Now fuppofing our brethren in the course of their reading to meet with fuch an account, what would they think of it? What would they fay? They would, undoubtedly, fufpect the truth of the whole.

They would confider it as a Rabbinical fable. But how would their indignation rife, were the fabulous narrator to proceed and affert; That Mofes and Jofhua, warmly efpouling this latter opinion, added much to its credit!' This, they would fay, is abfolutely incredible, and a vile afperfion on the characters of those illuftrious faints. Had Nadab and Abihu been mentioned as the abettors of this unfcriptural practice, there. would have been lefs reafon to deny the truth of the whole relation; because they were guilty of innovating in the worfhip of God, and were awfully punifhed for it. But thus to represent the most pious, exemplary, and excellent men in all the Ifraelitifh camp, is beyond the bounds, not only of credibility, but alfo of decency. Reflections of this kind, I am perfuaded, they would readily make, were they to find fuch a narration in the Talmud, or in any Rabbinical author.-And now give me leave again to remind them; That, according to the judgment of the Chriftian world in general, circumcifion was not more neceffary for all the males, who desired communion at the pafchal fupper and in the folemn fervices of the tabernacle, than baptifm is to fellowship in the Christian church, and a feat at the Lord's table— That there is, on their own principles, a wider and a more material difference between baptifra, as now administered to infants, and baptifm, as appointed by Jefus Chrift; than there would have been, between cutting off the forefkin and circum

cifing a finger: because the latter would have been circumcifion, and the circumcifion of a proper fubject alfo, though not of the part required; but Sprinkling, whether infants or adults, is no more "baptifm, in their account, than it is immerfion--And that, had any members of the ancient fynagogue introduced, or admitted, such an alteration as that fuppofed; they might have defended it on the fame general grounds, and with much greater plaufibility, in feveral refpects at leaft, than our brethren can the practice of free communion. For I appeal to my reader, whether the Pentateuch of Mofes and the fcriptures of the prophets do not fay as much of the one, as the evangelical hiftory and the writings of the apoftles do of the

other?

Faul, when meeting with certain difciples at Ephefus, defired to know, whether they had received the Holy Ghoft fince they believed. To whom they answered, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghoft." On which the apoftle put the following queftion: "Unto what then were ye baptized?" And they faid, "Unto John's baptifm." From which it plainly appears, that as thefe perfons profeffed to be difciples of Jefus Chrift, Paul took it for granted they had been baptized. For his query is not, Have you been baptized? But, "Unto, or into, what then were ye baptized" He inferred their baptifm from their profeffion: and he had reafon fo to do. For he well knew, that the first administrator of the ordinance required a fubmiffion to it, of all that brought "forth fruits meet for repentance;" that the apoftolic miniftry demanded the fame act of obedience, from all that believed in Jefus Chrift;

H

and the administration of baptism is a part of the ministerial office, being ftrictly connected with teaching the difciples of Chrift, "to obferve all things which he has commanded.” And, as an author before quoted, justly remarks; • We find that the preachers of the gofpel always did it, and the people who gladly received the word, defired it. How indifferent foever it appears to fome in our days, yet the grace of God never failed to ftir up an early regard to it in times of old.'*-But though the great apoftle, when meeting with those difciples at Ephefus, made no doubt of their having been baptized, even before they informed him of it; yet our brethren's conduct forbids us forming the fame conclufion with equal eafe and certainty, concerning all that are in communion with them. Nay, Pacificus himself, for inftance, does not confider all that belong to his community as baptized perfons. So that were the apoftle's query addreffed to him, with a little alteration; Into what were the Pædobaptist members of your church baptized? His anfwer as a Baptist, must be Into-nothing: for I do not confider them as baptized at all.-Paul, as before obferved, when correcting fome irregularities in the church at Co

e;

• Mr Bradbury's Duty and Doctrine of Baptifm, p. 7c. In a preceding page of the fame Freatife, he fays; I hear there are several who suppose that baptism is only the work of those that are grown up, and yet neglect it themselves. My brethren, whoever is in the right in doctrine, you are quite wrong in practice. Do not defpife the advice of one who has more value for your happiness, than he has for his own opinion. I will give it you in the words of Ananias; "Why tarrieft thou? Arife and be baptized, wailing away thy fins, and calling on the name of the Lord." See, as above p. 16.

rinth, fays: "We have no fuch custom, neither the churches of God." From which we may fafely conclude, that whatever is now practifed in the worship of God, which has not a precedent in the conduct of the apoftles and the primitive churches, is unwarrantable. And as our opponents believe that Paul knew of no fuch cuftom as infant fprinkling; as it alfo appears from his language to his difciples at Ephefus, that he knew of no fuch cuftom, among believers, as deferring a fubmiffion to baptifm for months and years; fo we have reafon to infer, that he was equally ignorant of any fuch cuftom, as admitting unbaptized believ ers to the Lord's table. Nay, our brethren do not pretend that he knew of any fuch thing. But, however it was in the apoftolic age, which is now hoary with great antiquity, that bold perverter of gofpel truth, Socinus, introduced the custom of receiving unbaptized perfons to communion; many of his pupils adopted it; and our brethren continue it which reminds us of the old faying, The times are changed, and we are changed in them.

Once more: Either Jefus Chrift has informed us in the New Teftament what baptifm is, and what is requifite to communion at his table, or he has not. If the former, we cannot admit any thing as baptism, which we believe is not fo; nor receive any to communion, but those whom we confider as qualified according to his directions, without violating our allegiance to him as the King Meffiah, and rebelling against his government. If the latter, there is no judge in Ifrael, and every one may do that which is right in his own eyes, in regard to these institutions. Yes, if our Lord inftituted baptism, and left it undeter

mined how and to whom it should be administered; if he appointed the facred supper, without char acterizing those who are to partake of it; his miniftering fervants have a discretional power to adminifter them how and to whom they please. And if fo, our brethren may sprinkle or immerse, infants or adults, juft as their own conveniency and the difpofitions of their people require. Nay, they may proceed a flep further, and admit the infant offspring of their Pædobaptist friends to the Lord's table; which was the general custom for feveral ages, in the apoftate ftate of the Chriftian church, and, as a learned author informs us, is yet the practice of very near half the Chriftians in the world.'* Then their communion would be free indeed, entirely free from the fhackles of divine commands, and from the untoward influence of apoftolic precedent.

SECTION IV.

Several Paffages of Scripture confidered, which our Brethren produce in favour of their Sentiments.

T

HE caufe which our brethren undertake to defend, is denominated by them, Free Communion. That communion, then, for which they plead, is free. But here I beg leave to afk, From what? The restraints of men? that is a laudable freedom. From the laws of Heaven? that were a licentious liberty. Abfurd, in theory; impoffible, in fact. It never was, it never can be the cafe, that God fhould institute a pofitive ordinance of divine wor

* Dr. Wall's Hiftory of Infant Baptifm. Part II. c. ix.