hip, as the Lord's fupper undoubtedly is; and leave it entirely to the difcretion of men, to whom it fhould be administered. Free-for whom? For every one that will? This they do not pretend. For all who imagine themselves believers and qualified for it? This they dare not affert. For, notwithflanding all their candour and all their catholicifm, they do not confider every one that thinks himself a believer and defires communion, as fit for it. Hence it is, they ask a reason of the candidate's hope, and take the liberty of judging for thernfelves, what his hope and the ground of it are. They think it their duty to inquire, in what light he views himself, and what he believes concerning the Son of God. And if, in their judgment, he be not converted to Jefus Chrift, they put a negative on his request; even though they feel an affection for him, as a moral, a fincere, a well-meaning man. Here then, is another and great limitation; a boundary which it would not be lawful to fet, if a positive inftitution were not concerned, and if fuch limitation were not fixed by the divine Inftitutor. By parity of rea. fon, therefore, if our Lord has given any other direction relating to the fame ordinance, it fhould be regarded with equal reverence and equal puncquality. What, then, is the freedom for which they plead? Why, that Baptist churches fhould admit Pædobaptifts into communion with them. In other words, that they fhould admit believers to the Lord's table, whom they confider as unbaptized. A very extraordinary pofition this! Such, however, is free communion: in defence of which, feveral pamphlets have, of late, been publifhed. And, who can tell, but fome of our brethren may so improve on the doctrine of liberty, in regard to divine institutions of a positive nature, as to favour us, ere long, with a Plea for free Baptifm?-With a differtation, intended to prove the lawfulness, and, in fome cafes, the neceffity, of adminiftering baptifm to fuch whom we confider as unbelievers? especially, if the candidates for that ordinance be firmly perfuaded in their own mind, that they are believers in Jefus Chrift. At the fame time declaring, that it will be at the peril of greatly difhonouring real religion, and not a little contributing to the caufe of infidelity,' if we refuse.-But let us now briefly confider what they fay, in defence of their hypothefis. They argue, from feveral paffages of fcripture; from the temper required of real Chriftians, in their behaviour one towards another; and object against us our own conduct, in another respect. The principal paffages adduced from holy writ, and here to be confidered, are the following:"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful difputations-for God hath received him-Receive ye one another, as Chrift also received us, to the glory of God-God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghoft, even as he did unto us: and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith-I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means fave fome."* On which paffages we may obferve in general; Whatever their meaning may be, except our op * Rom. xiv. 1, 3. and xv. 7. Acts, xv. 8, 9, 1 Cor. ix, ponents can make it appear, that they contain the grant of a difpenfing power to gofpel minifters and churches; that is, unless thefe divine declarations authorize the minifters and churches of Chrift, to fet afide an ordinance of his, or to invert the order of its administration, as they may think proper; they are far from anfwering the exigencies of their cafe, or ferving the purpose for which they are cited. Again: The texts produced do not fo much as mention communion at the Lord's table, nor appear to have the leaft reference to it. No; the Holy Ghoft has other objects in view, in each of the contexts. And as these are the principal paffages to which our brethren appeal in proof of their point, we may take it for granted, that better are not to be found; and, confequently, as a tacit acknowledgment, that pofitive proof is wanting. But if it be allowed, that there is no pofitive evidence in favour of their practice, it amounts to a conceffion that there is no proof at all. Because nothing of a positive and ritual nature can be proved a duty, or agreeable to the will of God, merely by our own reafonings; nor by arguments formed on moral precepts and general rules of conduct. For if once we admit any thing in the worthip of God, as a duty; that is grounded, either on far-fetched inferences from particular declarations of fcripture, in which the holy penmen do not appear to have had the least thought of the matter in question; or on our own ideas of expediency and usefulness, we fhall not know where to flop. On this principle, a great number of ceremonies were brought into the church of Rome, and might be introduced by us. though not one of them could ftand that divine query, "Who hath required this at your hand?" As it cannot be proved, by the deductions of reafon, that it is the duty of any man to eat bread and to drink wine, as a branch of divine worship, but only from the teftimony of God, fo what he has revealed in regard to that matter, is our only rule in all that relates to the Lord's fupper.* Confequently, as these paffages fay nothing at all about baptifm, nor about communion at the Lord's table, either firic, or free; they have little pertinency of application, or force of argument in them. : Our brethren maintain, when difputing with Pædobaptifts, that the New Teftament knows no more of infant baptifm, than it does of infant communion and that many of the arguments adduced in defence of the former, will equally apply to the latter. Here they feem quite confident that they have truth on their fide. But might not Dr. Priestley, for instance, who maintains both, retort; That facred code of Chriftian worship to which you appeal, knows as much of our fentiments and practice as it does of your's? Produce your war * Plain account of Bap. Courfe of Lett. to Br. Hoadly, page 127, 128. Dr. Priestley is also of the fame opinion. For he fays, No objection can be made to this cuftom, [i. e. of giving the Lord's fupper to infants] but what may, with equal force, be made to the custom of baptizing infants.' And he informs us, that infant communion is to this day the practice of the Greek churches, of the Ruffians, the Armenians, the Maronites, the Copts, the Affyrians, and probably all other oriental churches. Addrefs to Proteftant Diffenters on giving the Lord's Supper to Children, p. 28, 31. rant from thofe heavenly inftitutes contained in the New Teftament, for admitting a believer to the Lord's table, in a church of Chrift, while that very church confiders him as unbaptized and you fhall not wait long for equally authentic evidence, that infant baptifm and infant communion have the fanction of divine authority. You frequently affert, that our arguments formed on the covenant made with Abraham; on the rite of circumcifion; on the holiness attributed, by Paul, to the children of believers; and feveral other paffages of fcripture, in defence of an infant's right to baptifm, are inconclufive; not only because that facred institution is not exprefsly mentioned in any of those places; but also because, in your opinion, nothing fhort of an express command, or a plain, apoftolic example, can fuffice to direct our practice, in the administration of ordinances that are of a pofitive kiud. Yet, when pleading for free communion, you adopt this very method of arguing, and think it quite conclufive: otherwise you never would appeal with such confidence as many of you do, to the paffages now produced.'*-But let us take a more particular view of the paffages now before us. The converted Romans were commanded by Paul, to "receive them that were weak in faith, as In things of external appointment,' fays Dr. Samuel Clarke, ‘and mere pofitive inftitution, where we cannot, as in matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning the natural reafon and ground of the obligation, and the original receflity of the thing itself; we have nothing to do but to obey the pofitive command. God is infinitely better able than we, to judge of the propriety and usefulness of the things he inftitutes; and it becomes us to obey with humility and reverence. Expof. of Church Catech. p. 305, 396. Edition 2 |