community admitting fuch 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 ftatutes of Heaven in that cafe made and provided. Besides, you have already acknowledged, that if you did not confider yourfelf as baptized, if you thought immerfion on a profeffion of faith essential to baptism, which you very well know is my fentiment, 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 facred supper, I should stand condemned on your own principles. This, therefore, is the only question between us, What is baptifm? For you dare not affert, you cannot suppofe, that an unbaptized believer, defcended from Chriftian 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 myfelf what is effential to baptifm. You verily believe that you have been baptized; I am equally confident, from your own account of the matter, that you have not. Your confcience opposes the thought of being immerfed on a profeffion of faith, because, in your opinion, it would be rebaptization; mine cannot encourage your approach to the Lord's table, because I confider infant baptifm 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 confider you as a real convert, and love you as a Chriftian brother. Were you perfuaded that a son of Abraham after the flesh, or a dupe to Mahomet's impofture, 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 fenfe would forbid the thought. You would rather fay, He is a believer in God's Meffiah, and a lover of Jefus Chrift; he feels the power of gofpel truth on his heart, and his moral conduct is comely; but, as yet, he is unbaptized. I fhould rejoice to fee him convinced of the importance of that inftitution, of the connexion it has with other appointments of Christ, and behold him fubmitto it. Then, were I in communion, I fhould 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 fake, I confider 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 Antipædobaptift principles, we are not obliged to confider a truly converted but unbaptized Muffulman, and a converted Englishman, who has had no other than pædobaptism, as on a level in point of communion with us? For God is no refpecter of perfons. It is no 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 Inftitutes of Confucius, or the well-attefted Revelation of God; if he really be born of the Spirit he has an equal claim to all the privileges of a gofpel church, with a true convert defcended from Chriftian ancestors.

And if fo, while our brethren

abide by their prefent hypothefis, they could not refuse the facred fuper to the one, any more than the other, without the moft palpable inconfiftency; though, by admitting the former to that divine appointment, they would furprise and offend all that heard of it.

A

Our opponents further fuggest, nay, they seem quite confident, That the Chriftian Jews in the primitive church, might, on our principles, have refused communion to the believing Gentiles, becaufe they were not circumcised; and that the converted Gentiles might have denied fellowship to the believing Jews, for the oppofite reafon.' But hère our brethren take for granted, what we cannot by any means allow. For this way of talking fuppofes, that a fubmiffion to baptifin is no more demanded of believers now, than circumcifion was of Gentile converts in the apoftolic age; and that we who plead for baptifm as a term of communion, have no more authority so to do, than Judaizing Chriftians then had for maintaining the neceffity of circumcifion. Now fuch extraordinary pofitions as thefe fhould not have been affumed gratis, but proved, foundly proved; which, had our oppofers well and truly performed, would have made me and many of their stricter brethren, tho. rough profelytes to free communion. Nay, we thould, 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 affert, that our afcended Lord requires any of his difciples to be circumcifed, either before or after their admiffion to the holy table: confequently, if their arguing from circumcifion

to baptifm be conclufive, we may abfolutely omit the latter, as converts of old did the former, without fear of the leaft offence, or of any divine refentment.

And must we, indeed, confider the adminiftration and the neglect of baptifm, as on a perfect level with being circumcised, or uncircumcifed, in the apoftolic times? Muft an ordinance of the New Testament, submission to which our Lord requires of all his difciples, be placed on the fame footing with an obfolete rite of the Jewith church? How kind it is of our brethren who poffefs this knowledge, and are fo well acquainted with Chriftian liberty, relating to baptism, that they are willing to inform us of its true extent; for, as Socinus long ago obferved, Ignorance of it is the caufe 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 Baptift? Becaufe as Hoornbeekius remarks, in anfwer to the Socinians; It is very abfurd to explain the defign, the command, and the obligation of baptifm, by the abrogation and abuse of circumcifion.' As our brethren deteft the Socinian fyftem in general, I cannot but wonder that they should so often ufe weapons, in defence of their novel fentiment, that were forged by Socinus, or fome of his pupils, for a fimilar purpose. I could with, therefore, that fome fuch perfon as Mr. Ryland, who is well known to have an utter averfion to the capital tenets of that pretended reformer of the Reformied church in Poland, would ferioufly take Pacificus

to talk, for paying fo much honour to a depraver of divine truth, and a mutilator of God's worthip. For who knows but it might have a happy effect, and cause him to retract his Modeft Plea?- -Before I proceed to another objection, it may not be amifs to obferve, What a variety of laudable and kindred purposes this argument is adapted to serve, according to its various application by different perfons. In the hands of our opponents, it effectually proves the neceflity of admitting infant fprinkling, in fome cafes, as a proper fuccedaneum for what they confider as real baptifm. From the pen of Socinus, it evinces, beyond a doubt, that baptifm is an indifferent thing. And in the mouth. of Barclay, it will equally well demonftrate, that baptism should be entirely laid afide. Well, then, might our Candid and Peaceful oppofers congratulate themselves on the fafety of their caufe, it being defended by fuch a three edged fword as this! And well might they unite, as one man, in saying, If, therefore, this were the only thing that could be urged in favour of the latitude of communion I plead for, 1 fhould think it would be sufficient; at leaft fufficient to excuse our conduct, and stop the mouth of cenfure.?

But, notwithstanding all I have said, we ftan l charged by our brethren with a notorious inconfiftency in our own conduct; because we occafionally admit, with pleasure, Pædobaptift minifters into our pulpits, to whom we should refufe communion at the Lord's table. This objection has been much infifted upon of late, and is fometimes urged against us by way of query, to the following effect. Is not as much required in order to an office in the church, as to private membership? Is it