plain precedent, our brethren are equally filent. The whole of their arguing, therefore, muft bet either analogical or inferential. Yet the defign of it is to fhow, what is our duty in regard to a pofitive inftitution; an appointment about which we cannot know any thing at all, but from revelation. But what can that be in divine revelation, relating to a pofitive ordinance, which is neither commanded in a precept-a precept relating to the ordinance in queftion; nor exhibited in an example? What, I demand, can it be, or how fhould it direct our conduct? If our brethren's way of arguing be juft, we may turn Pædóbaptifts at once; for it is impoffible to ftand our ground in a contest with them.

It would, no doubt, have been highly offenfive to God, if the priests or the people of old had inverted the order appointed by him, for the adminiftration of his own folemn appointments. For instance; First admit to the pallover, afterwards circumcife; burn incenfe in the holy place, then offer the propitiatory facrifice. This, I conceive, our brethren muft allow. Have they any reafon, then, to imagine, that a fimilar breach of order is not equally difpleafing to God, under the New Teftament economy? If not, it must be fuppofed, that the Moft High has not fo great a regard to the purity of his worship, or is lefs jealous of his honour, and does not fo much infist on his eternal prerogative now, as he did under the former dif penfation fuppofitions thefe, which they who acknowledge his univerfal dominion and abfolute immutability, will hardly admit.

It muft, I think, be acknowledged, even by our brethren themfelves, that we have as good a

E

warrant for omitting an effential branch of an or-dinance, or to reverse the order in which the con-ftituent parts of an ordinance were originally administered; as we have to lay aside a divine inftitution, or to change the order in which two differ-ent appointments were first fixed. And if fo, were a reformed and converted Catholic, ftill retaining the Popish tenet of communion in one kind only, defirous of having fellowship with our brethren at the Lord's table; they muft, if they would act confistently on their present hypothefis, admit him to partake of the bread, though from a principle of confcience, he abfolutely refused the wine, in that facred inftitution.-Or, fuppofing, which is quite the reverse, that any of those who are in actual communion with them, finding the maftication and swallowing of folid food a little difficult, fhould confcientiously approve the condescending indulgence of Pope Pafchal, in the twelfth century; who ordered, that fuch perfons fhould partake only of the wine :*Or, if any of their people should imagine, that the wine ought always to be adminiftered before the bread; and fhould from an erring confcience de clare, that if the ordinance were not fo administered they could not partake of it; they must, according to the tenor of their arguing, comply. They could not refufe; because the perfons in queftion. are considered, as real believers in Jefus Chrift, and fincerely defirous to be found in the way of their du ty, to the best of their knowledge.

The fentiment which our brethren adopt, if fuf. fered to operate in its full extent, would exclude both baptifm and the Lord's fupper from the wor

* Dr. Priestley, on giving the Lord's fupper to childreng page 25, 26.

Thip of God. As to baptifm, whether infant or adult, it ought never to be made a term of communion in the house of God, on the principle efpoufed by our opponents. For, according to them, the grand, the only query, that is really neceffary relating to a candidate for communion, is, Has God received him? Is he a believer in Jesus Christ? And, fo certain are they of this being an unerring rule, that if we dare to queftion 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 cenfure of acting in a way, greatly prejudicial to the honour and intereft of true religion, and not a little contributing to the caufe of infidelity.'* I think myself happy, however, that the anathema fit 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 fuch, and have communion with them at the Lord's table, though they do not confider themfelves as baptized. And here I would beg leave to afk; Whether they would receive a candidate for

• When I read the title of a certain publication a few years ago, I was ready to fay; If the title page do not promife more than the author performs, we are now in a fair way to have infidelity ruined forever. But, alas! I have fince found that my expectations were too fanguine. For infidelity still exists; and the principles of it lurk in every breast, that will not allow unbaptized believers to have a right .of communion at the Lord's table: of which obnoxious fentiment, almost the whole of the Chriftian church now is and has ever been. Pacificus, I prefume, knows the book to which I refer; and verbum fat fapienti.

communion, whom they esteem as a believer in Jefus Chrift, who has not been baptized in infancy; nor looking on baptifm as a temporary institution, is willing to be baptized at all? The fuppofition of a perfon, in fuch circumftances, 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 fuch a cafe? 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 fame plea, under the fignature 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 Baptifts and Pedobaptifts. For it is manifeft that the emphatical word, particularly, if not quite impertinent, muft fignify, that though Candidus chiefly defends free communion, between Baptifts and Padobaptifts; yet that he is far from denying, nay, that he really pleads for the fame free communion, with those that are neither the one or the other. And who can they be but Katabaptifts, or those in the fame circumstances with the perfon in the cafe here fuppofed? So that whether they be Quakers or Catholics; whatever their distinguishing fentiments or modes of worship may be; they confider themselves as bound to admit them to the facred fupper, 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 refpect, I fhall proceed with the argument.—If, then, they receive a person, in the suppofed cafe, they avowedly reject baptism, as unneceffary to fellowship in a church of Christ; for if it be not requifite in every inftance, it is not fo in any. If they refuse him, it must be because he is not baptized; for, according to the fuppofition, they confider him as a partaker of divine grace and a believer in Jefus Chrift. But if they reject him purely on that ground, they ought, on their Antipedobaptift principles, to reject all who have had no other than infant baptifm; because they confider it as a very different thing from the appointment of Chrift. Yes, they declare to all the world, every time they administer baptifm on a profeffion of faith, to any of their Pædobaptift friends, that they do not believe infant sprinkling to be an ordinance of Chrift.

And,

It may, perhaps, be objected; The two cafes are not parallel: because the fuppofed candidate for communion, is not only unbaptized, but opposes the ordinance itfeif.' True: but, admitting a fmall difparity, he acts on a principle of confcience; for he supposes, with the Quakers, that baptifm was not intended, by Jefus Chrift, as a standing ordinance in his church; though he has a very different view of the Lord's fupper. to adopt a method of arguing used by our brethren, when pleading for free communion; What have you to do with another man's confcience, in a matter that is non-effential? To his own Maf ter he ftands or falls. He confiders the Lord's fupper as a very important ordinance, and longs to partake of it. And have not you told us, repeatedly, that it was defigned for all believers;