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 [Page 6]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. ^* 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 [Page 7]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 ^*’ Thus children are taught by the parish minister; and in the firm persuasion of these t [...]ings they are confirmed by [Page 8]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 [Page 9]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. ^*’ 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: [Page 10] ‘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. ^*’ 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 [Page 11]we to do to judge those that are without. ^*’—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 [Page 12]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. ^*’ So Mr. Wesley teaches; so, says a learned cardinal, the church has always believed ^†; 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 Papislo ^‡; or whe­ther, [Page 13]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. ^* Now who could suppose an author [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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. ^*’— Jerom; "Catechumens cannot communicate" i. e. at the Lord's table, they being unbaptized. ^†— Austin, when asserting the absolute necessity of infants receiving the Lord's supper, says; 'Of which, certainly, they can­not partake, unless they be baptized.' ^‡— 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 [Page 16]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. ^*— Theophylact; 'No unbaptized person partakes of the Lord's supper'. ^† — 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. ^‡’

Quotations of this kind might, no doubt, be great­ly multiplied: but that none were admitted to the [Page 17]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'. ^* 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.' ^†—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. ^‡’ —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. ^§’

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 [Page 18]sacred supper. ^*’— 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'. ^†— Zanchius; 'We believe that Baptism, as a sacrament appointed by Christ, is ab­solutely necessary in the church'. ^‡— Hoornbeekius; 'No one is admitted to the sacred supper, unless be is bap­tized. ^§— 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'. ^‖ Mastricht; 'As no uncircumcised male was [Page 19]admitted to the typical supper, that is the passover; so, under the New Testament, no unbaptized per­son is admitted to the Lord's table. ^*— 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'. ^†— 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.' ^‡ — Mar [...]ius; 'The dying, and the unbaptized, are not to be admitted to communion'. ^§—Dr. Manton; In foro ecclesiae, before the church, none but baptized persons have a right to the Lord's table. ^‖’—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 [Page 20]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. ^*’—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. ^†’

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 [Page 21]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 [Page 22]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, ^* 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 [Page 23]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 [Page 24]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, [Page 25]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.. ^*’

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 [Page 26]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. ^*’

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. ^†’ 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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28]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 [Page 29]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 ^*

[Page 30] 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'.— ^* 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 [Page 31]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. ^†’

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. [Page 32]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 it ^*.— ‘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. ^†’

[Page 33] 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. ^*’

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, [Page 34]by the churches of Christ ^† 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 [Page 35]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 all ^*.’—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 [Page 36]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.

[Page 37] 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 [Page 38]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 [Page 39]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, [Page 40]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 [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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.

[Page 43] 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. ^*’ 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 [Page 44] 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. ^†’— 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 [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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. ^*’—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 [Page 47]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 ^†.’ 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, [Page 48]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 [Page 49]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 [Page 50]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, [Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 ^*:—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 [Page 53]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. ^*’ 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? [Page 54]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 [Page 55]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; [Page 56]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. ^*’ 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 [Page 57]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. ^*’ 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 [Page 58]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. ^*’—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 [Page 59]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. ^*—Now this person was not a Paedobaptist; [Page 60]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 [Page 61]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. ^* 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. ^†’ 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 [Page 62]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, ^* 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 [Page 63]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 [Page 64]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 [Page 65]of faith ^*;’ 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 obligation ^†.’—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 conformity ^‡. For if it be lawful to dispense with an appointment of God, out [Page 66]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 [Page 67]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 other ^*?’—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 [Page 68][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 scripture ^†’

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 [Page 69]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. ^*.

[Page 70] 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. [Page 71]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 ^*.’ 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 heart ^†.’ 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 [Page 72]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 latter ^‡.

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 [Page 73]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 [Page 74]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? ^*?’—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, [Page 75]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 grant ^*. 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, [Page 76]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, [Page 77]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 [Page 78]and impression the prince commands. None can coin ordinances but Christ; and, till he call them in, they ought to be current among us ^*.’—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 ^†.’—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, [Page 79]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 circumstantially ^*, 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, [Page 80] 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 idolatry ^†.’— 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 [Page 81]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 autho­rity ^*.’

When a Paedobaptist applies for communion with Baptists, he acts upon a persuasion that he has been [Page 82]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, [Page 83]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; [Page 84]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 [Page 85]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 [Page 86]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 [Page 87]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 [Page 88]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 [Page 89]early regard to it in times of old. ^*’ —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. [Page 90]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 [Page 91]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. ^*’ 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 [Page 92]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 [Page 93]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. ^*’—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 [Page 94]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. ^* Consequently, as these [Page 95]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. ^* 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 [Page 96]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. ^*’ —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 [Page 97]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. ^*’ 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? ^†’ 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? ^‡’ 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 table ^§ [Page 98]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? ^*’ 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 [Page 99]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. ^* For, [Page 100]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 [Page 101]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. ^*’

‘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 [Page 102]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, [Page 103]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. ^* And will Pacificus or Can­didus, dare to assert, that the zealous Cardinal was [Page 104]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 [...], 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; ^* 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 [Page 105]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. ^*’ 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. ^†’—And as the Socinian pleads for [Page 106]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. ^*’—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, [Page 107]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. ^*’—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 [Page 108]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 [Page 109]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. ^*’

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 [Page 110]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 [Page 111]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, [Page 112]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, ^* 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? [Page 113]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 [Page 114]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 [Page 115]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 [Page 116]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 [Page 117]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 [Page 118]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. ^* 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 [Page 119]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. ^*’ 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 [Page 120]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 [Page 121]mended ^*.’ 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 obedience Pemble'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 him ^‡.’

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 [Page 122]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 ^† [Page 123]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 [Page 124]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 [Page 125]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 [Page 126]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. ^*’ —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 [Page 127]query in their ears. Far God, or for Baal? and have pronounced them, amphibious Christians. ^*

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 [Page 128]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.' ^*—'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. ^†’

Another Paedobaptist author, when treating on charity and forbearance, expresses himself in the fol­lowing language. ‘A considerable succedaneum for [Page 129]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 [Page 130]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 [Page 131]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. ^*’ [Page 132]—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. ^† 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, ^‡’ 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 [Page 133]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. ^*’

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 [Page 134]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 [Page 135]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 case ^*—’ 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 [Page 136]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 [Page 137]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 [Page 138]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 [Page 139]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 [Page 140]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 [Page 141]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.’

[Page 142] 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 [Page 143] 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, [Page 144]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 [Page 145]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 [Page 146]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 [Page 147]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. ^* Now [Page 148]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 [Page 149]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 [Page 150]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 [Page 151]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 [Page 152]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, [Page 153]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 [Page 154]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.’ [Page 155]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? [Page 156]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. ^* 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 [Page 157]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. ^*’—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 [Page 158]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? ^*’

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. ^*’ —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 re­veal ^† [Page 159]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 [Page 160]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. ^*’

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 [Page 161]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. ^*’ Nay, he mentions ‘the reve­rent use of the two sacraments,’ among those things which are ‘ essential to the constitution of a particular visible church. ^†’

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 [Page 162]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; [Page 163]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. ^* 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 [Page 164]the former, when speaking of the ordinance under consideration, frequently calls it, ‘The external bap­tism of water,’for which his opponent reproves him; ^* 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. ^† 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. ^‡’ 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 [Page 165]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. ^*’ 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. ^†’ 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. ^‡’—Might not the Jews of old have distinguished, with equal [Page 166]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. ^*’ Nay, even Dr. Priestley, though remarkable for his liberal sentiments and rational way of thinking, and far from ascribing too much [Page 167]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. ^*’ [Page 168]— 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. ^†

Once more: When I consider how much more fre­quently baptism is mentioned in the New Testament, than the sacred supper; ^‡ 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, [Page 169]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. ^*’ [Page 170]—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 [Page 171] 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 [Page 172]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 [Page 173]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, [Page 174]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 [Page 175]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, [Page 176]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. ^*’—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 [Page 177]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 [Page 178]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 [Page 179]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.