they on whom greater favours are bestowed and higher honours conferred, are so much the more obliged to revere, love, and obey their divine Benefactor. And, as a certain author juftly obferves, To take advantage of dark furmises, or doubtful reafoning, to elude obligations of any kind, is always looked upon as an indication of a difhoneft heart.'* Accurfed, then, is the principle, and rebellious is the conduct of thofe profeffors, who think themselves warranted, by the grace of the gofpel, to trifle with God's pofitive appointments, any more than the priests or the people were of old. For whether Jehovah lay his commands on Gabriel in glory, or on Adam in paradife, whether he enjoin the performance of any thing on Patriarchs, or Jews, or Chriftians, they are all and equally bound to obey, or elfe his commands must ftand for nothing. Neither diverfity of economy, nor difference of ftate, makes any alteration in this refpect; for we must be abfolutely independent of God, before our obligations to obey him can be diffolved. But as the former is impoffible, fo is the latter.

When I confider myfelf as contending with Pacificus, I cannot but esteem it a happiness to find, that my reafoning in the laft paragraph, is very ftrongly fupported by the following quotation, which is taken from a little publication that received fomething more than a bare imprimatur, from Mr. John Ryland. And as Pacificus pays an uncommon regard to Mr. Ryland's judgment, in matters of this kind; I shall not be thought af

* Dr. Ofwald's Appeal to Common Sense, p. 21. Withi Mifcel. Sac. Tom. I. Lib. II. Differ. II. §.3.

fuming, if I fummon his attention to what the latter avows, as expreffing his own opinion. The paffage to which I refer, is this: The ordinances of the gospel are established by the authority of Chrift, as king and fupreme lawgiver in his church; they are particularly enforced by his own example, and his will exprefsly declared and as they have no dependence on any circumstances, which are liable to vary in different countries, or diftant periods of time, it neceffarily follows that the primitive model of administration fhould be firicly and confcientiously adhered to. No pretence to greater propri ety, nor any plea of inconveniency, can justify our boldly oppofing the authority of God by the alteration of his law, and fubftituting a human ordinance inftead of a divine. In a former difpenfation, in which the ritual was numerous and burdenfome, the great Jehovah was particularly jealous of his honour as Supreme Lawgiver, and looked upon the leaft innovation as a direct oppofition of his authority. Mofes, we are informed, was admonished of God to make all things according to the pattern fherved him in the mount. And thofe unfortunate youths who prefumed to alter the form of his religion, and worshipped him in a way he had not commanded, fell under the feverest marks of his dif pleafure; which fhews that he looked upon the leaft innovation in the ceremonial part of his precepts, as an impious and daring oppofition and contempt of his authority, and as deferving of peculiar and diftinguished vengeance, as a direct and open violation of the moral law. And as the great King of the universe required fuch exactness and punctuality, and infifted on fuch fcrupulous

exactness in the performance of the minutest rite belonging to the legal difpenfation; it would be extremely difficult to affign a reason why he fhould be more lax and careless, and allow a greater fcope to human difcretion under the Chriftian [economy.] The greater light which fhines in our religion, the fmall number and fimplicity of its ceremonials, and the end and defign of those inftitutions being more clearly revealed; are reafons which Strongly indicate the contrary. And if it be further obferved, that the religion of Jefus is particularly calculated to fet afide worldly wisdom and mortify the pride of man; it cannot, without great abfurdity, be fuppofed, that the fublime Author of it will difpenfe with the performance of his pofitive laws, or admit of the leaft variation, to honour that wisdom, or indulge that pride which the whole scope of his gofpel hath a manifeft tendency to abafe. Surely then it behoves Chriftians, in an affair of fuch confequence, to be circumfpect and wary; it will certainly be well for them, if they can give a good account of their practice, and a fatisfactory answer to that important question, Who hath required this at your hand?*—Had Mr. Ryland only recommended that little piece to the public, which contains this excellent paffage, he would certainly have deserved my fincereft thanks. For the quotation produced may be juftly confidered as a compendious answer to all that Pacificus has wrote, and to all that he can write, in defence of free communion, so long as he profeffes himself a Baptilt. Whether he will make a reply to the animadverfions of my feeble pen, I cannot pretend to

* Six Views of Believers' Baptifin, p. 17-20.

fây; but I think he will hardly have courage, in any future publication on the fubject before us, openly to confront and attack his dearest and most intimate friend, Mr. Ryland.

Though the Lord's fupper is a positive inftitution of Jefus Chrift, and though we cannot know any thing at all about it, but what we learn from. the New Teftament; yet our brethren make, not the word of revelation, but the measure of light,. and the difpofitions of a candidate for fellowship, the rule of admiffion to it.--This appears from hence. A perfon applies to one of their churches for communion in the ordinances of God's house; the paftor of which community, and a great majority of its members, are Baptists. He gives a reafon of the hope that is in him, to general fatiffaction. His moral conduct is good, and his character amiable. The paftor, in the name of the church, defires to know what are his views of baptifm. He declares himself a Pædobaptift; fays he was baptized in his infancy, and is quite atisfied with it. Now, neither the pastor, nor the generality of his people, can look upon this as baptifm; but confider it as an invention of men, and a corruption of the worship of God.. Confe-.. quently they would be glad if his views, in that refpect, were otherwife. They agree, however, to receive him into communion. And why? Becaufe they believe that Chrift commanded, or that the fcriptures warrant infant fprinkling? No fuch thing. Because the New Teftament plainly informs them, that unbaptized converts were admitted to the Lord's table in the apoftolic churches? Not in the leaft. Because Jefus Chrift has exprefsly granted them a difpenfing power, in regard

to baptifm? They difclaim any fuch grant.* What, then, is the ground on which they proceed? Why, truly, the candidate believes, is fully perfuaded, that infant fprinkling is real baptifm; and has been informed, that he was actually sprinkled in the first state of his life. On this foundation they admit him to the Lord's table: and, which is very remarkable, they receive him with a cordial good will, to have him baptized afterwards, if ever he discover an inclination towards it. Their charity forbids them treating a Chriftian as unbaptized, if he do but heartily believe himself to be baptized. As if that could not be wrong, which a fincere difciple of Chrift firmly concludes to be right! Or, as if we were bound, in certain cafes, practically to allow that to be right, which we are fully perfuaded is really wrong!-But might not the paftor of fuch a church, on the fame principle, and with equal countenance from the fcripture, baptize a perfon defirous of it, without a profeffion of faith, and without any evidence that he is a believer in Jefus Chrift? For, as Pacificus and Candidus argue, in regard to baptifm, Who is to be the judge of what is, or is not faith? Most certainly every man for himself, and not one for an

The Church of Rome frankly acknowledges, by her delegates affembled in the Council of Trent, that our fovereign Lord, when he instituted the holy supper, administered in both kinds, and that it was fo administered for fome time; fhe, however, exprefsly claims an authority to dif penfe with that order. Now, though I would by no means infinuate, that our brethren are equally culpable with that nother of abominations; yet it may admit of a query, whether, in this particular, the be not more confiftend witis berfelf, than they? Council of Trent, Sef. XXI. Cap. L II, II!.