im of a celebrated author; The appointment of God, is the highest law, the fupreme neceffity; which we ought rather to obey than indulge popular ignorance and weakness.'*-From the manner of reafoning fometimes ufed by our opponents, and by thofe three authors to whom I have just referred, one would imagine, that Socinians, Quakers, and thofe Baptifts who plead for free communion, were almoft the only perfons in the Chriftian world, that exercise a proper degree of candour towards profeffors of other denominations, or have a due regard for peace among the people of God: but whether this be a fact the reader will judge.

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

"Receive ye one another, as Chrift alfo hath received us. "Thefe words have been understood in a larger fenfe than that for which our brethren plead. For fome Pædobaptifts have concluded

* Dei ordinatio nobis fumma lex, fuprema neceffitas, cui potius parendum quam populari ignorantiæ et infirmitati indulgendum. Turretini Inft, Theolog. Tom. III. Loc. XIX. Quæft. XIV. $ 14.

from hence, that it is the indifpenfable duty of a particular church to allow communion to all that defire it: taking it for granted, no doubt, that none would request the privilege but those who were baptized. This, the reader will certainly think is free communion. And, indeed, if this text warrant our brethren's practice, I fee but little objection against its being understood in fuch a latitude of fignification. But, in oppofition to such a sense of the paffage, a Pedobaptift writer obferves; This inference is glaringly forced and wide, difcovering their ignorance of the true meaning and defign of the text who make it. The apole is not here fpeaking of admiffion to church-member Ship at all-nor does he confider thofe to whom he writes in the precife light of members of the church universal, but as members of a particular church, or body; among whom there was fome difference of opinion about meats, &c. which was like to break their communion together, as is plain from the preceding chapter. The apostle fets himfelf to prevent this, and to accomplish a reconciliation. And, after a number of healing things, he concludes with these words; Receive ye one anothThat is, ye who are faints at Rome, who shave agreed to walk together in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord Jefus; ye who are profeffedly united in church.communion, receive ye one another in love, as becometh faints, united in one body for mutual benefit. Bear ye one another's burdens: watch over and admonith one another in love, notwithstanding of fome dif ference in fentiment among you: as to the eating certain meats and regarding certain days, let not that difference make any breach in your commu

er.

nion together as a church of Chrift.

But let the

ftrong bear with those that are weak, and the weak not be offended with the liberty of the ftrong.-Judge not one another uncharitably, but let brotherly love continue. This is precifely the apoftle's meaning; as will appear to those who look impartially into the connexion of his argument; and by no means ferves the purpose for which the objectors bring it.'*

And fuppofing our brethren to argue from this paffage only by way of analogy, their inference is equally weak, and their conclufion palpably forced: there being a great, an effential difference, between eating or not eating of certain meats, in the apoftolic times; and our being baptized, or not baptized, prior to communion at the Lord's table. For though while the ceremonial law was in force, the Jews were obliged to abftain from prohibite. meats; yet our opponents will not affirm, that their obfervance of a negative precept was intended by the Eternal Sovereign, to answer fimilar purposes with the ordinance of baptifm, as appointed by Jefus Chrift. The latter is a folemn inftitution of divine worship: but can this be afferted of the former? Baptifm was inftituted prior to the facred fupper; was commanded to be administered to profeffing believers, before they approached the holy table; and, in the apoftolic age, for aught appears to the contrary, was conftantly adminiftered to believers previous to their having communion in the Chriftian church. But can fimilar things be affirmed concerning that abftinence from

Smith's Compendious Account of the Form and Order of the Church, p. 109, 110.

certain meats, which were forbidden under the

Jewish economy.

To conclude my remarks on the text before us, and to illuftrate the paffage. Candidus, we will fuppofe, is the paftor of a Baptist church, and that a difpute arifes among his people, about the lawfulness of eating blood, or any thing ftrangled. The controverfy rifes 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, apoftolic precept.-A report of this comes to Irenæus. Concerned and grieved at fuch contentions and fuch 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 fays: "Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Chrift alfo received us to the glory of God."-In a while after this healing epiftle is published, and read by many. In the perufal of which, fome suspect, and others conclude that the perfons exhorted to mutual forbearance, had not communion one with another, under the pastoral care of Candidus, and that they who are styled, "weak in faith," had never been baptized. Nay, fome affert, that the mere want of baptism, in the opinion of Irenæus, ought never to be objected against any that are candidates for communion at the Lord's table; nor ever be made a bar to fel

lowship in a church of Chrift. Yet Irenæus was never known, in any inftance, to give the leaft caufe for fuch a fufpicion. The application is eafy: I fhall therefore only afk, Whether, in the supposed cafe, fuch inferences would be genuine and juft, or forced and unnatural? and, whether they who drew them might not be fufpected of being, either very fanciful and weak, or as acting under the power of fome prejudice? The reader will pardon my prolixity on this paffage, when he confiders. that our opponents lay a very great stress upon it.

By the text produced from the Acts of the apof tles we learn, that "God is no respecter of perfons ;" that he, as an abfolute fevereign, bestows his favours on Jews and Gentiles without any difference. But will our brethren infer from hence, that they whofe honour and happiness it is to be his obedient fervants, are entirely at liberty to receive to communion at the Lord's table all that believe, without any difference? Can they justly conclude, that becaufe Jehovah difpenfes his bleffings as he pleases, they may adminifter, or omit, his pofitive inftitutions 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 paffage, 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 faid, any thing that was lawful; the rule of which is

1 Cor. ix. 19-23+