God and Chrift had received them." And we are plainly informed, that the perfons intended were fuch, as had not a clear difcernment of their Chrif tian liberty, in regard to the eating of meats forbidden by the ceremonial law, and the obfervation of days, that was of old required by it. But what has this to do with free communion? Is there no way of "receiving him that is weak in faith," but by admitting him to the Lord's table? Muft the exhortation to receive a Christian brother, be confined to that fingle inftance of true benevolence? Or, is our fo doing the capital idea and the primary fenfe of the precept, in any of Paul's writings? He fays, in this very epiftle, "I commend unto you Phebe our fifter, that ye receive her in the Lord." Was her admiffion to the holy table the principal thing that he defired of the believing Romans, on her account? No; he evidently had fomething elfe in view; fomething that would manifeft their love to a difciple of Chrift, much more than barely permitting her to have communion with them in the facred fupper. For he immediately adds; "And that ye affift her in whatfoever bufinefs the hath need of you.' ""* Or, did he folicit admiffion to the Lord's table, for himself and his fellow minifters, among the Corinthians, when he faid; "Receive us; we have wronged no man; we havé corrupted no man; we have defrauded no man ?"† Or, for Epaphroditus, when he thus expreffed himself to the Philippians; "Receive him, therefore, in the Lord, with all gladness, and hold fuch in reputation?" Or, for Onefimus, when he faid to Philemon; " Receive him, that is mine own bow * Rom. xvi. 1, 2. + 2 Cor. vii. 2. + Philip. ii. 29. els-Receive him as myself ?"* Or, was commu nion at the Lord's table the principal thing which the apostle John had in his eye, when he faid; "We therefore ought to receive fuch, that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth?" It is, I will venture to affirm, a much greater thing to receive either a weak or a strong believer, in the sense of these exhortations, than merely to grant him a place at the Lord's table. Why, then, thould our brethren plead for it as they do, as if it were the grand criterion of our acknowledging Pædobaptifts to be real converts, and of our love to them,` as fuch? Befides, the faith of a fincere believer may be as weak, and require as much forbearance, in regard to the holy fupper, as in respect of baptifm. A reformed and really converted Catholic may defire fellowship with us, who still retains the Popish error of communion in one kind only: but are we obliged by this apoftolic precept, to mutilate the facred ordinance in condefcenfion to his weaknefs To embrace the weak, as well as the strong believer, in the arms of Christian affection, is a capital duty of the moral law. To bear with a brother's infirmities, and to "forbear one another in love," are certainly required by that command, which fays; "Thou fhalt love thy neighbour as thyfelf:" and would have been our duty, if neither baptifm, nor the Lord's fupper had ever existed. But are we to regulate our conduct, in the admiffion of perfons to a pofitive inftitution -to one which depends entirely on the fovereign pleasure of God, by inferences drawn from the gen + 3 John 8.. * Philem. 12, 175 ; eral and natural duties of the moral law?-Were the precepts of that eternal law ever confidered by the priests or the people of old, as the rule of adminiftering pofitive inftitutions? Had they not another fyftem of precepts, express precepts, intended for that purpofe? and was not fuch a ritual abfolutely neceflary? Suppofing, however, that there were no way of receiving one that is weak in faith, but by admitting him to the Lord's table, this text would be far from proving what our opponents defire; unlefs they could make it appear, that the perfons of whom the apoftle immediately fpeaks, were not members of the church of Rome, when he gave the advice. There being difputes among the believing Romans, about the eating of meats and the obfervation of days, affords no proof nor any fhadow of proof, that they had not communion together at the Lord's table-But admitting that to be a fact, of which there is not the leaft evidence, the conclufion drawn from the paffage would not be juft, except it were also proved, that the "weak in faith" were unbaptized; or at leatt, fo confidered by their ftronger brethren; for that is the point in difpute between us. But that Paul confidered the believing Romans to whom he wrote, as baptized Chriftians, is allowed by all, fo far as I have obferved, who have no hypothefis to ferve, by admitting a contrary fuppofition.* For, *The Socinians, the Quakers, and Mr. Bunyan agree, in referring us to Rom. vi. 3. 1 Cor. i. 14, 15, 16, and Gal. ii 27, with a view to ferve their feveral hypotheses, which alt unite in greatly depreciating the ordinance of baptifm. The words of Mr Bunyan, when fpeaking of the apoitolic times, and mentioning thefe three paffages, are as follows; as Dr. Goodwin obferves, He argues from the known and generally received profeffion and practice of all Chriftians. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized-That is, that whoever of us that profefs baptifm into Chrift, profess baptifm into his death, as the thing intended by it. The us, there, is the generality of Chriftians, diftinguifhed ufually by that word from heathens: as, Kom. xiv. 7. 1 Cor. viii. 6. To us there is but one God, &c. That is, we Chriftians profefs all, and generally fo. And his fcope being to fhew, how fanétification Hows from being in Chrift; his argument is drawn from a general principle of the us of Chriftians--So that this expreffion, as many of us, imports not, as if fome were, and fome not, baptized; for then his argument of fanctification had not been binding to the generality of Chriftians, which, it is evident, it was in his intention: but it imports the contrary, that as many as were Chriftians, were all baptized, and were taught this to be the meaning of thatgreat point and principle of religion, that as they were baptized into Chrift thereby, fo alfo into his death.'* all that were received into fellow flip were even then baptized first, would ftrain a weak man's wit to prove it, if argu ments were clofely made upon these three texts of holy fcrip tures.'-And, a few pages after, when arguing from the fee ond of thefe apoftolic teftimonies, he fays; By this negligent relating who are baptized by him [Paul] he fheweth, that he made no fuch matter of baptism, as fome in these days do; nay, that he made no matter at all thereof, with refpect to church communion. Works, Vol. I. p. 135, 144. * Works, Vol. IV. of Chrift, p. 30. Vid P. 431, 432. On the Government of the Churches I But God receives the weak in 'faith; and we are expressly commanded to receive one another, not to doubtful difputations, but as Christ hath received us to the glory of God.' Granted: yet permit me to ask, Is the divine conduct, is the favour of God, or the kindness of Christ, in receiving finners, the rule of our proceeding in the administration of pofitive inftitutions? Whom does God, whom does Christ receive? None but those that believe, and profefs faith in the Lord Meffiah? Our brethren will not affirm it. For if divine compaffion did not extend to the dead in fin; if the kindness of Christ did not relieve the enemies of God; none of our fallen race would ever be faved. But does it hence follow, that we must admit the unbelieving and the unconverted, either to baptifm, or the holy table? Our gracious Lord freely accepts all that defire it and all that come; but are we bound, by his example, to receive every one that folicits communion with us? Our opponents dare not assert it. For though the Great Supreme is entirely at liberty to do as he pleases, to reject or accept whom he will; yet it is not fo with his miniftering fervants and profeffing people, in regard to the facred fupper. No; it is their indifpenfable duty and their everlasting honour, to regard his revealed will and obey his righteous commands. The divine precepts contained in the Bible, not the divine conduct in the adminif tration of a fovereign Providence, are the only rule of our obedience in all things relating to pofitive inftitutions. Befides, gospel churches are sometimes obliged, by the laws of Christ, to exclude from their communion those whom he has received; as appears |