame general grounds, and with much greater plauſibility, in ſeveral reſpects at leaſt, than our brethren can the practice of free communion. For I appeal to my reader, whether the Pentateuch of Moſes and the ſcriptures of the prophets do not ſay as much of the one, as the evangelical hiſtory and the writings of the apoſtles do of the other?

Paul, when meeting with certain diſciples at Epheſus, deſired to know, whether they had received Holy Ghoſt ſince they believed. To whom they anſwered, We have not ſo much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghoſt. On which the apoſtle put the following queſtion: Unto what then were ye baptized? And they ſaid, Unto John's baptiſm. From which it plainly appears, that as theſe perſons profeſſed to be diſciples of Jeſus Chriſt, Paul took it for granted they had been baptized. For his query is not, Have you been baptized? But, Unto, or into, what then were ye baptized? He inferred their baptiſm from their profeſſion: and he had reaſon ſo to do. For he well knew, that the firſt adminiſtrator of the ordinance required a ſubmiſſion to it, of all that brought forth fruits meet for repentance; that the apoſtolic miniſtry demanded the ſame act of obedience, from all that believed in Jeſus Chriſt; and the adminiſtration of baptiſm is a part of the miniſterial office, being ſtrictly connected with teaching the diſciples of Chriſt, to obſerve all things which he has commanded. And, as an author before quoted, juſtly remarks; We find that the preachers of the goſpel always did it, and the people who gladly received the word, deſired it. How indifferent ſoever it appears to ſome in our days, yet the grace of God never failed to ſtir up an early regard to it in times of old. Mr. radb ••• y's Duty and Doct. Bap. p. 70.—In a preceding 〈◊〉 of the ſame Treatiſ ••• 〈◊〉 ſays I hear the •• 〈◊〉 ••• eral who ſuppoſe th ••• baptiſm, is only 〈…〉 of hoſe that are grown up ••••• t neglo ••• 〈◊〉 •••••• ves 〈◊〉 br •• re W ••• e 〈◊〉 is in 〈…〉 are quite wrong in practice. D ••••• de ••• 〈◊〉 advice of one who has more va •••• 〈…〉 happineſs, than 〈…〉 his own opi •••• 〈◊〉 will give you it in 〈…〉 Ananias 〈…〉 ••• ou? A iſo 〈◊〉 ap ined, waſhing away 〈◊〉 , nd •• lling 〈…〉 •••• e of the Lord. See, as above p. 16. —But though the great apoſtle, when meeting with thoſe diſciples at Epheſus, made no doubt of their having been baptized, even before they informed him of it; yet our brethren's conduct forbids us forming the ſame concluſion, with equal eaſe and certainty, concerning all that are in communion with them. Nay, Pacificus himſelf, for inſtance does 〈◊〉 conſider all that belong to his community 〈◊〉 ••• ptized p rſons. So that were the apoſtle's query addreſſ •• to him, with a little alteration; Into ••••• were the Paedobaptiſt members of your church ba ••• zed? His anſwer as a Baptiſt, muſt be; Into—nothing: for I do not conſider them as baptized at all.—Pan •• es before obſerved, when correcting ſome irreg ••••• ies in the church at Corinth, ſays: "We have no ſuch cuſtom, neither the churches of 〈…〉 which we may ſafely conclude, that what 〈…〉 •• iſed in the worſhip of God, which 〈◊〉 not a p •••• tient in the conduct of the apoſtles 〈◊〉 primitive churches, is unwarrantable. And as our opponents believe that Paul knew of no ſuch cuſtom as infant ſprinkling; as it alſo appears from his language to his diſciples at Epheſus, that he knew of no ſuch cuſtom, among believers, as deferring a ſubmiſſion to baptiſm for months and years; ſo we have reaſon to infer, that he was equally ignorant of any ſuch cuſtom, as admitting unbaptized believers to the Lord's table. Nay, our brethren do not pretend that he knew of any ſuch thing. But, however it was in the apoſtolic age, which is now hoary with great antiquity, that bold perverter of goſpel truth, Socinus, introduced the cuſtom of receiving unbaptized perſons to communion; many of his pupils adopted it; and our brethren continue it: which reminds us of the old ſaying, The times are changed, and we are changed in them.

Once more: Lither Jeſus Chriſt has informed us in the New Teſtament what bap •• in is, and what is requiſite to communion at his table, or he has not. If the former, we cannot admit any thing as baptiſm, which we believe is not ſo; nor receive any to communion, but thoſe whom we conſider as qualified according to his directions, without violating our allegiance to him as the King Meſſiah, and rebelling againſt his government. If the le ••• theſe is no judge in Iſrael, and every one may do that which is right in his own eyes, in regard to theſe inſtitutions. Yes, if our ord inſtituted baptiſm, and left it undetermined how and to whom it ſhould be adminiſtered; if he appointed the ſacred ſupper, without charcteri ing 〈◊〉 who are to partake of it; his miniſtering ſerva ••• •• ve a diſcretional power to adminiſter them how and to whom they pleaſe. And if ſo, our brethren may ſprinkle or immerſe, infants or adults, juſt as their own conveniency and the diſpoſitions of their people require. Nay, they may proceed a ſtep further, and admit the infant offspring of their Paedobaptiſt friends to the Lord's table; which was the general cuſtom for ſeveral ages, in the apoſtate ſtate of the Chriſtian church, and, as a learned author informs us, is yet the practice of very near half the Chriſtians in the world. Dr. Wall's Hiſt. •• ſant Bap. Part II. Chap. IX. Then their communion would be free indeed, entirely free from the ſhackles of divine commands, and from the untoward influence of apoſtolic precedent.

SECTION IV. Several Paſſages of Scripture conſidered, which our Brethren produce in favour of their Sentiments.

THE cauſe which our brethren undertake to defend, is denominated by them, Free Communion. That communion, then, for which they plead, is free. But here I beg leave to aſk, From what? The reſtraints of men? that is a laudable freedom. From the laws of Heaven? that were a licentious liberty. Abſurd, in theory; impoſſible, in fact. It never was, it never can be the caſe, that God ſhould inſtitute a poſitive ordinance of divine worſhip, as the Lord's ſupper undoubtedly is; and leave it entirely to the diſcretion of men, to whom it ſhould be adminiſtered. Free—for whom? For every one that will? This they do not pretend. For all who imagine themſelves believers and qualified for it? This they dare not aſſert. For, notwithſtanding all their candour and all their catholiciſm, they do not conſider every one that thinks himſelf a believer and deſires communion, as fit for it. Hence it is, they aſk a reaſon of the candidate's hope, and take the liberty of judging for themſelves, what his hope and the ground of it are. They think it their duty to inquire, in what light he views himſelf and what he believes concerning the Son of God. And if, in their judgment, he be not converted to Jeſus Chriſt, they put a negative on his requeſt; even tho' they feel an affection for him, as a moral, a ſincere, a well meaning man. Here, then, is another and great limitation; a boundary which it would not be lawful to ſet, if a poſitive inſtitution were not concerned, and if ſuch limitation were not fixed by the divine Inſtitutor. By parity of reaſon, therefore, if our Lord has given any other direction, relating to the ſame ordinance, it ſhould be regarded with equal reverence and equal punctuality.

What, then, is the freedom for which they plead? Why, that Baptiſt churches ſhould admit Paedobaptiſts into communion with them. In other words, That they ſhould admit believers to the Lord's table, whom they conſider as unbaptized. A very extraordinary poſition this! Such, however, is free communion: in defence of which, ſeveral pamphlets have, of late, been publiſhed. And who can tell, but ſome of our brethren may ſo improve on the doctrine of liberty, in regard to divine inſtitutions of a poſitive nature, as to favour us, ere long, with a Plea for free Baptiſm?—With a diſſertation, intended to prove the lawfulneſs, and, in ſome caſes, the neceſſity, of adminiſtering baptiſm to ſuch whom we conſider as unbelievers? eſpecially, if the candidates for that ordinance be firmly perſuaded in their own minds, that they are believers in Jeſus Chriſt. At the ſame time declaring, that it will be at the peril of greatly diſhonouring real religion, and not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity, if we refuſe.—But let us now briefly conſider what they ſay, in defence of their hypotheſis. They argue, from ſeveral paſſages of ſcripture; from the temper required of real Chriſtians, in their behaviour one towards another; and object againſt us our own conduct, in another reſpect.

The principal paſſages adduced from holy writ, and here to be conſidered, are the following:— Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful diſputations—for God hath received him—Receive ye one another, as Chriſt alſo received us, to the glory of God—God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witneſs, giving them the Holy Ghoſt, even as he did unto us: and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith—I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means ſave ſome. Rom xiv. 1, 3. and xv. 7. Acts xv. 8, 9.1 Cor. ix. 19—23. —On which paſſages we may obſerve in general; Whatever their meaning may be, except our opponents can make it appear, that they contain the grant of a diſpenſing power to goſpel miniſters and churches; that is, unleſs theſe divine declarations authorize the miniſters and churches of Chriſt, to ſet aſide an ordinance of his, or to invert the order of its adminiſtration, as they may think proper; they are far from anſwering the exigencies of their caſe, or ſerving the purpoſe for which they are cited.

Again: The texts produced do not ſo much as mention communion at the Lord's table, nor appear to have the leaſt reference to it. No; the Holy Ghoſt has other objects in view, in each of the contexts. And as theſe are the principal paſſages to which our brethren appeal in proof of their point, we may take it for granted, that better are not to be found; and, conſequently, as a tacit acknowledgment, that poſitive proof is wanting. But if it be allowed, that there is no poſitive evidence in favour of their practice, 〈◊〉 amounts to a conceſſion that there is no proof at all. Becauſe nothing of a poſitive and ritual nature can be proved a duty, or agreeable to the will of God, merely by our own reaſonings; nor by arguments formed on moral precepts and general rules of conduct. For if once we admit any thing in the worſhip of God, as a duty, that is grounded, either on far-fetched inferences from particular declarations of ſcripture, in which the holy penmen do not appear to have had the leaſt thought of the matter in queſtion; or on our own ideas of expediency and uſefulneſs, we ſhall not know where to ſtop. On this principle, a great number of ceremonies were brought into the church of Rome, and might be introduced by us, though not one of them could ſtand that divine query, "Who hath required this at your hand?" As it cannot be proved, by the deductions of reaſon, that it is the duty of any man to eat bread and to drink wine, as a branch of divine worſhip, but only from the teſtimony of God, ſo what he has revealed in regard to that matter, is our only rule in all that relates to the Lord's ſupper.Plain account of Bap. Courſe of Lett. to Bp. Hoadly, page 127, 128. Conſequently, as theſe paſſages ſay nothing at all about baptiſm, nor about communion at the Lord's table, either ſtrict, or free; they have little pertinency of application, or force of argument in them.

Our brethren maintain, when diſputing with Paedobaptiſts, that the New Teſtament knows no more of infant baptiſm, than it does of infant communion: and that many of the arguments adduced in defence of the former, will equally apply to the latter.Dr. Prieſtley is alſo of the ſame opinion. For he ſays, No objection can be made to this cuſtom, [i. e. of giving the Lord's ſupper to infants] but what may, with equal force, be made to the cuſtom of baptizing infants.' And he informs us, that Infant communion is to this day the practice of the Greek churches, of the Ruſſians, the Armenians, the Maronites, the Copts, the Aſſyrians, and probably all other oriental churches. Addreſs to Proteſt. Diſſent. on giving the Lord's Sup. to Children, p. 28, 31. Here they ſeem quite confident that they have truth on their ſide. But might not Dr Prieſtley, for inſtance, who maintains both, retort; That ſacred code of Chriſtian worſhip to which you appeal, knows as much of our ſentiments and practice as it does of yours? Produce your warrant from thoſe heavenly inſtitutes contained in the New Teſtament, for admitting a believer to the Lord's table, in a church of Chriſt, while that very church conſiders him as unbaptized; and you ſhall not wait long for equally authentic evidence, that infant baptiſm and infant communion have the ſanction of divine authority. You frequently aſſert, that our arguments formed on the covenant made with Abraham; on the rite of circumciſion; on the holineſs attributed, by Paul, to the children of believers; and ſeveral other paſſages of ſcripture, in defence of an infant's right to baptiſm, are inconcluſive; not only becauſe that ſacred inſtitution is not expreſsly mentioned in any of thoſe places; but alſo becauſe, in your opinion, nothing ſhort of an expreſs command, or a plain, apoſtolic example, can ſuffice to direct our practice, in the adminiſtration of ordinances that are of a poſitive kind. Yet, when pleading for free communion, you adopt this very method of arguing, and think it quite concluſive: otherwiſe you never would appeal with ſuch confidence as many of you do, to the paſſages now produced. In things of external appointment, ſays Dr. Samuel Clarke, and mere poſitive inſtitution, where we cannot, as in matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning the natural reaſon and ground of the obligation, and the original neceſſity of the thing itſelf; we have nothing to do but to obey the poſitive command. God is infinitely better able than we, to judge of the propriety and uſefulneſs of the things he inſtitutes; and it become us to obey with humility and reverence. Expoſ. of Church Catech. p. 305, 306. Edit. 2. —But let us take a more particular view of the paſſages now before us.

The converted Romans were commanded by Paul, to receive them that were weak in faith, as God and Chriſt had received them. And we are plainly informed, that the perſons intended were ſuch, as had not a clear diſcernment of their Chriſtian liberty, in regard to the eating of meats forbidden by the ceremonial law, and the obſervation of days, that was of old required by it. But what has this to do with free communion? Is there no way of receiving him that is weak in faith, but by admitting him to the Lord's table? Muſt the exhortation to receive a Chriſtian brother, be confined to that ſingle inſtance of true benevolence? Or, is our ſo doing the capital idea and the primary ſenſe of the precept, in any of Paul's writings? He ſays, in this very epiſtle, I commend unto you Phebe our ſiſter,—that ye receive her in the Lord. Was her admiſſion to the holy table the principal thing that he deſired of the believing Romans, on her account? No; he evidently had ſomething elſe in view; ſomething that would manifeſt their love to a diſciple of Chriſt, much more than barely permitting her to have communion with them in the ſacred ſupper. For he immediately adds; And that ye aſſiſt her in whatſoever buſineſs ſhe hath need of you. Rom. xvi. 1, 2. Or, did he ſolicit admiſſion to the Lord's table, for himſelf and his fellow miniſters, among the Corinthians, when he ſaid; Receive us; we have wronged no man; we have corrupted no man; we have defrauded no man? 2 Cor. vii. 2. Or, for Epaphroditus, when he thus expreſſed himſelf to the Philippians; Receive him, therefore, in the Lord, with all gladneſs, and hold ſuch in reputation? Philip. ii. 29. Or, for Oneſimus, when he ſaid to Philemon; Receive him, that is mine own bowels—Receive him as myſelf? Or, was communion at the Lord's tablePhilem. 12, 17. the principal thing which the apoſtle John had in his eye, when he ſaid; We therefore ought to receive ſuch, that we might be fellow helpers to the truth? 3 John 8. It is, I will venture to affirm, a much greater thing to receive either a weak or a ſtrong believer, in the ſenſe of theſe exhortations; than merely to grant him a place at the Lord's table. Why, then, ſhould our brethren plead for it as they do, as if it were the grand criterion of our acknowledging Paedobaptiſts to be real converts, and of our love to them, as ſuch?

Beſides, the faith of a ſincere believer may be as weak, and require as much forbearance, in regard to the holy ſupper, as in reſpect of baptiſm. A reformed and really converted Catholic may deſire fellowſhip with us, who ſtill retains the Popiſh error of communion in one kind only: but are we obliged by this apoſtolic precept, to mutilate the ſacred ordinance in condeſcenſion to his weakneſs?—To embrace the weak, as well as the ſtrong believer, in the arms of Chriſtian affection, is a capital duty of the moral law. To bear with a brother's infirmities, and to "forbear one another in love," are certainly required by that command which ſays; Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf; and would have been our duty, if neither baptiſm, nor the Lord's ſupper, had ever exiſted. But are we to regulate our conduct, in the admiſſion of perſons to a poſitive inſtitution;—to one which depends entirely on the ſovereign pleaſure of God, by inferences drawn from the general and natural duties of the moral law?—Were the precepts of that eternal law ever conſidered by the prieſts or the people of old, as the rule of adminiſtering poſitive inſtitutions? Had they not another ſyſtem of precepts, expreſs precepts, intended for that purpoſe? and was not ſuch a ritual abſolutely neceſſary?

Suppoſing, however, that there were no way of receiving one that is weak in faith, but by admitting him to the Lord's table, this text would be far from proving what our opponents deſire; unleſs they could make it appear, that the perſons of whom the apoſtle immediately ſpeaks, were not members of the church of Rome, when he gave the advice. There being diſputes among the believing Romans, about the eating of meats and the obſervation of days, affords no proof nor any ſhadow of proof, that they had not communion together at the Lord's table.—But admitting that to be a fact, of which there is not the leaſt evidence, the concluſion drawn from the paſſage would not be juſt, except it were alſo proved, that the "weak in faith" were unbaptized; or, at leaſt, ſo conſidered by their ſtronger brethren; for that is the point in diſpute between us. But that Paul conſidered the believing Romans to whom he wrote, as baptized Chriſtians, is allowed by all, ſo far as I have obſerved, who have no hypotheſis to ſerve, hy admitting a contrary ſuppoſition.The Socinians, the Quakers, and Mr. Bunyan agree, in referring us to Rom. vi. 3. 1 Cor. i. 14, 15, 16. and Gal. iii. 27. with a view to ſerve their ſeveral hypotheſes, which all unite in greatly depreciating the ordinance of baptiſm. The words of Mr. Bunyan, when ſpeaking of the apoſtolic times, and mentioning theſe three paſſages, are as follows: that all that were received into fellowſhip were even then baptized firſt, would ſtrain a weak man's wit to prove it, if arguments were cloſely made upon theſe three texts of holy ſcriptures.—And, a few pages after, when arguing from the ſecond of theſe apoſtolic teſtimonies, he ſays; By this negligent relating who were baptized by him [Paul] he ſheweth, that he made no ſuch matter of baptiſm, as ſome in theſe days do; nay, that he made no matter at all thereof, with reſpect to church communion. Works. Vol. I. p. 135. 144. For, as Dr. Goodwin obſerves, He argues from the known and generally received profeſſion and practice of all Chriſtians. Know ye not that ſo many of us as were bapti ••• . hat is, that whoever of us that profeſs baptiſm 〈◊〉 Chriſt, profeſs baptiſm into his death, as the thing intended by it. The us, there, is the generality of Chriſtians, diſtinguiſhed uſually by that word from Heathens: as, Rom. xiv. 7. 1 Cor. viii. 6. To Us there is but one God, &c. That is, we Chriſtians profeſs all, and generally ſo. And his ſcope being to ſhew, how ſanctification flows from being in Chriſt; his argument is drawn from a general principle of the us of Chriſtians—So that this expreſſion, as many of us, imports not, as if ſome were, and ſome not, baptized; for then his argument of ſanctification had not been binding to the generality of Chriſtians, which, it is evident, it was in his intention: but it imports the contrary, that as many as were Chriſtians, were all baptized, and were taught this to be the meaning of that grea ••• nt and princiciple of religion, that as they were baptized into Chriſt thereby, ſo alſo into his death. Works, Vol. IV. On the Government of the Churches of Chriſt, p. 30. Vid. H ornbeck. Socin. Conſ. Tom. III. p. 431, 432.

But God receives the weak in faith; and we are expreſsly commanded to receive one another, not to doubtful diſputations, but as Chriſt hath received us to the glory of God. Granted: yet permit me to aſk, Is the divine conduct, is the favour of God, or the kindneſs of Chriſt, in receiving ſinners, the rule of our proceeding in the adminiſtration of poſitive inſtitutions? Whom does God, whom does Chriſt receive? None but thoſe that believe and profeſs faith in the Lord Meſſiah? Our brethren will not affirm it. For if divine compaſſion did not extend to the dead in ſin; if the kindneſs of Chriſt did not relieve the enemies of God; none of our fallen race would ever be ſaved. But does it hence follow, that we muſt admit the unbelieving and the unconverted, either to baptiſm, or the holy table? Our gracious Lord freely accepts all that deſire it and all that come; but are we bound, by his example, to receive every one that ſolicits communion with us? Our opponents dare not aſſert it. For though the Great Supreme is entirely at liberty to do as he pleaſes, to reject or accept whom he will; yet it is not ſo with his miniſtering ſervants and profeſſing people, in regard to the ſacred ſupper. No; it is their indiſpenſable duty and their everlaſting honour, to regard his revealed will and obey his righteous commands. The divine precepts contained in the Bible, no the divine conduct in the adminiſtration of a ſovereign Providence, are the only rule of our obedience in all things relating to poſitive inſtitutions.

Beſides, goſpel churches are ſometimes obliged, by the laws of Chriſt, to exclude from their communion thoſe whom he has received; as appears from the caſe of the inceſtuous perſon in the church at Corinth. And have thoſe churches that practiſe free communion never excluded any for ſcandalous backſlidings; whom, notwithſtanding, they could not but conſider as received of Chriſt? What, do they never exclude any from fellowſhip with them, but ſuch of whom they have no hope! I cannot ſuppoſe, nor will they affirm any ſuch thing. But if there may be a juſt cauſe of excluding ſuch from communion whom God has received, though at preſent in a ſtate of backſliding; why may there not be a ſufficient reaſon of refuſing communion to ſome, whom we look upon as the objects of God's peculiar favour? Is there not as great a degree of diſapprobation diſcovered in the former caſe, as there is in the latter? and is not the word of God our only rule in both caſes? It is not every one, therefore, that is received of Jeſus Chriſt who is entitled to communion at his table; but ſuch, and only ſuch, as revere his authority, ſubmit to his ordinances, and obey the laws of his houſe.

And are our opponents verily perſuaded that baptiſm is a matter of "doubtful diſputation?" Why, then, do they not both ſprinkle and immerſe, infants and adults, that they may be ſure, in ſome inſtances at leaſt, of doing that which is right? Why ſo poſitive, on certain occaſions, when they preach, or publiſh, upon the ſubject? That it has been, and is diſputed, muſt be allowed: and ſo has almoſt every article of the Chriſtian faith; eſpecially ſuch articles as appear to us the cleareſt and of the greateſt importance. Witneſs thoſe doctrines relating to the Trinity and the Deity of Chriſt; his vicarious atonement and original ſin. Theſe have been much oftner diſputed, in ancient and modern times, than the mode and ſubject of baptiſm.—And has not almoſt every branch of Chriſtian worſhip been diſputed? The ſupper of our Lord has been much more frequently controverted, betwen Papiſts and Proteſtants, between Lutherans and Calviniſts, than ever baptiſm was among any profeſſors of Chriſtianity. Yet who, among our brethren, will dare to affert, that no Catholic, who ever diſputed for with holding the cup from the people, was received by Jeſus Chriſt? For that matter is not ſo clear, but real Chriſtians may poſſibly differ in their judgment and practice concerning it. Nay, ſuch doubts and difficulties are there attending the holy ſupper, that Bellarmine aſſures us, we cannot certainly determine from the expreſs words of ſcripture only, what there was in the cup, before our Lord bleſſed it; whether a little wine, or wine mixed with water, or ſtrong drink, or water only. Quid in calice fuerit ante conſecrationem, an vinum parum, an vinum aqua mi •• u , an ſitera; an aqua ſola, exſola Scriptura expr ••• non hab tur. Apud Voſs. Theſes Theolog. p. 486. And will Pacificus or Candidus, dare to aſſert, that the zealous Cardinal was abſolutely rejected of God? No; they cannot do it, without violating the amiable import of their ſeveral names.—The Quakers alſo, have diſputed the whole ordinance, and every pretence to it, as well as baptiſm, out of their aſſemblies. But is it lawful hence to conclude, that they are all rejected of Jeſus Chriſt? So true are thoſe words of Pacificus and of Candidus, his colleague: The points in baptiſm [and the Lord's ſupper] about which we [Papiſts and Lutherans, Quakers, Paedobaptiſts, and Antipaedobaptiſts] differ; are not ſo clearly ſtated in the Bible (however clear to us) but that even ſincere Chriſtians may miſtake them. We may, therefore; henceforth conſider baptiſm and the Lord"s ſupper, the only poſitive inſtitutions in the Chriſtian church, as juſtly reckoned among thoſe things that are of "doubtful diſputation:" but whether they are to have the firſt place among Paul's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I leave our brethren to determine. For to them the honour of claſſing a poſitive inſtitution of Chriſt among things ambig •••• is undoubtedly due; ſince all beſides themſelves look upon it as evident, either, that baptiſm is an indifferent thing, as Socinus, and ſome of his followers;Baptiſmum aqua tem indifferentem eſſe ſtatui us. Th ••• Nicho aid. De Eccleſ. p. 22. Apud Hornb. Soci . Conf. Tom. III, p. 250. or, that it ſhould be entirely lai ſide, as the Quakers; or, that it is a term of communion, which has even been the opinion and practice of the Chriſtian church in general. One ſtep further, and is will be matter of doubtful diſputation, whether both the poſitive appointments of our divine Lord ſhould not be quite diſcarded. For, that baptiſm ought to be adminiſtred prior to the ſacred ſupper, is as clearly revealed, as that either of them was intended for the uſe of believers in all ſucceeding ages.

Our honeſt friend, Barclay, when taking notice of thoſe diſputes which have been about the ſacred ſupper, ſays; The ground and matter of their conteſt lies in things extrinſic from, and unneceſſary to, the main matter. And this has been often the policy of Satan, to buſy people and amuſe them with outward ſigns, ſhadows, and forms; making them contend about it [them;] while, in the mean time, the ſubſtance is neglected—For there have been more animoſities and heats about this one particular, and more bloodſhed and contention, than about any other. And, ſurely, they are little acquainted with the ſtate of Proteſtant affairs, who know not, that their contentions about this have been more hurtful to the Reformation, than all the oppoſition they met with from their common adverſaries. Barclay's Apology, p. 455, 456. He adviſes, therefore, to give up the ordinance for the ſake of peace, and as the only effectual way of ſecuring tranquillity in the church of God—So the Socinians maintain, that we may either adminiſter or diſpenſe with baptiſm, as occaſion requires. For, ſays Velokelius, As all other indifferent things may be either uſed or omitted, as charity ſhall direct; even ſo baptiſm, if the honour of God and the love of our neighbour demand it, ſeems at ſometimes abſolutely neceſſary to be adminiſtered, in order to avoid giving offence. Ut omnia alia adiaphora,—pro eo ac charita praeſcribit, jam uſurpari, jam amitti poſſunt: ita et baptiſmus iſte, divinae gloria ratione, et proximi amore poſtulante, ut nimirum ſcandalum vitetur, adhibendus interdum plane videtur. Apud Hoornb. ubi ſupra, p. 266. —And as the Socinian pleads for the adminiſtration of baptiſm, on ſome occaſion; ſo Mr. Bunyan ſtrongly aſſerts the neceſſity of its omiſſion, on others. Theſe are his words: If water baptiſm, as the circumſtances with which the churches were peſtered of old, trouble the peace, wound the conſciences of the godly, diſmember and break their fellowſhips, it is, although an ordinance, for the preſent, to be prudently ſhunned. Works, Vol. I. p. 136. —How ſlight the barrier, how thin the partition, between free communion and Katabaptiſm! Thus baptiſm is treated, not as a branch of divine worſhip, but as a tool of human convenience; not as an ordinance of God and a mean of his glory, but as a happy expedient in the hands of men, to ſecure the applauſe of their fellow mortals;—that applauſe which is conſidered as due to perſons of a condeſcending, candid, catholic ſpirit. If the omiſſion of it would give offence, let it by all means be adminiſtered: and if the uſe of it would be attended with the ſame inconveniences, lay it aſide and ſay not a word about it. Such is the advice of Volkelius and Bunyan.

The reader, I take it for granted, can hardly forbear obſerving, what an admirable method is here propoſed by this truimvirate, Volkelius, Barclay, and Bunyan, in order to promote and ſecure peace among Chriſtian brethren. A method, it muſt be confeſſed, that is at once very comprehenſive, quite expeditious, and extremely eaſy. So comprehenſive, that it will apply to every caſe: ſo expeditious, that any controverſy may, by the happy expedient, be finiſhed in a trice: and ſo eaſy, that every one may have the benefit of it. Were it univerſally known and univerſally purſued, there would be ſoon be no diſputes at all, either about truth or duty. For the whole proceſs conſiſts in this; If divulging a truth believed, or practiſing a duty required, ſhould at any time give offence, or be likely ſo to do; keep the former to yourſelf, let the latter alone, and all ſhall be well. But how much more agreeable to ſcripture, is the following maxim of a celebrated author; The appointment of God, is the higheſt law, the Supreme neceſſity; which we ought rather to obey than indulge popular ignorance and weakneſs. Dei ordinatio nobis ſumma lex, ſuprema neceſſitas, cui potius parendum, quam populari ignorantiae et infirmitati indulgendum. Turretini Inſt. Theolog. Tom. III. Loc. XIX. Quaeſt. XIV. § 14. —From the manner of reaſoning ſometimes uſed by our opponents, and by thoſe three authors to whom I have juſt referred; one would imagine, that Socinians, Quakers, and thoſe Baptiſts who plead for free communion, were almoſt the only perſons in the Chriſtian world, that exerciſe a proper degree of can •• 〈◊〉 towards profeſſors of other denominations, or have a 〈◊〉 regard for peace among the people of God: but wh •• her this be a fact the reader will judge.

But is it poſſible for our opponents to imagine that Paul intended to place baptiſm on the ſame footing with certain meats and days; the former of which were forbidden, the latter enjoined, by the God of Iſrael, under the Jewiſh economy? What, baptiſm become an article of "doubtful diſputation" in ſo early a day! If, on the other hand, that inſpired writer had no thought of baptiſm when he mentioned "doubtful diſputations;" if what he there ſays about matters then in diſpute, regard things that belonged to an antiquated ritual; what authority have our brethren to put baptiſm on a level with them? Or where is the force of their argument from this paſſage?

Receive ye one another, as Chriſt alſo hath received us. Theſe words have been underſtood in a larger ſenſe than that for which our brethren plead. For ſome Paedobaptiſts have concluded from hence, that it is the indiſpenſable duty of a particular church to allow communion to all that deſire it: taking it for granted, no doubt, that none would requeſt the privilege but theſe who were baptized. This, the reader will certainly think is free communion. And, indeed, if this text warrant our brethren's practice, I ſee but little objection againſt its being underſtood in ſuch a latitude of ſignification. But, in oppoſition to ſuch a ſenſe of the paſſage, a Paedobaptiſt writer obſerves: This inference is glaringly forced and wide, diſcovering their ignorance of the true meaning and deſign of the text who make it. The apoſtle is not here ſpeaking of admiſſion to church-memberſhip at all;—nor does he conſider thoſe to whom he writes in the preciſe light of members of the church univerſal, but as members of a particular church, or body; among whom there was ſome difference of opinion about meats, &c. which was like to break their communion together, as is plain from the preceding chapter. The apoſtle ſets himſelf to prevent this, and to accompliſh a reconciliation. And, after a number of healing things, he concludes with theſe words; Receive ye one another. That is, ye who are ſaints at Rome, who have agreed to walk together in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord Jeſus; ye who are profeſſedly united in church-commumon, receive ye one another in love, as becometh ſaints, united in one body for mutual benefit. Bear ye one another's burdens: watch over and admoniſh one another in love, notwithſtanding of ſome difference in ſentiment among you: as to the eating certain meats and regarding certain days, let not that difference make any breach in your communion together as a church of Chriſt. But let the ſtrong bear with thoſe that are weak, and the weak not be offended with the liberty of the ſtrong.— Judge not one another uncharitably, but let brotherly love continue.—This is preciſely the apoſtle's meaning; as will appear to thoſe who look impartially into the connection of his argument; and by no means ſerves the purpoſe for which the objector, bring it. Smith's C ••••• nd. Account of the Form and Order of 〈◊〉 〈…〉 11 .

And ſuppoſing our brethren to argue from this paſſage only by way of analogy, their inference is equally weak, and their concluſion palpably forced: there being a great, an eſſential difference, between eating or not eating of certain meats, in the apoſtolic times; and our being baptized or not baptized, prior to communion at the Lord's table. For, tho' while the ceremonial law was in force, the Jews were obliged to abſtain from prohibited meats; yet our opponents will not affirm, that their obſervance of a negative precept was intended by the Eternal Sovereign, to anſwer ſimilar purpoſes with the ordinance of baptiſm, as appointed by Jeſus Chriſt. The latter is a ſolemn inſtitution of divine worſhip: but can this be aſſerted of the former? Baptiſm was inſtituted prior to the ſacred ſupper; was commanded to be adminiſtered to profeſſing believers, before they approached the holy table; and, in the apoſtolic age, for aught appears to the contrary, was conſtantly adminiſtered to believers previous to their having communion in the Chriſtian church. But can ſimilar things be affirmed concerning that abſtinence from certain meats, which were forbidden under the Jewiſh economy.

To conclude my remarks on the text before us, and to illuſtrate the paſſage. Candidus, we will ſuppoſe, is the paſtor of a baptiſt church, and that a diſpute ariſes among his people, about the lawfulneſs of eating blood, or any thing ſtrangled. The controverſy riſes high, and is carried on with too much heat of temper. Each party is blamed by the other; the one, as judaizing; the other, as violating a plain, apoſtolic precept.—A report of this comes to Irenaeus. Concerned and grieved at ſuch contentions and ſuch a breach of brotherly love, in a once flouriſhing and happy church, he writes a friendly letter; in which he bewails their hurtful conteſts, gives them his beſt advice, and, among other things, he ſays: Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful diſputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, deſpiſe him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Chriſt alſo received us to the glory of God.— In a while-after this healing epiſtle is publiſhed, and read by many. In the peruſal of which, ſome ſuſpect, and others conclude that the perſons exhorted to mutual forbearance, had not communion one with another, under the paſtoral care of Candidus, and that they who are ſtiled, "weak in faith," had never been baptized. Nay, ſome aſſert, that the mere want of baptiſm, in the opinion of Irenaeus, ought never to be objected againſt any that are candidates for communion at the Lord's table; nor ever be made a bar to fellowſhip in a church of Chriſt. Yet Irenaeus was never known, in any inſtance, to give the leaſt cauſe for ſuch a ſuſpicion. The application is eaſy: I ſhall therefore only aſk, Whether, in the ſuppoſed caſe, ſuch inferences would be genuine and juſt, or forced and unnatural? and, whether they who drew them might not be ſuſpected of being, either very fanciful and weak, or as acting under the power of ſome prejudice? The reader will pardon my prolixity on this paſſage, when he conſiders that our opponents lay a very great ſtreſs upon it.

By the text produced from the acts of the apoſtles we learn, that "God is no reſpecter of perſons;" that he, as an abſolute ſovereign, beſtows his favours on Jews and Gentiles without any difference. But will our brethren infer from hence, that they whoſe honour and happineſs it is to be his obedient ſervants, are entirely at liberty to receive to communion at the Lord's table all that believe, without any difference? Can they juſtly conclude, that becauſe Jehovah diſpenſes his bleſſings as he pleaſes, they may adminiſter, or omit, his poſitive inſtitutions as they pleaſe?

Once more: They produce, as much in their favour, the declarations of Paul to the church at Corinth,1 Cor. ix. 19—23. relating to his own conduct. And what do we learn in general from this paſſage, but that he, out of his great concern for the good of mankind, and his abundant zeal for the glory of God, was willing to do, or forbear, any thing that was lawful, in order to gain an impartial hearing from both Jews and Gentiles wherever he came? I ſaid, any thing that was lawful; the rule of which is the divine precept, or ſome example warranted by divine authority. Nor can we view theſe words in a more extenſive ſenſe, without implicitly charging the great apoſtle with temporizing, and highly impeaching his exalted character.—But what has this text, any more than the former, to do with the adminiſtration, or laying aſide, of poſitive inſtitutions? It was the duty of Aaron, as well as of Paul, and of us, to ſeek the happineſs of his fellow creatures and the honour of God, to the utmoſt of his ability. But was this general obligation the rule of his performing the ſolemn ſanctuary ſervices on the great day of atonement? Could he conclude from hence, that if the diſ ••• tions of the people required it, he was at liberty to omit any of the ſacred rites, or to tranſpoſe the order in which Jehovah commanded they ſhould be performed? If, however, any of our opponents can make it appear, that this paſſage really has a relation to the poſitive appointments of Chriſt; it muſt be conſidered as the Magna Charta of a diſpenſing, prieſtly power, in regard to thoſe inſtitutions. And, conſequently, if our brethren can make out their claim to the honour, free communion will be eſtabliſhed with a witneſs. In ſuch a caſe it might be expected, that the next advocate for it, when citing the paſſage, would comment upon it, and addreſs us in the following manner: This text is full to my purpoſe. It contains all I could wiſh, when contending with my ſtricter brethren. For hence it is plain, that I am at liberty, perfectly at liberty, to omit, or adminiſter, the ordinance of baptiſm, juſt as the diſpoſitions and choice of my hearers may render it convenient. Yes, ye ſtrict Baptiſts! this admirable text authorizes me, in condeſcenſion to the weakneſs of my ſincere hearers, not only to receive Paedobaptiſts into communion; for that is a mere trifle, with ſuch a patent of church power in my hand; but alſo Semi-Quakers, who reject baptiſm; and converted Catholics, who mutilate the ſacred ſupper; yea to baptize the infant offspring of any who ſhall deſire it. By doing of which, I hope to obtain the favour of many reſpectable Paedobaptiſts, who have been extremely offended by that rigid and forbidding conduct, for which you are ſo notorious. Yes, and by diſpenſing with baptiſm, in ſome inſtances, I doubt not but I ſhall convince many of the utility and neceſſity of it; which you know, would be an 〈◊〉 method of producing conviction, and 〈◊〉 great honour to my cauſe. This text—what ſhall I ſay? this wonderfully comprehenſive paſſage, gives me a diſcretionary power to do juſt as I pleaſe in the houſe of God, in regard to baptiſm and communion.

SECTION V. The Temper required of Chriſtians towards one another, not contrary to our Practice—Our Conduct freed from the Charge of Inconſiſtency—No Reaſon to exalt the Lord's Supper, in point of importance, us greatly ſuperior to the Ordinance of Baptiſm.

NOTHING is more common with our opponents, when pleading for free communion, than to diſplay the excellence of Chriſtian charity; and to urge the propriety, the uti •••• , the neceſſity of earing with one another's miſtakes, in matters that are non-eſſential; in which number they claſs the ordinance of baptiſm. From conſiderations of this kind, they infer the lawfulneſs of admitting Paedobaptiſts to communion with them.—Not fundamental—Non-eſſential. Theſe negative epithets they frequently apply to baptiſm. And might they not be applied, with equal propriety to the Lord's ſupper? But in what reſpect is a ſubmiſſion to baptiſm non-eſſential? To our juſtifying righteouſneſs, our acceptance with God, or an intereſt in the divine favour? So is the Lord's ſupper; and ſo is every branch of our obedience. For they will readily allow, that an intereſt in the divine favour, is not obtained by the miſerable ſinner, but granted by the Eternal Sovereign. That a juſtifying righteouſneſs is not the reſult of human endeavours, but the work of our heavenly Subſtitute, and a gift of boundleſs grace. And that acceptance with the high and holy God, is not on conditions performed by us but in conſideration of the vicarious obedience and propitiatory ſufferings of the great Immanuel. Nay, ſince our firſt father's apoſtacy, there never was an ordinance appointed of God, there never was a command given to man, that was intended to anſwer any ſuch end.

Baptiſm is not fundamental; is not eſſential. True; it limited to the foregoing caſes. But are we hence to infer, that it is not neceſſary on other accounts and in other views? If ſo, we may alter, or lay it aſide, juſt as we pleaſe; and, on the ſame principle, we may diſmiſs, as non-eſſential, all order and every ordinance in the church of God.

Is not the inſtitution of baptiſm a branch of divine worſhip? And is not the adminiſtration of it, prior to the Lord's ſupper, eſſential to that order in which Chriſt commanded his poſitive appointments to be regarded? Nay, Pacificus himſelf tacitly allows, that the practice of free communion is a breach of order in goſpel churches. For, in anſwer to an objection of this kind, he ſays; Though it be admitted that the order of churches is of great importance, yet it muſt be admitted that the edification of Chriſtians, and their obedience to the acknowledged command of Chriſt to all his diſciples, "Do this in remembrance of me," are points of infinitely greater importance; the leaſt therefore ought to give way to the greateſt.—The order of churches, then, is of great importance, Pacificus himſelf being judge; and Candidus, his colleague, acknowledges, that it is of ſome importance. Nor could they deny it, without impeaching the wiſdom, or the goodneſs of Chriſt, as Lord over his own houſe; and impoſing that injunction of the Holy Ghoſt, Let all things be done decently and in order. And as the Divine Spirit requires the obſervation of order in the church of God, ſo Paul commends the Corinthians for "keeping the ordinances as he delivered them;" and expreſſes a holy joy, on "beholding the order" of that Chriſtian church which was at Coloſſe. But that order which the great Lord of all appointed, and in the practice of which the good apoſtle ſincerely rejoiced, our brethren, it ſeems, conſider as a mere trifle—as comparatively nothing. For what is any thing that has only a finite importance attending it, when compared with that which is of infinite importance? On ſuch a compariſon, it ſinks into littleneſs; it is Ioſt in obſcurity. Yet thus our opponents venture to ſtate the comparative worth of church order, and the edification of individuals.—But give me leave here to inquire, Whether the primitive order of goſpel churches can be detached from the legiſlative authority of Jeſus Chriſt? And, whether the exerciſe of that authority can be conſidered as having no connection with his honour? To anſwer theſe queſtions in the negative, free communion itſelf can hardly demur. Conſequently, a breach of that order which Chriſt appointed, as king in Zion, muſt be conſidered as an oppoſition to his crown and dignity; and his honour is of much greater importance than the edification of believers. For our Jeſus and our Lawgiver is Jehovah; between whoſe honour and the happineſs of ſinful worms, there is, there can be no compariſon. For the latter is only a mean, whereas the former is the grand end, not only of a church ſtate, but of the whole economy of providence and grace. I may, therefore, venture to retort the argument; Though it be admitted, that the edification of Chriſtians is of great importance; yet it muſt be allowed, that the honour of our divine Sovereign is of infinitely greater importance; and, conſequently, the primitive order of the goſpel churches ſhould be obſerved.

Again: Are not my readers a little ſurpriſed at the reaſoning of our opponents which I have juſt produced? Are they not ready to ſay, with ſome of old, "May we know what this new doctrine is?" What, reverſe the order of churches, appointed by God himſelf, with a view to edification! Diſpenſe with a poſitive ordinance of heaven, and break a divine command, under the fair pretence of promoting obedience to Chriſt! Our brethren, in pleading for free communion, bring certain ſtrange things to our ears; we would know, therefore, what theſe things mean, and how they may be ſupported. For if we are obliged, in ſome caſes, to ſet aſide an ordinance of divine worſhip, and to break a poſitive command, in order that certain individuals may perform another poſitive injunction of the great Legiſlator; the laws of Chriſt are not half ſo conſiſtent as Paul's preaching; which was not yea and nay, as thoſe would be, if the argument here oppoſed were valid.—Nor have we, that I remember, any thing like a parallel caſe, either in the Old or New Teſtament. We find, indeed, an inſtance, or two, of poſitive and typical rites giving way to natural neceſſities and moral obligations, when the performance of both was impracticable; as, when David are of the ſhew ••• ead, without incurring a divine cenſure: but we have no example of a poſitive being ſet aſide, in favour of any one's ignorance or prejudice againſt it, that he might be edified by ſubmitting to another poſitive inſtitution, of which he deſired to partake. That maxim of our Lord, I will have mercy and not ſacrifice; is, therefore, totally inapplicable in the preſent caſe.

Mr. Bunyan, I know, ſtrenuouſly pleads the neglect of circumciſion by the Iſraelites in the wilderneſs, while they attended on other poſitive appointments of God, as arguing ſtrongly for free commuon; but he ſeems to have forgotten that the omiſſion of which he ſpeaks, is keenly cenſured by the Holy Ghoſt. The uncircumciſed ſtate of the people, whatever might be the occaſion of it, is called, a reproach, "the reproach of Egypt;" which odium was rolled from them on the borders of Canaan, and the place in which they were circumciſed was called by a new name, to perpetuate the memory of that event.Joſh. v. 9. Now, as that neglect of the Iſraelites was a breach of the divine command, a reproach to their character as the ſons of Abraham, and ſtands condemned by the Spirit of God; it cannot be pleaded in defence of a ſimilar omiſſion, with the leaſt appearance of reaſon. And if ſo, I leave our brethren to judge whether it can be imitated without injuring the honour of true religion, and promoting the cauſe of infidelity.—Nor is that other inſtance, which the ſame author produces, relating to the feaſt of paſſover, in the reign of Hezekiah, any more to his purpoſe. For though many of the people were not cleanſed according to the purification of the ſanctuary; though they did eat the paſſover otherwiſe than it was written," and were accepted of God; yet Hezekiah was ſo conſcious of thoſe irregularities, that he deprecated the divine anger, ſaying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to ſeek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not not cleanſed according to the purification of the ſanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.2 Cron. xxx. 18, 19, 20. With what ſhadow of reaſon, then, or of reverence for God's commands, can any one plead this inſtance in favour of free communion? What, ſhall a deviation from the divine rule, in the performance of ſacred rites—a deviation that is acknowledged as criminal before the Lord, and for which pardon is requeſted, be adduced, as a precedent for the conduct of Chriſtians! What would our brethren, what would Mr. Bunyan himſelf have thought of Hezekiah and his people, had they taken the liberty of repeating the diſorderly conduct, whenever they celebrated the paſchal anniverſary?—Taken the liberty of tranſgreſſing the divine rule, becauſe Jehovah had o ••• graciouſly pardoned their irregularities, and accepted their ſervices, on a ſimilar occaſion? Would they not have been chargeable with hold preſumption, and with doing evil that good might come?—But I return to our candid and peaceful opponents.

Diſturb and break the order of churches, or order by Jeſus Chriſt, with a view to edification? The reader will here obſerve, the order intended is that of adminiſtering baptiſm to believers, before they are admitted to the Lord's table. That infraction of order, therefore, for which they plead, is no other than ſetting aſide an ordinance, allowed to be divine; and this to promote the edification of thoſe concerned. Very extraordinary, I muſt confeſs? For profeſſors in every age, have been more diſpoſed to increaſe the number of religious rites, than to leſſen it, with a view to edification. So the Jews of old frequently acted, and as frequently offended God. So the church of Rome has appointed many forms and rites or worſhip, with a view to the edification of her deluded votaries. The church of England alſo has retained the ſign of the croſs in baptiſm, and claims a power to decree rites and ceremonies in divine worſhip whenever ſhe pleaſes; and all, no doubt, with a view to edification. Yet I never heard that either of thoſe eſtabliſhments, arrogant as the former is, ever talked of altering the primitive order of the Chriſtion church, or of omitting an ordinance, allowed to be divine, with a view to edification. Our brethren, however, plead for this; and, which is equally wonderful, they plead for it under the ſpecious pretext, that a command of Chriſt may be performed. But is not baptiſm a command, an acknowledged command of Chriſt? And was it not graciouſly intended, as well as the holy ſupper, for the edification of Chriſtians? Or, do our opponents imagine, that we may ſlight, with impunity, one command, provided we be but careful to obſerve another: even though the command neglected has a prior claim on our obedience?—In oppoſition to their novel way of proceeding, and their unprecedented manner of talking, I will preſent my reader with the ſage maxim of a ſmart writer. He [Chriſt] has not publiſhed his laws as men do theirs, with thoſe imperfections, that they muſt be explained and mendedMr. Bradbury's Duty and Doct. Bap. p. 24.. To which I may add the following declarations of a learned pen: We muſt ſerve God, not as we think fit, but as he hath appointed. God muſt be judge of his own honour—Nothing, then, is ſmall, whereupon depends the ſanctity of God's commandment and our obediencePemble's Introduct. to Worthy 〈◊〉 . the Lord's ſupper. p. 21, 31. There is, however, little need of the maxims, or the declarations of men, while we have the deciſion of Him who purchaſed the church with his own blood; of—Him who is to be our final judge. Now the language of that ſublime Being is; In all things that I have ſaid unto you, he circumſpect—Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you. And it is worthy of being remarked, that it ſtands recorded, to the honour of Moſes, ſeven or eight times in one chapter, that he did as the Lord commanded himSee Exod. xl..

The queſtion is not, whatever our opponents may think, Whether baptiſm is eſſential to our ſalvation? But, Whether God has not commanded it? Whether It is not a believer's duty to be found in it? And, Whether the paſtor and members of a goſpel church can juſtify themſelves, in admitting perſons to communion that have never been baptized? On the principle aſſumed by our oppoſers, a profeſſor that has no inclination to obey the divine command, in any particular inſtance, may vindicate his refuſal by ſaying; The performance of it is not eſſential to my happineſs; for a ſinner may be ſaved without it A mode of arguing this, that is big with rebellion againſt the dominion of God: A vile antinomian principle, which, purſued in its conſequences, is pregnant with ruin to immortal ſouls. What, ſhall we avoid nothing that God has commanded, unleſs we look upon it as eſſentially neceſſary to our future felicity! Is this the way to manifeſt our faith in Jeſus and love to God!—How much better is the reaſoning of Mr. Charnock, when he ſays! Deus voluit, is a ſufficient motive; and we cannot free ourſelves from the cenſure of diſobedience, if we obſerve not his commands in the ſame manner that he enjoins them; in their circumſtances, as well as their ſubſtance—Who can, upon a better account, challenge an exemption from poſitive inſtitutions than our Saviour, who had no need of them? Yet how obſervant was he of them, becauſe they were eſtabliſhed by divine authority! So that he calls his ſubmitting to be baptized of John, a fulfilling of righteouſneſs—Is it not a great ingratitude to God, to deſpiſe what he commands as a privilege? Were not the apoſtles men of an extraordinary meaſure of the Spirit, becauſe of their extraordinary employments? And did they not exerciſe themſelves in the inſtitutions of Chriſt? How have many [meaning the Quakers] proceeded from the ſlighting of Chriſt's inſtitutions, to the denying the authority of his word! A ſlighting Chriſt himſelf, crucified at Jeruſalem, to ſet up an imaginary Chriſt within them *!

But muſt we not exerciſe Chriſtian charity, and bear with one another's infirmities? Should we not Works, Vol. II p. 766, 773, 775 ſeek peace, and endeavour to promote harmony among the people of God? Undoubtedly: yet give me leave to aſk, Is there no way to exerciſe love and forbearance without practiſing free communion? Cannot we promote peace and harmony without practically approving of infant ſprinkling, as if it were a divine ordinance; while we are firmly perſuaded that God never appointed it? Or, are we bound to admit as a fact, what we verily believe is a falſhood; The diſtinction between a Chriſtian who holds what I conſider as a practical error in the worſhip of God, and the miſtake maintained, is wide and obvious. It is not an erroneous principle, or an irregular practice, that is the object of genuine charity. No; it is the perſon who maintains an error, not the miſtake defended, that calls for my candour. The former, I am bound by the higheſt authority, to love as myſelf; the latter, I ſhould ever conſider as inimical to the honour of God, as unfriendly to my neighbour's happineſs, and therefore diſcourage it, in the exerciſe of Chriſtian tempers, through the whole of my conduct.—It is freely allowed, that a miſtake which relates merely to the mode and ſubject of baptiſm, is comparatively ſmall; but ſtill, while I conſider the aſperſion of infants as a human invention in the ſolemn ſervice of God, I am bound to enter my proteſt againſt it; and by a uniform practice to ſhew, that I am a Baptiſt— the ſame when a Paedobaptiſt brother deſires communion with me, as when one of my own perſuaſion makes a ſimilar requeſt. Thus proving that I act, not under the impulſe of paſſion, but on a dictate of judgment: and then the moſt violent Paedobaptiſt opponents will have no ſhadow of reaſon to impeach my integrity;—no pretence for ſurmiſing, that when I gave the right hand of fellowſhip to ſuch as have been immerſed on a profeſſion of faith, I act on principles of conſcience; but when admitting ſuch to communion, who have been only ſprinkled in their infancy, on motives of convenience. For it is allowed by all the world, that conſiſtency is the beſt evidence of ſincerity.

I would alſo take the liberty here to obſerve, that ſome of thoſe churches in which free communion has been practiſed, have not been the moſt remarkable for brotherly love, or Chriſtian peace and harmony. Has the paſtor of a church ſo conſtituted, being a Baptiſt, never found, that his Paedobaptiſt brethren have been a little offended, when he has ventured freely to ſpeak his mind on the mode and ſubject of baptiſm? When Paedobaptiſt candidates for communion have been propoſed to ſuch a church, have thoſe members who eſpouſed the ſame ſentiment never diſcovered a degree of pleaſure, in the thought of having their number and influence increaſed in the comnity, that has excited the jealouſy of their Baptiſt brethren? When, on the contrary, there has been a conſiderable addition to the number of Baptiſt members, has not an equal degree of pleaſure in them, raiſed ſimilar ſuſpicions in the minds of their Paedobaptiſt brethren? And are not ſuſpicions and jealouſies of this kind, the natural effects of ſuch a conſtitution? Muſt not a Baptiſt, as ſuch, deſire his own ſentiment and practice to increaſe and prevail, while he conſiders them as agreeable to the will and command of his Lord? And muſt not a Paedobaptiſt, as ſuch, ſincerely wiſh that his opinion and practice may ſpread and prevail, ſo long as he conſiders infant ſprinkling in the light of a divine appointment? To ſuppoſe a member of ſuch a church, whether he be Baptiſt or Paedobaptiſt, to love God, and firmly believe his own ſentiment concerning baptiſm to be a divine truth; and yet be indifferent whether that or its oppoſite prevail, involves a contradiction. For he who is indifferent to the performance of what he conſiders as a command of God, treats God himſelf with an equal degree of indifference: there being no poſſible way of expreſſing our affection for God, but by regarding his revealed will. This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. Now, as our opponents muſt allow, that their communities are liable to all thoſe other imperfections which are common to the real churches of Chriſt; ſo, I preſume, the reader will hardly forbear concluding, that free communion expoſes them to ſome additional diſadvantages, which are peculiar to themſelves.

Beſides, though many of our Paedobaptiſt friends aunex thoſe pleaſing epithets, candid and catholic, to the names of our oppoſers; I would not have them be too much elated with ſuch aſcriptions of honour. For, is it not a fact, that others who plead for infant baptiſm, and thoſe not leſs wiſe and diſcerning, conſider their conduct in a very different point of light? Do they not look upon it as ſavouring more of carnal policy, than of Chriſtian charity; and as being much better calculated to expreſs their deſire of popularity, in adding to the number of their communicants, by opening a back door for the members of Paedobaptiſt churches to enter, than to promote the edification of ſai ••• , or to maintain the purity of divine worſhip, conſidering their avowed ſentiments in regard to baptiſm? —A Paedobaptiſt, when remonſtrating againſt the conduct of ſome Independent churches, that received Baptiſts into communion with them, ſays; Let men pretend what they can for ſuch a botch-p lch communion in their churches, I ſtedfaſtly believe the event and iſſue of ſuch practices will, ſooner or later, convince all gainſayers, that it neither pleaſeth Chriſt, nor is any way promotive of true peace or goſpel holineſs in the churches of God's people— I ſhall never be reconciled to that charity, which, in pretence of peace and moderation, opens the church's door to church-disjointing principles. And he entitles his performance, The ſin and danger of admitting Anabaptiſts to continue in the Congregational churches, and the inconſiſtency of ſuch a practice with the principles of b th. In Croſby's Hiſt. Bap. Vol. III. page 45, 46, 47. —Thus, while our opponents gain the applauſe of ſome Paedobaptiſts, they incur the cenſure of others, who conſider their conduct as inconſiſtent with Antipaedobaptiſt principles. Juſt as thoſe Diſſenters who have occaſionally conformed to the National Eſtabliſhment, with a view to ſecular honours or temporal emoluments; and who, by ſo doing, have converted the ſacred ſupper into a mere tool of ambition, or of avarice; while they have pleaſed ſome Conformiſts, have offended others. For though ſuch Diſſenters have pretended a concern for the public good, as the ruling motive, and have ſhewn that they were far from being bigots to the principles of Nonconformity; yet member of the National church have not been wanting, who deſpiſed their duplicity of conduct; who have cenſured it as a criminal neutrality in religion, and as halting between two opinions, to the great diſhonour of both; who have repeatedly ſounded that ſtartling query in their ears. Far God, or for Baal? and have pronounced them, amphibious Chriſtians. See Mr. Stubbs's Serm. entitled, For God or for Baal Publiſhed, 1702.

Here one can hardly avoid obſerving, the very peculiar treatment with which the Baptiſts in general meet from their Paedobaptiſt brethren. Do we ſtrictly abide by our own principles, admitting none to communion with us, but thoſe whom we conſider as baptized believers? We are cenſured by many of them, as uncharitably rigid, and are called, by one gentleman, watery bigots. Do any of our denomination, under a plea of catholiciſm, depart from their avowed ſentiments, and connive at infant ſprinkling?— They are ſuſpected, by others of the Paedobaptiſts, as a ſet of temporizers. So that, like thoſe unhappy perſons who fell into the hand of Procruſtes, ſome of us are too ſhort, and we muſt be ſ ret l ed; others are too long, and they muſt be lopped.—But I return to my argument.

It ſhould be obſerved, that forbearance and love, not leſs than reſolution and zeal, muſt be directed in the whole extent of their exerciſe, by the word of God; elſe we may greatly offend and become partakers of other men's ſins, by conniving when we ought to reprove. If the divine precepts, relating to love and forbearance, will apply to the caſe in hand; or ſo as to juſtify our connivance at an alteration, a corruption, or an omiſſion of baptiſm; they will do the ſame in regard to the Lord's ſupper.— And then we are bound to bear with ſincere Papiſts, in their mutilation of the latter; and to exculpate our upright friends the Quakers, in their oppoſition to both. For it cannot be proved that baptiſm is leſs fundamental than the ſacred ſupper.— There is a falſe, ungodly charity, ſays a ſenſible Paedobaptiſt writer, a ſtrange fire that proceeds not from the Lord; a charity that gives up the honour of religion, merely becauſe we will not be at the pains to defend it—Vile principles can eaſily cover themſelves with the names of temper, charity, moderation, and forbearance; but thoſe glorious things are not to be confounded with lukewarmneſs, ſelf-ſeeking, lazineſs, or ignorance—As there is a cloke of covetouſneſs, ſo there is a cloke of fear and cowardice —You are never to make peace with men at the expence of any truth, that is revealed to you by the great God; becauſe that is offering up his glory in ſacrifice to your own—Do not diſmember the Chriſtian religion, but take it all together: charity was never deſigned to be the tool of unbelief. See how the Spirit has connected both our principles and duties. Follow peace with all men, and holineſs, without which no man ſhall ſee the Lord.'Mr. Bradbury's Duty and Doct. of Bap. p. 201, 213, 214.—'I know not that man in England, ſays Dr. Owen, who is willing to go farther in forbearance, love, and communion with all that fear God, and hold the foundation, than I am: but this is never to be done by a condeſcenſion from the exactneſs of the leaſt apex of goſpel truth. In Mr. Bradbury, as before, p. 198.

Another Paedobaptiſt author, when treating on charity and forbearance, expreſſes himſelf in the following language. A conſiderable ſuccedaneum for the Chriſtian unity, is the catholic charity; which is like the charity commended by Paul, in only this one circumſtance, that it "groweth exceedingly" —Among the ſtricter ſort, it goes chiefly under the name of forbearance. We ſhall be much miſtaken if we think that, by this ſoft and agreeable word, is chiefly meant the tenderneſs and compaſſion inculcated by the precepts of Jeſus Chriſt and his apoſtles. It ſtrictly means, an agreement to differ quietly about the doctrines and commandments of the goſpel, without interruption of viſible fellowſhip. They diſtinguiſh carefully between fundamentals, or things neceſſary to be believed and practiſed; and circumſtantials, or things that are indifferent. Now whatever foundation there may be for ſuch a diſtinction in human ſyſtems of religion; it certainly looks very ill-becoming in the churches of Chriſt, to queſtion how for He is to be •• lieved and obeyed. Our modern churches—have nearly agreed to hold all thoſe things indifferent, which would be inconvenient and diſreputable; and to have communion together, in obſerving ſomewhat like the cuſtoms of their forefathers.

Many of the p •• ineſt ſayings of Jeſus Chriſt and the apoſtles, are treated with high contempt, by the advocates of this forbearance.—The common people are perſuaded to believe, that all the ancient inſtitutions of Chriſtianity were merely local and temporary; excepting ſuch as the learned have agreed to be ſuitable to th ſe times; or, which have been cuſtomarily obſerved by their predeceſſors. But it would well become the doctors in divinity to ſhow, by what authority any injunction of God can be revoked, beſides it's own: or, how any man's conſcience can be lawfully releaſed, by cuſtom, example, or human authority, from obſerving ſuch things as were inſtituted by the apoſtles of Chriſt, in his name.—This corrupt forbearauce had no allowed place in the primitive churches. The apoſtle, in the epiſtle to the Epheſians, required of them, to adorn their "vocation with all lowlineſs and meekneſs, with long ſuffering, forbearing one another in love." But had they diſpenſed with the laws of Chriſt, for convenience and eaſe, it had been forbearing one another in hatred. For thoſe laws were expreſſions of his love; the moſt fervent love that was ever ſhewn amongſt men, directed by infallible wiſdom. Whoſoever, therefore, would obliterate them, or any how attempt to change them, muſt either ſuppoſe himſelf wiſer than Jeſus Chriſt, or a greater friend to mankind. He muſt be moved, either by an enormous ſelf-conceit; or by the ſpirit of malevolence.

The more thinking part of religious men, obſerving what great miſchiefs have ariſen from contentions about truth,—have found it moſt deſirable to let truth alone; and to concern themſelves chiefly about living profitably in civil ſociety. To be of ſome religion is but decent; and the intereſts of human life require that it be popular and compliant. If men have different notions of Jeſus Chriſt, his divinity, his facrifice, his kingdom, and the cuſtoms of his religion, even from what the apoſtles ſeemed to have; charity [with many] demands that we think well of their religious characters, notwithſtanding this. It is unbecoming the modeſty of wiſe men to be confident on any ſide; and contending earneſtly for opinions, injures the peace of the Chriſtian church. Thus kind and humble is modern charity.—Inſtead of rejoicing in, or with the truth, it rejoiceth in contemplating the admirable piety that may be produced from ſo many different, yea, oppoſite principles.— It is very true, that the power of godlineſs has often ſuffered in a zealous contention about rites and ceremonies; but the contention has been chiefly about forms of human device. The Chriſtians of old time were taught, not to diſpute about the inſtitutions of their Lord, but to obſerve them thankfully; and hereby they expreſſed their affection to him and to each other. If that affection be granted to be more important than the tokens of it, it would be unjuſt to infer that the latter have no obligation; which would imply, that Chriſt and the apoſtles meant nothing by their precepts. The Methodiſts have not, indeed, gone ſo far as their ſpiritual brethren [the Quakers] have done, in rejecting all external ceremonies; but they are taught to believe, that all concern about the ancient order and cuſtoms of the Chriſtians is mere party-ſpirit, and injurious to the devout exerciſes of the heart. Thus the moder charity vaunts itſelf, in anſwering better purpoſes than could be accompliſhed by keeping the words of Chriſt. It produces a more extenſive and generous communion; and animates the devotion of men, without perplexing them by uncertain doctrine, or rigorous ſelf-denial. Although it ſuppoſes ſome revelation from God. and ſome honour due to Jeſus Chriſt; it claims a right to diſpenſe with both; to chooſe what, in his doctrine and religion, is fit to be believed and obſerved.Strictures upon Modern S mony, p. 48—55. —So, that illegitimate charity and falſe moderation, which incline profeſſors to treat divine inſtitutions as articles of ſmall importance; led that great man, Melan thon, to place the doctrine of juſtification by faith alone, the number of poſitive inſtitututions in the Chriſtian church, the juriſdiction claimed by the Pope, and ſeveral ſuperſititions rites of the Romiſh religion, among things indifferent, when an imperial edict required compliance.Moſheim's ••• hſ. Hiſt. Vol. IV. p. 7, 8. But, as we muſt take heed that we do not add the fancies of men to our divine religion; ſo we ſhould take equal care that we do not curtail the appointments of Chriſt, Dr. Watts 〈◊〉 . Attempt. p. 6 . out of any pretence to candour, or peace, or the edification of our fellow Chriſtians.— The charity for which many profeſſors plead, is of ſo lax a nature, and ſo far belide the rule, both in regard to doctrine and worſhip; as gives too much occaſion to aſk, with Joſhua, Are you for us, or for our adverſaries?

Once more: Remarkable ſtrong, and not foreign to my purpoſe, are the words of Mr. John Weſley. which are quoted with approbation by Mr. Rowland Hill. A catholic ſpirit is not ſpeculative latitudinarianiſm. It is not an indifference to all opinions. This is the ſpawn of hell; not the off ſpring of heaven. This unſettledneſs of thought, this being driven to and fro, and toſſed of though with every wind of doctrine, is a great curſe, not a bleſſing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a true catholicism.— A man of a true cathohe ſpirit—does not halt between two opinions; nor vainly endeavours to blend them into one. Obſerve this, you that know not what ſpirit you are of: who call yourſelves of a catholic ſpirit, only becauſe you are of a muddy underſtanding; becauſe your mind is all in a miſt becauſe you are of no ſettled, conſiſtent principles, but are for jumbling all opinions together. Be convinced that you have quite miſſed your way. You know not where you are. You think you are got into the very Spirit of Chriſt; when, in truth, you are nearer the ſpirit of Antichriſt. In Mr. Rowland Hill's full Anſwer to Mr. J. Weſley's Remarks, p. 40, 41.

Our brethren with an air of ſuperior confidence often demand, What have you to do with another's baptiſm? This interrogatory I would anſwer by propoſing another: What have I to do with another's faith, experience, or pracliee? In one view, nothing at all, if he do not injure my perſon, character, or property; for to his own maſter he ſtands or falls. In another, much; that is, if he deſire communion with me at the Lord's table. In ſuch a caſe, I may lawfully addreſs him in the following manner: What think you of Chriſt? What know you of yourſelf? Of yourſelf, as a ſinner; of Chriſt, as a faviour? Of Chriſt, as King in Zion; of yourſelf, as a ſubject of his benign government? Are you deſirous to be found in his righteonſneſs, and ſincerely willing to obey his commands? Are you ready to hear his croſs, and to follow the Lamb whitherſoever he goes?—Receiving ſatisfaction to theſe moſt important queries, we will ſuppoſe the converſation thus to proceed: What are the divine commands? After believing, baptiſm is the firſt, the very firſt that requires a public act of obedience.—'But I have been baptized.' Perhaps not. Make it appear, however, and I ſhall ſay no more on that ſubject.— I am really perſuaded of it in my own mind. Were it otherwiſe, I ſhould think it my duty, I ſhould not heſitate a moment, to be immerſed on a profeſſion of faith. I commend your integrity: abide by the dictates of conſcience. Yet care ſhould be taken, that her language be an echo to the voice of divine revelation; elſe you may neglect your duty and ſlight your privileges, offend God and injure your ſoul, even while you obey her commands.— But I am perſuaded Chriſt has accepted me, and that it is my duty to receive the holy ſupper. That Chriſt has received you, I have a pleaſing perſuaſion; and ſo I conclude, in a judgment of charity, concerning all whom I baptize: but that it is the immediate duty of any unbaptized believer to approach the Lord's table, may admit of a query: nay, the general practice of the Chriſtian church in every age, has been quite in the negative. For a learned writer aſſures us, that among all the abſurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that, that any perſon ſhould partake of the communion before he was baptized. Was it, think you, the duty of an ancient Iſraelite to worſhip at the ſanctuary, or to partake of the paſchal ſeaſt, before he was circumciſed? Or, was it the duty of the Jewiſh prieſts to burn incenſe in the holy place, before they offered the morning or the evening ſacrifice? The appointments of God muſt be adminiſtered in his own way, and in that order which he has fixed. For, to borrow an illuſtration from a well known author, Suppoſe a maſter commands his ſervant to ſow his ground; doth this give a right to him to go immediately and caſt in the ſeed, before that ever he break the ground with the plough, and make it fit for the receiving the ſeed? Should he go thus to work, he were a diſobedient ſervant. Neither could it excuſe, that he had his maſter's immediate command to ſow his ground. Even ſo in the preſent caſeMr. Thomas Boſton's Works, page 386. Chriſt commands believers to remember him at his own table. But were thoſe believers to whom he firſt gave the command unbaptized? Or, can we infer, becauſe it is the duty of all baptized believers to celebrate the Lord's ſupper, that it is the immediate duty of one that is not baptized, ſo to do? —Could you produce an inſtance from the records of the New Teſtament, of any believer being refuſed communion, merely becauſe he ſcrupled the propriety of being immerſed on a profeſſion of faith, it would warrant your preſent denial. But, whenever you ſhall make it appear, that a truly converted perſon, and one who was conſidered as ſuch, deſired fellowſhip with a church of Chriſt in the apoſtolic age: I will engage to prove that he was received, whatever might be his views relating to the mode and ſubject of baptiſm. And when you ſhall adduce an inſtance of any real convert, in thoſe primitive times, conſcientiouſly ſcrupling the uſe of the wine at the Lord's table; I will enter under the ſame obligation to prove, that the ſacred ſupper was adminiſtered to him in his own way.— Will you, then, dare to reject thoſe whom Chriſt accepts! Reject, from what? My eſteem and affection? Far be it! Under a perſuaſion that Chriſt has received you, I love and honour you as a Chriſtian brother. His image appearing in your temper and conduct commands my regard.—With what conſiſtency, then, can you refuſe me communion? If Chriſt has accepted me, if Chriſt himſelf has communion with me, why may not you? Communion with you in the knowledge and comfort of the truth I have; and this would be both my honour and happineſs, were you a converted Jew. Communion with you I alſo have in affection; but fellowſhip at the Lord's table is a diſtinct act, a very different thing; and is to be regulated entirely by the revealed will of Him that appointed it. Communion at the holy ſupper would never have been either the duty or privilege of any man, if Chriſt had not commanded it, any more than it is now my duty to celebrate the ancient paſſover. But that eternal law which requires me to love my neighbour as myſelf, would have obliged me to love you, both as a man and a Chriſtian, if baptiſm and the Lord's ſupper had never been ordained.— After all, your profeſſions of affection for me as a believer in Jeſus Chriſt, and your refuſing to have communion with me at the holy table, carry the appearance of a ſtrong inconſiſtency. Admitting they do, the inconſiſtency is not peculiar to me, nor to thoſe of my perſuaſion; becauſe I act on a principle received in common by the whole Chriſtian church. There is no denomination of Chriſtians, except thoſe who plead for free communion, that would admit you to the Lord's table, if they did not think you had been baptized. This, therefore, is the principle on which I refuſe to have communion with you: I conſider you as unbaptized. Suppoſe a Jew, a Turk, or a Pagan, to be enlightened by divine grace, to have the truth as it is in Jeſus, to love God and deſire communion with his people before he is baptized; would you think it right, could your own conſcience admit of it, as conſiſtent with the revealed will of Chriſt and the practice of his apoſtles, that ſuch a requeſt ſhould be granted by any goſpel church? in a caſe of this kind, I preſume,—and there have been millions of Jews and Heathens converted, ſince the Chriſtian aera commenced,—in ſuch a caſe you would eaſily diſcern a conſiſtency, between loving him as a believer, and refuſing to have communion with him till he was baptized. Nay, I cannot help thinking, but you would be ſtartled at the report of any religious community admitting ſuch an one to the Lord's table; becauſe it would ſtrike you as a notorious departure from the divine rule of proceeding; from the laws and ſtatutes of Heaven, in that caſe made and provided. Beſides, you have already acknowledged, that if you did not conſider yourſelf as baptized; if you thought immerſion on a profeſſion of ſaith eſſential to baptiſm, which you very well know is my ſentiment; you ſhould think it your duty to ſubmit, you would not heſitate a moment. So that, were I to encourage your immediate approach to the ſacred ſupper, I ſhould ſtand condemned on your own principles. This, therefore, is the only queſtion between us, What is baptiſm? For you dare not aſſert, you cannot ſuppoſe, that an unbaptized believer, deſcended from Chriſtian parents, has any pre-eminence, in point of claim to communion, above a truly converted Jew: and you muſt allow that I have an equal right with you, or any other man, to judge for myſelf what is eſſential to baptiſm. You verily believe that you have been baptized; I am equally confident, from your own account of the matter, that you have not. Your conſcience oppoſes the thought of being immerſed on a profeſſion of ſaith, becauſe, in your opinion, it would be rebaptization; mine cannot encourage your approach to the Lord's table, becauſe I conſider infant baptiſm as invalid.— I perceive, then, that you look upon me as an unbaptized Heathen: for you cannot imagine that I am, or ever was, a Turk or a Jew. Quite a miſtake. I conſider you as a real convert, and love you as a Chriſtian brother. Were you perſuaded that a ſon of Abraham after the fleſh, or a dupe to Mahomet's impoſture, or an uncultivated Hottentot, had received the truth and was converted to the Lord Redeemer; would you ſtill call him, without limitation, a Jew, a Turk, or a Heathen? No, candour and common ſenſe would forbid the thought. You would rather ſay, He is a believer in God's Meſſiah, and a lover of Jeſus Chriſt; he feels the power of goſpel truth on his heart, and his moral conduct is comely; but, as yet, he is unbaptized. I ſhould rejoice to ſee him convinced of the importance of that inſtitution, of the connection it has with other appointments of Chriſt, and behold him ſubmit to it. Then, were I in communion, I ſhould freely give him the right hand of fellowſhip, and break bread with him at the Lord's table. Till then, however, though I think it the duty of every Chriſtian to love him for the truth's ſake, I conſider it as no breach of charity, in any community, not to admit him to the Lord's table.—Now I appeal to the reader, I appeal to our brethren themſelves, Whether, on our Antipaedobaptiſt principles, we are not obliged to conſider a truly converted but unbaptized Muſſulman, and a converted Engliſhman, who has has had no other than Paedobaptiſm, as on a level, in point of claim to communion with us? For God is no reſpecter of perſons. It is not matter where a man was born, or how he was educated; whether he drew his firſt breath at Conſtantinople or Pekin, or London; whether his parents taught him to revere the Koran of Mahomet, the Inſtitutes of Confucius, or the well atteſted Revelation of God; if he really be born of the Spirit, he has an equal claim to all the privileges of a goſpel church, with a true convert deſcended from Chriſtian anceſtors. And if ſo, while our brethren abide by their preſent hypotheſis, they could not refuſe the ſacred ſupper to the one, any more than the other, without the moſt palpable inconſiſtency; though, by admitting the former to that divine appointment, they would ſurpriſe and offend all that heard of it.

Our opponents further ſuggeſt, nay, they ſeem quite confident, That the Chriſtian Jews in the primitive church, might, on our principles, have refuſed communion to the believing Gentiles, becauſe they were not circumciſed; and that the converted Gentiles might have denied fellowſhip to the believing Jews, for the oppoſite reaſon. But here our brethren take for granted, what we cannot by any means allow. For this way of talking ſuppoſes, that a ſubmiſſion to baptiſm is no more demanded of believers now, than circumciſion was of Gentile converts in the apoſtolic age; and that we who plead for baptiſm, as a term of communion, have no more authority ſo to do, than Judaizing Chriſtians then had for maintaining the neceſſity of circumciſion. Now ſuch extraordinary poſitions as theſe ſhould not have been aſſumed gratis, but proved, ſoundly proved; which, had our oppoſers well and truly performed, would have made me and many of their ſtricter brethren, thorough proſelytes to free communion. Nay, we ſhould, probably, before now, have been in a hopeful way of getting entirely rid of that ordinance, about the order and importance of which we now contend. For neither Pacificus, nor Candidus, will dare to aſſert, that our aſcended Lord requires any of his diſciples to be circumciſed, either before or after their admiſſion to the holy table: conſequently, if their arguing from circumciſion to baptiſm be concluſive, we may abſolutely omit the latter, as converts of old did the former, without fear of the leaſt offence, or of any divine reſentment.

And muſt we, indeed, conſider the adminiſtration and the neglect of baptiſm, as on a perfect level with being circumciſed, or uncircumciſed, in the apoſtolic times! Muſt an ordinance of the New Teſtament, ſubmiſſion to which our Lord requires of all his diſciples, be placed on the ſame footing with an obſolete rite of the Jewiſh church! How kind it is of our brethren who poſſeſs this knowledge, and are ſo well acquainted with Chriſtian liberty, relating to baptiſm, that they are willing to inform us of its true extent! For, as Socinus long ago obſerved, Ignorance of it is the cauſe of many evils. I may, however, venture an appeal to the intelligent reader, Whether this way of arguing does not much better become the pen of Socinus, of Volkelius, or of a Quaker; than that of Pacificus, of Candidus, or of any Baptiſt? Becauſe, as Hornbeek remarks, in anſwer to the Socinians; If is very abſurd to explain the deſign, the command, and the obligation of baptiſm, by the abrogation and abuſe of circumciſion. As our brethren deteſt the Socinian ſyſtem in general, I cannot but wonder that they ſhould ſo often uſe weapons, in deſence of their novel ſentiment, that were forged by Socinus, or ſome of his pupils, for a ſimilar purpoſe. I could wiſh therefore, that ſome ſuch perſon as Mr. Ryland, who is well known to have an utter averſion to the capital tenets of that pretended reformer of the Reformed church in Poland, would ſeriouſly take Pacificus to taſk, for paying ſo much honour to a depraver of divine truth, and a mutilator of God's worſhip. For who knows but it might have a happy effect, and cauſe him to retract his Modeſt Plea?—Before I proceed to another objection. it may not be amiſs to obſerve, What a variety of laudable and kindred purpoſes this argument is adapted to ſerve, according to its various application by different perſons. In the hands of our opponents, it effectually proves the neceſſity of admitting infant ſprinkling, in ſome caſes, as a proper ſuccedaneum for what they conſider as real baptiſm. From the pen of Socinus, it evinces beyond a doubt, that baptiſm is an indifferent thing. And in the mouth of Barclay, it will equally well demonſtrate, that baptiſm ſhould be entirely laid aſide. Well, then, might our Candid and Peaceful oppoſers congratulate themſelves on the ſafety of their cauſe, it being defended by ſuch a three edged ſword as this! And well might they unite, at one man, in ſaying: If, therefore, this were the only thing that could be urged in ſavour of the latitude of communion I plead for, I ſhould think it would be ſufficient; at leaſt ſufficient to excuſe our conduct, and ſtop the mouth of cenſure.

But, notwithſtanding all I have ſaid, we ſtand charged by our brethren with a notorious inconſiſtency in our own conduct; becauſe we occaſionally admit, with pleaſure, Paedobaptiſt miniſters into our pulpits, to whom we ſhould refuſe communion at the Lord's table. This objection has been much inſiſted upon of late, and is ſometimes urged againſt us by way of query, to the following effect. Is not as much required in order to an offi e in the church, as to private memberſhip? Is it not as inconſiſtent to receive a Paedobaptiſt, as a miniſter, and admit him into the pulpit, as to admit him into the church and to the Lord's table? Where have you either precept, or example, for receiving them as miniſters, any more than for receiving them as members? — Theſe queries being conſidered, by many of our opponents, as quite unanſwerable, I ſhall take the more notice of them.

The firſt thing then, that demands regard, is the ſtate of the queſtion which is now before us. For it is not, as theſe queries ſuggeſt, Whether as much be not required in order to an office in the church, as to private communion? This we readily allow; this we never denied. For what congregation of ſtrict Baptiſts would think they acted conſiſtently in making choice of a Paedobaptiſt for their paſtor, or to officiate as a deacon? Beſides, will not our brethren acknowledge, that in every orderly ſociety, and more eſpecially in a church of Chriſt, a perſon muſt be a member before he can be an officer in it? This is the point in diſpute, at leaſt it is this about which I contend; Whether baptiſm be equally neceſſary to the occaſional exerciſe of miniſterial gifts, as it is to communion at the Lord's table? and, Whether the ſcripture favour the one as much as the other?

Such being the true ſtate of the queſtion, I now beg leave to aſk; Suppoſing our brethren to prove the affirmative beyond a doubt, what is the conſequence, and how are we affected by it? Is it, that we are found guilty of a direct violation of ſome divine command, that requires us to receive Paedobaptiſts into our communion? No ſuch thing is pretended. Is it, that we oppoſe ſome plain apoſtolic precedent? neither is this laid to our charge. For they do not believe there were any Paedobaptiſts in the apoſtolic times; and, conſequently, they cannot ſuppoſe that the New Teſtament contains an example of ſuch being received into communion. What, then, is the concluſion they would infer? It muſt, ſurely, be ſomething formidable to every ſtrict Baptiſt; otherwiſe it is hardly ſuppoſable that ſo much weight ſhould be laid upon this objection. The conſequence, however, is only this; The premiſes proved, the ſtrict Baptiſts have no reaſon to cenſure their brethren of a looſer caſt, becauſe they themſelves are equally culpable, though in a different reſpect. Or, in other words. The ſtrict Baptiſts, like ſome other folks, are not quite infallible; do actually err; and, by reaſon of a miſtake, impertinently blame the conduct of their more free, and open, and generous brethren, when they ought rather to examine and reform their own.—But this inference can be of little ſervice to the cauſe of free communion, except it be good logic and ſound divinity, to attempt a juſtification of my own faults, by proving that he who accuſes me is equally guilty: or to congratulate myſelf as an innocent man, becauſe my neighbour cannot with a good grace reprove me. Our opponents, I perſuade myſelf, will not be greatly offended with us, if this argument, Herculean as it ſeems to them; ſhould not make us complete converts to free communion. So ſoon, however, as our brethren ſhall make it appear, that they have as good a warrant for receiving Paedobaptiſt believers into ſtated communion, as I have to admit a Paedobaptiſt miniſter occaſionally into my pulpit; I will either encourage the former, or entirely refuſe the latter.

But if theſe queries prove any thing, they prove too much; more at leaſt, than the queriſts intend. For, according to the argument contained in them, it is equally unwarrantable for us to hear a Paedobabtiſt miniſter preach, or to unite with him in pubblic prayer; as it is for them to receive him into communion. For inſtance: do they demand, Where have you either precept, or example, for admitting Paedobaptiſt miniſters into your pulpits, any more than for receiving them as members? I reſort, on their Baptiſt principles; Where have you either precept or example, in the New Teſtament, for bearing Paedobaptiſt miniſters preach; or for uniting with them in public prayer, any more than for receiving them as members? And, to ſhew the futility of this argument, I again demand; If, in bearing ſuch miniſters preach, or by uniting with them in public prayer (which are undoubtedly branches of the moral worſhip of God, nor peculiar to any diſpenſation of religion) we act without any expreſs command or plain example in the New Teſtament; with what propriety, can we blame our brethren for admitting. Paedobaptiſts to the Lord's ſupper (which is a poſitive inſtitution; 〈◊〉 part of divine worſhip that depends entirely on a revelation of the ſovereign will of God) though they have neither precept nor precedent for ſo doing? Queries of this kind might be multiplied, but theſe may ſuffice.

But is there no difference between the two caſes? No difference between occaſionally admitting Paedobaptiſt miniſters into our pulpits, and receiving them, or others of the ſame perſuaſion, into our communion? I can ſcarcely imagine that our brethren themſelves will here anſwer in the negative; but that this difference may plainly appear, let the following things be obſerved.—Public preaching is not confined to perſons in a church ſtate, nor ever was; but the Lord's ſupper is a church ordinance, nor ought ever to be adminiſtered but to a particular church, as ſuch. Now it is of a particular church, and of a poſitive ordinance peculiar to it, concerning which is all our diſpute.—There is not that ſtrict mutual relation between bare hearers of the word and their preachers, as there is between the members of a church and her paſtor, or between the members themſelves. And as, according to the appointment of God, perſons muſt believe the goſpel before they have any thing to do with poſitive inſtitutions; ſo, in the ordinary courſe of Providence, they muſt hear the goſpel in order to their believing. The Corinthians heard before they believed; they believed before they were baptized; and, no doubt, they were baptized before they received the ſacred ſupper. (Acts xviii. 8.) When our opponents receive Paedobaptiſts into their fellowſhip, they practically allow what they themſelves conſider as a human invention, to ſuperſede a poſitive, divine inſtitution; and that with a view to their attending on another poſitive appointment of Jeſus Chriſt. Not ſo, when we admit miniſters of that perſuaſion into our pulpits. In this caſe there is no divine inſtitution ſuperſeded; no human invention, in the worſhip of God, encouraged: nor is it done with a view to introduce them to any poſitive appointment of our ſovereign Lord.— Again: When we admit Paedobaptiſt miniſters into our pulpits, it is in expectation that they will preach the goſpel; that very goſpel which we believe and love, and about which there is no difference between them and us. But when they receive Paedobaptiſts into communion, they openly connive at what they conſider as an error; an error both in judgment and practice; an error of that kind which the ſcripture calls, "will worſhip, and the traditions of men." There is, undoubtedly, a material difference, between hearing a miniſter who, in our judgment, is ignorant of the only true baptiſm, diſcourſe on thoſe doctrines he experimentally knows, and countenancing an invention of men. In the former caſe we ſhew an eſteem for his perſonal talents, we honour his miniſterial gifts, and manifeſt our love to the truth; in the latter, we ſet aſide a divinely appointed prerequiſite for communion at the Lord's table.

It has been already obſerved, as a fact, that perſons have been called by grace, who were not baptized in their infancy; and, conſidering baptiſm as a temporary inſtitution, have conſcientiouſly refuſed a ſubmiſſion to that ordinance when converted, who yet deſired communion in the holy ſupper. We will now ſuppoſe a community of ſuch; and that they call to the miniſtry one of their number, who is allowed by all competent judges, to poſſeſs great miniſterial gifts, and to be a very uſeful preacher:— Or we may ſuppoſe a reformed Catholic, equally the ſubject of divine grace, and endued with equal abilities for public ſervice: yet conſcientiouſly retaining the Popiſh error of communion in one kind only. Now, on either of theſe ſuppoſitions, I demand of our brethren, whether they would receive ſuch an one into communion with the ſame readineſs that they would admit him into their pulpits? If they anſwer in the negative, then by their own confeſſion, there is not ſo cloſe a connection between admitting a perſon to preach amongſt us, and receiving him into communion, as they pretend. And we may venture to retort upon them; Shall an excellent, laborious and uſeful miniſter of Chriſt work for you, and ſhall he not be allowed to eat with you! What, ſhall he break the bread of life to you, and muſt he not be ſuffered to break bread at the Lord's table with you!—Again: We will ſuppoſe a good man and a uſeful preacher to be fully perſuaded, with the Hydroparaſtates in the ſecond century, that water ſhould always be uſed at the Lord's table, inſtead of wine; and that, on a principle of conſcience, he abſolutely refuſes the latter: Or, that it is more ſignificant and more agreeable to dip the bread in the wine, and receive them both at once; as practiſed by ſome in the fourth century, and more frequently afterwards: Or, that he conſcientiouſly approves the cuſtom of the Greeks, who mix boiling water with wine, crumble the bread into it, and taking it out with a ſpoon, receive both elements together. Witfii Econom. Faed. L. IV. C. XVII. § 10, 25. To what lengths of ſuperſtition and abſurdity may perſons profeſſing the Chriſtian religion run, when they leave the divine rule of proceeding! No branches of Jehovah's worſhip require a more punctual regard to the ſacred rule, than thoſe which are of a poſition kind; yet none have been ſo mutilated, metamorphoſed, and abuſed, as they have been, by the perverſe inventions and bold impieties of men. Now though, I conſeſs, they could not refuſe him a place at the Lord's table, to partake of the holy ſupper in his own way, without violating that grand rule of their conduct, "God has received him;" and though Pacificus and Candidus could not reject him, without contradicting the titles of their plea for free communion; yet, I preſume, the generality of our opponents would hardly allow of ſuch a peculiar mode of proceeding, in any of their churches. No; they would be ready to ſay of ſuch a candidate for fellowſhip; He ought to regard the example of Chriſt, who uſed wine: Or, he ought to obey the divine command, which requires that we ſhould drink the wine. Yet they might not think it proper to refuſe him the occaſional uſe of a pulpit, and might hear him preach the truth, received in common, with pleaſure.

Though, as Antipaedobaptiſts, it cannot be expected, that we ſhould produce inſtances out of the New Teſtament of Paedobaptiſt miniſters being encouraged in a ſimilar way; becauſe we are firmly perſuaded there were none ſuch, till after the ſacred canon was completed: yet we find, in that inſpired volume, a ſufficient warrant for uniting with thoſe that believe, in affection and walk, ſo far as agreed; notwithſtanding their ignorance of ſome part of the counſel of God, to which a conſcientious obedience is indiſpenſably required, from all thoſe by whom it is known. (Philip. iii. 15, 16.) Yes, the New Teſtament not only permits, as lawful, but enjoins as an indiſpenſable duty, that we ſhould love them that love the Lord; and that we ſhould manifeſt his holy affection in every way, that is not inconſiſtent with a revelation of the divine will in ſome other reſpect. So it was under the Jewiſh economy, and ſo it is now. To admit, therefore, a miniſter to preach among us, with whom we ſhould have no objection to commune, could we allow the validity of infant baptiſm; as it is a token of our affection for a ſervant of Chriſt, of our love to the truth he preaches, and is not contrary to any part of divine revelation, muſt be lawful: or if not, it lies with our brethren to prove it; becauſe they cannot deny that the word of God requires us to love him, and to manifeſt our affection for him. But as to communion at the holy table, Chriſtians in general have had no more doubt, whether baptiſm ſhould precede it, according to a ſpecial revelation of the divine will; than whether baptiſm itſelf be a part of the counſel of God.— When we aſk a Paedobaptiſt miniſter to preach in any of our churches, we act on the ſame general principle, as when we requeſt him to pray with any of us in a private family. And as no one conſiders this as an act of church communion, but as a teſtimony of our affection for him, ſo we conſider that; and it is viewed by the public, as a branch of the general intercourſe which it is not only lawful, but commendable and profitable to have, with all that preach the goſpel.

I take it for granted, that circumciſion was abſolutely neceſſary for every male, in order to communion at the paſchal ſupper, and in the ſolemn worſhip of the ſanctuary. And if ſo, had the moſt renouned antidiluvians that ever lived, or the moſt illuſtrious Gentiles that ever appeared in the world, been cotemporary with Moſes and ſojourners in the ſame wilderneſs, they could not have been admitted to communion in the Iſraelitiſh church, without ſubmitting to circumciſion. Enoch, though as a ſaint he walked 〈…〉 : though as a prophet he foretold the coming of Chriſt to judgment—Noah, though an h •• r of the righteouſneſs of faith, a a preacher of that righteouſneſs, and one of Ezekiel's worthies, (Chap. xiv, 14, 16, 18, 20.)—Melchiſedeck, though a king, and a prieſt of the moſt high God; ſuperior to Abraham, and the greateſt perſonal type of the Lord Meſſiah that ever was among men—And Job, though for piety there was none like him upon earth, Jehovah himſelf being judge, and one of the prophet's illuſtrious triumvirate, (Ezek, as before.) Theſe I ſay, notwithſtanding all their piety and holineſs, notwithſtanding all their ſhining excellencies, exalted characters, and uſeful ſervices; could not, as uncircumciſed, have been admitted to communion with the choſen tribes at the tabernacle of the God of Iſrael, without a violation of the divine command. This, I perſuade myſelf, our opponents muſt allow: this, I think, they dare not deny. Yet if Enoch, for inſtance, had been in the camp of Iſrael when Korah and his company mutinied, and had been diſpoſed to give the rebels a lecture on the ſecond coming of Chriſt; I cannot ſuppoſe that his offered ſervice would have been rejected by Moſes or Joſhua, merely becauſe he was not circumciſed. Or, if Noah had been preſent at the erection of the tabernacle, and inclined to give the people a ſermon on the future incarnation of the Son of God, and the righteouſneſs of faith; to which moſt important objects that ſacred ſtructure, with its coſtly utenſils and ſolemn ſervices, had a typical regard; I cannot but think they would have given him a hearing. Nay, I appeal to our opponents themſelves, whether they do not 〈◊〉 ſo as well as I. Yet that favoured people could not have admitted them to communion in ſome other branches of divine worſhip, without tranſgreſſing the laws of Jehovah. (Exod. xii. 44, 48. Ezek. xliv. 7.) If this be allowed, the conſequence is plain, and the argument, though analogical, is irrefragable. For the Paſchal feaſt and the ſanctuary ſervices were not more of a poſitive nature than the Lord's ſupper; nor were the former more peculiar to that diſpenſation than the latter is to this; but preacing and hearing the word are not peculiar to any diſpenſation of grace, as are baptiſm and the ſacred ſupper.

Our Lord, though he warned his hearers againſt the pride and hypocriſy, the unbelief and covetouſneſs, of the ancient Phariſees, and Scribes, and Jewiſh teachers; yet exhorted the people to regard the truths they delivered. (Matt. xxiii, 1, 2, 3.) Our opponents notwithſtanding, cannot imagine that Chriſt would have admitted thoſe eccleſiaſtics. to baptiſm, had they deſired it; nor will they aſſert that any, who are not proper ſubjects of that ordinance, ſhould be received into communion.—When the beloved diſciple ſaid, Maſter, we ſaw one caſting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, becauſe he followeth not with us:" Jeſus anſwered, Forbid him not; for he that is not againſt us, is for us. Luke ix. 49, 50. From which it appears, that we are under obligation to encourage thoſe that fight againſt the common enemy, and propagate the common truth; though they and we may have no communion together, in the ſpecial ordinances of God's houſe; which is the very caſe when we admit our Paedobaptiſt brethren to preach among us—We are alſo informed, that the firſt Gentiles who were converted by the apoſtolic miniſtry, were endued with miraculous gifts immediately upon their believing and before they were baptized; for they ſpoke with tongues and glorified God. (Acts. x. 44.) Nor is it improbable but ſome of them then received gifts for the miniſtry; and if ſo, in the fulneſs of their hearts and the tranſport of their joy, they alſo gave the firſt ſpecimen of their future miniſtrations, to the pleaſing aſtoniſhment of Peter and thoſe that were with him. But can our brethren ſuppoſe, that the great apoſtle would have taken equal pleaſure in hearing them requeſt a place at the Lord's table, before they were baptized? No; his own conduct oppoſes the thought. For, having beheld with aſtoniſhment the gifts they received, and hearing with rapture the truths they delivered, he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord; to be baptized immediately in the name of that Lord, who requires a ſubmiſſion to the ordinance from all that believe.

Once more: A very competent judge of all that pertains to the miniſterial character, and of all that belongs to a Chriſtian profeſſion, has left his opinion on record concerning the miniſtry of certain perſons, whom he conſidered as quite unworthy of his intimate friendſhip. Yes, Paul, that moſt excellent man, when acting as amanuenſis to the Spirit of wiſdom, and when ſpeaking of ſome who preached the goſpel, informs us, that envy and ſtrife were the principles on which they acted, and the increaſe of his afflictions the end which they had in view. How carnal and baſe the principles! How deteſtable the end at which they aimed!—But was the apoſtle offended or grieved, ſo as to wiſh they were ſilenced? Or, did he charge his beloved Philippians, and all the ſincere followers of Chriſt, never to hear them? Let his own declaration anſwer the queries. What then? notwithſtanding every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Chriſt is preached; and therein I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. (Philip. i. 15—18.) When a corrupted goſpel is preached, he aſſerts his apoſtolic authority, and thunders out anathemas againſt the propagators of it. (Gal. i. 6—9.) Becauſe, as God will not ſet the ſeal of his bleſſing to a falſhood, or ſanctify a lye, it can do no good; it is pregnant with miſchief. But when the pure goſpel is preached, though on perverſe principles, as it is the truth, God frequently owns and renders it uſeful, whover may publiſh it. Hence the apoſtle's joy in the text before us.—Now, as we are far from impeaching the ſincerity of our Paedobaptiſt brethren, when preaching the goſpel of our aſcended Lor ; and as Paul rejoiced that Chriſt was preached, tho' by perſons who acted on the baſeſt principles; e cannot imagine that he would have taken leſs ple ſure in the thought of Paedobaptiſt miniſters publiſhing the glorious goſpel of the bleſſed God, had the e been any ſuch in thoſe days, even though he might have conſidered them as under a great miſtake, in regard to baptiſm: for our opponents do not believe any more than we, that Paul knew any thing of infant ſprinkling. And if ſo, we may ſafely conclude, that there is nothing inconſiſtent with our hypotheſis, in occaſionally admitting Paedobaptiſt miniſters into our pulpits, and hearing them with pleaſure.— But will our opponents aſſert, or can they ſuppoſe, that the great apoſtle of the Gentiles would have encouraged with equal delight ſuch perſons as thoſe of whom he ſpeaks, to approach the holy table and have communion with him in all the ordinances of God's houſe? Perſons, who made the glorious goſpel of the bleſſed God, the vehicle of their own pride, and envy, and malice; and in whoſe conduct thoſe infernal tempers reigned, and had for their immediate object one of the moſt excellent and uſeful men that ever lived? Certainly, if on any occaſion, we may here adopt the old proverb; Credat Judaeus apella.

Chriſt is preached, and therein I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. Diſintereſted, noble ſaying! Worthy of a firſt rate miniſter in the Meſſiah's kingdom; worthy of Paul; who cared not who oppoſed him, nor what he ſuffered, if Chriſt were but glorified in the converſion of ſinners. But though that man of God thus expreſſes himſelf, in reference to goſpel preaching; I cannot imagine, nor will our brethren affirm, that he would with the ſame pleaſure have admitted any of the Jewiſh converts to communion, becauſe they ſuppoſed themſelves to have been baptized, merely on account of their having been waſhed according to the traditions of the elders. To a requeſt of this kind, his mildeſt anſwer, we have reaſon to think, would have been, We have no ſuch cuſtom, nor the churches of God. Yet, as Baptiſts, our opponents muſt conſider infant ſprinkling, as having nothing more to recommend it, than human authority and general practice; which were the grand recomendations of thoſe Jewiſh waſhings, and the very baſis on which they ſtood.— Suppoſe our brethren in the courſe of their reading, were to find it aſſerted by ſome ancient author, That Paul frequently admitted perſons to communion, on ſuch a pretence to baptiſm; what would they ſay? They would, I preſume, conſider the aſſertion as a libel on his character. They would execrate the pen which tranſmitted ſuch a falſehood to poſterity; and look on the writer, either as a weak and credulous man, or as a forger of lies. And, except a predilection for free communion biaſſed their judgment, their opinion and cenſure would be much the ſame, were they to find it recorded; He frequently admitted believers to the Lord's table; before they were baptized. The utter ſilence of the New Teſtament, relating to a conduct of this kind; the many paſſages, in that infallible code of divine worſhip, inconſiſtent with ſuch a practice; and their veneration for the character of the great apoſtle, would oblige them ſo to do. Yet, amazing to think! for ſuch a procedure they plead; ſuch a conduct they adopt; and look upon as greatly injuring the honour and intereſts of real religion, and not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity; merely becauſe we cannot conſider them as the followers of Paul in this particular, nor become their humble imitators!

But why ſhould our brethren ſo earneſtly plead for believers receiving the Lord's ſupper, while they treat baptiſm as if it were a mere trifle; an appointment of Chriſt that might very well have been ſpared? What is there of obligation of ſolemnity, of importance, in the former that is not in the la ter? Have they not the ſame divine Inſtitutor, and the ſame general end! Were they not intended for the ſame perſons, and are they not •••• ly permanent in the church of God? And as to baptiſm, was not the adminiſtration of it by John, one of the firſt characteriſtics of the Meſſiah's appearance, and of the goſpel diſpenſation commencing? Did not the King Meſſiah ſubmit to it, as an example of obedience to all his followers; and moſt ſtrongly recommend it to their judgment and conſcience, their affections and practice, when he ſaid; Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteouſneſs? Which, by the way, is more than can be aſſerted concerning the ſacred ſupper; for though he inſtituted it with great ſolemnity, yet we do not read that he partook of it.Welfius in Luc. xxii. 18. Was not the adminiſtration of baptiſm ſo honoured at the river Jordan, when the great Immanuel ſubmitted to it; when the eternal Father, by an audible voice, declared his approbation of it; and when the Divine Spirit deſcended on the head of Jeſus, juſt emerged from the water, as no other inſtitution ever was? And does not the divinely preſcribed form of words that is uſed in its adminiſtration ſhew, that there is a peculiar ſolemnity, an excellence, an importance in it? while, at the ſame time, it ſuggeſts arguments of unanſwerable force againſt thoſe Antitrinitarian errors which now ſo much abound. For no man who has been baptized at his own requeſt, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt; can deny that fundamental doctrine of the Trinity, without giving the lie to his baptiſm.

Nor is it unlikely that this conſideration may have inclined ſome to oppoſe the ordinance. I believe one reaſon, ſays Dr. Wall, why Socinus had ſuch a mind to aboliſh all uſe of baptiſm among his followers, was, becauſe perſons baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, would be always apt to think thoſe names to expreſs the Deity in which they were to believe; which he did not mean they ſhould do. And ſome of his followers have been ſo diſguſted with that form of baptiſm, that they have given profane inſinuations that thoſe words were not originally in the ſcripture; but were taken from the uſual doxology into the form of baptiſm, and then inſerted into the text of Matt. xxviii. 19. Hiſt. Inſ. Bap. Part II. Chap. VII. —The ſame ſuſpicions, relating to this matter, were entertained by Mr. Thomas Bradbury, as appears by the following words: My friends, I ought to warn you, that the main debate in a little time will be, not how much water ſhould be uſed, but whether any at all. They who deny the doctrine of the Trinity are ſo uneaſy at the form of words, that our Saviour has made eſſential to baptiſm, that they have a great mind to lay aſide the ordinance, as Socinus did in Poland. They write and argue that it is not neceſſary; by which if they mean any thing that is worth our heeding, it muſt be, that it is not commanded. For though we dare not ſay that it is neceſſary to God's grace, yet the queſtion is, whether he has not made it ſo to our 〈◊〉 . And when they aſk you, whether a man may not be ſaved without it? Do you aſk them, whether he is obedient without it? whether he ſtands complete in all the will of God? whether he fulfils all righteouſneſs? or whether he neglects to do, what the ſcripture told him he ought to do? Duty and Doct. p. 52.

It is with peculiar pleaſure, on this occaſion, that I introduce the following pertinent paſſage from a little publication written by Mr. John Ryland. His words are theſe: Dr. Daniel Waterland juſtly obſerves, that the true doctrine of the Trinity and the atonement of Chriſt, have been kept up in the Chriſtian church, by the inſtitutions of baptiſm and the Lord's ſupper, more than by any other means whatſoever; and, humanly ſpeaking, theſe glorious truths, which are eſſential to ſalvation, would have been loſt long age, if the two poſitive inſtitutions had been totally neglected and diſuſed amongſt profeſſors of Chriſtianity. In this point of view, baptiſm and the Lord's ſupper appear to be of unſpeakable importants to the glory of God, and the very being of 〈◊〉 true church of Chriſt on earth. Duty and Doct. p. 52. —Again: In another little piece, to which I have already referred, and of which the ſame worthy miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt has expreſſed his approbation in more ways than one, though it does not bear his name; I find the following ſtrong aſſertions relating to the importance and utility of baptiſm. It is highly incumbent on all that love the Lord Jeſus Chriſt •• ſincerity, and are glad to behold their Saviour in every view in which he is pleaſed to revealB ••• ty of Social Relig. p. 10. himſelf, to conſider the dignity and glory of his holy inſtitutions. Theſe laſt legacies of a dying Saviour, theſe pledges of his eternal and immutable love, ought to be received with the greateſt reverence and the warmeſt gratitude. And as they directly relate to the death of the great Redeemer, which is an event the moſt intereſting: an action the moſt grand and noble that ever appeared in the world; they ought to be held in the higheſt eſteem, and performed with the utmoſt ſolemnity. Of theſe inſtitutions, baptiſm calls for our firſt regard, as it is appointed to be firſt performed: and however lightly the inconſiderate part of mankind may affect to treat this ordinance, it ought to be remembered, [I hope Candidus, and eſpecially Pacificus, will never forget it] that Chriſt himſelf conſidered it and ſubmitted to it, as an important part of that righteouſneſs which it became even the Son of God to fulfil. As this ordinance is to be once performed, and not repeated, every Chriſtian ought to be particularly careful that it is done in a right manner; or the benefit ariſing to the ſoul from this inſtitution is loſt, and loſt for ever. We ought with the utmoſt deliberation and care to conſider—its own native dignity, as an action of the poſitive, or ritual kind, the moſt great and noble in itſelf, and well pleaſing to God, that it is poſſible for us to perform on this ſide Heaven.—In this action, Chriſtians, you behold the counſel of God: it is the reſult of his wiſe and eternal purpoſe: it is clearly commanded in his word: it is enforced by his own example; and honoured in the moſt diſtinguiſhed and wonderful manner, by every Perſon in the adorable Trinity. This ordinance is no •• i ial affair; it is no mean thing; and whoever is ſo unhappy as to deſpiſe it, wants eyes to ſee its beauty and excellency.—Our great Redeemer ſeems to have deſigned this ordinance as a teſt of our ſincerity, and to diſtinguiſh his followers from the reſt of mankind. As a captain who, to try a new ſoldier, employs him at firſt in ſome arduous and important ſervice; ſo our Saviour, to try his own work, and to make the reality of his powerful grace in the heart of his people manifeſt to themſelves and to the world, calls them out at firſt to a great and ſingular action, and requires their ſubmiſſion to an inſtitution! that is diſguſtful to their nature and mortifying to their pride. And the title of the pamphlet, from which theſe extracts are made, ſpeaks of baptiſm, As an act of ſublime worſhip to the adorable Perſons in the Godhead—As a repreſentation of the ſufferings of Chriſt, his death, burial, and reſurrection—As the anſwer of a good conſcience towards God—As an emblem of regeneration and ſanctification—As a powerful obligation to newneſs of life—And as a lively figure of the natural death of every Chriſtian. Six Views of Believers Bap. p. 1, 2, 3, 15.

Mr. Daniel Turner has alſo borne his teſtimony to the uſefulneſs and importance of baptiſm. For, ſpeaking of that ordinance, he ſays: Chriſt himſelf ſubmitted to this rite, as adminiſtered by John; not indeed with the ſame views, or to the ſame ends, with others; but as pointing out by his example, the duty of Chriſtians in general. He alſo gave his miniſters a commiſſion and order, to baptize all the nations they taught.—It appears that being baptized, was the common token of ſubjection to Chriſt, and neceſſary to a regular entrance into his viſible church. And, when deſcribing the qualifications of thoſe that are to be received into communion, he ſays; They ſhould be acquainted with the chief deſign of the rites and poſitive inſtitutions of Chriſtianity, and reverently uſe them; viz. baptiſm, and the Lord's ſupper. Once more: Speaking of that reſpect which the two poſitive appointments have to viſible fellowſhip among believers, he ſays; Baptiſm, indeed, by which we are firſt formally incorporated into the viſibe church, or body of Chriſt, is the beginning and foundation of this external communion: but the Lord's ſupper is beſt adapted for the conſtant ſupport and continual manifeſtation of it. Compend. Social Relig. p. 27. (Note); and p. 63, 120. (Note). Nay, he mentions the reverent uſe of the two ſacraments, among thoſe things which are eſſential to the conſtitution of a particular viſible church. See p. 5. Note.

After ſuch conſiderations as theſe, relating to the vaſt utility and grand importance of baptiſm, one cannot but wonder at Pacificus, Candidus, and others of our opponents that were never ſuſpected of Antitrinitarian error; calling that ordinance, a non-eſſential, an external rite, an indifferent thing, a ſhadow, a mere outward form; comparing it with the antiquated rite of circumciſion, in the apoſtolic age. How different this way of talking from the quotations I have juſt produced; eſpecially thoſe I have taken from pieces that were either publiſhed, or compoſed and recommended, by my worthy friend Mr. Ryland! For he looks upon baptiſm, in connection with the Lord's ſupper, as of unſpeakable importance to the glory of God, and the very being of a true church upon earth. He inſiſts upon it, that baptiſm demands the believer's regard, prior to the holy ſupper, as it was appointed to be firſt adminiſtered: and he ſeverely cenſures thoſe inconſiderate mortals, who treat the ordinance lightly.—Mr. Turner alſo, as we have ſeen, maintains that baptiſm is the duty of Chriſtians in general; that it is the common token of our ſubjection to Chriſt; that it is neceſſary to a regular entrance into the viſible church; and that it is the foundation of external communion in the houſe of God. Surely, then, theſe authors cannot but be greatly grieved, if not offended, which thoſe diluting terms and that degrading compariſon, which are uſed by Meſſieurs Pacificus and Candidus, when ſpeaking of the ordinance! Nay, they will be ready to retort upon them that heavy charge, with thoſe Peaceful and Candid Gentlemen levelled at us; and to remind them that, by treating baptiſm in ſuch a manner, they greatly injure the honour and intereſt of true religion, and not a little contribute to the cauſe of infidelity. For they have united in repeatedly calling baptiſm a non-eſſential; and in comparing it with that obſolete appointment circumciſion, of which judaizing Chriſtians of old were ſo fond. This being the caſe, I am heartily glad that theſe worthy authors have reprobated their conduct, and ſo publicly condemned their way of thinking, in regard to baptiſm. It may ſerve, perhaps, as an antidote againſt the hurtful influence of their Modeſt Plea; nor may it be entirely uſeleſs to Pacificus and Candidus themſelves. But yet, methinks, I could ſincerely wiſh, as Mr. Ryland and Mr. Turner are pretty well acquainted with thoſe writers, that they would ſeriouſly examine and converſe with them in private, on the ſubject about which they ſo widely differ.—And I may juſt hint, that as they are the fitteſt perſons in the world to perform the friendly office, they need not fear provoking their choler. For as their names are, Candid and Peaceful, ſo is their temper; and it might have a beneficial effect, by making them more careful what they write and publiſh in future, in regard to free communion.—But I return from this digreſſion.

Mr. Bunyan, when ſpeaking of baptiſm, calls it an outward circumſtantial thing—A ſhadow, an outward circumſtance—Water—water—water—water—water; five times over, in ſo many lines. And a ſubmiſſion to baptiſm he deſcribes in equally, degrading language. For he repreſents it, as an outward conformity to an outward circumſtance—As an outward and bodily conformity to outward and ſhadowiſh circumſtances—And calls it obedience to water. Works, Vol. I. p. 133, 137, 168, 169, 134, 138, 194. What depreciating terms! What irreverent language! Is not the reader tempted to think, that I have made a miſtake in my author; and that I have been referring to Socinus, or Barclay, inſtead of him who penned that immortal work, The Pilgrim's Progreſs? But let me not wrong thoſe authors, by inſinuating that they make uſe of ſimilar language on the ſame ſubject. For though the former, when ſpeaking of the ordinance under conſideration, frequently calls it,The external baptiſm of water,for which his opponent reproves him;Baptiſmum aquae externum. Apud Hoornb. Socin. Conf. Tom. III. p. 301. and though the latter denominates both the poſitive inſtitutions of our Lord, Shadows, and outſide things; yet, ſo far as I have obſerved, neither of them ever uſed ſuch degrading and indecent language concerning baptiſm, as that produced from Mr. Bunyan. Nay, I do not remember to have met with any thing of the kind that is equal to it, except what is reported of ſome ancient heretics, called Archontici. Who impiouſly, as Theodoret aſſerts, Lavacrum execrantur, et myſteriorum participationem, ut quae fiat in nomine Sabaoth. Apud, Suicerum, Theſ. Eccleſ. ſub voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yet had Socinus, or Barclay, ſo expreſſed himſelf, we ſhould not have been much ſurpriſed; becauſe the one maintain , that Chriſt never required his apoſtles to baptize in water, but only permitted them ſo to do; and the other expreſaly ſays, That he [Chriſt] commanded his diſciples to baptize with water, I could never yet read. Hoornb. ubi ſupra, p. 249, 250.251.301. Barclay's Apol. p. 424. Our brethren, therefore, who plead for free communion, are the only perſons profeſſing firmly to believe, that Chriſt commanded, really and ſolemnly commanded his miniſtering ſervants to baptize in water, and continue the practice to the end of the world; and yet treat the ordinance as if it were a mere circumſtance in divine worſhip; an indifferent thing; and diſpenſe with it juſt as o caſion requires. Conſequently, they have the complete monopoly of that honour which ariſes from the union of ſuch a creed and ſuch a conduct.

The Lord's ſupper, however, is conſidered and treated by them in a different manner; for they ſpeak of it as a delightful, an edifying, an important inſtitution. But what authority have they for thus diſtinguiſhing between two appointments of the ſame Lord, intended for the ſame perſons, of equal continuance in the Chriſtian church, and alike required of proper ſubjects? They have, indeed, the example of ſome Socinians, and the venerable ſanction of the whole Council of Trent. For the title of one chapter in the records of that Council, is; Concerning the excellence of the moſt holy Euchariſt, above the reſt of the ſacraments. Council. Trident. Seſs. XIII. Chap. III. But as a good old Proteſtant writer obſerves, That the one ſacrament ſhould be ſo much extolled above the other, namely, the Lord's ſupper to be preferred before baptiſm, as the more worthy and excellent ſacrament, we find no ſuch thing in the word of God; but that both of them are of like dignity in themſelves, and to be had equally and indifferently in moſt high account. Willet's Synopſ. Papiſmi, p. 556, 557. Nay, Mr. Ryland aſſures us, of which I would have Pacificus take particular notice; That baptiſm ought to be conſidered as glorious an act of worſhip, as ever was inſtituted by God. Beauty of Social Relig. p. 9. —Might not the Jews of old have diſtinguiſhed, with equal propriety, between circumciſion and the paſchal ſupper? Does it become us to form compariſons between the poſitive appointments of our Eternal Sovereign, in regard to their importance; and that with a view to diſpenſe with either of them, while the very ſame authority enjoins the one as well as the other? Can ſuch a conduct be pious, humble, or rational? Is it not ſomething like being partial in God's law, for which the ancient prieſts were ſeverely cenſured? Or, ſhall we ſay of our obedience to God, as he ſays to the mighty ocean; Hitherto ſhalt thou come, but no further?

But ſuppoſing it is evident, that baptiſm is much inferior to the ſacred ſupper, in point of importance; yet, while it is an ordinance of God, it has an equal claim on our obedience. For it is not the manifeſt excellence, or the great utility of any divine appointment, that is the true reaſon of our ſubmiſſion to it; but the authority of Him that commands. It hath been ever God's wont, ſays Bp. Hall, by ſmall precepts to prove men's diſpoſitions. Obedience is as well tried in a trifle, as in the moſt important charge: yea, ſo much more, as the thing required is leſs: for oftentimes thoſe who would be careful in main affairs, think they may neglect the ſmalleſt. What command ſoever we receive from God, or our ſuperiors, we muſt not ſean the weight of the thing, but the authority of the commander. Either difficulty, or ſlightneſs, are vain pretences for diſobedience. Contemplations, Vol. III. p. 274. Edinb. Edit. Nay, even Dr. Prieſtley, though remarkable for his liberal ſentiments and rational way of thinking, and far from aſcribing too much to God's dominion over the ſubjects of his moral government; yet ſtrongly aſſerts Jehovah's prerogative in this reſpect. Theſe are his words; Every divine command ought certainly to be implicitly complied with, even though we ſhould not be able to diſcern the reaſon of it. And has not He who is God over all bleſſed for ever, ſaid; Whoſoever ſhall break one of theſe leaſt commandments, and ſhall teach men ſo, he ſhall be called the leaſt in the kingdom of heaven? As in the great concerns of religious worſhip, nothing ſhould be done that is not required by Jehovah; and as the lawfulneſs of all poſitive rites depends entirely on their divine Author and his inſtitution; ſo he who complies with ſome, and neglects others that are equally commanded and equally known, may pleaſe himſelf, but he does not obey the Lord.

Further: Theſe depreciating expreſſions, non-eſſential, external rite, a ſhadow, and a mere outward form, may be applied to the ſacred ſupper with as much propriety as they are to baptiſm. Another quotation from Barclay will not be diſpleaſing to our opponents; eſpecially when they obſerve, how nearly his language, in regard to baptiſm, coincides with theirs. We, ſays the plain dealing apologiſt, we always prefer the power to the ſorm, the ſubſtance to the ſhadow; and where the ſubſtance and the power is, we doubt not to denominate the perſon accordingly, though the form be wanting. And, therefore, we always ſeek firſt and plead for the ſubſtance and power, as knowing that to be indiſpenſably neceſſary; tho' the form ſometimes may be diſpenſed with. Apology. p. 419. Diſpenſe with the form, in regard to ſuch perſons as poſſeſs the power: why that is the very thing for which our brethren plead. How happily friend Robert and they are agreed, in this reſpect! And what an honour it reflects upon them, as Baptiſts, to have ſuch an aſſociate! They, however, will do well to remember that the principle on which the Quaker proceeds, extends its influence to the holy ſupper, no leſs than to baptiſm; and that he who has a right to diſpenſe with a law, may entirely repeal it, and enact another whenever he pleaſes.—Baptiſm is an external rite, a mere outward form. But whatever Socinus, or Bunyan, or any of our brethren, may ſay in defence of their conduct on this ground, will apply with equal force againſt a punctual obſervance of the Lord's ſupper. This Barclay intended. For are not bread and wine external things, as well as water? And has not the act of baptizing as much ſpirituality in it, as the acts of eating and drinking? Beſides, an apoſtle has aſſured as, that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," though the latter were the richeſt of cordials, any more than it is immerſion in water.Vid. Hornbeek, ut ſupra. p. 362.

Once more: When I conſider how much more frequently baptiſm is mentioned in the New Teſtament, than the ſacred ſupper;Hornbeek, ut ſupra, p. 409, 416. how often repenting and believing ſinners are exhorted, by the apoſtles, to be baptized; how ſoon that ordinance was adminiſtered to Chriſtian converts after they believed; what exhortations are given to profeſſing Chriſtians, on the ground of their being baptized; and when I reflect, that the Holy Spirit commends them that were baptized by John, as "juſtifying God;" while he ſeverely cenſures others, as rejecting the counſel of God againſt themſelves, becauſe they ſlighted the ſolemn appointment; I cannot but wonder at the language and conduct of our opponents.—Their very ſingular conduct appears to me ſtill more extraordinary, and yet more unwarrantable, when I reflect; that baptiſm is a divine inſtitution to which a believer ſubmits but once, and a branch of divine worſhip that he is required to perform but once: in which reſpect it greatly differs from every other appointment in the worſhip of God, under the Chriſtian economy. For, this being the caſe, one ſhould have imagined, if notorious and ſtubborn facts had not forbidden the thought; that every miniſter of Jeſus Chriſt, and every church of the living God, would inſiſt on a ſubmiſſion to what to what they conſider as real baptiſm, in all whom they admit to the Lord's table. And, whatever Pacificus may have ſaid to the contrary, or however unimportant he may ſuppoſe the ordinance to be; I have the pleaſure to find, that Mr. Ryland, as before obſerved, ſeems to conſider it in the ſame light with myſelf; if one may venture to form a judgment of his views relating to this inſtitution, from what he has publiſhed under his own name. Theſe are his words, and I would warmly recommend them to the conſideration of Pacificus: Baptiſm ought to be conſidered as glorious an act of worſhip as ever was inſtituted by God. It is to be performed but once in the life of a Chriſtian —but once to eternity; and therefore, it ought to be done with the utmoſt veneration and love. Beauty of Social Relig. p. 9. —Here, then, we have an ordinance appointed by Supreme authority, which requires to be celebrated but once; a command given by the Lord Redeemer, that is perfectly ſatisfied with one, yes, with only one not of obedience in the whole courſe of a Chriſtian's life: ye , ſtrange to imagine, but certain in fact, though the authority enjoining is abſolute, and acknowledged ſo to be; though the obedience required conſiſts in a ſingle inſtance; and though the duty commanded is generally eaſy, very eaſy to be performed, where there is a diſpoſition for it; our brethren not only connive at a neglect of it, but ſeverely cenſure us becauſe we do not adopt their conduct! but whether we, or they, deſerve cenſure, conſidering the principles we hold in common, I leave the impartial reader, I leave all but themſelves, to judge they not believing, any more than we, the divine authority, or the validity of infant ſprinkling; for if they did, they would ſtand convicted before all the world of A abaptiſm. My reader will pardon the frequent repetition of this thought, it being of great importance in every diſpute of this kind; nor can we ſuffer our opponents long to forget it.

SECTION VI. Reflections on the diſtinguiſhing Character, Strict Baptiſts, which our Brethren apply to us.

OUR opponents, I obſerve, repeatedly call us, Strict Baptiſts; but whether for ſo doing they merit commendation, or deſerve cenſure, may, perhaps, be a queſtion with ſome. If, by the epithet ſtrict, they mean exact, accurate, conſcientiouſly nice; their candour deſerves commendation. In that ſenſe of the term we are not aſhamed to be called Strict, Baptiſts; we cheerfully adopt the character.

It may, however, admit of a query, whether we be ſo fully entitled to poſſeſs this honour without a rival, as our brethren ſeem to inſinuate. Is it becauſe we are ſtricter than the apoſtles, in regard to communion at the Lord's table? That remains to be proved. Is it becauſe we conſider baptiſm as equally the duty of all believers? This, indeed, we maintain: and the reaſon is, thoſe arguments which prove it the duty of one, will apply to all. Or, is it becauſe we conſider baptiſm as a term of communion? We, it is true, avow the ſentiment; but it is far from being peculiar to us. For it appears from the foregoing pages, that we act on a principle received in common by Chriſtians of almoſt every name, in every age, and in every nation. When, therefore, we are compared with profeſſing Chriſtians in general, we have no peculiar claim to the epithet ſtrict; whatever right we may have to the denomination of Baptiſts, or whatever be our diſtinguiſhing character, when oppoſed to our brethren with whom we now contend.—Nor can we be otherwiſe than ſtrict, without violating our own principles, and contradicting our own practice. For we believe that all who have received the truth, ſhould profeſs their faith in Jeſus Chriſt and be baptized. And have we not the happineſs, in this reſpect, of agreeing with our brethren? When we made a public declaration of our dependence on Chriſt, and gave a reaſon of the hope that is in us, we believed it was our duty to be baptized, before we received the ſacred ſupper. Did not our opponents do the ſame? or had it no place at all in their creed? In conſequence of ſuch a conviction, we were actually immerſed in the name of the Lord, before we approached the holy table. And were not they alſo? But how came it to be either our duty, or theirs, thus to proceed? Was it becauſe they or we believed that it was required of us? Or, did a full perſuaſion of this kind conſtitute that a duty, which would no otherwiſe have been obligatory? If ſo, a Catholic may lawfully adore the hoſt, a Muſſulman revere Mahomet, and a Jew blaſpheme the Meſſiah. No; that which made it our duty to be baptized, and then to receive the Lord's ſupper, was the command of God; which lies on every perſon ſo qualified, by the renewing agency of the divine Spirit, as we humbly conceived ourſelves to be. Now, can it be ſuppoſed that this command extends to none but thoſe among real converts, who feel its force on their own conſciences? Or, may we ſafely conclude, that a believer is no further obliged by any divine precept, or prohibition, than he ſees and acknowledges the obligation, in regard to himſelf? If ſo, a believer who has been baptized, may live all his days in the neglect of communion at the Lord's table, and ſtand acquitted of blame; and covetouſneſs is no crime, in thouſands who bow at the ſhrine of Mammon; for there are comparatively few lovers of money, who acknowledge their guilt in that reſpect. Nay, on this principle it will follow, that the more ignorant any believer is, and the leſs tender his conſcience, he is under ſo much the leſs obligation to obey the divine commands. But the reader will do well to remember, that the Great Supreme do •• not lie at our courteſy for his claim of obedience upon us, in any inſtance that can be named. No; it is not our conviction of the propriety, the utility, or the neceſſity of any command which he has given, that entitles him to the performance of it; but, in all things of a moral nature, our being rational creatures is the ground of his claim; and in thoſe of a poſitive kind, our being qualified according to his direction, whether we be ſo wiſe and ſo ſincere as to acknowledge the obligation, or no. Thus it appears that the epithet ſtrict, if taken in the ſenſe already explained, is no diſhonour to us.

But if, on the contrary, our brethren mean by the epithet, that we are bigotted, unneceſſarily exact, unſcripturally confined; their forwardneſs to give us a name calls for our cenſure. In the former ſenſe, I will venture to affirm, every Baptiſt ought to be a ſtrict one, or elſe to renounce the name. In the latter uſe of the term, we reject the diſtinguiſhing epithet, and require our opponents to prove—I ſay to prove, not to ſurmiſe, that it juſtly belongs to us. And that they uſe the word in this obnoxious meaning appears to me, by the tenor of their arguing; by ſuperadding that harſher epithet rigorous; and by that home charge, of greatly injuring the honour and intereſt of true religion, and not a little contributing to the cauſe of infidelity?

But if we be Strict Baptiſts, what are they? Our brethren will not be offended, if I again aſk, What are they; and by what name ſhall we call them? That they are not ſtrict Baptiſts, is out of all diſpute; becauſe from ſuch they expreſsly diſtinguiſh themſelves, and have abundant reaſon, if the charge juſt mentioned be true, to be aſhamed of them. I am obliged, therefore, if it be lawful for me to imitate their officiouſneſs, and to give them a name, (for as yet they are half anonymous) to ſearch for ſome ſignificant and deſcriptive adjective, that will ſet them at a wide diſtance from the ſtrict Baptiſts. But what muſt it be? Innaccurate, or looſe, or latitudinarian? I would not, deſignedly, be guilty of a miſnomer; but as all theſe terms are very different in their meaning from that obnoxious word ſtrict, it can hardly be ſuppoſed that. I am far from the truth. As they profeſs themſelves Baptiſts, there we agree; but as they hold the ordinance of baptiſm with a looſe hand, there we differ; and hence the neceſſity of ſuch oppoſitely ſignificant epithets, to mark our different conduct. For names, you know, are ſo much the more perfect, by how much the more they expreſs the nature and properties of perſons and things. Yes, the practice of our opponents makes it evident to all the world, that the term Baptiſts, when applied to them, is to be underſtood in ſuch a latitude of ſignification, as will comport with receiving perſons to communion, who, in their judgment, are unbaptized. That is, they are Baptiſts, when the ideas expreſſed by that name ſuit the diſpoſitions of their hearers; and they entirely omit the ordinance, from which they take their denomination, when candidates for communion with them do not approve of it. And, which makes their conduct, in this reſpect, appear exceedingly ſtrange, they do not, like his Holineſs of Rome, expreſsly claim a diſpenſing power; nor, in the madneſs of enthuſiaſm, pretend to any new revelation; nor yet, with the diſciples of George Rox, confider baptiſm as a temporary inſtitution.

Our character, then, is fixed. Their own pens have engroſſed it. And, be it known to all men, we are Strict Baptiſts. To this character, as before explained, we ſubſcribe with hand and heart; in the laſt words of the celebrated Father Paul, Eſto perpetua. Theirs I have attempted to draw, in contraſt with ours, and will now venture to call them, Latitudinarian Baptiſts. Whether they will allow the name to be juſt, and eſteem it as we do ours, I am not certain. But of this I make no doubt, that the religious world in general, were they to ſee and compare it with the opinion and practice of our brethren; would pronounce it deſcriptive of the perſons to whom it is given. Strict Baptiſts—they will permit our character to ſtand firſt, as it has confeſſedly the right of primogeniture—Strict Baptiſts! Latitudinarian Baptiſts! Theſe characters, in contraſt, ſound very oddly, I muſt confeſs; and they are but of a novel date. For they do not appear to have had an exiſtence till about the middle of the laſt century. What a pity it is but ſomething of a ſimilar kind could have been found, in the ancient monuments of the Jewiſh church, relating to circumciſion, as a prerequiſite for communion in it. Had it appeared, in any authentic records, that the ſons of Abraham, in times of yore, were divided in their judgment about that obſolete rite; and that ſome of them were called Strict Circumciſioniſts, and others Latitudinarian Circumciſioniſts; it would have given, at leaſt, an air of antiquity to our brethren's hypotheſis, practice, and character. But—we muſt take things as we find them.

I juſt now recollect, what many of my readers muſt know to be fact, that our Paedobaptiſt brethren, when they have a mind to ſhew their wit and be a little merry at our expence, repreſent the Baptiſts, without diſtinction, as exceedingly fond of water; as profeſſors that cannot live in a church ſtate, without a great deal of water. Nay, one of them has very politely called us 'watery Bigots;' and then adds, Many ignorant ſprinkled Chriſtians are often, to their hurt, pulled by them into the water. Dr. Mayo's True Scripture Doctrine of Baptiſm, p. 33. Poor creatures! How much theſe ſprinkled Chriſtians are to be pitied, when treated ſo rudely by watery bigots! Is there no remedy againſt ſuch an invaſion of perſonal liberty, by appealing to Caeſar? If there be, a Doctor of Laws would not ſpend his time ill in pointing it out, for the benefit of ſuch 'ignorant ſprinkled Chriſtians,' and to prevent any of them being hurt, in future. —According to this Gentleman, then, we are watery bigots. Well, it does not greatly diſtreſs me to be thus repreſented by a ſneering antagoniſt; becauſe I really believe that much water is neceſſary to baptiſm, and am no leſs confident, that baptiſm is neceſſary to communion at the Lord's table. But ſince I have maturely conſidered the ſingular character and peculiar ſituation of our latitudinarian brethren, I can by no means think it either candid or equitable that they ſhould be thus repreſented. Becauſe it is evident, evident even to demonſtration, that their profeſſion and practice taken together will not admit of it. They, it muſt be acknowledged, will ſometimes declaim aloud on the neceſſity of a profeſſion of faith, and of immerſion in the name of the triune God, to conſtitute that baptiſm which is from heaven. So, when they write on the ſubject, and publiſh their thoughts to the world at large, they aſſert theſe things with the greateſt confidence. They will alſo, with the venerable John, go down into Jordan, and there adminiſter the ſignificant ordinance: ſo that one would be tempted to think they were ſtrict Baptiſts, real Baptiſts, and that Baptiſm has no faſter friends upon earth. But when they plead for free communion, they talk a different language; they ſpeak of it as an indifferent thing and a mere trifle, that is not worth contending about. And, when they admit communicants, they often act in a different way; for, in receiving a Paedohaptiſt, what they conſider as real baptiſm is entirely ſet aſide. They might, conſequently, with equal conſiſtency, admit believers to their communion, who have neither been immerſed nor ſprinkled; and ſo, like the Quakers, have nothing at all to do with water in the worſhip of God. Whether, therefore, a perſon has been immerſed in a river, be the waters ever ſo many; or ſprinkled with that element from the palm of the hand, be the drops ever ſo few; or has had no concern with water at all, it makes no material difference with them, in point of communion. So, then, as they can receive members into their communities, ſubſiſt in a church ſtate, and enjoy fellowſhip at the Lord's table, with either much water, or little water, or none at all; I humbly conceive, that if our bantering opponent would do them juſtice, while he diſplays his own wit, he ſhould give them a different name. For though they ſeem, at ſometimes, to be as fond of water as we are; inſiſting upon it, that where there is no immerſion there is no baptiſm; yet, at others, they warmly contend, that believers of all denominations, (i. e. Baptiſts with much water; Paedobaptiſts, with little water; and Katabaptiſts without any water at all) have a right of communion with them in the ſacred ſupper. It behoves the Doctor, therefore, if ever he favour us with another addreſs, to ſearch for a new diſtinguiſhing epithet, to connect with the term bigots, that ſhall include and expreſs theſe various ideas. But whether our own language be able to furniſh an adjective comprehenſive enough, on ſuch an occaſion, I dare not aſſert: very probably, however, among thoſe numerous compounds contained in the language of ancient Greece, he may find one that is fit for the purpoſe. And as it is not every one, no, nor every Doctor, who could have thought of that elegant phraſe, 'Watery Bigots;' I doubt not the fertility of his invention, and the well known accuracy of his pen, when handling the Baptiſts, will enable him to give our brethren a deſcriptive character, that ſhall be equally polite and perfectly ſuitable.

Though I am far from ſuſpecting that our brethren want ſincerity, or from thinking that they violate the dictates of conſcience, in maintaining their very ſingular hypotheſis; yet their conduct, in regard to baptiſm, has ſuch an ambiguous appearance, and looks ſo much like holding both ſides of a contradiction, that I ſhould not wonder if one or another of our Paedobaptiſt opponents, were to apply them with a little alteration, the ſpirited remonſtrance of Bp. Hall to Abp. Laud. The latter being ſtrongly ſuſpected of a predilection for Popery, and the former intending to deal roundly with him on that ſubject, addreſſed him in the following language. I would I knew where to find you—To day you are in the tents of the Romaniſts; to morrow in ours; the next day between both, againſt both. Our adverſaries think you ours; we theirs—This of yours is the worſt of all tempers. Heat and cold have their uſes; lukewarmneſs is good for nothing but to trouble the ſtomach—How long will you halt in this indifferency? Reſolve one way, and know, at laſt, what you do hold; what you ſhould. Caſt off either your wings or your teeth; and, loathing this bat-like form, be either a bird or a beaſt. If you muſt begin, why not now?—God crieth with Jehu, Who is on my ſide, who?—Take you peace; let me have truth, if I cannot have both. * Thus the acute and good Biſhop Hall, to one who halted between two opinions; who was neither an uniform Papiſt, nor a conſiſtent Proteſtant.

And now, before I conclude, our brethren will ſuffer me alſo to remonſtrate; and the reader may reſt aſſured, that I do it without the leaſt impeachment of their integrity; If infant ſprinkling be a human invention, diſown it, renounce it, entirely reject it, and no longer let it hold the place of a divine inſtitution in any of your churches. But if it be from Heaven, embrace it, profeſs it, practiſe it in the face of the ſun, and lay the other abſolutely aſide, as deſtitute of a divine warrant. For as there is but one God, and one faith, ſo there is but one baptiſm. Divine truth is conſiſtent; divine ordinances are conſiſtent, for they are not yea and nay; and all the Chriſtian world are conſiſtent with themſelves, relating to baptiſm; be ye, therefore, conſiſtent, in this, as you are in other reſpects. That is, be either conſiſtent Baptiſts, or Paedobaptiſts; for, according to your preſent practice, all thinking and impartial men muſt pronounce you an heterogeneous mixture of both.

FINIS.

Speedily will be Publiſhed, By THOMAS DOBSON, bookſeller, at the STONE HOUSE in Second ſtreet, between Market and Cheſnut ſtreet— BOOTH's Paedobaptiſm examined and refuted, UPON THE PRINCIPLES AND CONCESSIONS OF PAEDOBAPTIST WRITERS.