mot as inconfiftent to receive a Pedobaptift, as a minifler, 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 miniflers, any more than for receiving th them as members ?'-Thefe queries being confidered, by many of our opponents, as quite unanfwerable, I hall 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 thefe queries fuggelt, 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 fri Baptifts would think they acted confiftently in making choice of a Pedobaptift for their pastor, or to officiate as a deacon? Befides, will not our brethren acknowledge, that in every orderly fociety, and more efpecially in a church of Chrift, a perfon must be a member before he can be an officer in it? This is the point in dif pute, at least it is this about which I contend; Whether baptifm be equally neceffary to the occafional exercife of minifterial gifts, as it is to communion at the Lord's table? and, Whether the fcripture favour the one as much as the other? Such being the true ftate of the question, I now beg leave to afk; Suppofing our brethren to prove the affirmative beyond a doubt, what is the confequence, and how are we affected by it? Is it, that we are found guilty of a direct violation of fome divine command, that requires us to receive Pædobaptists into our communion? No fuch thing is pretended. Is it, that we oppofe feme plain apof tolic precedent? neither is this laid to our charge, For they do not believe there were any Pædobap. tifts in the apoftolic times; and, confequently, they cannot fuppofe that the New Teftament contains an example of fuch being received into communion. What, then, is the conclufion they would infer? It muft, furely, be fomething formidable to every ftrict Baptift; otherwise it is hardly fuppofable that fo much weight should be laid upon this objection. The confequence, however, is only this; The premises proved, the ftri& Baptifts have no reason to cenfure their brethren of a loofer caft, becaufe they themselves are equally culpable, though in a different refpect. Or, in other words, The firia Baptifts, like fome other folks, are not quite infallible; do actually err; and, by reafon 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 fervice to the cause of free communion, except it be good logic and found divinity, to attempt a juftification of my own faults, by proving that he who accufes me is equally guilty: or to congratulate myself as an innocent man, because my neighbour cannot with a good grace reprove Our opponents, I perfuade myself, will not be greatly offended with us, if this argument, Herculean as it feems to them, fhould not make us complete converts to free communion. So foon, however, as our brethren fhall make it ap pear, that they have as good a warrant for receiving Pædobaptift believers into ftated communion, as I have to admit a Pædobaptist minifter occafionally into my pulpit; I will either encourage the ormer, or entirely refufe the latter. me. But if thefe queries prove any thing, they prove too much; more at least, than the querifts intend. For, according to the argument contained in them, it is equally unwarrantable for us to bear a Pædobaptift minister preach, or to unite with him in public prayer; as it is for them to receive him into communion. For inftance: do they demand, Where have you either precept, or example, for admitting Pædobaptift minifters into your pulpits, any more than for receiving them as members?" I retort, on their Baptift principles; Where have you either precept or example, in the New Teftament, for hearing Pedobaptift minifters preach; or for uniting with them in public prayer, any more than for receiving them as members? And, to thew the futility of this argument, I again demand; If, in bearing fuch minifters preach, or by uniting with them in public prayer (which are undoubtedly branches of the moral worship of God, nor peculiar to any difpenfation of religion) we act without any exprefs command or plain example in the New Teftament; with what propriety can we blame our brethren for admitting Pædobaptifts to the Lord's fupper (which is a pofitive inftitution; a part of divine worship that depends entirely on a revelation of the fovereign will of God) though they have neither precept nor precedent for fo doing? Queries of this kind might be multiplied, but thefe may fuffice. But is there no difference between the two cafes ? No difference between occafionally admitting Pædobaptift minifters into our pulpits, and receiving them or others of the fame perfuafion, into our communion? I can fcarcely imagine that our brethren themselves will here answer in the nega tive: but that this difference may plainly appear, let the following things be obferved.-Public preaching is not confined to perfons in a church fate, nor ever was; but the Lord's fupper is a church ordinance, nor ought ever to be adminif tered but to a particular church, as fuch. Now it is of a particular church, and of a pofitive ordinance peculiar to it, concerning which is all our difpute.-There is not that ftrict mutual relation between bare hearers of the word and their preachers, as there is between the members of a church and her paftor, or between the members themfelves. And as, according to the appointment of God, perfons must believe the gofpel before they have any thing to do with pofitive inftitutions; fo, in the ordinary courfe of Providence, they must hear the gofpel 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 facred fupper. (Acts xviii. 8.) When our opponents receive Pædobaptifts into their fellowship, they practically allow what they themselves confider as a human invention, to fuperfede a pofitive, divine institution; and that with a view to their attending on another pofitive appointment of Jefus Chrift. Not fo, when we admit ministers of that perfuafion into our pulpits. In this cafe there is no divine inftitution fuperfeded; no human invention, in the worship of God, encouraged: nor is it done with a view to introduce them to any pofitive appointment of our fovereign Lord.-Again: When we admit Pædobaptift minifters into our pulpits, it is in expectation that they will preach the gofpel; that very gospel which we believe and love, and about which there is no difference between them and us. But when they receive Pædobaptists into communion, they openly connive at what they confider as an error; an error both in judgment and practice; an error of that kind which the fcripture 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 baptifm, difcourse on those doctrines he experimentally knows, and countenancing an invention of men. In the former cafe we fhew an esteem for his perfonal talents, we honoùr his ministerial gifts, and manifelt our love to the truth; in the latter, we set afide a divinely appointed prerequifite for communion at the Lord's table. It has been already observed, as a fact, that perfons have been called by grace, who were not baptized in their infancy; and, confidering baptifm as a temporary inftitution, have confcientiously refused a submission to that ordinance when converted, who yet defired communion in the holy fupper. We will now fuppofe a community of fuch; and that they call to the ministry one of their number, who is allowed by ali competent judges, to poffefs great minifterial gifts, and to be a very useful preacher :-Or we may fuppofe a reformed Catholic, equally the fubject of divine grace, and endued with equal abilities for public fervice yet confcientiously retaining the Popish error of communion in one kind only. Now, on either of these fuppofitions, I demand of our brethren, whether they wouid receive fuch an one into communion with the fame readiness that they would admit him into their pulpits? If they an : |