fwer in the negative, then by their own confeffion, there is not fo close a connexion 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 ufeful minifter of Christ work for you, and fhall he not be allowed to eat with you! What, fhall he break the bread of life to you, and muft he not be fuffered to break bread at the Lord's table with you!-Again: We will fuppofe a good man anda ufeful preacher to be fully perfuaded, with the Hydroparaftates in the fecond century, that water should always be ufed at the Lord's table, inftead of wine; and that, on a principle of confcience, he abfolutely refuses the latter: Or, that it is more fignificant and more agreeable to dip the bread in the wine, and receive them both at once; as practifed by fome 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 fpoon, receive both elements together. Now though, I confefs, they could not refuse him a place at the Lord's table, to partake of the holy fupper in his own way, without violating the grand rule of their conduct, "God has received him," and though Pacificus Withii Econom. Fæd. L. IV. C. XVII. §.10, 25. To what lenghts of fuperftition and abfurdity may perfons profeffing the Chriftian religion run, when they leave the divine rule of proceeding! No branches of Jehovah's worship require a more punctual regard to the facred rule, than those which are of a positive kind; yet none have been so mutilated, metamorphofed, and abused, ae they have been, by the perverfe inventions and bold impieties of men. and Candidus could not reject him, without contradicting the titles of their plea for free communion; yet, I prefume, the generality of our opponents would hardly allow of fuch a peculiar mode of proceeding, in any of their churches. No; they would be ready to fay of fuch a candidate for fellowship; He ought to regard the example of Christ, who ufed wine: Or, he ought to obey the divine command, which requires that we fhould drink the wine. Yet they might not think it proper to refuse him the occafional use of a pulpit, and might hear him preach the truth, received in common, with pleasure. Though, as Antipædobaptifts, it cannot be expected, that we fhould produce inftances out of the New Testament, of Pædobaptift ministers being encouraged in a fimilar way; because we are firmly perfuaded there were none fuch, till after the facred canon was completed: yet we find, in that infpired volume, a fufficient warrant for unit. ing with thofe that believe, in affection and walk, fo far as agreed; notwithstanding their ignorance of fome part of the counfel of God, to which a confcientious obedience is indifpenfably required, from all thofe by whom it is known. (Philip. iii. 15, 16.) Yes, the New Teftament not only permits, as lawful, but enjoins as an indifpenfable duty, that we fhould love them that love the Lord; and that we should manifest this holy affection in every way, that is not inconfiftent with a revelation of the divine will in fome other refpect. So it was under the Jewish economy, and fo it is now. To admit, therefore, a minister to preach among us, with whom we fhould have no obiection commune, could we allow the validity of infant baptifm; as it is a token of our affection for a fervant of Christ, of our love to the truth he preaches, and is not contrary to any part of divine revelation, muft 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 manifeft our affection for him. But as to communion at the holy table, Christians in gene. ral have had no more doubt, whether baptism fhould precede it according to a special revelation of the divine will; than whether baptifm itself be a part of the counsel of God.--When we ask a Pædobaptift minifter to preach in any of our churches, we act on the fame general principle, as when we request him to pray with any of us in a private family. And as no one confiders this as an act of church communion, but as a teftimony 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 circumcifion was abfolutely neceffary for every male, in order to com. munion at the paschal supper, and in the folemn worship of the fanctuary. And if fo, had the most renowned antediluvians that ever lived, or the most illuftrious Gentiles that ever appeared in the world, been cotemporary with Mofes and fojourners in the fame wilderness, they could not have been admitted to communion in the Ifraelitish church, without fubmitting circumcifion. Enoch, though as a faint he walked with God; though as a prophet he foretold the coming of Chrift to judgment-Noah, though an heir of the righteoufnefs of faith, a preacher of that righteoufnefs, and one of Ezekiel's worthies, (Chap. xiv. 14, 16, 18, 20.)-Melchifedek, though a king, and a priest of the moft high God; fuperior to Abraham, and the greatest perfonal type of the Lord Melliah 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 illuftrious triumvirate, (Ezek. as before.) Thefe I fay, notwithstanding all their piety and holiness, notwithstanding all their fhining excellencies, exalted characters, and useful fervices, could not, as uncircumcifed, have been admitted to communion with the chofen tribes at the tabernacle of the God of Ifrael, without a violation of the divine command. This, I perfuade myself, our opponents must allow this, I think, they dare not deny. Yet if Enoch, for inftance, had been in the camp of Ifrael when Korah and his company mutinied, and had been disposed to give the rebels a lecture on the fecond coming of Chrift; I cannot fuppofe that his offered fervice would have been rejected by Mofes or Joshua, merely because he was not circumcifed. Or, if Noah had been prefent at the erection of the tabernacle, and inclined to give the people a fermon on the future incarnation of the Son of God, and the righteoufnefs of faith; to which most important objects that facred ftructure, with its coftly utenfils and folemn 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 think fo as well as I. Yet that favoured people could not have admitted them to commu : nion in fome other branches of divine worfhip, without tranfgreffing the laws of Jehovah. (Exod. xii. 44, 48. Ezek. xliv. 7.) If this be allowed, the confequence is plain, and the argument, though analogical, is irrefragable. For the pafchal feaft and the fanctuary fervices were not more of a pofitive nature than the Lord's fupper; nor were the former more peculiar to that difpenfation than the latter is to this; but preaching and hearing the word are not peculiar to any dif penfation of grace, as are baptifm and the facred fupper. Our Lord, though he warned his hearers against the pride and hypocrify, the unbelief and covetoufnefs, of the ancient Pharifees, and Scribes, and Jewish teachers; yet exhorted the people to re gard the truths they delivered. (Matt. xxiii. 1, 2, 3.) Our opponents, notwithstanding, cannot imag. ine that Chrift would have admitted thofe ecclefi aftics to baptifm, had they defired it; nor will they affert that any, who are not proper fubjects of that ordinance, fhould be received into communion.When the beloved disciple faid, "Mafter, we faw one cafting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us :" Jefus anfwered, "Forbid him not; for he that is not against us, is for us." (Luke ix. 49, 50.) From which it appears, that we are under obligation to encourage thofe that fight against the common enemy, and propagate the common truth; though they and we may have no communion together, in the fpecial ordinances of God's houfe; which is the very cafe when we admit our Pædobaptift brethren to preach among us. We are also informed, that the first Gentiles who were converted by the apoftolic min |