*<%■ li v. v/.J .¥ :»'^ ^•;- ^z f*4'"S*|.: •«ac. ,rk. 1 a^ «j ^ a. ,^ . ,•? <^ '. ; 4Xi» , — ►-9 ol xi^ ♦ tm^ • *-*• «=5 iz; O 1 Ci > ^^^ ^ > O !Z c ETO] el Ag ^ o 3 ^ ■o 15 s (T3 ~; Pi Pt4 1 «► >% ^ ■o c 0} s •^ • 1 ^ /n/J cr open Communion with all who keep the Ordinances as Christ delivered them to the Saints, ^z^r^' EIGHT LETTERS OPEN COMMUNION. ADDRESSED TO RUFUS ANDERSON, A. M. BY DANIEL MERRILL, A. M. PASTOR or THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN SEDGWICK, BOSTON I Printed and fold by Manning Cif Loring, No. 2, Cornhill.. 1805. Diftria of AlaJfuchufettSy to wit : JjE it remembered. That on the twenty-fourth day of Auguft, in the thirtieth year of the Independence of ihe United States of America, Ma n n i n g and Lo R i K g, of the faid Diftri6l, have dcpofned in this Office the title of a Book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the words following, to wit : " Open Com- munion wi.h all who keep the Ordinances as Chrill delivered them to the Sainis Eight Tetters on Open Communion, addreffed to Rl; fus Ani>erson', A. M. By Dak iel Merrill, A. M. I'aflor of the Church of Chrifl in Sedgwick." In conformity to the Aft of the Congrefs of the United States, entitled, " An Aft for the Encouragement of Learning, by fecuring the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch Copies, during the Times therein mentioned ;" and alfo to an Aft, entitled, " An Aft fupplementary to an Aft, entitled. An Aft for the Encouragement of Learning, by fecuring the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to tiie Authors and Proprietors of fuch Copies, during the Times therem mentioned; and extending the Benefits Ujereof to the Arts of Deligning, Engraving and Etching Hiftorlcal and other Prints." N. GOODALE, \ ^H\f9''Pf'^ ' ( of Majjacnu/Ltls. %^k S^o i/i6 fSn^iaaer. .S to the fubje6t of the following Letters, either the Baptifts or their oppo- nents are in an error. This error relates to what is, or to what is not, pre-requifite to memberlhip in the vifible church. We are agreed, or ought to be, after faying, on each fide, what we judge to the purpofe, to leave it with you to determine for yourfelf. But we think it duty to re- mind you, that your judgment will influ- ence your prad;ice, and that your pradice will be examined, and the confequences of it will be yours, in eternity. Two things we wifh you to believe.-— One is, That /r/z/i? v^^i]l be honourable^ when error (hall be made afnamcd. The other is. That truth embraced and truth pradifed is the road to heaven, and the wifeil cou-rfe on earth. IV Reader, we do not afk you to believe us, we wlfh you to believe the truth. We afk you to read, and to read attentively ; to read for yourfelf. We wiili you to 'read with that candour, that refolution, and with that application, with v\^hich a rational creature fhould, Vsdth which an accountable creature fhould, and with v/hich one fhould, who is bound to an everlafting ftate. Should you be afhamed of Chrift, and of his words, you may need his approbation, when it may not be granted you. Wiihing you grace, wifdom and falvation, I am., reader, your willing fervant for the truth's fake. The author. x^\'0. ^ Letters on Open Commuiiion. ■■''*'^*«rr LETTER L 0/)«?/7 Communion with all ivho keep the Ordinances^ as Chrift delivered them to the Saints, BROTHER. AtlD.'iRiON, XA-MiY did you write on clofe com- munion ? Why not on open communion ? Your brethren, the Baptiils, againfl whoiTi you write, are as open communionifts as are found among all the followers of the Lamb. Their communion is open and free to all who have refped to all God's commandments. They begin their open communion where Chritt's forerunner began it, where Ch rift's difciples continued it, and where his apoftles every where purfued it. Their communion is as open, free and liberal to all vifible believers, as were the waters, the overflowino; waters of Jordan, or the many or large waters of En on. Here h the place to begin vilible communion with that kingdom which is not of this world. This is the communion door, nine-tenths of the Paedobaptifts and Baptids being judges. A 2 6 Letters on Open Communion, There is no other way to become the viliblc and regular members of the kingdom of God, Jefus Chrift being judge. John iii. 5. ' Except a man be born of water, — he cannot enter into the kin£rdom of God.' Now, my dear brother, had you begun where our Lord, his herald and followers bega.n, you would have laid the axe at the root of the tree ; and might have been confiftent with truth, and deferved well of the church of our Lord. Suppofe a vifible union among the friends of Chrift, and their mutual fellowfliip at the Lord's table, be as defirable as you conceive it, why then not fet an example of condefcenlion, and urge your brethren to the fame ? Do not you know, and do not the B.iptifts, that your denomination, who teach the Baptifts to do the things which make for peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another, are the firft to tranfgrefs the rule which they pre- fcribe to others ? Befides, fuppofe the Baptifts violate the royal law of love, in refufmg to commune with you, you without one juftifia- ble reafon begin this violation : and thus, to fay the leaft, afford the Baptifts a very piaufible jultification ; and, in their judgment, oblige them to refufe you to the lecond gofpel or- dinance, by your refufmg to fubmit to the firft. You, in direcl violation of all the commands of Chrift with refpect to baptifm, and contrary from all the precepts and practices of the apof- tles on the fubjecl, refufe communion in the firft and introductory ordinance of baptifm. Letters on Open Communion, 7 Set the Baptifts an example of gofpel, open, liberal communion, they will doubtlefs follow. Moreover, almoft all the Paedobaptifls con- demn your theory of open communion with unbaptized believers. The Psedobaptifts are nearly, if not altogether, as much clofe com- munionifts as are the Baptifts ; yes, if I miflake not, they are more univerfatly fo, for fome Baptifts will commune with profeffed believers who are not baptized, but I recollect not of fo much as one inftance, in which a Pzedobaptift confented to commune with one not baptized. You will further obferve, it is totally incon- fiftent with the Psedobaptift fentiments to commune at the Lord's ta*ble before the ordi- nance of baptifm be adminiftered. ' No uncir- cumciled perfon fhall eat thereof,'* is a text which they coniider of no fmall weight in this matter. It is at once granted, that fome of your de- nomination, and men of literature, talents and piety too, are fo dcfirous of union at the Lord's table, that they would difpenfe with the law of Mofes, which the Psedobaptifts, in this particu- lar, ftand upon, and the law of Chrift, to which the Baptifts adhere. I confefs, my dear Sir, you appear to me fomewhat out of order^ whilft you ftand, as you fuppofe, upon the Paedobaptift ground, Vv'hen you can fhow no title to it, and there fomewhat earneftly contend with the Baptifts for praclifing as the Psedobaptiits have, if I miftake not, generally, if not univerfally done. * Exod. xii. 48. 8 Letters on Open CGmmimlon, The Pscdobaptifts err, in that they admit to baptifm improper fubjecls, as readily as they do thofe who have golpel qualifications. But your denomination have reje<5led baptifin itfelf. You have, to fpeak plain truth, nothing left of it, fave the name. You muft, Sir, change your practice before your arguments, fuppofing them concluliveibr the Predobaptifts, can have the force you wifti them, in drawing the Baptifts to open their doors to you. The Baptifts do not, to my knowledge, claim infallibility, as you intimate ; but they confider the Scriptures to be fo. From which they have this information, that the period hath arrived, in which the way oi hoUncfs fhould be fo plain, that the way-faring man, though a fool, vnlearmd^ (hould not err therein ; yet the man oi learning, talents and piety, and all who fol- low him, may err ; and do, fo far as they think to mend the fimplicity of the gofpel, by fubfti- tuting the inventions of men for the com- mandments of the Lord, In this letter we have introduced the fubject fomewhat abruptly, and not quite explicitly enough for every capacity ; but you. Sir, can tinderftand it ; and in the following letters, we hope to handle the fubje(5t with fo much can- dour, clearnefs, preciuon and evidence, that the weakeft mind may underlland, and receive conviction of what is truth. Should you be amongft the convinced, the triumph of truth will be to you more precious than rubies j and very grateful to /jim, who is Your's with affedion. Letters on Open Communion. LETTER II. Open Communion with all who keep the Ordinances as Chriji delivered them to the Saints. BROTHER ANDERSOK, OINCE I have taken in hand to fet in order fome things, you will give me liberty to redify iniftakcs^and to define matters minutely. It gives me pain to rectify you, where the rectification will give you one unpleafant feel- ing. But every thing which obftructs the progrefs of truth muft give way. You fup- pofe, dear Sir, that the Baptifts were very little heard of till after Luther arofe. Here you miftake, for they were, according to the hif- tory of the Church, the principal, if not the only ones, who, for time immemorial, or up to the a^oft'olic age, held and defended the great and foundation doctrines of grace. Be- fides, Sir, you have made a miftake in whole, in another particular. The Baptifts, as to the article of baptifm, which is the principal, or one principal thing, which occafions what is termed clofe communion, have been as general and univerfal, all over Chriftendom, as you have reprefented them fcarce and lingular. I do not find one profeffing Chriftian, for eleven hundred years after Chrift, if not fifteen hun- dred, but was a Baptift in fentiment, and fo in practice, fjme extreme cafes excepted. Luther, Melanclhon and Calvin, if not all the great reformers, were, from the moft cor- lo Letters on Open Communion, Ytdi information obtained, fentimentally Bap- tifts, as to the adminiftration of that previous, diftinguifhing, Hgnificant ordinance. They, difigreed with the primitive Baptifts, as to the fubjefts. They were alfo too much for accom- modating, as to the primitive and fcrip.ture practice. On account of their difagreement as to the fubjecls, they and a multitude before them and lince, took the name of Psedobaptifts. Now, Sir, were you and others^ who, in the prefent day, fay fo many hard things againft the Bap- tilts, Padobapti/is ; that is, Did you baptize, or were you baptized at all, you would have a more plauiible ground on which to meet the Baptifts in this controverfy. I muft now, to clear the ground, that we may have a field view of the fubject, do^what I would not, did not the caufe n^nifeftly re- quire it. I muft define your denomination, ,and trace its rife. If my definition be juft, be clear, be accurate, comprehending neither too much nor too little, if it have nat one unkind word in it, you cannot in reafon take umbrage at it, and I deiire you would not. The definition which belongs to your de- nomination, and which gives its peculiar dif- tinftion from all others, and by which you ought willingly to be known, in the clofe communion controverfy, is Pcedorantijls. The rife of your denomination was among the Ciinicks, or fick people, of ancient date. Thefe were judged unable to receive baptifm, and yet the erring adminiftrators, fuppofing Letters on Open Communion, i x baptifm elTential to falvation, concluded, to fave the fouls of fick perfons, to change immcriion into fprinkling, and ftill (in violation of Scrip- ture, and of language, if not of common fenfc) to call it bapiifni. This practice was in its in- fancy, as you fuppole the Baptills to have been, till alter the reformation under Luther, Calvin, and others. Years after the Reformation commenced, fome focieties began to think fprinkling not a fubftitute,. but Scripture baptifm.* Now your denomination, ftrictly fpeaking, took its rife. Inflead of fprinkling from neceflity, you now began to fprinkle fentimentaliy. Yet, the moft learned, if not the moft pious, of your denomi- nation, have in every age confejQTed, that your practice was not apoftolical, or that the practice of the apoftles was immerfion. My dear Sir, you fee the ftrait to which I am driven ; I am compelled to expofe your anti-evangelical prac- tice, in order to juftify the innocent, whom you condemn. Now, fliould I grant you all which you claim in your fecond letter, for the P?sclobaptifts, yet you have little pretenlions to the honour which you there attribute to them. For you are not of that denomination, nor do I know of many in America who are. The Greek Church are, the Church of England are pro- feiledly fo, but not praftically. Some, if not all the old reformers in Europe, of whom you fay fo many good things, were. Theie, there- * There might be fome among the Papifls who were of this opinioa before. 1 2 Letters on Open Ccnwiunion. fore, belonged to the vifible Church of Chrifl:, according to the general fentiment, if I miftake not, of Baptifts and P^edobaptifts, in the dif- ferent ages of Chriftianity. Hence you cannot but fee, fhould your ar- o-uments and conclufion be allowed in their full force, yet it would not follow, as you doubtlefs expected it would, that your denom- ination had been blefTed above the Baptifts ; or that your denomination were vifible mem- bers of that kingdom which is not of this world ; or that it would be in gofpel order to admit you to the table of the Lord. In your firft letter is found this important proportion : " It is doubtlefs by a doctrinal and practical manifeftation of the truth, that the church becomes its pillar and ground." The following is a fair and plain confe- quence. Your denomination is not the pillar and ground of the truth, with refpe(5l to bap- tifm, for you have neither doctrinal nor pra(5ti- cal manifeftation of it ; you neither in doctrine nor practice give either faint or finner one idea of baptifm ; you have the name, but renounce the thing j you have not even the fhadovv. In my next I propofe to define matters more fully, and to mention fome evidence for what is alTerted in this. Wiftiing you as much wif- dom and candour as I need for myfelf, I am your's. * Letters on Open Co?nmunm, 13 LETTER III. Open Communion with all who keep the Ordinances as Chriji delivered the in to the Saints, MY DEAR SIR, I HERE prefent you with a few fub' ie6ls defined ; for I would fay nothing in the dark, but every thing as plainly as I can. DEFINITIONS. I. A Baptift is one who holds immerfion. only to be baptifm, and vifible believers the only fubjefts. 1. A Paedobaptift is one who holds immer- fion only to be baptifm, and believeri^, with their unbelieving houfeholds, to be the labjecls. 3. A Psedorantift is one who holds fiyrinkling to be baptifm^ and believers, with their unbe- lieving houfeholds, to be the fubje<5ts. 4. The vilible church of Chriit, fpeaking generally, comprifes every individual pcrfon, and every fociety of profeffing believers, who have been baptized. 5. A particular, vifible, church of Chrift, is a fociety of perfons who profefs to believe in him, and have been baptized. 6. The invihble church of Chrift includes every individual who is born of Chriil's Spirit, as well thofe without the vifible church as thofe within. 7. To be born of Chrift's Spirit, forms the perfed though invifible line of diftindioa be=- 14- Letters on Open Commimion* tween the invifible church and the world of unbelievers. 8. The being born of water, or baptifm, is the perfect and vifible line of reparation be- tween the vifible kingdom of Chrift and the kingdoms of this world. From the two laft definitions it is eafily feen that many true believers in Chrift may not belong to his vifible kingdom, and that many hypocrites may be members of it. As to the diffe»ent denominations of Chrif- tians, mentioned in the three firft definitions, it may be for your profit to obferve, The Baptifts have been uniform in their fentiment and practice from the apoftles* day to our's. The Pxdobaptifls have been uniform in their fentiment, and practice too, as to what baptifm is, fome extreme cafes excepted, however they may, at different periods, have varied from themfelves, as to the fubjects of it. The Pasdorantifts have been almoft perpetu- ally different from each other, in both their fentiments and practice, as to what baptifm is, and vv'ho are the fubjects ; or we muft confider them as different feels, with flight fliades of difagrreement. Thofe whom I include under the common name of Psedorantifts, are the denomination or denominations of Chriflians who fjprinkle, partially wafh, or pour on water, and call it baptizing the man. The name, Paedorantifls, belongs, flriotly fpeaking, to none but to thofe who fprinkle and call it l?aptif7n* But as thofe Lelten ori Open Cojumunion. 15 who pour on water, or wafh a part of the face, for baptifm, have nothing left but the name, in their fuppofed adminillration cf that ordi- nance, we fhall do them no injuftice to cLifs them with thofe who fprinkle, and call them by one common name, though the term, P^edo- ran tills, fignifies fuch as fprinkle only. We have now fet off to your denomination all to whom you can make any juft pretenfion. Yet there is not one among you, who has il) much as the fhadovv of baptifm, when it is profelTedly adminiftered. Thofe who lirft introduced your practke, did not believe it from heaven, or, at leaft, we .have no intimation that they did ; nor did they allow the practice, but as imperious necef- fity, as they fuppofed, compelledr The men of piety, talents and erudition of your own denomination would never have fuppofed, that bapti-zb and bapiifmos, in the 7th of Mark and 1 ith of Luke, favoured their practice, had they not been uncom.fortably prelTed to fupport a fentiment, which they had adopted without fufficient precaution. Thefe paffages in Mark and Luke inform us, that the Pharifees and all the Jews, ex-rept they wafli their hands with ceremonial or traditional ex- aclnefs, eat not ; and when they come from the market, or from a promifcuous concourfe of people, they eat not, except they immerfe themfelves, or are baptized. What is here faid of their waihing their hands hath nothing to do with baptifm, in any way j but where bao- tifm is mentioned, the fame application of '1*6 Letters on Open Communion. water as is enjoined in the gofpel ordinance of baptifnn, is manifeftly intended. We will not accufe your denomination with deficiency in talents or literature ; but if they furpafs the Baptifts " an hundred, not to fay a thoufand, fold," it appears a little ftrange, that they fhould not have been acquainted with a very iingular fuperftition among the Jews, which, had they known it, might have faved them feveral miftakes, and would have wholly fpoiled their application of the above texts. In what author, whether in Jofephus*s Anti- quities, or in fome other, I cannot now.fay» feveral years having elapfed fince I obtained the information ; but the fuperftitious cuftom, and fome of the reafons for it, I have fome what frefli in my memory. Their cuftom was, when they came from the market, or from a prornif- cuous con( ourfe, " not to eat till they had bathed their bodies all over in water." Their reafons for it, according to my beft recolledlion, were two. 1. At the market, where all kinds of meat and other articles were for fale, fome might be unclean ; and in the rrsarket, and other places of public cona>urfe, there might be heathens. In thefe circumftances, the Jews fuppofed fome part of their bodies or clothes might touch fome unclean thing, or heathen man, and of courfe be defiled. 2. Thefe fuperftitious Jews knew not on what part of their bodies or clothes the defile- ment might reft; j hence, to be fure that they Letters on Open Communion, 17 ate not with defiled bodies or garments, tJhey baptized themfelves, or bathed in every part. In my feven Sermons, I have fhewecj^ that the wafhings, baptifms, of pots and cups, brazen veffels and tables, are diredly in favour of the Baptifts. It is alfo there proved, that the fprinklings mentioned in the 9th of Hebrews, fay nothing in favour of your denomination. My dear Sir, the truth is, you have no text, inference, or juil implication, in any part of the Bible, to fupport the practice of your de- nomination. But while I condemn your un- fcriptural, anti-evangelical and traditionary pradice of fprinkling, you will dome the juf- tice to believe, that I do not condemn you in every thing, or fet you at naught as men, or as Chriftians. I feel a willingnefs to allow you- every good thing which your denomination can juftly claim, as you may the more fully difcover by peruling fome of the following, letters. Wiftiing you every needed blefling, through the grace of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chriitj, I am your's. B 2 1 8 Letters on Open Communion. LETTER IV. BEAR SIR, 1 HE fubje i. a^d ;«in iii. 13. J, Century. AH B:iplist>. Letters on Open Communion, i$ LETTER V. Open Conwnmion to all who keep the Ordinances as Chrlji delivered them to the Saints^ but Clofe Conwmnlon to all others, MY DEAR SIR, 1 HAVE here, that our underftanding and our faith might be affifted by our fight, fet to view a pidurefque and hieroglyphical reprefentation of the church, which is, by her faith and practice, the pillar and ground of the truth. We may not erafe old Infcriptions from this pillar, nor may we infert new ones at our pleafure. The infcriptions upon this pillar, and by the fides of it, we may read with reverence, and we certainly fhould be careful how we reject them. We have, doubtlefs, liberty to examine by the written word of God, every infcription which we here find ; but the examination Ihould be with pious candour, and with much prayerful deliberation!, Several of the mofi: important facts which relate to the prefent controverfy, and which the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, hath held, in the different ages of Chriftianity, are fet to view in the plate. As you have profelTedly made this pillar and ground of the truth, the ground-work of your oppofition againft the Baptills, fo I purpofe to c 26 Letters on Open CGmmunion, make it fomewhat the ground- work of my refutation of your arguments, and the fupport of mine ; but the law and the tcftimony of Jefus Chrift, are the preferable ground for both. I am both pained and pleafed with your ar- guments againft ciofe communion. I am pained, that you fliould employ fo much honeft labour in oppofition to what you probably believe yourfelf, and in oppofition to what, I prefume, nine-tenths of your own de- nomination believe ; and in oppofition to what the churchy which is the pillar and ground of the truth, hath always, taken coUedively, be- lieved, namely, that baptifm is a divinely ap- pointed pre-requijjte to communion at the Lord's table. I am pleafed, that you could find no argu- ment to juftify your oppofition ; and that the truth on which you purpofely ground your firft argument, and take as the principle or firength of all the reft, reproves your oppofi- tion and juftifies the Baptifts. Your firft argument, w^hen reduced to logi- cal fo»m, is, ' The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. * The church holds to open communion. Therefore, ' The clofe communion of the Baptifts is a departure from the truth, and ought to be oppofed by all good Chriftians.* In this argument the major propofition is true, the minor falfe, therefore the conclufion is erroneous. Letters on Open Communion. 11 For a more explicit refutation of this argu- ment, let the following fads be duly coniidered. 1. For the fifteen firft centuries of the Chrif- tian era, there was not, to our knowledge, one fociety of baptized Chritlians, but held to clofe communion, in the very particular in which the Baptifts now do, with refpect to your de- nomination ; that none fhould be admitted to communion before baptifm. 2. The general, if not the univerfal, fenti- ment of the church, including Baptifts and Paedobaptifts, from the eai lieft age of the Chrif- tian era, to the prefent^ hath been, that clofe communion is a doctrine of the Scriptures. 3. Your own denomination, from its begin- ning, hath been, fentimentally, clofe commun- ionills. Their fentiment hath been, that the ordinance of baptifm fhould be firlf adminifter- ed. It is true, they have not underftood what baptifm is, or have refufed to praclife it, and have fet afide the baptifm which was from heaven, for an ordinance of men ; but even this ordinance they confider as having a prior claim to that of the fupper. You do not, Sir, nor do your denomination, appear to advantage, whiKl oppofing the clofe communion of the Baptills, for in this you oppofe the general fentiment and practice of the church, and the general fentiment and pro- felled pradice of your own denomination. Your general fentiment and fuppofed practice are, that the doors of the communion Ihould be clofed againft the unhaptized. Your denom- ination are of this defcription j they are not 28 Letters on Open Comjuunion, baptized ; they can produce no evidence that you are, and fo can make out no claim, upon your own principles, to the communion. If you be not pleafed with the above ftate- ment of your argument, I will, if agreeable to you, ftate it thus : ' The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. * Your denomination is the church, and holds to open communion. Therefore, * The clofe communion of the Baptills is in oppofition to the church, and ought to be op- pofed by all good Chriftians.* Your argument, in this form, may receive the following fhort anfwer. Your major propofition is true, but your minor is not, for you are not the church, as will appear in fome of the fubfequent pages, nor do you, as a denomination, hold to open communion ; therefore, the clofe communion of the Baptills ihould be oppofed by no good Chriilian. 2. Your next argument is, profeffedly, founded upon the defcriptive word of God in favour of the church. To a fuperficial obferver, you might appear to fet out well. You begin thus : " I proved, (fay you) upon the evidence of fafts, that for at lead three hundred years pad, the greater part of real believers have been baptized by fprinkling, and have remained without the limits of the BaptiH churches ; and, if thefe be the only churches of Chrift, they have re- mained without the limits of the true vifible Letters on Open Communion, 29 church. Such is our forlorn fituation, if the Baptift defcription of it be juft.*'* Should your fuppofed facts be proved not to befafts, your argument would fall of itfelf. Should they be merely doubtful, your argu- ment would be a dubious one. Your fuppofed facts are three. 1. For at leaft three hundred years pad, the greater part of real believers have been baptized by fprinkling. 2. For at leaft three hundred years pad, the greater part of real believers have remained without the limits of the Baptift church. 3. If the Baptift churches be the only churches- of Chrift, the greater part of real believers have, for at leaft three hundred years, remained with- out the limits of the true vifible church. As to your firft fuppofed fad, it hath no foundation in truth ; for it is an abufe of lan- guage to fay, that any perfon, or fociety of men, was ever baptized by fprinkling. To fprinkie an handful of water upon a perfon is no more baptifm, than to fprinkie the fame quantity of duft upon a perfon is burying him. Your fecond and third fuppofed facts are not intuitively certain. Perhaps you might be lefs pofitive, were you more largely acquainted with the number and hearts of all the Baptifts, in the various corners and" hiding-places of the earth ; and had you, at the fame time, a per- feen Communion to all who keep the Ordinances as Chriji delivered them to the Saints i and Clofe Cojnmunion to all who vAll not, t MY D F. A R SIR,. \jO your denomination fpeak fenti- mentally, or is it to drive us into a corner, that they tell us that baptifm is as much a pre- requifite for pulpit communion, and praying communion, or even for communion in Chrif- tian conference, as it is for the Lord's table ? Communion in Chriftian conference we muft have, to obtain evidence that perfons are fit fubjecls of baptifm, and as Peter had with Cor- nehus and his friends. Acts x. Communion in prayer we may have with the godly, though they be not baptized, as Paul had with the praying women, befide the river, at Philippi. Acts xvi. If the firft converts at Ephefus, who appear to have been converted under the preaching of Apollos, were baptized by him unto John's baptifm, and were afterwards bapiized by fome of Paul's companions, as you feem to believe they were ; then we have here a fair and full Scripture example of pulpit communion with a perfon as a preacher, who had, if you are correftj not been the fubjeft of gofpel baptifm himfelf. Prifcilla and Aquila, two eminent Chriftians, had this communion with Apollos, and afterwards took him and expounded to Letters en Open Communion. 67 him the way of God more perfeclly. A6ls xviii. and xix.* Here, Sir, are, upon your own principles, famples of divers kinds of Chriftian commu- nion with unbaptized perfons. If you Vv^ill now point us to an example of communion at the Lord's table with an unbaptized perfon, then will your fentiment, for aught which hath yet been faid, appear juft ; that " baptif'm is as much a pre-requifite for pulpit communion as for table communion."! But fuppofe we are as inconfiftent as you would have us believed to be, this does not fairly go to your account, but is to be fet down in our favour, as evidence that we defire to condefcend, and communicate in every thing which is not ftriclly unlawful ; that we would gladly walk together fo far as we have attained. It is poflible, that your denomination may fo mifufe their Baptift brethren, that it will not be expedient for them to do what might otherwife be lawful ; but they wifh not to be the aggreffors. If you mifufe us for holding and vindicating the caufe of our fuffering High- Frieji, we defire every where, and on all occa- fions, to manifeft towards you his condefcend- ing and lamb-like temper. Though we be, in fome inftances, obliged to rebuke you fharply, yet we wilh to do it kind. * We believe that John's baptifm, while adminiflered by himfelf and others, before Chrift gave the baptizing commiflion, was gofpel baptifm ; but we cannot think that any had a right afterwards to baptize by John's authority, or what might in this fenfe be called John's baptifm. t Page 24. 63 Letters on Open Ccmmunion, ly, and in this way gain you to the knowledge and practice of gofpel order, A fomewhat general idea, which runs through your letters, ought to be noticed fomewhere, perhaps as well here as any where. It is this ; " If the Baptifts only be the vifible church, then God hath generally, at leaft for feveral hundred years, gone out of the church, and in- to the world, or into the branches of the cor- rupt church of Rome, for inftruments to main- tain the truth, and to carry on his defigjis of grace in the world.** Anfivsr. If the Baptifts only be the vifible diurch, then hath God chofen many inftru- ments, out of the vifibiC church, and in the in- viftble church, for the defence of the truth, and- £or the converfion of fmners. This is juftk what we believe. Not that the good people of your denomination are, ftriclly fpeaking, in the world, but in the invifible church, or kingdom of Chrift, and prepared bcariily, but not fenti- mentally, for the vifible church. We believe that your denomination have many excellent workmen on the mountains of Ifrael ; and if I. may, without giving offence, I will mention 2.- iimilitude to iiiuftrate my fentiment in this cafe. King Solomon, a type of Chrift, was prepar- ing materials for the Lord's temple, at jerufa- lem. He had need of timber of cedar and of fir from Lebanon, and of ftones to be hewn in the mountains. But there were none hke the Sidonians for this bufinefs. Thefe therefore were employed, ajid wrought with the fervants of king Solomon. Thefe Sidoiiians were hon« Letters on Open Communion, 6g ourable men ; they were treated honourably ; they had intercourfe with the Jews ; they had communion in their common labour, for Solo- mon's builders and Hiram's builders did hew the flones and the timber.* Another thing fhould be particularly noted. Thefe Sidonians had full liberty to commune with Solomon's fervants, in every part of their religion, but they muft come according to the prefcribed order. The fanctuary of the people was con- tinually open, and any one who chofe might come into it, and offer facrifices and eat there- of ; the Sidonians as freely as any. But there were neceflkry pre-requifites. They muft not only make profeffion of the Jews' religion, but they muft be circumcifed, and incorporated into the body of the Jews.f The application is not diiBcuIt. Another fentiment, or affertion not proved, which you advance, page 2 1 , muft have a mo- ment's attention. Speaking of Philip and the eunuch, and of the latter being baptized of the former, you exprefs yourfelf in the follow- ing words : " As to the mode of the eunuch's baptifm, this verfe is lilent. On the ground of this and a few other difputed verfes, the Baptifts fet themfelves againft the great promifes of God, and the works of his grace in our churches, and exalt themfelves in oppofition." Now, Sir, were it not that you too often come forward with too bold, unqualified and unfupported affertions, we (hould not crowd * X Kings V. i Exod. xii. 48, yo Letters en Open Communion, you fo hard, as we are compelled, in fome in- flances, to do. Had you known, that the word of God, though it ufes two very fignificant figures, of fynonymous import, burying "xnd plantings to fix the effential mode of bapiifm, yet never men- tions any other mode, and that there is no other mode to it, fave accidental modes, which it would be trifling to name, you would not have faid, that " as to the mode of the eunuch's baptifm, this verfe is filent.'* Whenever any being or action is mentioned, the eflential mode of it is mentioned by impli- cation. Your manner of exprellion tends to miflead the ignorant and inattentive. But the following part of the pailage quoted is ftill much more exceptionable. " On the ground of this (fay you) and a few other dif- puted verfes, the Baptiils fet themfelves againft the great promifes of God." My dear Sir, you could hardly have miffed the truth more fully than you have here done. We do not reft the matter of baptifm on 2ifew difpiited texts, but we reft it where the Scrip- tures reft it ; on all the texts, and every text, in which the Bible fpeaks of the fubjecf. We take the whole colledively, and every one in- dividually, and find that every one, and the whole, are plainly and literally, implicitly and exegetically, in our favour ; and that juft the contrary is the cafe with you, in this article' of baptifm. Your denomination have not ftiown us, and we fufped they cannot {how us, that they have plain evidence^ injplied evidence, or Letters on Open Communion. yi exegetical evidence, or any other fair evidence, that fpriijkling ever was, is now, or ever will be, gofpel baptifm. Not a (ingle text of Scripture^ where baptifm is mentioned, hath fo much as a fingle fliade of likenefs to your pra(5lice. The Psedobaptills have abundantly confelTed and defended this. Some of the mod learned of your own denom- ination have made iiuiilar confeffions ; and all of your denomination, who have written upon the fubjecl, have either confeffed that the gof- pel and apoftolic praclice was immerfion, or have, by their inconclufive arguments, proved that they were not able, from Scripture, to fupport your practice. Their arguments from the 7th of Mark, i \ th of Luke, and 9tli of Hebrews, all fail ; not one of them, nor all put together, have links enough to make a chain, which will reach from fprinkling to gofpel bap- tifm, fo as to prove them one. Till you can do this, which none have done, your hardnefs againft the Baptifts does not appear either can- did or Chrillian. Your denomination have, many a time, faid many ingenious and good things ; but things however ingenious and good, if they do not relate to the queftion di- redly, do not urge conviction, like iblid argu- ments, full to the point. In your letters, you have, on the queOions debated, faid many good things, many plaulible things, and fome things rather too fevere ; but where have you faid one conclufive thing ? I will here fet before you a fliort fample of your argumentation j and, by a long acquaint- 72 Letters on Open Conununion, ance with you, I know you to be a man of fenfe, when you take the right fide of a quef- tion ; and therefore prefume, that when your reafoning is expofed, you can fee its weaknefs. The particular fample to which I wifh your attention as a critic, is page 27, in the words following : *' The parable of the ten virgins ive fuppofe exhibits the general ftate of religion, both in the Paedobaptift and Baptift churches ; and Chrift hath fellowfhip with both, fo far as they walk in the path of the juft. And hence it is an undeniable inference^ that in imitation of Chrift, they fhould walk as brethren, and live in fellowfhip, as churches of equal ftanding in Chrift/' Here, Sir, contrary from all logical or rea- fonable argumentation, you have a doubtful major, and particular minor, and an undeniable and univerfal conclufion. Such reafoning as this cannot be admitted in a cafe fo important as the prefent. You fay, we fuppofe ; but how does an undeniable inference follow, from a bare fuppoli- tion ? You again fay, " Chrift hath fellowftiip with both, fo far as they walk in the path of the juft." But ftill, how does your z/W^«/^?^/? and univerfal inference follow, that the Bap- tifts and Paedorantifts fiiould live in fellowftiip, as churches of equal ftanding in Chrift ? We would. Sir, were it to your advantage, willingly grant, that both your major and minor propofitions are true, as you ftate them, with the change 0(3, word, focieties for churches ; but ftill they have no connexion with your undeni- Letters on Open Communion, 73. able Inference. For, fuppofing the parable of the virgins exhibits the ilate ot" religion in both denominations, and Chrifl; walks with both, fo {it as they walk in the path of the jull, how- does this prove, that you walk in the path of the juft, as members of the vifible church ? Or that we fliould have fellovv^fhip with you, as churches of equal ftanding in Chrift ? Were it not for hurting your feelings, and wailing time, you could be prefented with many famplcs of fomicwhat fimilar argumenta- tion, from divers parts of your pamphlet, if not from the beginning to the end of it. We do not, however, fo much complain of your arguments, as we do of the hard applica- tion which you make of them. What feems moil unreafonable, and, in our judgment, a fpecies of religious cruelty, is, that by fuch fallacious arguments, you would drive us from our duty, and compel us to juftify your departure from the fdith of gofpel bap- tifrn ; or elfc ftigmatize us to the world as bigots, fchifmatics, and as perfons, who fet themfelves againft God and the churches. Such ufage is not good from any man, worfe from a Chriitian man, and woril of ail from a ChrilHan miniiler. We are willing you (Iiould prove us guilty, if you can ; for truth, and not viclory, is what we feek. But to be condemned without evi- dence, or by fuborned evidence, is what we f]\all not tacitly fubmit to. In page 33, you aflert, " On the article of clofe communion, the Baptifts acl without and G 74 Letters on Open Communioji. in oppofuion to the Scripture ; they judge their brethren, they fet at naught their breth- ren." Thefe are hard accufations, which you are not able to prove. In page 34, you tell us, that the Psedobap- tifts, as well as the Baptifts, hold to believers* baptifm. Here, Sir, you miftake, and your words might communicate to many an unjuft idea. You know, if you reflect a moment, that neither thePaedobaptifts, nor the Paedorantifts, hold to believers' baptifm. You hold to this, that a believer may be fprinkled, or even bap- tized, if he have not been fprinkled before : but you hold to no fuch idea, that perfons Ihould believe, before they be baptized ; which is the precife idea of believers' baptifm. In the fame page, at tlie bottom, you begin another very general aflertion. " On thefe two queflions," (i. e. believers' children the fubjecls, and Iprinkling the mode of baptifm,) " the deciflve weight of Scripture is againft the Baptifts, much the greater, and moft en- lightened part of the true church of God being the judges." Dear Sir, nothing but want of information can fave your character, as a man, and efpe- cially as a Chriftian, from the moft difagreeable imputations, whilft you, as an author, would impofe fuch unfounded affertions upon the public. I am forry for you, as a man, and as an old friend ; but when truth is fo maligned, not only without evidence, but contrary from Letters on Open Communicn, 75 evidence, and in the fcice of a cloud of witnefics, made up "of all the Baptiils, all the P^dobaptifts, and very many of thofc, who practife infant fprinkling, I cannot but put in my veto againil your indecorous meth- od of condemning thofe v^hom you cannot find guilty. Had you mentioned the fubjecls of baptifm only, your afferticn would have been more p'auiible. Your laft letter, in which you collecl the fubjecfls of the foregoing letters, aiTume the great fubje«5t of controverfy as prov^ed, draw your main inference,and make outyour conclu- lion, is, if it be pofUble, more incoherent, loofe and exceptionable, than any of the preceding. From loofe arguments proceed loofe evi- dence, loofe inferences, and loofe conclufions. After having recapitulated what you had gone over, you obferve, pve clofe communion to be an error^ is not your fault, for the fubjecl is not capable of proof. 9. If gofpel baptifm be immerfion,and that only, and gofpel baptifm be ncceifary to viable church memberfhip, and if vifible church mem- berfhip be neceffary to give right to the Lord's table, you may as eafily argue the fea dry, and difpute mountains into mole-hills, as to prove your right to the communion table. You do not know, nor can you prove, but the above hypothefes are juft. If they be, then you do not know, nor can you prove, that you have any gofpel liberty to come to the Lord's fupper. If you do not know that you have any right to come, if you cannot prove that you have, and if the Baptifts can fee no right which you pof- fefs, then they have no liberty to admit you ; and you act an unreafonable part in contending with them for refufing you. 10. As your denomination, confiJered as a religious feci in diftinclion from all other Chrif- tians, arofe in the hurrying, troublefome and warring times of the Reformation from Pope- ry, it might be your wifdom, in this day of American peace and liberty of thought, to re- view the peculiarities of your religious feci. If your peculiarities were, when firft adopted, in agreement with the Scriptures, they are in agreement ftill, and doubtlefs may be defended Letters on Open Communion, 83 by them. But if they cannpt be defended by the Scriptures, it would be for your honour and profit to give them up. 11. If the modern origin of a religious fe(^ be of any force again ft the purity of their re- ligious tenets, as your denomination have abun- dantly believed in their oppofition againft the Baptifts ; then this argument comes with its full force, be it more or lefs, againft your de- nomination, feeing it is found to be of quite modern date. At the fame time, the Baptifts are without fault upon this fcore, they being the regular defcendants of the firft gofpel church founded in Judea.* 12. The wife and judicious reader will fearch for truth as for hid treafure, and wil- lingly receive it, though it be to the ruin of his errors. Error makes the wifeft and beft of men ap- pear to difadvantage ; but truth, largely re- ceived, makes them the more profitable to men, and acceptable to God. Laftly. Wife men may imbibe errors, but the foolifh only will retain them, when truth Iball hav^e fully expofed them. With much affeclien for your perfon, and efteem for your charafter, I am, dear Sir, Your cordial friend and fervant, for the truth*s fake, DANIEL MERRILL. Sedgwick, ^uly 16, 1805. * Sec ihc Author'* Sermons on Baptifm. ^uft Fublijhed^ andforfak «/ Manning ^Loring*j Book/tore, No. 2, Cornbill, A VINDICATION of the DISTINGUISH- ING SENTIMENTS of the BAPTISTS, againft the Writinps of Meilrs. Cowles, Miller and Edwards. — By ELISHA ANDREWS, a. m. Paftor of the Bapiift Church inTempleton. [^Priw 50 cents in blue^']^ cents hound. Extract from the Introdudion. *< The Baptifts are the fartheft, perhaps, of any people in the world, from eflecming baptifm a favmg ordinance ; we neither fubflitnte it in the room of the atoning blood of Jefus Chrift, or of the renewing influence of the Holy ' Ghofl ; yet we are far, very far indeed from fuppofing, that any thing which it has pleafed the fovereign Head of the Church to inftitute, and to require his followers to obferve, can be a matter of indifference. We fay, we be- lieve, and we think that we can prove beyond any rea- fonable difpntc, that the bnptifrn of thofe who profefs faith in Jefus Chrili, is an inftitution of Jefus Chrift ; that it is a divine ordinance which all believers are under indifpen- fable obligations to obey. It alfo appears to us exceed- ingly plain that infant baptifm is not fo much as once mentioned in the whole Bible. It is the fpurious offspring of human invention. It is an ufurper, which would take the place of the divinely appointed baptifm of believers, and which, fliould it obtain as univerfally as its friends wifli it may, and intend that it (hall, would entirely fuper- fede and fct afide that kind of baptifm which is taught in the New Teffament. This being the cafe, our bufmefs is wholly on the defenfive. It is for tlie Pedobaptifts"t6 pi-ove, if they can, that infant baptilm is a divine appoint- ment ; while we ihall endeavour to fhew, that th^eir argu« ments are not fufKcicnt to evince the truth of it." Alfo^ juji Publijhed, and for fale as above, THE Second Edition of SEVEN SERMONS on the Mode and Subje^s of BAPTISM By DANiet Merrill, A.M. [Trice 37I cents."] TWELVE LETTERS,. A I) D R E S S E D TO R.EF, SAMUEL AUSTIN, a. m. IN WHICH, !TIS VINDICATION OF PARTIAL WASHINS. FOR CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, CONTAIXED IH TEN LETTERS, IS REVIEIVEI) AND DISPROVED: BY DANIEL 'MERRILL, A.M. PASTOR OF THE OHURCH OF CHRIST IN SEDUWyCBv In vnin do they worniip me, teaching for do(5liines the commandments of men. Jesus Cukist. Wo unto you, l.iivycrs ! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourfelves, and them that were entering in ye Jiin-- dered. Jesus Chhist, BOSTON : TRINTED AND SOLD BY MANNING £? LORING, NO. 2, CORNHILL..,..J806. BiSTklCT OF MAtSACBUSfrn, t» 'Wit, BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the eleventh day of April, in the thirtieth year of the independence of the United States of America, Manning & Lor l no, of the faid dillrift, have depofited in this cffice the title of a Book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the words following, to zoit : — "Twelve Letters, addrcfled to Rev. Samu e l Au ST I N, A. M. in which his Vindication of Partial Wafh- ing for Chriftian Baptifm, contained in Ten Letters, is reviewed and difproved. By Da n i e l Me h r i l l, A. M. Paftor of the Church of Chrift in Sedgwick." In conformity to the Aft of the Congrefs of the United States, entitled, *' An Aft for the Encouragement of Learning, by fecuring the Copies 6f Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch Copies during the Times therein mentioned ;" and alfo to an Aft, •ntitled, " An Aft fupplementary to an Aft, entitled, ' An Aft for the Encouragement of Learning, by fecuring the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch Copies, during the Times therein mentioned;' and extending the Benefits thereof to the Arts cf Defigning, Engraving, and Etching Hiftorical and other Prints." N. GOODALE, Clerk of 'the Dijlriii (^ Majachufem. A true Copy of Record. Atteft : N. GooDALZ, Cieri. Sfo the Ohrldtlan tzrCeader* Vv HATEVER be your denomina- tion, your wifdom is, to feek the knowledge and practice of .the truth. In the following Letters you will find difcuffed fome of the moil important articles of the Chriftian re- ligion : fom.e of the great and leading points in which Jefus, as Captain of the Lord's hofl, afferts his kingly authority, are fet to view ; as well as fome of thofe in which Antichrill afferts his authority, are expofed. The high- ly interefting contention, at the prefent, is, who fhall reign over us, and who fhall give us laws, Chrift or Antichrift ! The Pope and his clergy, and all who are in part or whole blinded by the fmoke, the errors, which came out of the bottomlefs pit, Rev. ix. 2. fay Anti- chrift's authority, in whole or part, is founded in the word of God. The author of thefe pages has endeavoured to ftiow, that Antichrift hath, for his ordinances of fprinkling, &c. no fupport from the Revelation of Jefus Chrift ; and that his temporifmg, defiling, and abomi- nable errors, fo far as they concern the pref- iV ent controverfy, have not one pafTi^i^ej from Geiicfis to R-evclation, in their jfavour. The reader will find a fpirit of extermina- tion manifefted aeaiaft the errors of Mr. Auf^ tin : but the reader is defired not to feel in his own breaft, nor to fuppofe that the author poiTeffed in his, the fame fpirit towards Mr. Auftin's perfon or character, which is expreff- ed towards his errors. The author takes lib- erty to aiTure every perfon into whofe hands this pamphlet may fall, that he hath no con- temptible idea of Mr. Auftin's character or talents ; nor is he without ftrono; hooes that Mr. Auftin is, generally fpeaking, a cordial friend to trulh, notwlthiiandTng he hath em- braced and laboured to vindicate feveral very hurtful and bewildering errors. All God's children have not as yet obeyed the heavenly command, to come out from the man of fin, from Antlchrifl:, to touch not the unclean thing, and be feparate. V/hilft Mr. Auftin, and many others, who have left the dodrines of the man of fm, are yet bewildered by fome of his ordinances, we are not to count them as enemies, but to ad- moniih them as friends, and be ever ready to embrace them, the moment in which they will obev our King^ and come out, and touch net the abominations of the modier of harlots. There are many who will not enter into the kingdom of heaven themfelves, and thofe who are enterijag in by Chrift's gofpel ordi- nance, baptihn, they hinder. In this matter they defile themfelves, and are yet with the man of Jin ^ who ftill hinders the full glory of the church. Reader, if you will not be baptized your- felf, and thus enter into the vifibie churchy the kingdom of heaven on earth, be careful how vou hinder thofe who are enterins: in. o ChriiVs kingdom mud come, and it v/ill come: be careful, left you be found even to fight againft God. If the errors of fprinkling for baptifm^ un- believers for the fubjedis, and unbaptized per- fons for church members, be not of Chrift, but of the world, rejecSt them as relicks of Anti- chriPc. The following Letters, if read with a prayerful, teacliable fplrit, will iliow that the above are errors, not being found in the gof- pel of Ghrift, but being contrary from the word of the Son of God. Reader, are you a Chriftian, and yet un- willing to know the laws of your King ! Do you find that within you there arc ftrong pre- judices, and the rifings of a corrupt mind, againft hearing and pradlifing as the more noble Bereans did, when Paul was the preach- er ? For Zion's fake, for truth's fake, and for your own fake, remember that the wrath of man worketh not the righteoufnefs of God. Have courage and refolution enough to hear and know tlie truth, and pra-fiife it when known. yi Praying that the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift may give you to fee the rifing church, as now coming up from the wildernefs, fhowing herfelf in gofpel beauty and fimplicity, and to efpoufe her caufe with your whole heart, I am, reader, your's and the church'« willing fervant, The author. SssciricK, Deczmbbr i^, x^oj. LETTERS TO the Rev. SAMUEL AUSTIN. LETTER L REVEREND SIR, WITH pain and pleafure I continue in the field of theological controverfy. It is painful to me, that the time, talents, and zeal of good men, Ihould be occupied to give currency and continuance to error. In the mean time, it is grateful to my feelings to difcover the fame good men relinqui filing, by little and little, their indefenllble ground. The conceffions and profeflion, which are found in your Letters to me, furnifli hope that you will yet dif- cover truth and embrace it. You concede, 1. That the prefent controverfy cannot be fettled by an appeal to the Greeks or Romans ; to the monk of Paleftine, Jerome ; to the reformer of Geneva, or to the Englifh de- fender of the Baptifts ; or even by an appeal to church hif- tory, or to any other writings which are merely human.* 2. That when baptifm was introduced among the Jews, in the days of John, and in the days of Chrift and his apof- tles, it was not adminiRered to infants ; and that the evi- dence for infant baptilm does not, in our day, amount to demonftration.f 3. You concede, that the Bible is the only book by which the prefent controverfy muft be fettled. :{: 4. You concede, that our Englifh tranflation of the Bible is fo perfedt, that every argument, which is founded in any degree upon a different tranflation than what is found in our •ommon Bibles, " has an objedion at its foundation."^ • Pages 66, 107 of the Letters to the author. t Page* 7 1 7i«- t Page fco8r $. Page- ;». 8 Letlers io R.v. Mr. A-yTin. [Let. I. This Lift conccfflou has its impoitance, not as it refpedts either you or me, but as it reipefts comrrfm readers, that they may reft latisfied that the pvefent trar.flaii-on is fuffi- cieiitly accurate and expHcit. Sf'Jue other ccnceffions I may inention, as the fubjed ihall require. Your pi-ofeffion. Sir, is cicellent, and worthy of a Oirif- tian, in every conteil;. It is this: "As for me, I confider truth infinitely preferable to any party intereft, and promife to you, that I will yield to evidei.ce as liion as it is presented. " it is now expedient that I notice anoth.er ccncelllon, which you give to the public, in page 7 of ycur Letters ; and in llic following words : — " Through the moR of my miniftry, tl^ough I prevailingly believed that the d(/6(riiie and pradice of the Psedobaptills, generally conlidered, were authorized in the Scriptures, I had not that full cnv'tcTion on thefe points ^vhich I had refpefting many other articles. Jt is not more than three years, fmce by fome particular ir.cidents, my attention was called up afrefn to the fubjedl : I then deter- mined to invtftigate it as clofely as my abilities would allow : I accordingly examined the Scriptures from beginning to end — got into my hands and read all the publications on the fubject which I could command, and the refult of my in- quiries was juft the reverfe of yours. It appears to me that no determ'mafe mode of applying water in baptifm was clearly pointed out in the Scriptures, or made efiential to the valid- ity of the ordinance." Tliis concefflon of yours, Sir, together with its IfTue, in- clines me to relate to you, in this place, and through you to the public, fome of the providences which led to my convic- tion, and in the refult, to my converfion from Jonic of m.j errors. For nearly ten years after I entertained fom^e ]i''pe that I ■was born of the Sjiirit, I do not recolleifl of its being once fu'^gefted to my mind, that there was any confiderabie diffi- culty in fupporting fprinkling for baptiJ'm, and infants for the fubjects. In the year 1790, whilll in purfjit of theo- logical knowledge, I had put into my hands a Ihort hilicry of infant baptifm, written by a gentleman in New York. This pamphlet produced its witneffes for infant baptifm, century preceding century, till it came nearly to the apof- tclic age ; but it left a blank, as all other hiftories of the fame kind have done, between the period in wliich we firfl hear of infant baptifm, and the apoilles. This deficiency of hiftoric evidence I ienfibly felt. This chain of evidence was at the time quite pleafmg to me, fo far as it went j- bur it Let. I.] Leit'efsi'o tLev» Mr. Aujih, ^ wanted a few more links to reach to the apoftles, fo as to unite their practice and ours together : however, the author did as well as he could, in the cauie which he was labouring to defend. I was now left to believe, without evidence, if I could, that Infant baptifm came down, in regular fucceffion, from the apoftles to us. This I believed. Not only fo, but I confidered infant baptifm a Bible dodlrine, though not quite fo explicitly expreifed as I could have wifhed. From this time I had occafionally fome fmall difficulties ; but they were, for the mod part, but quite fmall, and of Ihort contin- uance. The Bible I believed to be full of the docftrine of infant baptifm, though I knew of no particular place which Was fully to the point. I confidered it to be a very fingular thing, that we had no example of infant baptifm. Said I to myfelf, Had there been one example, it would have put the matter beyond a doubt. Whether example or not, ftill r concluded it mull: be a Bible dodrine : for I fuppofed that the greateft of men, that the wifeft of men, and that the mofl learned alfo, had always pradifed it : befides, I took it for granted (for there was no evidence for it) that baptifm had ifucceeded circumcifion, and that the fame fubjeds which were of old circumcifed, were now to be baptized. More- over, there are feveral paffages of the Nev7 Teftament, which have been thought, by great, good, and learned men, to favour infant baptifm. 1 thought the fame. If you, Sir, will have patience with me, I will mention fome of thefe fcriptures, and efpeclally thofe which I viewed as cardinal texts upon the fubjed. I will alfo tell you how I then un- derftood them, likewife what are my prefent thoughts re- fpeding them. The texts which were confidered to be, more than any other, in favour of infant baptifm, and which appeared fufficient to authorize the pradice, are the fol- lowing. 1. Mat. xix. 13, 14, 15. 'Then were there brought unto him little children, that he fhould put his hands on thern, and pray ; and the difciples rebuked them : but Jefus faid. Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of fuch is the kingdom of heaven. And ne laid his hands on them, and departed thence.' 2. The parallel text, Mark x. 13, 14, 15, 16. * And they brought young children to him, that he fhould touch them 5 and his difciples rebuked thofe that brought them : but when Jefus faw it he was much difpleafed, and iaid unto them, Suffer the little children to come uato roe, and forbid theQ^ B 2 lo Lettcn io Rev, Mr. Auji'in. [Let. I. nnt, for of i'uch is the kingdom of God. Verily I fav unto you, Whofoever iLall nut receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he Ihall not ente*- therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blefled them.' 3. The lame account, as related by Luke, xviil. i^, i6, 17, v'as thought to afFord fomc additional light. Luke fays, • They brought unto him alfo infants, that he would touch them; but when his difciplcs faw it, they rebuked them: but Jefus called them unto him, and faid. Suffer little chil- dren to come unto me, ai\d forbid them not, for of fuch is the kingdom of God. Verily I fay unto you, Whofoever Ihull not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, lliall in no wife enter therein * 4. Acts ii. 39. ' For the promife is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as' many as the Lord our God fluill call.' 5. I Cor. vii. 14. ' For the unbelieving hufband is fandi- lied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is fanclitied by the kufband ; elfe were your children unclean, but now are they koly.' Upon thefc texts I reafoned in the following manner. Little children, young children, and infants were brought to Chrift ; he approved of their being brought ; he was dif- pleafed with fuch as forbade them ; we lliould bring our children to him. ; what way fo fuitable as to prefent them in baptifm : befides, Cln-ift faid. Of fuch is the kingdom of heaven. How could infants be of the kingdom of heaven, orherwife than by being baptized, and fo admitted members of the vifible clnuch I It was alfo my thought, that ti)e promife menlioned Acls ii. 39. was the fame that was made to Abraham, Gen. xvii. : and, in addition to the above, Paul tells us, that when one of the parents is a believer, the chil- dren are holy. Hence, my conclufioii was- that infant bajv. tifm was warranted by Scripture, when not one of the texts fa 's fo much as a word about baptifm ; but each one relates to quite a different fubjed, as you may fee by examining the connexion of each. Should more evidence be required, my erroneous judg- ment was, that houfehold baptifm, as recorded Acts xvi. 15 and 33. and i Cor. i. 16. would make up any deficiency ; when in neither of the pafTages is there a word faid of any child or adult being baptized upon the faith of another. Upon this foundation, if it may be called a foundation, my faith with refpeft to infant baptifm, or with refped to what is of late years fo called, relied, wjth little iaterrup tion, till Let. II.] Letters to Rev. Mr. AtyTtn, >* tlie beginning- of 179.J ; at which time I felt forne hefitancy- as to its being fupported by the oracles of God. M7 prefent thoughts with refped to the above texts, you will permit me to defer till I write you again r and in tho mean time belicTe mf; to be Yours, &c. LETTER IL IN the clofe of my laft, the thought was faggefted, that my mind h'diit.ited, in the beginning of 1799, as to the validity of infant baptifm ; it did, however, preponderate in its favour. But in the winter and fpring of this year, a new fcene opened to vievv\ At this time a remarkable and extenfive reformation took place among my people ; and among the converts, there were not lefs than twenty or thirty who were diinuisiied with infant baptifm, and many of them doubted of fprinkiing being the baptifm of the gofpel. It became my indhpenfable duty to take up |he fubjed, and canvafs it as well as I could. It was attempted ; but i foimd not my path fo clear of dlfriculties as it was wifhed to be. However, my ignorance and unbelief fuftained me for tlie time : and by not underllanding, and by mifapplying Mark vii. 4. and by going with the young converts to the water, and there partially wafliing them for baptifm, their minds were in meafure fatisfied. At the fame time, they had encouragement that the fubjed of b;iptifm fliould be foon taken under coiifideration again, and that they might expert to havei|[it then more fully and fatisfadorily explored. Thus the matter apparently refted with them ; but my own mind was not long at a time without queries upon tne fubjeft. I now read my Bible over and over again ; every pamphlet and every page written by any Psdobaptifl, upon infant fprinkiing, 1 read with eagernefs, wherever I could find it ; but whenever I lit upon a leaf written in favour of gofpel baptifm, I either neglected it wholly, or read it with prejudice. My obje6t was not lb much to know ■wJiat baptifm was, as to prove that fprinkiing was baptifm. I purfucd this fruitlefs fearch for nearly fix years. At in- tervals my mind was fatisfied, largely fo, that fprinkiing, or Wiher tkit partial walhing, was gofpel baptifm, and infants II Letters to Rev. Mr, Aujlin, [Let. II. the proper fubje<5ts ; as fully perfnaded of this being the cafe, perhaps, as you were, after three years fearch. My mind almoft perpetually gave judgment in favour of infant fprinkling, and feldom, if ever, doubted but it would pafs for baptifm. I was willingly ignoiant of the true gofpel baptifm. Not only was I willingly ignorant, but, like my Paedobaptift brethren, I chofe darknefs, in this matter, rather than light. I was much like them alfo in another particu- lar, in that I too much faid, in both words and pradice, that any application of water, in the name of the Lord Jefus, was baptifm ; and that there was no determinate way, clear- ly pointed out in the Bible, by which water ftiould be ap- plied. For fprinkling, as being gofpel baptifm, I long and Tainly fought ; and becaufe I could not find it, I more vain- ly concluded, that the matter was all left at fuch loofe ends that nobody could know; and fo we muft praclife, and be agreed a^bout the matter as well as we could. However, my mind could not, for a long period at a time, reft in this Hate of grofs darknefs and ignorance. Befides, my people did not forget my encouragement, that the fubjed of baptilin fhould be again taken up, and more fully handled ; nor did they forget to remind me of my promife. But the more I ftudied on the fubjcift, the more I difcov- ered my darknefs, and my unprcparednefs to treat on it publickly. Whilli fearching every where for data to prove fprinkling or partial wafhing to be baptifm, it ufed occafum- all)' to be fuggefted. Who are gofpel fubjedls of baptifm ? This became to me a ferious queftion in the year j 804. My difficulty was, indeed, not fmall ; yet I thought mylelf juftified in continuing my pradice. In Auguft of this year, juft before the adminiflration of infant fprinkling, this text fomewhat forcibly flruck my mind, ♦ He that doubteth is damned if he eat.' In a moment $he following thought came to my relief, / doult the laivfulnrfs of my rrfufing tptiijy| Vili tab« no advantage, from cb« woird* bcu^g thus ufcdi Let. ILj Letters to Rev, Mr. Aiylin, . 13 to be favight, and to believe for themfclves. The difficulty ■which I felt was mentioned to the father of thefe children : he WHS deiired to wait for an anfwer till the intermiflion : I then took him, with two of my deacons, and converfed con- fiderably upon the fubje*5l. It was fomewhat plain to me, and mentioned to them, that, going upon the covenant of circumcifion, it was inconiillent to baptize an infant of eight days, and to refufe another of twice eight years. The more I thought and fpake on the fubjedl, the more my difficulties increafed. At this janclure, I fenfibly felt that wifdom was needed from on high. 1 mentioned to the two deacons, that it was, in my judgment, expedient that there fliould be a day of falling and prayer appointed, that we might, among other reouefts, arje • ready and prepared for the vilible church ; or they were the unorganized beginnings of it. As two, or as twenty, approved and enlifted foldiers, who are thus made ready and prepared for au army, which ii, about to be formed, arj not the army, nnlefs it be the unorganized beginnings of it ; fo, or in a limilar ntuation, are John's firft difciplts, if not the whole of thern, confidered to have been. In your fecond Letter you aik me perhaps a dozen quef- tions, and ftate a particular cafe. I have been, and am- ftill, rather at uncertaii)ty, whether you propofed them feri- ■ ouily or not. If you be ferious in the inquiries, — "What do we confider the chara'nial waifhing befides immerfion ?" A> 34' y*^^ ^^^^ ^5' "Water baptilm is undoubtedly a fym- bol of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, which is a figurative baptifm;" pages 60, 61. In page 60 you have thefe words, — " There muft be fome evident Ukenefs between the fubjedl to which a word is applied, in the natural and primitive ufe of it, and the fubje<^ to which it is applied as a figure ; otherwile there is a grofs im- propriety in the figurative ufe of it." Now, Sir, permit me to put thefe ideas, conceflions, and declarations of yours together. I. To be buried •v^'iih Chrift in baptifm, to be planted in the likenefs of his death, to be buried with him by baptifm, and to be rifen with him in baptifm, Rom. vi. 4, 5. and Col. ii. 12. is to be baptized with the Holy Ghoft ; or the «' baptifm of the Holj Ghoft exaiftly coincides with this reprelentatioo." Let. v.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. 33 it efpecially relates to him ; the confeqiience is obvious, — it is, that John was imnierfed at every adminiftration of the ordinance." A perlon who can allert thus roundly, without fo much as a fhow of evidence, and call it arguing, may be expeded to find fome fault with the affertions and pretended arguings of his opponents. But, Sir, I have a little more to fay of this argument of yours, by which you would de- ftroy my evidence from Scripture. You fay, " This confe- quence is too unpleafant to be eafily received." What con-- fequence ? The one which you had jufl; drawn, " That John was himfelf immerfed at every adminiftration of the ordi- nance." This confequence you draw from your own prem- ife, " that the prepoiition in relates efpecially to John," together with my definition of hapti%d, that it is to immerfe. Now take your own premife and your own definition, if you have any, or take your afTertion, that baptizo is a gene- ric term, and means not any particular kind of wafhing, but walhing in general, or any application of water : and ■what is the confequence ? " The confequence may be un- pleafant, and too unpleafant to be eafily received :" but as unpleafant as it may be, I lliall fet it down, and the world will judge on which fide the unpleafantnefs falls. The confequence is — If John baptized by affufion every time he adminiftered the ordinance, he aiFufed or poured water on himfelf: if he baptized by fprinkling, then at every admln- illration he was fprinkled himfelf; if he ufed water in any other way, in the adminiftration of the ordinance, in the f 2. 34 Letters to Rev. Mr, Aiijiin. [Let. V. My third argument was to tliis purport : Bapti%d and baptijhosf though they be moft ufually rendered to baptize and baptifm, yet they fometimes fignify to vrafli ; but when thts is their figniiication, the wafhing fpoken of is never common wafhing, but ceremonial ; which is bathing the thing in water, or putting it all over in water. Upon this you fee fit to obferve, in not a very handfome manner, thus, *' But how you could ftumble upon this, as an argument, is incomprehenfible." My readers, Sir, can generally underftand me. As to this argument, which you fay is incomprehenfible, I will fet it before you with mathematical plainnefs. Baptizo and baptifmos equal two tranilations, baptizing and a certain kind of wafliing ; this certain kind of wafhing equals ceremonial wafhing, which is to bathe a thing all over in water, or to put into water. Lev. xi. 32. ; to bathe a thing all over in water, or to put into water, equals immerfion : tlierefore, to baptize equals to immerfe, and immerfion equals baptifm. But, Sir, your anfwer is ready, and it is this, — " Baptlzo equals nipto, and nlpto equals common wafhing." Now, Sir, fhow me in any paiTage of the New Teftament, where this fliort chain of yours, of only three links, is fupported, or can be by plain afiirmation or fair deduflion, and I will confefs that I have run my claim too high. It is eafy to fhow you where you will go for proof, and it is equally eafy to {how you that it is not in point. You will diredly repair to Mark vii. or to Luke xi. Very welL What do you find here ? In Mark you find, that the Pharifces, except they wafh they eat not ; this was a conftant ceremony among them, and nipto is ufed. And when they come from the MARKET, except they wafh (baptize, or bathe themfelves all over in water) they eat not. This is their extraordinary ceremony or tradition. This was to be obferved when they had been to the market, or to a pomifcuous aifembly, where clean and unclean perfons were aflembled. This takes up the pafiages in Luke xi. as well as Mark vii. Now, Sir, you, and thofe who have written before you on your inde- fenfible ground, would palra it upon both learned and un- learned, upon both faint and finner, that the circumftances are fo fimilar, in which nipto and in which baptizo are ufed, that the words are equivalent, when the very texts them- felves intimate to you that it is no fuch thing. One half of your fuppofed ftrength, and imaginary triumph, is found- ed upon your miftaking, or willingly not iinderftanding, the above paffages. Would you bring us half fo much evi- Let. v.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin. 3 1 2. " There is an e'u'ulcnt likenefs between the natural idea of planting, burying, and rljing as from the dead, and the figurative baptiim of the Holy Ghoft, or there is a grofs impropriety (as you fay) in the apoftle's figurative ufe of the words." 3. Water baptifm is a fynibol or figure of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft ; it is, therefore, a burying, a planting, or immerfion, — your Letters, as well as the word of God, being judge. Hence, Sir, by going a large diftance round, to avoid what you feared, you have proved, to my hand, what I endeavoured to eftabliih through the courfe of five fennons. Though I approve of tlie conclufion to which y.ou have brought me, yet I cannot fay that I confent to all your premifes. You appear to me to be incorrevhat knowl- edge is at hand, as to the meaning of any word, and our eonfequent duty, as related by the beft of men ; yet if there be any more fure word of prophecy, we fhould, as did the Bereans, take heed to it. Accordingly I did in the fecond place turn to the word of the Lord, in which I found it thus written, Mark i. 5. « And there went out unto him (John) all the land of Judea, and they of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan.' Thus, 8ir, by comparing the teftimony of learned men and the fure word of prophecy together, I find they both agree, and therefore believe both. But, Sir, what fhall I fay to your reply ? Shall I tell the learned world that Mr. S. Auftin, who would not allow me to conjoin the teftimony of learned critics with that of the word of God, in order to make fure the definition of a word which he is difpofed to controvert, dares himfelf to confront flain Scripture with many great but namelefs critics ? Shall tell it in Afkelon, or publifh It in Gath, that the fame Mr. Auftin, who will not allow a didlionary, lexicon, or con- cordance, each fandioned by the learned world, to fay one word, dare fpoil the plain, literal, common, and only fenfe ef a plain paifage of Scripture, when all the authority which he pretends to poftefs is, that it is the opinion of maiTy great critics, that John adually did baptize in the river of Jordan by affufion ? Shall I tell the fame learned world, that the fame Mr. Auftin afferts, in his public Letters to me, page 35, •* That the fuppofed evidence of this paflage muft lie wholly in the prepofition in, and that applies to John as really as to tlie fubje(5ts of his adminiftration ?" " IJay, (fays Mr. Auftin) Let. VI.] Letters to Rev, Mr. Aujiin, 37 account of fome apparent difficulty. You exprefs it thus : " If you will tuny to Rev. i. 5. you will find another exam- ple, clearly againft what you afifert, refpefting louo. The word is lekufanti. You will not pretend that Chrift ever waflied his people in his own blood by immerfing them in it ; this is a natural impoffibility ; the word here I grant is ufed figuratitely." Very well, Sir, and are they not cleanfed thoroughly ? If fo, they are figuratively waflied ail over.. This is all that I aflt you to grant. Your other obfervations, in your fourth Letter, are fup- pofed to be anfwered, and fo fufficlently reviewed by what is already faid. I will now ftate the bufuiefs, fo far as it appears to (land for the prefent unembarraifed by your examination. Baptizo is to immerfe, bury, overwhelm, &c. ; loud never means any thing lefs than to wafh a thing all over. The Holy Spirit hath made ui'e of both thefe words, and of thefe only, with their derivatives, except in John iii. 5. to defignate baptifm : hence, baptifm can mean nothing lels than walhing the body all over, or immerfing it, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. There is no denomination in the world who praftifes this baptifm, but thofe who are Baptifts as to the adminiftration of the ordinance : hence thofe and thofe only who baptize by immerfion, adminifter the Chriftian ordinance of baptifm. Wifhing you more light, love, and knowledge than the t^riter poffeffes, I remain yours, &c. LETTER VL REVEREND SIR, IT is nianifeftly a matter of importance with you, that the world Ihould confider Paul, where he fpeaks of baptifm, Rom. vi. and Col. ii. 12. to intend the baptifm of the' Holy Ghoft. It is, indeed, to your theory of baptifm, a matter of the greateft magnitude, to have thefe pafiages refer to the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft ; for if they do not, they are as a great mill-ftone, bound about the neck of all your arguments, and drown them all as in the fea. So long as you can perfuade the prejudiced and inattentive to difbelieve the plain import of the apoftle'a words and veafon- 38 Letters to Rev. Mr, AuJIim [Let. VI. ings, fo long you may prevent their feeling the force of thefe paifages.^ But what will the world think of your reafonings, and the blindnefs which they gather from them, provided it be here Ihown, as it.indeed hath already been, that though we grant all your premifes, the conclufion from them is fairly and undeniably this, — that immerfion is the only gof- pel baptifm. All your objedlion againft allowing that the apoftle, in Romans and Coloflians, alludes to and intends water . baptifm, is confidered to arife from an apprehenfion that imm.erlion would certainly follow. But we will attend to your premifes. In pages 33, 34, your words are, Water baptifm is un- doubtedly a fymbol of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. Pages 44, 45, you inform us that thefe paffages, To be buried with Chriit by baptifm into death, to be buried with Chrift in baptifm, and to be raifed with him in baptifm, according to Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12. can never be proved to have any refpeft or even allufion to external water baptifm. Again you tell us, page 60, " There muft be fome evi- dent likenefs, between the fubjeft to which a word is applied in the natural and primitive ufe of it, and the fubjed to which it is applied as a figure, otherwife there is a grofs impropriety in the figurative ufe of it." Hence, Sir, baptifm is fpoken of under the fimllitude or figure of burying and rifmg again. You reply. This is the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. Grant it : yet you tell us, Water baptifm is undoubtedly a fymbol (i. e. an emblem or figure) of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. You may add. There is no likenefs between the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, and burying and rifing again. But, Sir, you have declared to us, that " there muft be fome evident likenefs between a fubjed to which a word is applied in the natural and primi- tive ufe of it, and the fubjed to which it is applied as a figure, otherwife there is a grofs impropriety in the figurative ufe of it." Now, Sir, I fee but two things between which you muft choofe ; either, i. That water baptifm hath an evident like- nefs. to a burial and refurredtion ; or, 2. That the apoftle was guilty of a grofs impropriety in the figurative ufe which he made of the words burying and the refurreftion. Take which you pleafe. You will pleafe to review your aftertion, page 47, " That the above texts in Romans and Coloifians, do not even fur- nifli the ihadow of proof for baptifm by immerfion." Let. v.] Letters to Rev. Mr, Aujiin, 2i5 dence for you, as there is in thefe two paffages againft you, we would allow you fomething plautible. But, Sir, till you (how us where bapiizo and niptd are equivalent, we wifli you would fay lefs about it, and take lefs credit for the fuppofed equivalency of them. Equate them, or make them equal, if you can : when you do it, we will be filent, or make conceflions : till you do this, common civility impofes filence on you. The other half of your fuppofed ftrength, I hope to remove out of your way as I come to it. The next thing which requires to be noticed, in your examination, is my definition of the word louo, and your obfervations relating to my definition. My definition of louo was, and ftill is, to bathe or wafti a thing all over. You add to my words, and fay " that I intend immerfion." I do not ; nor did I ever intend to define louo as always mean- ing immerfion. All which I have faid is this, that louo al- ways imports a wafhing of the thing or fubjeft all over. You fubjoin, " If I will turn to John xlli. lo. I fhali find evi- dence dire(5lly and conclufively againft this idea." Againft what idea ? Againft immerfion. This idea of immerfion, as being the exclufive fenfe of louo, I never advocated. But we will take the text into confideration : it is this, — ' Jefus faith to him, He that is wafhed (o hloumenos) needeth not fave to wafh his feet, but is clean every whit.' Here you fay, " the man is wafhed, when only his feet are wafhed.'* Do you mean to contradid: the text I or, Do you mean that the text, by a figure of fpeech, which puts a part for the whole, fays the man is wafhed, when it intends the feet only are wafhed ? The text does not appear to be perfedly eafy to be underflood ; its- purport appears to be, either jfr/?, That Peter had already been baptized, {leloumenos) and fo now had no need to have his body, as Paul expreffes it, wafhed with pure water ; but it was fufficient for the objeA that the Saviour had at this time in view, that his feet be waihed, — as that would be fufficient, to manifeft the Sav- iour's condefcenfion, and to teach his followers humility: or, fecondly. The meaning might be, tliat leloumenos refeired, by a figure, to the waftiing of the man, when it intended the wafhing of the feet only. But upon either fuppofition, it comes to the fame thing, as to my argument from it, unlefs you can fliow that the feet were but partially wafhed. For all which I fay or wifh to maintain is, that whenever louo is ufed to import the wafhing of any thing whatever, it intends that the thing is wafiied all over. Should you upon this conc«0iou fay, and I grant it in this inilance, ^d in 36 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. V. many more, that loud, and nipto are equivalent ; would it either help you or harm me ; would it be to your purpofe at all ? If you conlidcr it to be fo, I will grant it ; for I purpofe to allow you every inch of ground to which you can appa- rently make any juft claim. We muft now compare things accurately. Bapt'izd is equal to immerfion, and to nothing fhort of it. Loud is fometimes equal to bnpiizo ; then louo is fometimes equal to immerfion, as when Paul fiiys, our bodies (leloumenoi). walhed with pure water. Louo is fometimes equal to nipto ; nipto is equal to the wafhing of part of the human body ;• therefore, and what ? This, Sir, — firft, that fiipto and touo- may have the fame import ; and fecondly, that when /iipt9 and iouo agree, they neither of them agree with bapti%d ;. therefore, and what ? This, Sir, — that your argument comes to juft what it jhould, to nothing. Would you obtain the leaft advantage from the fignifica- tion of the word louo, you muft prove one of thefe two things, — either i. That loud never intends immerfion, and yet is fometimes equivalent to baptizo \ or 2. That louo, m ibme certain place or places, where it is fubftituted for bapti%o, fignifies not immerfion, but fomething fhort of it* But could you do this, which you neither have done nor can do, ftill nothing would be gair.ed, unlefs it be-this, that it would embarrafs my principle, witliout helping your own ; for neither bapiizd, loud, nor nlptd, is ever ufed for ranfizd or for fprinkUug. You proceed, Sir, in your examination, to tell us, " That it is not probable that the dead body of Dorcas was im- merfed ; that it would have been a bad way to have im- merfed Paul and Silas, in order to bathe their ftripes ; and you can hardly perfuade yourfelf, that the cuftom, in thofe days, of wafhing the fow from her filth, was to immerfe thofe animals." * Ail this trouble, Sir, you have, either through my fault, in exprefting myfelf without fuihcient perfpicuity, or through yours, in adding to my words ; for I never intended any fuch thing. What I wifhed for is juft this, — To fhow that loud never meant any thing lefs than the wafhing of the body or thing all over. The world muft judge, and we fhall both one day, whether you have deduced a fingle circumftance to invalidate the idea which I advanced ; if you have not, my Sermons yet appear uninjured by your examination. One pafl'age which I paiTed over, in page .39, I will here mention, left you fbould imagine that I wifh to avoid it, on Let. VI.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Anjiin, 39 In the clofe of your fifth Letter you fet down thefe mem- orable words : " All your potent reafoning here, in a few words, is this — The word bapii^o means to immerfe, there- fore the apofUes, becaufe they were commanded to baptize, pradifed immerfion, and their praiflice of immerfion in bap- tizing proves that bapti%o means to immerfe. Whether this be arguing in a circle, or arguing at all, I entreat you to confider, take advice, and /peak your mind." Sir, I have confidered, and find that you have given a partial ftatement of my poor arguing, if I argued at all. I have taken advice of that part of ray third Sermon which you are profeifedly examining. Now, Sir, I will fpeak my mind. It is, Jirjif That your critical readers will doubt the corre6lnefs of your concluding affertion, (which is quoted above,) judging from the quotations which you have made from my Sermons, pages 36, 37, 38, 39. Secondly, My mind is, that an argument is good, though of a circular form, provided every part contains its own proper evidence. My mind is, thirdly. That it is a good rule, to put in the middle of our arguing thofe particulars on which we place the leaf!: dependence, and that in the beginning and clofe of any and eyerj arguing of weight, our particulars lliould be able to fuflain the fliock of our opponent's oppofition. My m.ind is, fourthly. That you have told the world that all my potent reaibning refts upon thofe particulars in which I never placed much confidence ; whereas, were I to tell them where the ftrength of the reafoning lays, my information would be, that it lays, fiiil:, in the determinate meaning of the apollle's word, by which he expreifes the thing done in the ordinance of baptifm, without uling the more common word baptizd, as Heb. X. 22. 'Having our bodies [leloumenoi) waflied with pure water, &c.' Laftly, that the ftrenglh of my reafoning lay in the fimilitudes which Paul ufes, when he would illuf- trate what is done to t]ie perfons baptized, or what takes place in baptifm ; that the fubjed:s are buried and railed again in baptifm : this I confidered fufficient to make mani- fefl the practice of the apoflles. My mind is, Jifihly, That the above reafons may excufe the circular appearance of my argumentation ; or if they will not, thele reafons are fuffi- cient of themfelves to eftablifh what I wifhed, afide from the two middle particulars, which excited your obfervations. My mind is, fixthly. That were your Letters, arguments, and their author ufed in a fimilar manner, you would com- plain of unfairnefs. My mind is, lajlly. To leave it with our readers, to form what judgment they pleafe upon the 40 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin» [Let. VI. conclufivenefs or weaknefs of our arguments, and with re- ijpeift to the truths which we advocate or oppofe. Your fixth Letter comes next, that it may pafs in review : in which you bring forward what you term unequivocal and indifputable evidence. If it be unequivocal and indifputable, you need have no apprehenfions with relation to it, while it may pafs a candid review. Page 52, fay you, ♦• It will not be denied that the word ntptot which is fometimes ufed as equivalent with bapt'tzo^ generally means a .partial wafhing. I have produced two Cr three examples, in which it is indifputable that the word 'louQ is ufed in the like partial fenfe, and in not one is it clear tliat it is ufed to fignify total immerfion. I will now add unequivocal evidence, to prove the diretfl contrary of your affcrtion, that the words bapt't%o and baptifmos have not always the extenfive fenfe of immeifion, but fometimes, at leaft, intend the application of water in a partial manner." I. " In Luke xi. 38. it is too plain to admit of any con- troverfy, that baptl^o is ufed in a fenfe different from that of a total immerfion in water of the fubjed to which it is ap- plied :— ' And when the Pharifee faw it, he marvelled that lie had not firR walhed befure dinner." ylnf. Sir, your not knowing the traditionary laws of the Pharifees, and your inattention to the connexion and plain import of this paifage in Luke, and in that of Mark vii. is the only excufe which can be made for you, whilft you very incautioufly, and with great boldnefs, moft roundly contra- did: the plain word of the Lord, in what you fay on thefe palTages, from page 52 to 57. The laws traditionary among the Pharifees were, among others, thefe two : i. " They eat not bread, or any common meal, at any common time, except they wafh their hands ;" 2. " When they come from the market, or from a crowded aflembly of clean and unclean perfons, they baptize them- .felves, or were baptized ;" that is, they immerfed or bathed (themfelves all over in water. This fecond law carries its own traditionary evidence with it, fo that it is at once obvi- ous, upon our underllanding the realbn of the firi^. The reafon of the firft, or of their wafhing their hands, was, lefl they had touched fome unclean thing, and fo their hands might have contradcd fome deKlement. Now, the reafon of their immerhng or baptizing themfelves, when they came from the market, or from the midft of a promifcuous multitudey is manifeft ; for in fuch places, and in fuch company, they -could not tell on what part tlieir defilanent might be i they Let. VI.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin* 41 muft, therefore, ceremonially cleanfe themfelves, or be cere- monially cleanfed, all over : they muft make the outtide clean, according to their traditionary law. This, Sir, exa(511y agrees with what is related of this mat- ter by both Mark and Luke. As you have firfh taken the pafTage in Luke, fo I will mention the circumftances of that firft. The palTage is, •When the Pharifee faw it, he marvelled that he had not firft waflied (or was not firft immerfed) before dinner.* The noticeable circumftances are two : i. Jefus had come from a promifcuous aflembly, where the people were gathered thick together y verfe 29. 2. The reproof which our Lord gave the Pharifees, ' Now do ye Pharifees make clean the outfide of the cup and plattery plainly referring to the tradi- tionary wafhing, immerfing, or baptizing their bodies, when they had been publ'ickly expofed to contrad, as they fuppofed, feme outward defilement. As to the pafTage in Mark vii. the matter appears, if pofilble, ftill more explicit. In the fecond verfe, the Phari- fees found fault, becaufe Chrift's difciples ate bread with unwaflien hands : in the third, we are told that the Pharifees ate not, unlefs they waftied their hands with exaftnefs, or rubbing them ; and in the fourth verfe, we have an account of their carrying their fuperftition ftill farther ; for when they came from the market, they ate not except they baptized themfelves, or wafhed, or bathed all over. This, Sir, makes the Scripture all eafy and natural. But this plain, fair, and natural expofition of Scripture very illy fuits you unfcrip- tural and unchriftian, or antichriftian, pradtice of rantiztng for iaptizing, or fprinkling, or partial waftiing, for the gofpel ordinance of immerfion. You produce not one text of ScriptQre to prove your affertions, or any other authority, fave Grotius, " who (yoxi fay) is the moft refpecflable writer tha.t ever appeared on our fide of the queftion ;" and he admits your expofition ; but. Sir, I do not, nor does the v/ord of God admit it. Nor have you, nor can you find fo much as a fingle pa/Tage In the word of God, where dapiixo and nipto are ufed, but the attending circumftances will fiiow that they mean different things, or a different application of the fame thing. In page ^^^ fpeaking of Luke xi. 38. you fay, "This paf- fage has been often mentioned by Paedobaptift writers, but ibmehow the proper light in which it prefents itfelf is ftrange- 1/ overlooked bjr you and your brethren.'* The proper s 42 Letters to Rev. Mr. Atifiin. [Let. VI. light, Sir, we confider to be Scripture light ; this we believe God hath Ihown us : by this light we dilcover yoiu- mifap- plic;4tion of the paflage. You lubjoin, " That Mr. Cleave- iand made ufe of it, we have your authority, under the fol- lowing quotation horn, him, — " Your learned men know that the v.ord hoptlzo, Luke xi. 38. and haptifmos, Mark vii. 5'. are ufed to fignily the fame as nipto is ; that is, proper wafhing, or making clean by the application of water, in cafes that do not necelfarily require dipping, as the mode of wafljing." You anfwer by flatly contradiding the good man's afTertion : nay, you go farther, and fay, that the learned men, in no other clafs, know any fuch thing." You, Sir, are pleafed to add, " They certainly do know it, as iai as the Bible furnifhes them with information." Rtpyly. True, but the Bible furniihes them with no fuch information. You itill fubjoin, " I am forry, my dear Sir, that you have not given us a better fpccimen of your modefty." Falfc mod- efty afide. Sir, when you or your brethren would, by wreft- ing the Scriptures, force from us and from the world the precious ordinance of baptifm, and even the knowledge of it. We now proceed to what you fet down as undeniable evidence. Your words are, page 57, "Another cafe in which the word haptlzo is undeniably ufed to convey an idea .entirely different from that of complete immerfion, occurs 1 Cor. X. 2. • And were all baptized f^ebaptifanto) untoJMofe^ in the cloud and in the fea." Here let Paul explain himfelf, or let the preceding verfe explain what this means. The preceding verfe is, ' More- over, brethren, I. would not that ye IhoulJ be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all paiil'd through the fea;' then follows, vcrle 2, 'And were all bap- tized unto Mofes in the jcloud and in the fea.' How does this "undeniably convey an idea entirely diiTerent from that of complete immerlion :" It looks to me fomewhat like the fame idea. It certaiuly has the appearance of being over- whelmed, or completely cncompalfed. They were all under the cloud, they all paifed through the lea ; they v>'ere b.iptized ^N the cloud and i\ the fea. Tiiis your undeniable evidence ngainft the idea of immerfion, appears, upon tl>e very face of it, to favour, ftrongly to favour, the very truth which you brought it to delTroy. Thus, Sir, your unequivocal evidence, and your undeniable evidence, and all your evi- dence, which you bring againft immerfion, as the (vily gof- pel baptifm, turn out like Balaam, whom Balak hired to curfe lirael, — they llefs it altogether. Let. VI. J Letters to Rev, Mr, Aujl'in, 43 The next witnefs which you prodnce will not be particu- Ip.rly noticed, for you confeis, faying, " I do not contend that it !;> conckifive." But, fay yon, "The pafiage in Heb. ix. JO. it appears to me, is conchifive." It fhall, then, be fpetially noticed. *' It determines (fay you) that bapllz&t and btiptifnws its derivative to be generic terms, comprehend- ing feveral v,-ays of applying water, without fpecifically dcfignating either — * Which rtood only in meats, and drinks, and divers vvalhings, {^diapboro'is baptifmois) ^c* Thefe bap- tifms were undoubtedly all thofe applications of fluids which were prefcribed in the Mofaic law." Had you read your text three words further, and taken fuiiable notice of thcni, they would have fpoilcd your con- clufion. You will permit me to read the text, with the three additional words : it is thus, — ' Which flood only in meats> and drinks, and divers waihings, and carnal ordinances.'' Now, Sir, the conclufion is, " Thefe baptifms were undoubtedly not ail thofe applications of fluids which were prefcribed in the Mofaic law; for ca.rnal ordinances comprife the ordi- nances of God concerning bloody facrifices. Thefe ordi- nances comprife the fprinkling of blood, and the athes of an heifer, &c. Hence, Sir, your conclufion is defedive, and lb fpoiled. Our nest inquiry fhall be, What are the wafhings in the ceremonial law ? Then we fhall inquire whether thefe wafli- ings, compared with the text, do not fpoil your conclufion from it ? Your conclufion is, That divers wafliings include fprinkling, as the fprinkling of blood, and the a(hes of an heifer, &c. The ceremonial wafhings, mentioned in the law, appear to be at moft but of (qvqw kinds, and fome of thefe have but flight fhades of difference. Thefe kinds are, as I fhall men- tion them, — 1. < It ihall be rinfed in water,' Lev. vi. 28. This obvi- oully implies immerfion. 2. ' Aaron and his fons fhall wafh their feet at the laver/ Exod. xxx. iS, 19. This might be performed by immerfing- their hands and their feet, and it might not. •X, ♦ It fliall be fcoured in \vater,' Lev. vi. 28. This fup- pcles immerfion. 4. ' He fliall wafli his clothes in water,' Lev. xir. 9, This implies immerfion. 5. ' He fliall bathe liimfelf in 'u^alcr, he fliall wafli all his . flelli in water,' Lev. xv. ti„ 16. This taken literally is im- merfion » 44- Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujtin, [Let. VI. 6. 'Aaron ar.d liis fons thou (Mofcs) (halt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and (halt ivafli them with water,' Exod. xxix. 4. This means, ac- cording to the probability, not immerfion. 7. * It mnft be jiut into water,* Lev. xl. 32. This is manifeftly immerfion. We fliall now inquire whether thefe wafhings, compared t\'ith the text, which faith divers Avafhings, do not fpoil your conclufion. Your conclufion is, that divers wafhings include fprinklings, all kinds of thefprinklings of fluids, as the fprink- lings of blood, and of the alhcs of an heifer, &c. Here it is worthy of note, that in no place is wafhing called fprinkling, or fprinkling called vrafhing. Is your conclufion fpoiled ? It is likewife wortliy of your particular obfervation, that in the Mofaic law there are feveral fpecies of ceremonial wafhings, which evidently imply immerfion ; fuch as rinfing, fcouring in water, putting into water, and the like. Now, Sir, how do you know that Paul, or the Holy Ghoft by him, included in {diaphorois bapt'tfmo'is) divers wafh- ings, any other kind of waOiing but thofe kinds which imply immerfion ? There appears no intimation, from the words ufed, from the connexion, or from common fenfe, that any wafliing which does not imply immerfion was meant. If you tio not knov/ that any other kind of wafhing is intended, then you do not yet know but my fentiment as to the fignification oi haptizo is correft in every part, completely fo. But as this text is your laft refort, I will juft obferve to you and the public, that even were your ideas ©f the text, and your conclufion too, as to its including fprinkling, all admitted, and fully granted, it would not put my general principle, that baptifm by immerfion is the only gofpel bap- tiii.i, to any dancer ; for were there a thoufand fpecies or kinds of baptifm, there is, however, bat one which is a gof- pel ordinance, as Paul alFures us in his cpidle to the Ephc- fians ; and this one kind of baptifm is the kind which, as'Paul teils us in Romans and Colofllans, and as you by conle- quence confefs, has an evident likcnefs to burying and riung again. , Baptifm by immerfion is the only baptifm which hath this evident likenefs. Hence, Sir, whether you will be jiulge yourfeif, or leave it with Paul, it comes, when we put matters together, to the fame thing. Baptilm by immerfion is the only gofpel baptifm : hence. Sir, your fprinkling for baptifm, or your partial wafhing for baptifm, or your wafh- ing with rubbing for baptifm, all turn out unfcriptural and ©f man's invention. Let. VI r.] Letters fir Rev. Mr. Aujlln. 45 Your pofitlon, Sir, is indeed a tryino- one to a benevolent mind. You believe fprinkllng or partial wafhing to be bap* tifm. You have labojred much r;) prove that there are more baptifms than one, hoping in this way to eftablifh Jprmkling for baptiim, as a neceiFary confequence. Where- as, could you prove what you have not, and what we believe you never can, that there are baptifms which do not imply immerfion, overwhelming, or the like, flill it would afford no more evidence, that fprinkling or any partial walhing is gofpel baptifm, than it proves that Mofes' fprinkling the blbod of flain bealls upon the people, or afhes into the air, 13 gofpel baptifm ; for Chriftians have but one gofpel baptifm^ Eph. iv. 5. and if you have more, they belong to anotheri gofpel, and are of Antichrifl's invention. I am yours, &c. LETTER Vn. R E V li R E iV D SIR, N the beginning of your feventh Letter, " you requelt me to confider what conclui'ion we are naturally to drav^r from thofe places in whicii the word bnptlxo is ufed figura- tively." This I have already done in a preceding Letter, and the conclufion which we found to flow naturally from it, was immerlion ; for you informed us, that Paul fpake of this baptifm, or defcribed it by the figurative language, burying, planting, and rifing. You alfo in this place inform us, " that there muft be fome evident likenefs between the fubjeft to which a word is applied in the natural primitive- ufe of it, and the fubjetS to which it is applied as a figure ;• otherwife there is a grofs impropriety in the figurative ufe- of it." The conclufion is hence perfeiftly natural, that when-. hapih:.o is ufed figuratively, it means a figurative immerfion, that is, a figurative burying and refurredion, or immerfion; in fome element or thing, afide from water. I might have added no more here, on the baptifm of the- Holy Ghoft, did I confider your obfervations fufficiently explicit and accurate : but as the matter is, more muft be: faid. Whilft fpeaking of the pouring out of the Spirit, as men*- tioned by the prophet Joel, ii. 28. you exprefs your fenti* £ 3 46 Lexers io Rev, Mr. Aujlln. [Let. VII. ment in the following manner : " This prophecy the apoftle Peter exprefsly applies to tlie afFutlon of the Spirit on the difciples, on the memorable day of Pcntocoft, when they were filled \vith, not plunged in, the Holy Ghoft, and began 10 fpcak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave riiern utter- ance. According to your ftrange treatment of tliis paflage, wiiich furely is (fay you to me) more like rant than reafon- ing, the found and the Spirit wer;" the fame thing, and the- apoftlcs were overwhelmed with, or Immerfed in, found.'* yitif. I faid not that the apoUles were plunged, over- whelmed, or inmierfed in found : I faid this, — thai the houfe; was filled with the found, wind, or Spirit from heaven, and that the apoftles were ovcrv.helmed, for all the houfe where they were fitting was filled. I left it with you to determine with what the houfe was filled, whether with found, wind, or Spirit : but as you have determined not according to ray liking, that it was filled with found, I mud ftiil add, and will do it as explicitly as I can. The operation wrought on the morning of the memorable day of Pentecoft, let it be what it m.ay, was tlie baptising of the dixciples with the Ploly Gholl:, as Chrill promifed, Ads i. 5. Quefl. What was now done ? uinf. Three things were done. 1 . There was a found from heaven as of a mighty rufhing wind, (this is v^hat attended the pouring out of the Spitit from heaven,) and it filled all the houfe where tiiey were fitting. What filled all the houfe ? You may reply, Sound jfilled all tlie houfe ; but is your reply warranted from the text, and circumllances attending ? Is it not much more confiftent with truth, and with the intent of the text, to fay that all the houfe was filled with the remarkable prefence and power of the Holy Ghoft ? To me, the lattei is the im- portant and juft fenfe of the test. 2. Another thing done v>as, there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it fi\t upon each of them. 3. They were all filled with the Holy Ghoft. Now> Sir, you will judge, or let common fenfe judge, what part, or whether every part of this operation comes in to make up what is called the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. To me, it is a plain cafe that the difciples were encompafTed or ovei-whelmed with the divine glory, or with the remarkable prefence of the Holy Ghoft, as well as filled with it ; and that this was the baptifm which was predided and accom- pliited. Let. VIL] Letters to Re-v. Mr. Aiijiin. 47 As to tlie text, 1 Cor. xii. 13. * For by one Sphit are we all baptized into one body,' the import appears, from the connexion, to be this, — all ChriRians, though of very differ- ent gifts and graces, are all bound and iiiclofed by one Spirit, in one myftical body. Your collateral arguments mtifl: now pafs a fhort re* view. Neitlier you nor my readers would be troubled with any attention to thefe. but I wilh to meet and remove every thing wljich prefents even a plaufible difficulty in my way. After having eihaulled your arguments, which pofiefs any apparent or fuppofcd ft^imidabler.efs, you obferve, page 62, <' Otiier collateral arguments againft the juilnefs of your propofition readily occur." I. •' There being not a word faid, in any cafe of baptifm, about the perfons char.ging their apparel, and going to a bath or river> for the exprefs and evident purpole of being immsrfcd,'^ ■ ^nf. Did you never read, T.Tat. iii. 13. * Then ccmeth Jefus frcm Gai'ike to jcrdan unto John, (for what ?) to be baptized of him.' The plain, literal, and common import of this is, as we have fiinwn ircrvx your Letters, as well as from the Scriptures, Jefus came from Galilee to Jordan unto Jcfhn, to be immerfed of him. As for change of apparel, it mi^^ht he v.'ith them, in John's day, and in the days of the apoftles, as it has been with feveral in this place. When they came from home they thought not of being bapiizcd, but when they gladly rece'i'vsd the word, love conftrained them to obey their Lord ; and there was no change of garm.ents in the cafe, fave they threw afide fome of their loofer garments, and having re- ceived the ordinance, put them on again. I J. " The improbability (fay you) that the water which waf. made ufe offer baptizing the eunuch, as it was a water to Vvhich they happened to be near, and was not fought for the purpofe, ihcuM be in fufiicient v]_uantity for his immer- Co::." Anf. Philip had told the eunuch v/hat the ordinance of baptifm meant, or he vvculd not have wiihed that he might be the fubjed of it. If he knew what it meant, he would probably k-n6w whether they faw a fufEciency of water. III. Your next collateral argument is, " The difficulty of fuppofing the three thoufand, mentioned Acls ii. 4r. to have been immerfed in that part of one day which followed their converfion, efpeciaily confiderin^ the probable want 48. Letters to Rev, Mr. AujUiu [Let. VI L. of bathing places, and their not liaving at command fuilable change of apparel." Auf. I. At Jerufaiem lived at this time probably nor lefs than three hundred thouiand, one-third of thefe at leaft were obliged to bathe themlelves fiequently, on account of fome ceremonial uncleannefs, and many of the others often ; hence there was no want of bathing places. Anf. 2. There was no want of qualified adminiftrators ; for their numbor appears to have been about an hundred and twenty ; compare Ads i. 15. with ii. 2, 3, 4. ; thefe could have baptized the whole in lefs tlian an hour. Anf. 3. As to their probably not having at com.mand fuitable change of apparel, this would be thought of little confequcnce by them, or by any others, who felt the folem- nity, the importance, and the Ipirit of the precious ordinance of gofpel baptifni. Hence, Sir, here is no difficulty, but to fuch as have no heart to follow^ the example of the Lamb of God. IV. " The form of exprcffion (fay you) which Peter ufes, Atfts X. 47. ♦ Can any xwaw forbid water, that thefe Ihould not be baptized V and the f;ti5t of their being baptized by the command of Pcttr immediately, and as it would {Qf:.xn on the fpot. This quellion of Peter, and this fad in the narrative, viewed conjunclly, have not the appearance of going to a water, for the purpofe of immerfing Cornelius, his kinfmen and friends who were with him, but of bap- tizing him by the application of water produced in feme vefleh" Anf. Sir, had we need of any more arguments for im- merfion, this account of Cornelius would manifeftly come to our help, and the following particulars will fliow it. 1. Cornelius was a Roman captain guarding Judea, which was at this time one of the provinces conquered by the Ro- mans. 2. Cornelius being a Roman officer in a foreign country, probably poffeffed no land but that on which his houfe and tlie barracks for his foldiers ftood. 3. Cornelius being a Roman, not a Jew, he would proba- bly not furni{h himfelf with a bath or bathing place. 4. All who know the jealoufy of the Jews as to their liberties, and w'hat animolity they have generally borne to- wards their conquerors, may fee at once they would not be very ready to grant favours to a Gentile officer, whofe office and prefence put them in conftaut remembrance of their fubjedtion. Let. VII.] Letiers to Rev, Mr. Aiijlin, 49 5. The Jews probably owned all the bathing places which were for miles round, and Cornelius had no liberty to oc- cupy tlicm without their confent. Under thefe circumllances, we may conclude, and very rationally too, that Peter would addrels the Jews who came from Joppa with -im, and others who might poflibly be preient, and fay to them, with relation to his brethren, who v/ere owners of the bathing places round about Cornelius's habitation, Who of us Jews, who believe in God and in his Son Jefus, can be fo tenacious of our civil privileges, and hear fo much ill will to the Romans, as to forbid water, or the ufe of feme batliing place, that thefe finners of the Gen- tiles, who have now received the Holy Ghoft as well as we, ihould not be permitted to receive the gofpel ordinance of baptifm ? This appears all eafy and natural : but to fup- pofe that Peter meant, Can any man forbid a bafon of water to be brought in, that thefe fhould not be baptizecj, would be totally and m.anifeftly unnatural, and inconfiftent ■with the attending circumftances. Peter was now in Cor- nelius's houfe : Cornelius had both fervants and foldiers at a moment's command, and it would perhaps have been the laft thing that any one of the company would have thought of, to have forbidden a bowl of water to be brought by one cf the fervants, at the command of Cornelius. You, Sir, and the leader will jadc^e which fide, yours or the Baptift's, is favoured by this collateral argument of yours. V. Say you, " The flrong probability, notwithftanding your fiippofitions, that the jailer and his houfe were not baptized by immerfion." For anfwer, the reader is referred to my fixth Sermon, pnges 93, 94, firft eViition ; however, I will reply to a quef- tinn which you put under this argument. " If here was iinmerfion, (fay you) why do we not hear fom.ething about a r'l'-cer or bathing place, going out to it, returning, &c. ? Avf. We do hear or read in the fame chapter, and with le.'peft to the fam.e city v.here the jailer lived, that there was a river running through the city, or by it. It was by the fide of tliis, where Paul and Silas fpake unto the women, vhere pr.-iyer was wont to be made. We alio read of the jailer and the apoftles coming iii, of confequence they rnuft have gone out. VI. Say you, page 65, " I will jufl f.ibjoin, for I confult brevity as much as pofilble. the cafe of Paul, Ads ix. 18, 19. * And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been fcales ; and he received fight forthwith, and aroie, and was baptized." 50 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin. [Let. VTI. j^nf. Why, Sir, did yon not mention Adls xxii. i6. "where the fame hiftory of Paul is rel;Ued in the following words — * Arifo, and be baptized, and ivq/b nnuay thy fms, calling on the name of the Lord' ? The realbn is fniSciently plain : in this relation of the fame traniaiflion, the manner in which water was to be applied to Paul, in the ordinance of baptifm, was mentioned by implication. He was to be b.ithed or immerfed in water, and thus, by a figure, he was to walii away his fins, or to have them apparently or figuratively wafhed away. Plaving faid what you pleafed, and pr'obably every thing which you thought plaufible, at leall the things which you judged moft fo, then you obferve, as a kind of conclufion, thus, — " I fuggeft thefe things curforily, not pretending that they furnilh demonftration, that the uniform import of the term baptize, as ufed in the Scriptures, is a partial walliing fhort of immerfion ; for that is not a point I am aiming to eftablifh, but as furniihing d'lreB proof 7\.v;a\W\\. your hypothe- fis, that the word figniries to immerfe, and chat only. If there are exceptions, and we fee that there is abundant evi- dence that there are, your main propofition relative to bap- tifm falls, and with it muft fall, for this reafon, as well as for the other previoufly given, your whole fuperftrudure of clofe communion." Anf, I have. Sir, two obje(5tions againd this your con- clufion. One is, You tell us about dircH proof againft my hypothefis, when not one patfage which you have brouglit, nor all of them put together, where hapti%Q is ufed, furnifh, ftridtly fpeaking, lO much as one plaufible argument againft my hypothefis. When you take the derivative of baptlxo there is Ibmething plaufible, but it furniTnes no proof, dircifl or indired, againft it. The moll which you can fay witl: fafecy is, that wlien the apoftlc fpeaks of diaphomu bapsifmois., divers waitings, he might mean, or you believe he meant to include more kinds of wafiiings than the multitude of rinf- ings, fcourings in water, and puttings into water, &c. which were enjoined in the ceremonial law. You have no proof, or at lead you have given us none, that he intended any other kinds of wafiiings, which did not imply immerfion. Eycn if you could do what you have not done, produce proof that bapttjmuis did include fome kinds of wafiiings which were not entire immerfion, fiill this would be no direct proof that bapflzo v/as ever ufed to import any thing Ihort of entire immerfion. Your proof, therefore, fails you utterly ; hence my hypothefis as yet Hands iccurely. Let. VII.] Letters to Rev. Mr, Aujiin. 51 My other objeftion is, You tell us that there is abnndance of evidence that there are exceptions, i. e. that hapt'izo does not always mean immerfion, or the like. We have received all your Letters, and find no evidence. You have produced feveral pretended witnefles, but they agree not together, nor does any one of them fpeak to the point in hand ; and even when we fummed up your own evidence, it was, that irnmer- fion was the only gofpel baptifm which ) ou could find ; hence my main propofition ftands, and with it muj} Jland my ivhole fuperJlruBure of clofe communion. In page 66, you mention the appeals which have been made on both fides, to the learned faihcrs and critics ; and then, in page 67, make this excellent declaration and appeal, " We refuie. Sir, (fay you) to be bound by human tefti- mony, in an eflential article of Chriftian practice : we appeal ■ to the oracles of truth.''* This is juft the relblution and point to which the BaptiRs wifh to bring your denomination. If you might be inftrumental of purluading them to refufe human tellimony, as the bafis of any eilcniial article in the Chriftian faith, and to take the oracles of truth, as being a fufficient guide in matters of faith and practice, and to be- lieve that the man of God, fo far as he undei ftands them, is perfc(fi:, throughly furniflied unto all good works, you would do an efiential fervice to the caufe of truth, and .your praife would be in all the churches. Could this be effecled, we might hope for a fpeedy union betv/een the two denomi- nations. Could we all agree to walk by one rule, we might expedt to be foon in one path. The next thi.ig which in your Letters appears worthy of particular attention, is your iblemn addiefs to me, in page 70, a part of which is in the words following, — " I entreat you to come to a folemn paufe, and with your eye upon the judgment day, inquire whether you have- authority to ex- clude all Psdobaptills from a vifible ftanding in Chrift's kingdom, and from the communion of faints in an ordinance which was given to them as a moil: valusble becjueft of their Redeemer, merely becaufe they have not been baptized in the manner of immerfion ?'* My reply to you. Sir, is, I. It was a folemn belief in a judgment to come, and that the light of that day would deted all error, and difcover the truth, and bring me to acknowledge it, which greatly ful>- dued the rifings of my carnal heart againfl the clofe com- munion Baptilts. After I had thought much of the partic- ular fentlments of the Baptiils, and load had no fniall di£- 5a Letters tQ Rev. Mr, Anjlln, [Let. VII. culty as to my own pra^^ice, their clofe communion fchcme, as I then confidered it, appeared to me fo erroneous, tliat I was upon the point of concluding them to be wrong through- out, and of fetthn^q; down upon my old practice ; but, Sir, a folemn belief in a judgment to come, calmed my oppofitiou ; and a folemn belief that truth would then appear, and that if the Baptiils were in die truth, they would tlien appear fo, prevailed upon me to give their diftinguifhing fentiments one folemn hearing more. I may fay, it was the judgment day as a mean, which made me a Baptitt. I have daily a folemn view, or folemn thoughts, on death, judgment, and eteiijiity ; and with reference to thefe, I fometimes defire to do with my might v/hat my hands find to do, for God and the church. 2. My reply is, that I have no authority to exclude you from any place where Chrift hath put you, nor from any ordinance which he hath bequeathed to you : but I have no belief of fprinkling, nor of any thing elfe fhort of immerfion, being gofpel baptifm. I have no belief of a perfon's be- longing to Chrilt's viiible kingdom, before he is baptized. I have no belief of Chrift's having bequeathed the ordinance of the fupper to any, till they belong to his vifible kingdom ; confequently, I have no belief of your having any gofpel right to partake of that ordinance ; hence, my fettled belief is, that I have no liberty to encourage you to come, till you repent of your perveruon of the firfl, gofpel ordinance, and be baptized. Say you again, confider, ** I befeech you, how your doc- trine belittles the glorious and growing kingdom of tlie Meffiah, &c. ; how it obhges you to go abroad of the molt affedling fads, I mean the wonderful fuccefs which has at- tended the labours of thoufands of Pasdobaptill miniiiers " But, my dear Sir, you have forgotten the appeal v.'hich you have but juft made to the oracles of truth. On the lad page this appeal was made, and now you are appealing to good Posdobaptifl miniilers, to convidl me of an error. I fliall no more confent to fuch an appeal. To the oracles of truth thou haft appealed, and to them thou mufl go, and by them thou and thy works muft be judged. By them con- viift either me or my dodlrines, and I am filent. But at no other tribunal do I for the prefent confent to meet you, or to be tried myfelf. Wiihing that we may both of us be prepared to meet the God of truth, in Him who is the /r«//;, I am, &c. Let. VIII.] Letters to Rev, Mr, Aufiin, 53 LETTER VIIL REVEREND SIR, I NOW haften to a review of your examination of my Sermon on the fubjedls of baptifm. In page 72, you complain of my ftatement of the quef- the babes and fucklings which are fpoken of in the gofpel, and of which Chrift's vifible king- dom does no doubt in part confift, are fuch as cried in the temple, faying, Hofanna to the Son of David. You complain again,, b^caufe I fubllituted difciple £ov teach, and fo make the commaiid of our Lord to be, Go and dif- ciple all nations ; yet in the next page- you fay, ♦• The fub- ftitution of the term difciple, is much more favourable t* F 5.4- Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. VIII. the caiife of the Pcedobaptifts than to yours." Why fo ? Becaufe, as you implicitly tell us in the preceding fentence, and imply in this, that children cannot be taught by virtue of their relation to their parents, but that they may be dif- cipled by virtue of this relation. But, Sir, you quite forget your appeal to the oracles of truth, or determine not to abide their decifion, or you could never fuppofe that an infont, or that a child of any age, could, by virtue of his relation to his parents, forfake all that he hath, and fo become a difci- ple of Chrift. "But (in the clofe you fay) allow, in this lefpecl alfo, all that you wifli, that the command extends to adults only, what will follow ? Vv^ill it follow that this paf- fage interdidls infant baptifm ? By no means," fay you. I anfwer, By all means, it does interdict all others ; for the text. Mat. xxviii. 19. is the general orders, and it is the particular orders, which Jefus Chrilt hath given, relative to the fubjeds of baptifm^ and he hath given us no different orders. When he hath pointed out, and particularly defig- nated, who are to be admitted to his ordinance of baptifm, he interdifts all others, and none elfe have a right to come ; nor have his minifters any authority to baptize any others; and it is grofs prelumption, if they knowingly adminifter to perfons of a different defcription. You next examine three Ihort arguments of mine, againft infant baptifm. 1. John made his hearers difciples, before he baptized them. 2. Chrift's difciples baptized none, but fuch as were made difciples firft, according to John iv. i, 2. 3. Chrift, in my text, gives no liberty to baptize any, but fuch as are firft difciplcd. You affent to each of thefe arguments, as being well founded ; nay, if poffible, you do more : you inform us that the cafe of infant baptifm was not mentioned by John, by Jefus Chrift, or by his difciples. Your words are, " There was good reafon why, when baptil'm was introduced, as admlniftered to the Jews, the cafe of infants was not men- tioned : it is doubtful whether they were baptized ; I am inclined to think they were not." Now, Sir, if there were good reafon why, when baptifm was introduced, as ad- ininiftered to the Jews, the cafe of infants was not men- tioned, then it was not ; if it were not mentioned then, among the Jews, it was not mentioned at all by Jefus Chrift, for he was no wlvere elfe. If it were not mentioned by Chrift, it is not in the gofpel of Jefus Chrift ; for none Let. IX.] Letters to Rev. Mr, Aitjlin, $^ had authority to add any thing but what he had command- ed. This being the cafe, furely you have not expreiFed yourfelf too ftrongly, where you fay, " It is doubtful whetlier they (infants) were baptized ; I am inclined to think they were not." But if this be the truth, that neither John, nor Jefus Chriil, the Chriiliian Lawgiver, nor his difciples, fo much as mentioned infant baptifm, 1 wilh to know by v.-hat authority you and your brv^thren praiflife it ? and M'ho gave you this authority ? From Chriil you received it not ; for you confefs that he mentioned it not in his days, or you fay, " there was good reafon why the cafe of infants was not then mentioned." You alfo confefs, his difciples did not mention it in the days of Chriil, nor for I know not how long after - , wards. The apoftles have, indeed, no where faid a word of infant baptifm. 13y what authority then do you teach in- fant baptifm, and prefume to pracflife it ? and who gave you this authority ? Have you any authority, fave from the popes of Rome, from the mother of harlots, the mvflcry of iniqui- ty, comprifmg the kings of the earth, Avho are at war with, tlic L:mib j* Wi[hing you wifdcm and grace enough to rcr.fiunce tho traditions of popes and councils, and to prauiie by gof^rell ruics^ I am, &c.. • LETTER IX. REVEREND SIR, YOUR Letter upon the covenant of circumcillori, de- mands our next attention. You manifeft a very ftrong attachment'-to this covenant : you confider it to be the in- furmountable obRacle in our way, and the hinge on which hangs the controverfy between us ; yes, you fet it down to be the rock on which are all our hopes. You tell us, " if we do not keep it, w-e are jnevhably lojl frrever." It might be thought by fome to be a fufHcient anfwer, to afk. What then hath become of Enoch, Methufelah, Noah, and many others, who lived and died long before the cove- nant of circumcifion had exiftence ? But, Sir, as your mind is highly intent on this covenant, and as I indeed confider it an important article, I will fet it beibre you witli as much, perfpicuity as I can. 1^6 Letters to Rgv. Mr, Aujfin, [Let. IX. To clear the way to introduce the covenant of circum- cifion, I will juft mention the covenant which includes the promifes which were made to Abraham and to his feed f ' not to feeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy feed» which is Chrift,* Gal. iii. i6. This covenant was before time ; but it was confirmed cf God in Chrift, (to Abraham) twenty years before the covenant of circumcifion was mad« or mentioned, verfe 17. This covenant, which included the promifes of grace, was mentioned or intimated, Gen. xii. 3. The fame covenant, or fome of the promifes contained in it, or flowing from it, are again mentioaed, Gen. xii. 7. xv. 8. and xvii. i — 8. and in many other places. With regard to this covenant, there is no profeffed difficulty between your denomination and the BaptiRs, fave in one pomt, whether this covenant and that of circumcifion be the fame. You believe this covenant tonUiins all the promifes of l^race, and that this covenant and that of circumcifion are one and the fame covenant. We believe this covenant contains Chrift:, and as all the promifes of grace are in Chrift, fo all the promifes are con- tained in this covenant ; and that the covenant of circum- cifion is a covenant diftindl from this, and is but a token of this. We believe the firft covenant, which, for the fake of diftin<5lion, is called the covenant of grace, comprifes this covenant of circumcifion, fo far as circumcifion was of grace ; but we do not believe that the covenant of grace was the covenant of circumcifion ; we believe the latter covenant to be a token of the former, and yet fo diftinft from it as to be two diftinft covenants. Our inquiry ihall be,. Do not the Scriptures fay the fame things ? Before I make the propofed inquiry I have a few things. 10 obferve. 1. The covenant of grace is what God agrees, if I may lb fay, or covenants, or promifes to do for Abraham, his pofterity, and for the family of mankind ; or that which God hath promifed to do for the human family, is the vifi- ble part of the covenant cf grace, as it refpedls the good of man. 2. The covenant of circumcifion is what God required Abraham to agree to and to pradife. 3 The firft covenant was repeatedly mentioned, and was confirmed by the promife of God, before the fecond was once brought to view. 4 The covenant of circumcifion appears to be no more the covenant of grace, in which are tlie promifei, than my Let. IX.3 Letters to Rev* Mr. Aujiin, sy believing in and approving of the mediatorial righteoufnefs of Jefus Chrill, is that all-fufficient righteoufnefs. God re- quired Abraham and his natural feed to obferve the cove- nant of circumcifion ; he requires me and all others to believe. The foul who was not circumcifed, had brpken the covenant ; fo the unbeliever is condemned already, Gen. xvii. 14. John iii. 18. 5. By confounding thefe two covenants together, you confound yourfelf, and ccnfufe your readers and hearers, and obtain fome unreafonable plaufibility in favour of yjuT unfcilptural notions of baptizing children. 6. If thefe covenants were one, llill they neither of them fay a word about the baptifm of children, or of Chriftian baptifm for any perfon ; nor are they ever mentioned by Chrift, by his difciples, or by any others, as giving any right to baptifm, unlefs it were by the Pharifees and Sad Jucees wh-o came to John's baptifm. 7. The covenant of circumcifion is but a token of the covenant between God and Abraham ; or a token of God's promifes being to Abraham for good, and a feal of Abra- ham's faithfulnefs. Now our inquiry fliall be^ — Say not the Scriptures the iai7'e things ? In the firO; place, the Scriptures tell us, that God proti- ifcd to Abraham, that in his feed all the families of the eardi ihould be bleifed. Gen. xii. 3. The Scriptures alfo affure us, that God promifed to Abraham, that his feed fhould inherit the land of Canaan, and that God would make him the father of many nations, Gen. xii. 7. xv. 18. xvii. i — 8. Thefe are promifes contained in the covenant of grace, or thefe are tJie covenant of grace, as manifefled to Abraham ; or they are promifes founded upon, or flowing from, that covenant. Jn the next place, the Scriptures fliy. Gen. xvii. 10, 11. ' '/"a/x is tny covenant 'rjoh'tch ye Jball keep h;tiveen me and you, and th)' feed after thee ; E'very man-ch}Id among you JhaU be circum- cifed. And ye Jliqll circumcife the jlcjli of your for ejhin ; and if Jhall he a token of the covenant bet^Mixt me and you.' Hence, if you can underftand two plain verfes in the Bible, you may underftand what the covenant of circumcifion is. In thefe two verfes we have the fame thing mentioned four times, in different v/ords : firft, God fays. This is my covenant ; fec- ondly, he tells what it is. Every man-child among you fhall be circumcifsd ; thirdly, God informs us how this co-icnarj h F2 ^S Letters to Rev. Mr, Aujlin. [Let. IX. to be kept, Ye rtiall circumdfe t'-e flefh of your foreflcin ; fourtJily, God informs us what is the end or ufe of this co\ - enant of circumcilion, It ftiall be a loLen of the covenant betwixt Him and Abraham. Hvre the covenant of circumciPiOn equals every man-child being circumcifed ; every man-child being circumcifed equals tlie circumcifing the flelh of their forefkin ; the circumcifmg the flefh of their foreiliin equals the token of tlie covenant betwixt God and Abraham; hence, the token of the cove- nant betwixt God and Abraham equals the covenant of circumcifion ; for it is a well known axiom, That things that are equal to the fame are equal to one another : lience. Sir, you muft fay, that a token of a covenant is the covenant itfelf, which is abfurd, or that the covenant of circumcifion i.i a covenant in diftinclion from the covenant of grace, or in diftinction from that covenant which contains the promifes. Befides, if you will ftill hold that the covenant of circum- cifion- and that of grace are the fame thing, you fall into another abfurdity, which ought to alarm ycu, and it will 'confound your fentiment. The abfurdity is this, — If the covenant of grace, which contains the prcmife of the Mef- fiah, and die covenant of circumcifion, be one and the fume thing, then the covenant of grace, which contains the prom- ife of the Meffiah, may be broken, and hatli been thoufands of times ; for the covenant of circumcifion was broken every time and as often as any male child among the Jews was not circumcifed, Gen. xvii. 14. Thus abfurd are your no- tions of the covenant of circumcifion ; and by thefe abfurd notions, you wotild lead m.en blindfold into the antichiiftian notion of intuit baptifm : fen-, fay as mtieh a5 you pleafe, there is not one of your hearers or readers, who can fee that infant baptifm, as a gofp&l duty, is found in the Jev\itii rita of circumcifion. By fuch daric notions you may lead the blind blindfold, but you can never in this way iuftruct tiie ignorant, or reclaim thofe wlio wander out of the way. Chrrft hath no where taught you to teach thus, and you ought to be careful how you tlius teach for the future. You probably may fuppofe that you have an cbjec'lion of feme magnitude, againft my idea of the covenant of circum- cifion, becaufe it is faid. Gen. xvii. 13. * My covenant fhall be in your jifjh for an everlajling covenant,' Anf. This ever- lajl'tng covenant of circumcifion was to be of the fame dura- tion with tlie everlqjllng pojfejfion wliich the Lord promifed to give the fscd of Abraham, in the land of Canaan, verfe 8 : neither of thep v.as intended to continue wilhout end. Let. IX.] Letters to Rei/. Mr. Aujiin. 59 Your denomination are often, if not continually, telling the world about circuincifion being a feal of the covenant. You would much oblige us, would you inforn; us by what authority you employ tiiis blind to prevent the ignorant from feeing. We read, Rom. iv. 1 1. of circumcifion being a pa! of the r'tghttoufnefs oi Ahrabarns faith, but this gives you no author- i-ty to impofe upon your hearers the falfe and mifchievous jdea of its being a feal of tl:e covenant, and fo they muft Kave their children Iprinkled, to put them into the covenant. A more wicked idea the man of fm probably never advanced to a credulous world. By this lime you may conclude that either you or I know Tiothinfj about the covenant of circumcilion. That the readers may judge tor themfeives and know where the truth lies, I will fet down, in the margin, the texts which fpeak of circumcilion, from Geneus to Revelation.* You fay> page 84, fpeaking of the covenant of grace, " If circumcifion was a feal of tliis covenant, whicli preceded Chrill:, and rs abolifhed, beyond all quellion baptifm is or- dained in its ftead. I ihjould admit this, if 1 were a Bap- till." Adm-it what,. Sir, if you were a Baptill ? " If cir- €umciiion was a feal of this covenant." Yes, Sir, if cir- cumcifion were a feal of the covenant of grace, and all who were circumcifed were fcaled in this covenant of grace, we would admit jufl what you might pleafe to prefcribe. But, Sir, the whole of this buunefs of circumcifion being a feal, as multitudes are in our day made to believe, is a mere farce, or religious impoiltfon^ I now leave the covenant of circumcifion to your future confideration, and come to review a few of your words which relate to I^ydia. Speaking of what I obferved of Lydia and her houfehold, after mentioning feveral things which I fuggefted, and leaving out the little evidence which. I fet down, namely, ' That Paul entered into the houfe o£ Lydia, and there comforted the brethren,' you lay, *' Thefe fuppotkions. Sir, may be founded in truth, but who knows, that they are ;. v.ho, that can juflly make any pretenfions to impartiality, can believe them without evidence ?" Your * Gen. xvii. ro — 14, 23 — 27, xxxiv. 15, 17, 21, 24. Exod. iv. 2^» Beut. X. 16 XXX. 6. Jolli, v, a, ,3, 4, 5, 7, 2. Jere. iv 4. ix. 25, 26. Luke ii. 21. John vli, 22, 23. Ads vii. 8. x. 4/. xi. 2, 3. xv. i, 5.. xvi. 3. xxi, ai. Rom. ii. 25, 26, 28, 29. iii. 1,30. iv. 9. — 12. xv 8.. 1 Cor. vii. 18, 19, Gdl. ii. 3, 7, 8, 9. v. 2, 6, 11, la, 13, ij. Eph. ti. II. Phil. iii. 3, 5. Colii. II. iiii ll. iv. iz. 6o Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin, [Let. IX. conclunon is, *'Upon the whole, as fuppofitions are mifera- ble arguments, the evidence is left jjlt where you found it." Were I, Sir, to join with you in fentiment, and were your readers to be of the fame opinion, that Juppofu'ior.s are m'tjer-' able arguments^ we might all of us have one idea fuggefted to our minds at the fame moment, whether your arguments be not all of them of that defcription. But, efpecially if fuppofitions be mirerable arguments, why do you and your denominaticn reft the important points of baptifm and its fubjefts on juft fach miferable arguments ? For, make the beft of the arguments for infant fprinkling, or even for in- fant baptifm, they are but fuppofitions, and but poor im- probable ones too ; yet, in the face of your brethren, you fay, fiippoJiKons are m'lf^rable arguments. Such an aflertion, if true, is enough to ruin the pradice of infant fprinkling, or at leaf'c the credit of fuch a praftice. You fuppofe that laplixo is fometimes ufed for fprinkling or partial wafhing, but you produce no evidence, unlefs it be fuppofiritioiis evidence, that it is ever once io ufed in any part of the Siblc. You fuppcfe that haph%o is fometimes ufed as equivalent with n'tpto, but you find no place where it is thus ufed, or have no evidence that it is thus, unlefs it be fuppofed evi- dence, which comes only to fuppoiiticn. You luppofe that haptifmois is ufed for the application of fluids in every way, but flill you want evidence. You fuppofe that Chrifl's blefflng little children is an ar- gument in favour of iniant baptifm. You fuppole that what Peter fai J about the promife of the Spirit, as being to paients and children, even to as many as the Lord our God fhall call, is for infaat baprifm. You fuppofe thai the baptifm of I yoia's hcufehold, of the jailer's houfehold, and of Stepbanas's, are all in favour of infant baptifm. You fuppoft: that many other things are alfo in its favour ; but it is all but bare fuppofition, for not a fyllable is men- tioned of infant bviptifm from Genefis to Revelation. Now, is it not furprifmg that you ftiould tell the world (I'ot your opponents only, but yo'ir friends t' o) that fuppofticns are mijtrahle arguments P In facSt, Sir, if this be admitted, and fhould it be generally received, that fuppofitions are mifera- ble arguments, your examination of my Sermons will lofe its influence, and fo will your whole caufe of fprinkling and infant baptifm. Let. IX.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auji'm. 6t The next thing to be noticed, is your reply to the follow- ing propofition. I obferved, ' Abraham's children after the flefh were not included in the promile, as Paedobaptilts of ©ur day would have theirs.' You reply, as tlumgh you did not underftand me — " If you mean (fay you) that tliey were not all participants in the bleffings of the promile, it is admitted." If you. Sir, did not underftand me before, I will endeavour that you may now. What I mean is this — * They which are the children of the flefli, thefe are not the children of God, but the children of the promife are counted for the feed ; for this is the word cf promife, At this time will I come, and Sara fball have a fon,' Rom. ix. 8, 9. Not, Hagar fhall have a fnn j not, Ksturah (hall have fix fons. Abraham had eight fons, but ifiiac was the only one of the eight to v^rhom was the promife. Now, you fay this promife, which was to Abraham and his feed, is to you and to all your children : hence you,, having eight fons, claim the promife to each of the eight, when Abraham could claim it but for one of his. Do yon and your brethren fuppofe, that you have each one of you eight parts in the promife, and Abraham but one ? It is no wonder, Sir, that you could not underftand me. I defire that you might, for the future, have a good underftanding, when you fpeak of the pronnfe, as being to you and to your children, and of putting them into the covenant, or putting the /ml of the covenant upon them. In pages 88, 89, you have the remarkable paffage which follows : " In pages 96, 97, and 98, (i. e. of my Sermons) you run (fay you] the doctrine of pasdobaptifm into what you call legitimate confequences : they are efght in number, and they are frightful things indeed. If you have fuppofed pxdcbaptifm embarraffed with all thefe confequences, I am. perfeiftly afton'.ilied hov/ you could find a confcience to prac- tife it, as you have done." Refly. Is it not. Sir, more aftonifliing that you can prac- life it, after thefe confequences are laid before you ? But you fi.nd a very eafy way to get rid, as you fuppofe, of the whole difficulty: the way you take is this — fay you, " All' thefe confequences. Sir, will be denied by every intelligent advocate- for infant baptifm." How intelligent, I will not prefume to (aj, a perfnn muft be, to hold a pvemife and deny all the legitimate confequences. Should you, or any of your de- nomination, hereafter undertake to deny the confequences. which I drew, you are defired to ftate the principle, and then (how the dif agreement between that and my confe- 52 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auflln. [Let. IX. quences. The principle of the Pssdcibaptifts is this — " The fubjeds of baptifrn are to be determined by the fubjeds of clrcumciaon." The tirft account which we have of the iUbjccls of circumcifion, and perhaps as particular account as any which is. given us, is in tlie family of Abraham. Abraham was a great and good man, and on his account all the males in his houfe were to be circumcifed, whether they were young or old, his own children, or bought with money, or born in his houfe. Before he was commanded to circumcife his houfchold, he had three hundred and eigh- teen tr.iining foldiers, burn in his own houfe : how many more were born in his houfe, or bought witli his money, before the day of their circumcilion, we know not ; but let it be more or lefs, one thing is certain, they were all to be circumcifed, on account of Abraham's being a good man, full of faith. Now, Sir, your principle, or the principle of your de- nomination, is, that the fubjects of bapcifm are to be deter- mined by tlie fubjcirs of circumcifion- Hence, my Jiiii confequence was — Every man who is- converted to the Chriilian religion is to be baptized, and all his houiehold, though he may h.ive three hundred and eighteen training foldin-s born in his own houfe. Not only are ihefe fokiiers, but taeir wives and cliiUiren, and all other fervants yt:Yi\:\ belorig to this great man's houfe. A thoufand infidels are to be baptized, becaufe one great man, their mafter, is chritlianized. My Jectjtid confequcnce was — Tliefe foldJers, with their wives, children, and fervants, are all to be confidered und treated as church members, or as being in covenant : in the covenant of circumcilion, or fome limilar. Thus were the circumcifed confidered and treated. If baptifrn have taken the place of circumcilion, and the fub- jecrs of the one are to be determined by the other, tlien muft thefe foldiers, wives, and children be confidered and treated in the fair.e manner. The other confequcnces the reader will find in my fiith Sermon, and confult them at his leifure. Now, Sir, how you could, without mentioning either prin- ciple or confequence, tell the world, both learr^ed and un- learned, " that all thefe confequences will be denied by every inidUgeni advocnie tor infant baptifrn," is a little to be wondered at. I have hardly intelligence enough to under- ftand what you intend by an intelligent advocate for infant baptifrn. By what you have faid» 1 Ihoold naturally enough Let. IX.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlhu 63 conclude, that by an intelligent advocate for infant baptifm, you intend one who knows hov/ to advocate principles and deny the natural confequences,and deduce others to hisJiking. You fay, *' That my confequences are frightful things." I drew them that you might attend to them, and he frightened or driven from your antichriftian principle : but you ftill hold the principle, at leaft in meafure, and fecure or content yourfclf under the idea, that every intelligent advocate for infant baptifm will deny my confequences. How you will anfwer it to the Britilh churchy to the popes of Rome, and to a multitude of other learned Psedobaptifts, who have pradtifed upon a number of my conclufions, and admitted the reft as true, fave the fifth and laft, for placing them among the unintelligents, is left for you to determine. The laft confequence which I drew from this Psedobaptift principle, That the fubjeds of baptifm are to be determined by the fubjedts of circumcifion, is — It doth, fo far as it hath its perfe(9: work, deftroy the very idea of the gofpel church, contradid the prophets, and make Paul and others fpeak not the truth ; and it throws us back to the ftate of the Jewiili church. To this you fee fit to reply, and youi reply hath the ap- pearance of a laboured attempt to confound the diftindion between the Jewifh church and the gofpel church, and to make your readers believe them to be both one and the fame thing. Your very reply goes to prove that your prin- ciple would, if true, throw us back to the ftate of the Jewifh church ; and thus it proves my confequence true. In your reply, you keep a juft idea of the Jewifh church altogether out of fight ; you do not mention fo much as one juft trait of it. Your ai-guments to prove the gofpel church and the Jewifh church to be one, are — FirJ}, God manifefted great kindnefs to the Jewifh church ; he carried them as on eagles' wings, and fome of thejii greatly rejoiced in the Lord : Secondly, Tliat the Jewifh church confifted of fuch perfons as were Abraham and Ifaac : thefe are your words — . " Are Baptift churches generally purer, think you, than a church would be compofed of fuch perfons as Alraham ; and where is the inconfiftency or danger of admitting the teftimony of the Holy Ghoft, i Cor. vii. 14. that the chil- dren are vifibly holy as Jfaac was ?" There is. Sir, no inconfiftency or danger in admitting the teftimony of the Holy Ghoft ; but there is both inconfiftency and danger in turejling the teftimony of the Holy Ghoft, or in mifapnlylng it. G4- Letters to Rev, Mr. Aujiin, ' [Let. IX, Why, Sir, do you not come out in fair day-light, and tell all your readers, and eipecially fuch as love darkrefs rather than light, that the Jewiih church confifted of all the rebel- lious, ftifF-necked, and infidel Jewsj including Scribes, Phari- fees, Sadducees, and all hypocrites among them, as well as the few godly ones who might be found ; and that the gofpel church is j aft like the Jewifh, fo fav as it can be, by including all perlbns, of every defcription, who have been baptized or fprinkled, and have i^iot been caft out by regular church difcipline ? Come out thus, and let poor deluded fouls know your real fentiment, or a fair (tatement of it ; then might they judge for themfelves. If you deny this being your fentiment, I will prove it to you. Pages 87, 88, your words are — " I ajn as much fhocked at your derernflion of infant memher/h'ip and infant hapt'ifm, as I fliould have been had you denied the obligation of family prayer." Now, Sir, you believe that baptized or fprinkled infants are churcli nembers : the confequence is this — A lan'-e part, perhaps more than half, of the infants, children, infidels, drunkards, and liars, in our nation, are m.embers of the gofpel church. Sir, either renoimce the erroneous principle on which infant baptifm hangs, or admit the legitimate confequences, and make the beft of them. If you pleafe, never ;>ga!n think to get rid of my confequences, by telling the public that every intelligent advocate for infant bajitifm will deny them. I have one thing moie to notice, in your plea for the l^ofpel church being the fame as the Jewifh : it is this — *' How does pttdobaptifm (fay you) deftroy the very idea of the gofpel church ?" You, Sir, anf.ver, " A gofpel church is a body of viiible faints or holy peifons." What do you mean by this anfwer ? If you mean, by viiible faints and holy perfnns, fuch as appear to poifeis holhiefs of heart, or to be believers in Chriii, I readily agree to it : but, Sir, you mean no fuch thing ; you mean, a gofpel church is a body of perfons, co:i;poied of believing parents, together with their bapli-^ed or fprinkled children, let their children be what they may, believers or infidels, if they have not l)een cut of? from the chtirch by difcipline : or you mean a body of pcrions made up of a number of converted heads of fami- lies, v'itli their ungodly, unconverted families, oee your Letters, pages 90, 91, 92, ai^ elfewhere. This is the way which your own church is made up, if your pradlice has been in aqreomcnt with your principles — holding to infant memberihip, and children memburihip, and fervant ir.embcrlhip. Let. X.] Letters to Rev, Mr. Aujiin, 65 I do not mention thefe different church memberftiips, becaufe I wifli to call; odium on your charadter, or on that of your brethren, but becaufe I confider thefe to belong to the inevitable confequences of your principle, which every intdligtut ad'uocate for infant baptifm ov.ght candidly to admit, and becaufe 1 wilh to expofe your ar.tichriftian principle, and your correfponding antichriftian practice. Wifiiing you reformation, in both principle and pradice, I am, &c. LETTER X. RE\'EREND SIR, IHxWE reviewed, with fome attention, your Ten Let- ters, which you confider as an Examination of my Seven Sermons. In your Letters, v.'hich you have given to the public, you have faid of me and of my Sermons what ycu pleafed. Of your performance, I have nothing to fay as to its ftrength or w^eaknefs, or with refpedl to )?rur afTertions, repetitions, or arguments ; they are all before the public, as are my Sermons, and as this Review I expetfl will loon be. Not only are my Sermons and your Examination before the public, but they are both before Him, who knows what is truth, and whether either of us, or whether both of us have written and publifhed with our eye fingle, and our wills bowed to his. In this Letter feveral things may be laid before ycu, with a defire that yon may receive the light of gofpel truth, rela- tive to the firft gofpel ordinance : but, Sir, unlefs Gcd be pleafed to give you a large Jloars of grace, you will not fo much defire the light of convii. 1. Mat. iii. 5, 6, 7. Then went out to him Jerufalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and vere baptized of him in Jordan : — but when he law many of the Pharii'ees and Sadducees come to his baptifm, he faid, &c. ' • 2. Ver. 1 1. I Indeed baptize you with water, &c. 3. Ver. 13, 14, 15, 16. Then crmelli Jefus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him ; bnt John for- bade him, faying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comeft thou to me? And Jefus anfwering, faid unto him. Suffer it to be fo now ; for thus it becon.cth us to fulfil all righteoufnefs : then he fuffered him. And Jefus, when he was baptized, went up ftraightway cut of the water. 4. Chap. xxi. 25, 26, 27. The baptifm of John, whence was it i* from heaven or of men ? And they rea/oned w'llh. themf elves. Sec. 5. Chap, xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. 6. Mark i. 4, 5. John did baptize in the wildernefs, and preach the baptifm of repentance for the remifllon of fins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, &c. 7. Ver. 8, 9, 10. I indeed have baptized you with water. ! — And It came to pafs in thofe days, that Jefus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And ftraightway, coming i/f> cut of the water, &c. 8. Chap. xi. 30. The baptifm of John, was it from heaven, or of men ? Let. XIL] Letters to Rev. Mr*. Aujiin, 79 9. Chap. xvt. 15, 16. And he faid unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gofpel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized,' (Sec. 10. Luke iii. 3. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching- the b?ptilrn of repentance, &c. 1 1. Ver. 7, 8. Then laid he to the multitude that cane forth to be baptized of him, kc. 12. Ver. 12. Then came alio publicans to be baptized. 13. Ver. 16. I indeed baptize you with water. 14. Ver. 21. Now, when all the people were baptized, it came to pafs, that Jefus alio being baptized, &c. 15. Chap. vii. 29, 30. And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, judilied God, being baptized with the baptifm of John. But the Pharifees and lawyers reje»5led the counfel of God againll themfelves, being not baptized of him. 16. Chap. XX. 4. The baptifm of John, was it from heaven, or of men ? 17. John i. 25, 26. Why baptized thou then, if thou be not that Chrift, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John an- fwered them, faying, I baptize with water. iS. Ver. 28. Beyond Joidan, where John was baptLir;';. 19. Ver. 31. That lie fliould be made manifcft to marl, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 20. Ver. 33. He that fent me to baptize with water. 21. Chap. iii. 5. Except a man be born g^ •water, and of the Spirit, &c. 22. Ver. 22. After thefe' things came Jefiis and hio dif- ciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried v/itii them, and baptized. 23. Ver. 23. And John alfo Y'as baptizing in JEnon, near to Salim, becaufe there was much liuiia- there ; and they came, and were baptized. 24. Ver. 26. Behold, the fame baptizeth, and all men come to him. 25. Chap. iv. I, 2, The Pharifees had heard that Jefus made and baptized more difclples than John, (though Jefus himfelf^baptized not, but his difciples. ) 26. Chap. X. 40. Beyond Jordan, into the place where John at firfl: baptized. 27. Acfts i. 5. John truly baptized with water. 28. Ver. 22. Beginning from the baptifm of John. 29. Chap. ii. 38. Then Peter faid unto them. Repent, and be baptized ev6ry one of you ' in the name of Jefu3 Chrift, — and ye fhall receive thegift of the Holy Ghoit. So Letters to Rev, Mr, Aujiin. ' [Let. XII. 30. Ver. 41. Then they that gladly received his word x\ere baptized. 31. Chap. vlii. 12, 13. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concernnig the kingdom of God, and the name of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himfelf believed alfo ; and when he VMS baptized, &c. 32. Ver. 16. Only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus. 33. Ver. 36 — 39- And as they went on their way they came unto a certain water : and the eunuch faid. See, here is water : what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip luid. If thou believefl; with all thine heart, thou niayeft. And he aufweied and faid, 1 believe that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to ftand flill : and tliey went down both in/o the water, both Pliilip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were tome up out of the water, &c. 34. Chap. ix. 18. And he (Saul) arofe, and was baptized. ^^. Chap. X. 37. After the baptifm which John preached. 36. Ver. 47, 48. Can any man forbid watet, that thefe ftiould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghoft ti5 well as we ? And he €on^!r..indsd them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. ' 37. Chap. xi. 16. John indeed baptized with water. 38. Chap. xiii. 24. When John had firft preached, be- fore his coming, the baptifm of repentance to all the people. 39. Chap.'xvi. 15. And when fhe (Lydia) was baptiz- ed, and her houfehold. 40. Ver. 33. And was baptized, he (the jailer) and all his, ftraightway. 41. Chap, xvili. 8. And many o£ the Corinthians hear- ing, beheved, and were baptized. '42. Ver. 25. He (ApoUos) fpake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptifm of John. 43. Chap. xix. 3, 4, 5. Unto what then were ye bap- tized ? And they faid. Unto John's baptifm. Then faid Paul, John verily baptized with the baptifm of repentance, faying unto the people, That they {hould believe on him w hich iLould come after him, that is, on Chrift Jefus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus. ■ 44. Chap. xxii. 16. And now, why tarriefl thou? arife, and be baptized, and inrjli aivay tliy fins, calling on the n.ime of the Lord. Let. XIl.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aiijlhu B i ' 45. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Know ye not, that fo many of us as were baptized into Jeius Chrill, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptifm into death, &c. 46. Ver. 5. If we have been planted together in the likenefs of his death, &c. 47. 1 Cor. i. 13 — 17. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crifpus and Gaius ; let any Ihould lay that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized alio the houfehold of Stepha- nas : befides, I know not whether I baptized any other. ■ For Chrift fent me not to baptize, but to preach the gofpeL ' 48. Chap. vi. II. But ye are walhed. 49. Chap. XV. 29, Elfe what Ihali they do which are baptized for the dead ? 50. Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been bap- tized into Chrilt have- put on Chrift. 51. Eph. iv. 5. One baptifm. 52. Chap. v. 26. That he might fantflify and cleanfe it (the church) with the waihing of water by the word. 53. Col. ii. 12. Buried with him in baptifm, wherein alfo, ye are rifen with him. 54. Titus iii. 5. According to his mercy he faved us, by the walliing of regeneration, &c. ^1^. Heb. X. 22. Our bodies tvaJJoed -viixh pure water. 56. I Peter iii, 21. The like figure whereunto even bap- tifm doth alfo now fave us. Here, my dear Sir, you have in plain view diredly before you all the Bible, fo far as it refpedls the matter of gofpel baptifm. The court to which you have appealed is now opened. Now feleft your witnefTes, and have your evidence ready ; for to trial you muft come. Every text is allowed to be a good witnefs, and to pofief* evidence fufficient to fet the' accufed free, upon bearing teftimony in his favour. You are now. Sir, upon your trial before the court of Truth ; charged with •violating and profaning the Jirjl gofpel ' ordinance. Say you, Guilty or not guilty ? You fay, Not guilty^ Then the trial muft proceed. Where is your text, your witnefs, which by example, by precept, or by intuitive confequence, teftifies that fprinkling, or partial ivajlnng, iri the name of the Father, Son, and Ploly Ghoft, is gofpel baptifm. Name your texts, yoiir witnefies. Call tliem one by one. Call them all, if you pleafe. H 2 82 Letters to Rev. Mr-, AiuTm. [Let. XII. Mat. ill. 5, 6, 7. is the fiift. What fays this wknefs ? Then went out unto him Jeruf;ilem, and Judea, and all the region round about Jcidan, ar.d were baptized of him in Jor- dan, &c. Call all the other witnclTes, frojn Matthew to Peter. The witnelfes havin^:^ been feverally called, and the teili- mony of each feparately taken — Court. You, S. A. fiippofeJ that thefe witnefres, at lead feme of them, would have Ipoken in your favour : but fvp- pofiUojis do not pafs for evidence at this court. What have your witnelfes teftified ? The tellimony of each, as it refpeds your pradice, is Tcktl — Thou art 'wd;^htd in the balances, and art found 'wanting. Now, Sir, for the trial of immerfion for gofpel baptifm. Call the witmdes one by one. The witneifes being called, tl:e teflimony of each is. My plain and common fenfc of the cafe is, that immerfion is goipel baptifm. Call feme of the Vk'kneiTes again. Call Mark i. 5. This witnefs teftifies, that he faw John baptizing a multitude of his difciples in the river of Jordan. Call Mark i. 9. The teilimony of this tv'ltnefs is, that he faw John baptizing the Bead aod H-/JbdnJ of the Church, Jefus Chrift, in Jordan; and that' he faw him, after the ordinance was adminiftered, ccmlng upjiraight- nvny out of ike 'water. Call Heb. x. 22. This witnefs af- firnieth, that in gofpel baptifm the fubjeJcs had their bodies waftied with pure watei. Call i Peter iii. 21. The tefti- rnony of this witnefs is, that as Noah was faved in the ark from a drowning world, fo are the baptized faved in the V. atcr from a burning world : that is, baptil'm being an anti- Irpon or figure, anfwering to the figure the ark, it figura- tively points out the Saviour's purpofe of faving his difciples liom a fiery deluge, wliich fhall burn up the world and destroy the ungodly. He, therefore, as a token of his great kindnefs, dlrCifls that they be put all under water in biiptifm ; that not fo much as an hair IhoiU J be fmged, or the fmell of fire pafs on them. Immerfion being tried, is found perfedlly innocent, and i» pronounced to be the matter of gofpel baptifm. Shouldft thou, S. A. yet hefitate whether fprinhling may not, in fpecial inftances, be allowed, another witnefs muft be again called. Call Eph. iv. 5. One Lord, one faith, on$ hap:ifm. Cnurt. Our judgment is, that the error of S. A. hath no cou»^tenance, from any precept, example, or fair c( nfe- quence, from any thing which hath been faid or doae by Jc-feis Chrift, or any of his infpired ferva»ts. Lst. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Avjiin. 83 HAST thou appealed unto the BIBLE ? unto the Bible (halt thou go. Pieafe to attend to the following, and the BiELE you will fee for the Suhjedl of Gofpel Bapfifm. Here, Sir, is, if I miftake not, every text in which the BiELE m mifeftly defines the futjeds of gofpel baptilm. 1. Mat. iii. 7, 8, 9. When he faw many of the Pharlfees and Siividucees come 10 his baptifm, he faid unto them, O generation of vipers ! who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for re- pentance : and think not to fay within ycurfelves, We have Ahraham to our father. 2. Ver. II. 1 indeed baptize you with water unto re- pentance. 3. Chap, xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- tions, baptizing them in the name, 3cc. 4. Mark i. 4> 5, John did baptize in the wildernefs, and preach the baptilm of repentance for the rcm](fiin of fins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and tliey of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, conf effing their ft ns. 5. Chup. xvi. 15, 16. And he faid unto them. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gofpel to every creature. Ke that belie'veth, and is baptized, &c. " 6. Luke iii. 7, 8, 9. Then faid he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers ! who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits luorthy of repentance ; and begin not to fay within yourfelves. We have Abraham to our father. — And now alio the axe is laid unto the root of the trees, &c. 7. Ver. 12. Then came alfo publicans to be baptized, and faid unto him, Mafter, ivhat fhall lue do P 5. Chap. vii. 29, 30. And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, juftined God, being baptized with the baptifm of John. But tiie Phariftes and lawyers rejeded the cvunfel of God againft themfeives, bting not baptized of him. 9. John iii. 5. Except a man be born of 'water, and of the Spirit, &c. 10. Chap. iv. I. Jefus made and baptized nacre difclples than John. 84 Letters to Rev. Mr, Atijiin, [Let. XII. 11. Aible, fo far as it fpeaks of the Lord's fuppcr, and delines the quali- fications of tht accepted gtiells. 1. Mat. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And as they were eating, Jefus took bread, and blelfed it, and brake it, and gave it to the difciples, and faid. Take, eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, fay- ing, Drink ye all of it : for this is my blood of the new teftament, w hicli is Ihed for many, for the reniiffion of (ins. 2. Mark xiv. 22, 23, 24. And as they did eat, Jefus took bread, and bleffed, and brake it, and gave to them, and faid, Take, eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it : and he faid unto them, This is my blood ot the new teftament, which is flied for many. 3. Luke xxii. 19, 20. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, faying, This is my body,.which is given for you : this do in remembrance" of me. Likewife alfo the cup, after fupper, faying. This cup is the new teftament in my blood, which is fhed for you. 4. A(5ts ii. 41, 42. Then they that gladly received hi"^. word were baptized : and the fame day there were added unto them about three thoufand fouls. And they continued ftedfaftly in the apoftles' doiftrine and fellowihip, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 5. Ver. 46, 47. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from houfe to, houfei — And the Lord added to the church daily fuch as ftiould be faved. 6. Chap. XJT. 7, II. And upon the fiift day of the week, when the difciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow ; and coptinaed his fpeech until midnight. When he had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, fo he departed. 7. I Cor. X. 16, 17. The cup of bleffing which we blefs, is it not the communion of the blood of Chrift^ the bread- Let. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr, Au/tim By ■uhich we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chrift ? For we, beuig many, are one bread, and one body : for apLizcd by J'^hn v/ere ah'o Bapti;ls, &c. ; but upon being afkcd, by the author of thefe difcourfes, whether the term Bi.ptifl was applied to Jehn ii. the fame IcnJe in which it is :!ow applied to thofe who are called £aptil1s, he confeJfcJ the truth, ai^d fall it ivas tint" 3. l"he fame lAr. Worcefter telis us, page 62, that " the fame reafon- ing, if reafoninr it mvfl be called, by which it was fuppofed to be proved that the Waldcnfes, WicUliiT.tes, Huflites, and other witncffcs for the truth in the dark ages, were Antipsedobaptifts, would equally prove that the Tabernacle cliurch are Antip.-cdobaptifts. This the writer of the Minia- ture Hiftory has him/elf been brought to aclnotvledye." Had thffe unfounded affertions, or great mifreprcfentations, of Mr. Worceiler's, affefted merely the private char^idler and feelings of him v\'ho)n t!"iey implicate, he might have left them, after denying their cor- redneA, to the future confideration of Air. WorccRer, and to the juJl cenfure of every candid writer and reader of theological difputatico. But when a public teacher of religion ihall pradife fuch kind of manage- ment, to prepoiTefs and to prejudice the minds of his hearers and readers againft. tht trir h, he ought to exped; fome fuitable ccrredion This the author of the Miniature Hiftory, and of the Letters to Mr, Anderfon, espeds to endeavour, as fcon as he fhall have kifure. In the mean time, Mr. Worcefter is called upon to make his afTertions good, if he be able to : he is defircd, however, to do it in fuch a manner, that the public may not coufidcr him to be cont^tjaing \^ ith an enemy, nor with one whom he may with impunity tre?.t with contempt. * See lis Difcourfes, page 65. + Difcturfis, page 66. 19^1 The autlior of the Miniature Hiftory takes liberty jufl to obferve, that he does not believe, alfo tliat he never did beli^sve, and that he never acknowledged, that the famereafuninir by which the Waldenfes, &c. were proved to be Antif aedobaptills, woui(i prove the Tabernacle church in Salem to be fo: nor did he ever make any fimilar concefllon, but upon fuppofition that this propofition of Mr. Worcefter's was correct — Tbat the Tabernacle church held to the fame great and leading maxim ivith the tValdenfes, &c ; which the author confidered, and ftili conliders, to he Mr. Worcefler's miftake. This maxim of the Waldenfes, &c. is, " That the kingdom of Chrifl, or the viftbU church, he had ejlablifhed upon earth, -was an affemhly of true and real faints, aiid ought therefore, to he inaccejpble to the ivicied and unrighteous j and alfo exempt from all thtfe inflitutions -which human prudence fuggeffs, t» eppofe the progref <,f iniquity, or to corre£i and reform iranfgr »i ' ■' " ■■' And in the days of thefe kings fiiall the God of hsavcH fetup a king- dom, which (hall never be deftroyetl : and the kingdom fhall not lie left to other people, but it (hall break in pieces and confume all thefc kingdoms, and it fliall ftand forever. Oaniel- Another parable fpake he unto them, The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in tliree meafures of meal, till the whole was leavened, "3^/"^ Chr'tft. Buy the trutbt and fell it not. Solomon, BOSTON: Printed and fold by Manning Ss* Loring, N**- 2, Cornhill, 1807, / District op Massacbusstts, to wit : BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the twenty-futh day of June, in the thirty-firft year of the independence of the United States of Amer- ica, Manning ts* Loring, of the faid diftri(ft, have depofited in this office the title of a Book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the words following, to -wit : — " The Second Evpofition of fome of the falfe Arguments, Mifkakes, and Errors of the Rev. Samuel Auflin. Publifhed for the Benefit of the Public. By Daniel Merrill, Pallor of the Church of Chrifl in Sedgwick." In conformity to the A61 of the Congr^fs of the United States, enti- tled, " An A<5t for the encouragement of learning, by fecuring the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch copies, during the times therein mentioned ;" and alfo to an A(5t, entitled, " An A 61 fupplementary to an Ae fin of our frf parents, and ruined our race. A compli- ance ivith this provoked God to cafl the ten tribes as out of his fights A neglect of the Lord^s ordinances carried the Jews itUo the Babylomfh- captivity for feventy years. For the fame prof anatisi: of the Lord^s ordinances, they are now a taufity a bye-word, and a curfe, among all nations. A compliance with the fame device of Satan produced Antichrifly and Jlill upholds him. The devil is the fame deceiver noxu that he was nearly fix thoifand years ago. He then reprefented fin as a pleafant thing, and the way to luifdotn. fufl fo noiv. Thofe, wl:fO in any and every age have confidered the pofttive injlitutions of the Lord to be of very f acred importance, have been called by perhaps every name luhich the malice of Satan could invent. Thefe ill names and reproaches are fill the lot offuch as keep the ordinances as Chrifl delivered them. What falfehoods have been wickedly circulated againjl the Author of thefe pages ! Hoiu many^ from whom ive might have expected better things, have f aid. Report ^ and ive will report it ! Kind reader, I know but one thing ivhich the public can lay to my charge, and it is this : — I am Jealous for the honour of Jfus, the King of the Gentiles as ivell as jews. I plead for obedience to his injlitutions and ordinances. I plead againfl thofe nvho would and do corrupt theni. I plead againjl the priefl and people ivho difobey my King. I plead with argu- TO THE READER. merits fa plaWy that a child may underjiand. I plead the plain word, the open ^uordy the unaduitetated word of Gody as my defence. I have injured no man in this mattery ctherwife than I have charged guilt upon the corrupters of God's word. My opponents defpife me. but the Lord wilj rebuke them. It is his caufe which I dtfend. He will one day plead my caufe, and put my enemies to fhame. I have^ and do ^fill, willingly bear rtproach for Jefus* fake. I heartily commiferate the cafe of thofe who are on the oppcftte fide. I fee their end coming : it may not be far off. Reader, IfracVs defpiftng Elijah did notfave them ; Ju' dah's ftting Jeremiah at nought did not five them ; nor will it avail the oppofers tofet at nought the baptized church, with their leaders. Reader, if I be a real Chriflian, I am a real Baptijl, attd^ the Lord hath made me both. If I be a Chrijiian, then in the fincerity of my heart, I befeech thee to inquire for the order of ChrifYs houfe, as for thy life, for it is for thy life ; for others will foon receive of the plagues of Antichriji. When you fhall fee, in the follonving pages, with what falfe arguments, mifiakes, and errors, Mr. A. hath laboured to defend his fide, I pray thee afk thyfelf this quefion, — Can the caufe of truth thus labour, and need fuch means of defence^ in the hands of an able difputant ? The rcafon why Mr. A. hath fo committed himfelf is trot becaufe he is unable to argue well in a good caufe, but on account of his having undertaken to defend a bad one. I now commit the matter to God and to the reader'' s be/i judgment, praying the Father of Lights to fend forth light and truth i and fpeedily fubdue the ivorld unto himfelf With good will to all men, I am the readers friend, THE AUTHOR, SeOCWICK, AVGUST zi, x$o6. Second Expofition, ^c. We appeal to the Bible, io Jlubborn fa6ls, and to common fenfe* TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. MEN, BRETHREN, AND FATHERS, JVlY public writings are ftill attended with a feries of pain and pleafure. It is painful to me to contra- difl men of education, talents, and refpedlability, and to be con '.idided by them, as has been the cafe, and probably will be for the prefent. But it is pkafing, that God, v/ho feparated me from my mother's womb, hath called me, not only to the knowledge of his word generally, but to knov; the order of his houfe, and to defend it. I am very little difappointed at the reception which mr writings receive : for when God taught me to difcover the blindnefs and errors in which I and my brethren were, I faw diredly that my repentance and reformation would bring an army of oppofers : for the moment in which I condemned myfelf, 1 condemned them ; and when I for- fook my evil praftices, I praftically condemned thofe who continued in them. My Lord and Mafter was called Beelzebub, and his firft apoftles were faid to be mad. I calculated to partake of fome of the fame kind of ufage. That many of the wicked oppofe me, is not ftrange ; that hypocritical fcribes and phaiifees oppofe me, is no caufe of wonder; that good men, who have not light and refolution fufficient to re- nounce their educational prejudices, fhould oppofe me, is nothing more than might have been expeded, nor is this different from what was expefted ; but that good xn^n P 6 Second Expoftt'ion of fhould ufc the artillery of the wicked, and defend their errors by fophiflry, and 1 might almofl. fay by deception, is not what I fo fully expeded as I find to be true. Nor was I fully apprifed, that good men would treat me with all that contempt with which the men of Succoth did Gid- eon, and Nabal the fervants of David. But I find fome are difpofed much the fame way. I have no difpofition to teach them, with the thorns and briars of the wildernefs, nor with the fvvord of fteel : but I truft; in the God of Ifraej, that the day is not far oiF, when they fhall be taught by the fword of die Spirit, which is the word of God ; and when they fnall be willing to hear, and fhall treat with more refpeift and much iefs rodenefs, fuch as would inftrutfl them. Mr. Samuel Auftin I confider to be one of thefe good men. Hc is impatient of contradiot of her plagues.' Did Mr. A. knovr wh;>.r. 1 6 Second Expofttion of he is doing, he would be aftoni/ted and confouiaded. He is himfelf refufing to obey the Lord ; and not only fo, he is ignorantly doing what he can to blind others, fo that they alfo may be iifobedient. This is a great miftake in him. He may think me bold ; I am fo, and truth makes me fo ; yes, and the time is come, in which the children of God, who know the truth, may be bold. For the leaven^ which T/as to leaven xht whole lump, is remarkably fer- menting ; and the time is not far off, when the dominion, and the greatnefs of the kingdom under the whole heaven, jfhould be given to God's people. The ftcne cut from the mountain without hands, will foon fill the whole earth. At fuch a time, and thus circumftanced, fuch as know the figns of the times, may be bold to vindicate the ways of God to men, and to aflert the laws, ordinances, and rightful authority of their King. Another miftake which Mr. A. makes in the above quotation, is, that his objetftion defttoys my principles. Again, in the clofe of the pa/Tage, he fays, " Let it but touch them, and they vanifh like a bubble." This is all miftake. The good man knows not what he fays, nor whereof he affirms. One fentence, which I have not yet noticed, deferves particular attention. ^' I JJjould think (fays he) any man, •who had made fiich a conquejl o'i^er his prejudices, could not have this army of co-heirs with Chrifi of eternal hlejfednefs fafs before his imagination, after having treated them in this cavalier ivay, nuithout Jinking as low as the mojl feeling felfdetejiation could place him." I forgive Mr. A. all his rudenefs of fpetch, perceiving he hath a zeal for God, but in this particular not accord- ing to knowledge. He fuppofes that he is with the truth ; jsut, as his brother Lmmons informs us, when a man comes to the truth, he ksou s it. Can he fuppofe, that I fhould deteft myfelf for telling him the truth, and for placing many cf the Lord's people within the limits of Antichrift, when the Lord tells me they are there, and commands them to come out ? Befides, who knows but God hath chofeti me, to be one of the weak inftruments, by which his people fhall fo effedually hear his voice as to be obedient ? However this may be, one thing 1 know — it becomes me to declaie his truth, and not be afraid. May Mr. A. hear and obey^ 3. I muft now mention another of his miftakes, which is alfo conneded with a fophifm. Mr. Avjiuis Mijlakcs. \J I do not expofe Mr. A. that I may provoke him, unlefs it be to relinquifti a bad caufe ; but that he may fee what abfurdities and blunders it unavoidably leads him into, and thus be perfuaded to give truth one candid review. Mr. A. has abilities enough to go ftraight in a plain highway, but no man has a fufficiency to go thus in a crooked path. This miftake and fophifm of his are in page 1 2, where his words to me are, " You fay, page 20, one of our prin- ciples is, that no perfon is a fit fubjed of baptifm, unlefs he be a penitent ; if it is, (fays he) the greater is your error } but I do not believe it is : it was not Dr. Gill's p. inciple." This is Mr. A.'s miftake ; for there is not a Baptift in the •world, nor has been, who has any principles upon the fub- jed, but this is one of them, that no perfon is ^Jit JubjeB of baptifm unlefs he be a penitent. Had Mr. A. have known the gofpel fitnefs for baptifm, he would have known this with equal certainty that he knows an hypocrite is not a fit fubjedl for communion at the Lord's table. Eefldes, his argument to prove that Dr. Gill did not hold this principle is a mere fophifm, and proves no fuch thing. If Dr. Gill exprefsly fays, as Mr. A. informs us, " that Simon Magus was baptized in 'a.' pure i\nd apoJloUc ivay,'^ this is no evi- dence that he was a fit fubjedt. Simon Magus tuas baptized upon a profejfton of faith ; this was the pure and apollolic way ; yet he was not a fit fubjedi, he only appeared to be. The adminiftrator was but a man, and was therefore obli- ged to judge from what was vifible. Could the adminif- trator have feen Simon's true chara(51er, he would have known him to be not a fit fubjeft. The adminiftrator's not difcovering this unfitnefs, did not change Simon's hypocrify into gofpel fitnefs for baptifm ; yet, as Simon made pro- feffion of faith, and appeal ed to poffefs it, he was baptized in the pure and apoftolic way. 4. Mr.~A. in the fame page, gives us another of his iriiftakes. Says he, "Be this (about Simon) hoiv.-ver as it may ; one of your principles Is, that no perfon is a member of Chrift's church till he is baptized. This re- duces you to the neceffity of contending, that there may be millions of vifible Chriftians, eminently fuch, who are not in Chrift's vifible church. One would fuppofe bcic/ehand, that a man muft be put to It e.vcefiively to maintain fuch a fentimeut as this." To be fure, fuch as ji' :,^-e hejynhand^ fuch as judge of a matter before they^ hear it, n.-^hc iuppofe a man put to It exceflively, to maintain, that there raay be c i8 Second Expofit'wn of millions of vifiblc Chrifti. ins, eminently fuch, who are not in Chrifl's vifible church. But when one comes to hear the matter, and finds this was to l^e the cafe, that many were, at fucb a time as this, to be found, not only out of Chrifl's vifibJe church, but within the limits of Antichrift's, and efpecially when one comes to hear the Lord calling this multitude out ot: hx-^r, he no longer fuppofes the man holding this principle muft be put to it exceflively ; but he knows the opponents have an hard fide to defend, and that they muft make many m'ljlakei. 5. We vill therefore attend to another of Mr. A.'s mif- takes. Says he, pages 16, 17, a man " m.ay have no knowl- edge of thv vifible church, yet he may know that he is a fmner and needs fcrgivenefs. He may be acquainted with Chriil, und the way of falvation through him, and believe to the faving of his foul. This may be known to hundreds of Chriftians, at a diftance. He may, of courfe, be a member of the vifible church : for a man's vfibilhy refpcEls nuhat be 'us in itje eyes of others. Would he not be a member of the vlflle church, if he were bapti-zeJ ? If he luould, then the fuppojcd d'fpxultyy from his fit nation, is no difficulty at all." Here Mr. A. gives up and condemns his whole fcheme, and then adds a great miftake at the clofe. The reader will bear In mind, that Mr. A.'s fcheme is, that when a man is converted he belongs to the vifible church; for he fays, page 1 4, " What ! be converted to Chrift, and not join his kingdom ?" as he explains himfelf, What ! become converted to Chrift, and not, at the fame time, become a mem.ber of his vifible church? But here, he tells us, That the converfon of an heathen being hnoivn to others, is ivhat con- fitutes him a member of the vifible church. To ihow Mr. A. that by labouring to extricate himfelf from one pei-plexing cafe, he has involved him.felf in another of equal difficulty, I will propofe for his confideration this queltion : — Suppofe no Chrift ian knew of this heathen man's converfion, would he then belong to the viiible church .'' If he anfwer. Yes, then he contradicts what he has juft faid, that a man's vfi- bility rejpeds ivhat he is in the eyes of others. If he fay. No, then he gives up his fcheme, that a converfion of a per/on confiitutes him a nwmber of the vifible church. Mr. A. is in a perplexing cafe. But we wfll fee his miftake at the clofe. " Would he not (fays he) be a member of the vifible church, if he were baptized ?" To be fure, if he were bap- tized he would be a member of the vifible church ; for gofpel baptifm is the very thing which conftitutes him a Mr. Aujiin's Mijiakes, 19 > member. Now, fays Mr. A. •* if he would, then the fup- pofed difficulty, from his fituation, is no difficulty at all." That is, if a converted heathen, who is favoured with an adminiftrator, baptized, and thus received into the vifible church, would be a member of it, then there is no difficulty ill fuppofing him a member of the vihble church, though he haS never been thus favoured, nor ever admitted into it. In what confufion are Mr. A.'s ideas ! ihe fault, however, is not his deficiency of talents, but in the miferably errone- ous caufe he is defending. 6. But I haftcn to another of Mr. A.'s raiftakes. In my Letters to him, page 38, my words are, — All your ^ objcdlion againft allowing that the apofile (in Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12.) alludes to and intends water baptiim, is conHdered to ariie from an apprehenfion that immerfion would certainly follow. His reply is, page 33, "You muft confider it fo, if you will ; but my apprehenlion really has another origin. It is, that an infuperable objeflion would be furnifued againft the apoflle's infpiration ; for then he would teach us, that water baptifm, inftead cf the haptijm Sf the Holy Ghcifi, is the thing' by which we beccme dead b fm and rife to newnefs of life." Here Mr. A. is again in difficulty. His difficulty arifes from a miftake which he has made. I will endeavour to expofe the one, and thus help him out of the other. Hiis miftake is, that we fhould endanger the infpiration of the apoftle, did we not believe that we become dead to fm and rife to newnefs of life by the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. The faifl is, Mr. A. has wholly miitaken the fcriptures, in this matter. They fay nothing about a perfon's becoming dead to fm, er riling to nevvnels of life, by the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft ; nor by water baptifm, otherwife than by a figure. This expofes his miPake, and opens the deer for him to leave his difficulty, if he choofe. For furely, our not believing contrary from the fcriptures, but believing them as they are, can furnifli no iniuperal;le objeflion, nor an objeclion of any other kind, agauift the infpiration of the apoftle.* • This miftake of Mr. A.'s, he might receive from the Rev. Mr. Parifli, of Byefield, whole ftron;^ P^rty Sermon was founded upon the f.une miftake. Let the reader but be delivered from this new notion, that perfons are born again by beii:g baptized with the Koly Ghoft, and he at once fees through the fallacy and difcovers the profound weaknefs of what Mr P. lo fmartly faid againft' the Baptifts, in his Sermon of May laft. The author has fallen into the vtry miftake to which hft. 20 Second Expofttion of 7. I will now prefent the public with an whole clufler of Mr. A.'s miaakcs, and they may be taken as a ipecimen of all the remainder ; afierwards fome of his mifreprefenta- tions will be noticed. '1 his group of miftakes is in his 47th page. In the firlt place, I will prefent this bundle of confidered the Baptiils, on accouIl^ of their extreme ignorance, to be much espt.fcd. He has, ;o an iDcommcn degree, mifapplied one of che figures of jnrpiration. He has been kird enough to inform ns, that fpintiial baptilm, or the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, is the new birth, or regeneration ; but hfls not Furtiifhed his authority. He tells us that the text means this. V\'e deny that the text, or hac any other text in tre Bible, has ever faid any fuch hing. How are we buried -with Chiiji in b.:ptifm, cr raifcJ ivith him in baptif,n, in the moment of regeneration, any iwore than in every fuccecding holy exerciie ? This is a new inven- tion of his ai;d his brethren, to jre rid of the gofpel baptifm. The old Romanics confidered ii.otcr baptifm to he n-^meration, or th« latter to he conEeis the baptifm c f the Holy Ghoft. The Bible mentions nothing »,f their forced co!ifiru(fl:on of the figurative Jarguage of infpiraticn. The fcripture account is totally different from Mr. P.'s. '] hat iuforms us, As to be really dend to fm." ^l!*^' i*- '^""^P''"'^'^ O'" '■q""i'fpirilual baptifm with rge^eroticii, page I 3 r, cf the ColUau^n. 1 hen we will take regeneration infJead of Ipijitual bapt)fm,and fee how his cortrafc wHl ftand the teft of fcripture ai:d his own fcimments. " As the burial cf Jcfus Chrift gave evidence that he had really dted, the juft f( r the unjuft ; fo we, in regeneration, fhow ourftlves to be really dead to fin." The fcriprures (ay, The wind bJoweth where it li{>eth, and thou hcareft the found thereof, but citnfl not tell wher.ce it conicth nor whither It goeth : fo is evtry one that is bem cf the Spirit. Bring forth fruits meet for repentance, or as evidtnce of repentance. By their fruits ye fhall know thi m, ^-c. In thefe texts, nor in any other, is there any ji.timatinn, that m regenerat.on wc fhow ourfelves to be dtad to fin; hvt that this IS made vifible by the fruits of regeneration, or by the aiiiions of the new creatercj but not by the operation of the Spirit, in whicn iic IS regenerated Mr. Aujiin's Mijiakes. 21 iniftakes entire ; then expofe them one by one. Mr. A. introduces and prefents them iu the following manner. *' In page 74, to my argument (lays he) from your fup- pofed opinion, that many dying in infancy are iaved, you reply in this manner : — * Perhaps your idea is this, That I If I underflard Mr. P.'s fentiments, they are, — i. That a natural man hath not one fpiritually good thought- a. That regeneration is effcdcd by the fpeeial agency of the Holy Ghoft. 3. That the manifeji exerc:fes of the new creature are the natural confsquences of regeneration, but ar« rot themfelves regeneration. Thefe being his fentiments, then his contrail is at war with them, as well as with the Bible : for we do not, in regeneration, fhow ourielves dead to fin ; but in the ccnfequent acfts or fraits of it, we fhov/ this. If thefe cbfervations be juft, Mr. P. had been more prudent had he kept his Sermon to himfelf, and expreffed lefsfear left theater, ignorant^ and illiterate Biiptifts fhould greatly injure the caufe of Chrift, by mif- epplicatiOns oi fcripture Jigures. But Mr. P. in his note, pages 143, 144, hath manifefted his mind to ke fo crowded with oppofition to the baptized church, as to deprive hint •f his ufual fprightlinefs of reGclle<3ion. Thus it hath happened to him, as is common to thofe who arc over zealous ; they betray themfelves, rather than foil their opponents. As Mr. P. hath, with no fmall rude- nefs, cxpofed himfelf, he cannot juftly take it unkindly to have his twtt increafe its publicity. I fhall take liberty to tranfcribe a few ftntences, of which I ihould have thought Mr. P. incapable. Should he publickly deny their being his, and pro\'e his innocency, then will they be taken from his account. But thfy look fo like other parts of his Sermon-, proof might i; difficult, unlcfs he deny the whole. Says he, " Probably the (Baptifl) denomination have received forae advantage, in the courfe of a century or two, from a few folitary cort- gregational preachers joining them, who had received dij)!omas from fome college. This muft, however, be one of their minor advantages ; for when was it known that the dijlinguijhed members of ^ party diferted? Men, confcious of their inferiority to their brethren in literature ai;d talents, have a poiuerful temptation to apcjiatize, where their relative greatnrfs will be ad-uariced." A few quellions for the reader. 1. Could Mr. P. had not his recollection been left,^but have called to mind, that the very apoftle who v/rote his text, was ene of thefe deferters ? 2. Did not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Jame.s, and Jude, all of them, defert their party, the Jewifli church, and join the Chriftian ? • 3. Did not Martin Luther and John Calvin deftrt their party, the Judaized and Judaizing church of Rome } 4. Did not all the celebrated reformers of the reformed church detrt tlieir party, and come cut, in me;.fure, from the man of fm ^ 5. Did ni t all the leaders of the Congregational and Prefbyterian denomiriatin---, when they broke off from the Church of England, of from th'i r-or-ar.union of the Papifts, defert their party .' 6. ^V>r- nine of thefe, diftinguifhed members of the party whence trief br6kccf. ^' C' 2 7,2 Second Expofition of believe fome infants, "who have not been immerfed, may go to heaven, and be finally faved. This, Sir, I do beheve. But what hath this to do with the prefent controverfy ?* It hath this to do with it, Sir ; it entirely refutes your hypothefis. li^ou have no ivarrant to believe any human being is faved-, who is not to ycu a vifille member of the king' dom of Ckrijl. This is the force of the argument, which ycu have not noticed at all. Your notion of holding people to be good people, and heirs cf glory, who have no vifible place in the kingdona of God, is an outrage upon common fenfe, and a contradiction to the whole Bible. You exclude all infants, without exception, from this vifible kingdom ; the confequence is, that no warrant remains for you to confider any of them as faved. All the heirs of falvation are fpoken oi as being fuch vifibly in this world. Ifaiah ki. (,. And their feed ihall be known among the Gentilesj and their oitspring among the people : all that fee thenv Ihall acknowledge them, that they are the feed which the Lord hath blelied. Hundreds of other texts there are to the fame purpofe." The reader will particularly notice my words, which gave occafion to Mr. A. to make the milftakes which follows My words are, I believe fome infants, who have not been iinmerfed, may go to heaven and be finally faved. I then alk. Bat what hath this to do with the prefent controverfy ? His reply is, •' It hath this to do with it ; it entirely refutes your hypothefis." The reader fhall know my hypothefis ; it is this — No unbaptized perfon belongs to the vifible church cf Chrift. This hypothefis, fays he, is entirely refuted by allowing, that fome children, who have not been baptized, or immerfed, and fo not in Chrift's vi/ible churchy may be finally faved. If this fentiment refute my hypothefis, then the old papiftical notion which Mr. A. hath adopted is true — That vone but church members can pojfibly be faved. This is one of his miftiikes. Aeain, he fays, •' You have no 'warrant to believe, that any human bei»g is faved, who is not to you a vifible 7 Did not Mr P. in his zeal, fo forget himfelf, as to denounce all the famous leaders of his own and .of all otiier denominations, that he mi^ht, not in a very heconiing manner, aim his unkind Ihafts againft a few folitary Congregational jrtachers, who have, to anfwer a good conference, dared to renounce the traditions of men, that they might keep the commandments of the Lord ? I Ihall now leave Mr. P. to his own refledions, and the j^uhlic to form their own judgnaent, upon fuch management as thie. Mr. Aujilns Mijiakes, 23 member of the kingdom of Chrift." I will here prefent my warrant. Gcd tells me, Rev. xviii. 4. that he hath people within the limits of Antichri/i's church. Thofe who are within the limits of Antichrift's church, are not to me, nor ought they to be confidered by any, as members of the viftble church of Chrift. I have, therefoie, a warrant to believe that fome of thefe, v/ho are born of Chrift's Spirit, being within the limits of Babylon, and m.any of them living and dying there, not only may be faved, but muft be,. This expofes another of his miitakes. Again, fays he, " 1 his is the force of the argument, which you have not noticed at all." What the iorce of the argument ? That none but vifible church members can be faved. Which, fays he, " you have not noticed at aU." Then it fhall be noticed ; for it is one of the firft-born fons of the church of Rome. The pope, moft afTuredly, con- ilders himfelf and his church as tiie only church of Chrift, and that none can be faved out of h'ls hounds ; hence it is lawful for him to kill all heretics, all who will not fubmit to his holy catholic church ; and to convert by fire and fword, as for many ages he did, the heathen jiations to his religion, and compelled tbcm to be members of his church. Thefe violent meafures may be greatly palliated, if the pope's fentiment be correft. It is, however, the fame with Mr. A.'s. Hence, if the force of Mr. A.'s argum.ent be allowed, or the fentiment in which the force of it is, not one within the limits of Antichrift's kingdom, not one with- in the Mahometan countries, not one in any heathen nation, can be faved. No, nor can one infant, from Adam's day to our's, have been faved ;, nor can o"ne adult, who may- die at fea, where there is no Chriftian to behold him, nor one who may die in our own land, and is not known to be a Chiiftian by others, be ever faved. For Mr. A. informs us, we have no 'warrant to believe that any are faved who are not members of Chr'ijVs vifible church ; and page 16, he tells us, that no man is a member of Chrift's vifible church, unlcfs be is fien or kn(out a Baptift minifter's praying too loud. Then I a{k for what temerity I am to be rebuked by him. Mr. A. ought to remember, that we do not live where Mr. AuJiiiLS Mijiakes. 41 the mouths of tlie baptized church are flopped by prifons, fires, racks and gibbets. Truth begins to break forth with brightnefs. The God of the baptized church will defend her, and his plagues begin to be poured upon Antichrift ; and fuch of God's people a.s do not hear his voice, and come out of her fpeedily, may receive not a little of tbefe plagues. 5. For a general anfwer to Mr. A.'s reply to my expofmg his erroneous notions of d'laphorou bapujmois Heb. ix. 10. the public are referred to my Letters to him, p. 43, 44, and 45. But as he confiders himfelf to have gained fome advantage from the ule of the word diapho- rois in a different connexion, fome fmall attention muft be paid to it. His words are, " The Greek word is ufed but in one other place in the New-Teftamer.t ; that is in Rom. xii. 6. Having therefore gifts differing, dlaphoruy according to the grace given to us, whether prophecy or miniftry, &c. Thefe gifts, fays he, are different in kind." The following obfervations will fhow, that the text, Rom. xii. 6. and the word diaphora as there ufed, will afford him no help. 1. For, to fay the lead, it is a very doubtful thing, whether the gifts, differing according to the grace given, be different hinds of gifts, or d'^fferent /pedes of ^& fame kind of fpiritual gifts. Indeed to me it is no doubtful cafe at all. For there are different kinds of gifts of the Spirit. Such SiS gifts effeniially conneifted v.'ith xhe finner^s falvatlon, mirac- kIcus gifts, and edifying gifts. Thofe gifts of which Paul is fpeaking, Rom. xii. 6, 7. are of the latter kind, and differ- ent fpecies of that kind. This text is therefore nothing to his purpofe. 2. But grant it, if he choofe, that the gifts fpoken of are different in kind ; yet "■- will not follow, as he fuppofes, that the fame adjedive, in Heb. ix.'io. muft mean different kinds of baptifms. It might in one cafe mean different fpecies of the fame kind, and in another different kinds. So it would prove nothing to his purpofe, even fuppofe it meant jufl as he fays. 3. But, fuppofe farther, that the ufe of the word dia* phora, Rom. xii. 6. would prove, that in Heb. ix. lo. the apoftle is fpeaking of different kinds of baptifms, then it would confound Mr. A.'s whole argument from the text, as to gofpel baptifm, or worfe ; for then he mull fay one of thefe two things ; either, firfl, that it hath nothing t« 42 Second Expofition of do with gofpel baptifm ; or fecondly, that there are difFer- | ent kinds of gofpel baptifms. If he fay the fiift, that it hath nothing to do with gofpel baptifm, then it would con- found his argument, for then he would all this while have been arguing from a topic which hath nothing to do with the fubjeifl. If he fay the other, that there are different kinds of gofpel baptifms, then he dees wcrfe than give up his whole argument ; for he implicitly charges the apof- tle with falfehood, and our Lord Jefus Chrifl with impofi- tion and iieghgence. He implicitly charges the apoftle with falfehood ; for Paul exhorts the Ephefian Chriftians to unity, and ufes as one argument to this, that there is but one Lord, one faith, cm lapttjm. Now if there be (''ij'tr- ent kinds of gofpel baptifms, Paul muft have fpoken falfe- ly, with a defign, no deiibt, to deceive. But this is not the worft vhich Mr. A. d( cs. Ke implicitly charges our Loid Jefus Chrift with impofiticn and negligence ; for our Lord knew how to fpcak in fuch plain language, that his poor, ignorant and devout followers might under- ftand him. But inftead of doing fo, (if Mr. A. be correct) he fpeaks in fuch ambiguous and uncertain language, that for leveral of the fir ft centuries, no one uuderftood him, and none were certain that they underflood him to mean, or that he did mean, by gofpel baptifm any thing fliort of Immerfion, till Pope Clennnt tlie I'ifth, in the fourteenth century, arofe and informed the world, \.\rAX. fprinkling fliould be valid and gofpel baptifm : And indeed had it not been for Mr. Auftinof Worcefler, the Chriftian world would not have known, to this day, that tliere were different kinds of gofpel baptifms. Thus according to Mr. A. our blefled Lord and Saviour (fliocking to fay) has impofed upon his ignorawt followers. Not only lo, but the compaflionate and all-wife Saviour hath gi\vn the law of cofpei baptifna in fuch equivocal and uncertain terms, that fo focn as his followers come to know any thing about letters, they muft be contending about what it is. For it could not but be ex.pe<5led that fome of the more ignorant ones vould con- tend for the old way ^^Ilich was piadifed, with fiw cj;cep- tions, for fifteen hundred years. Yes, and not only fo, but Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, and Paul, and Peter, have agreed together in keeping us ignorant. For wherever and whenever tliey liave fpoken of gofpel bap- tifm, they have uniformly i'poken of it, when they have mentioned any explanatory circumftance about it, as though it were one thirg, and as though that one thing were im- Mr. Aujlin's Mijiakes. 43 merfion. Mat. iii. 6. tells us, that the penitents were bap- tized in Jordan. Mark tells us, i. 5. that they were baptiz- ed In the riviT of Jordan. Luke informs us, that when the ordinance of baplifm was adminiftered, they not only came fo the wafer, but went into it. Adts vlii. John gives us to uuderiland, that baptifm was adminiftered in a certain place, becaufe there was much luater there. John iii. 23, Paul tells us, that as many as were baptized into Jefus Chrifi, were buried and raifed with Chrift in the ordinance. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. Peter tells us that baptifm is .!, figure of our falvation, anfwering to the figure, the ark, in •which Noah was faved. Chap. iii. 21. of his firft epillle. Now all thefe have agreed together to deceive us, if it be a deception, and to make us, poor, ignorant creatures, who have not come to maturity of judgment, correElnefs of know!' edge, and Jlahility of faith, believe, that gofpel baptifm is but one thing, and that one thing is immcnfion, in the name of th'i Father, &c. Whereas they have not faid fo much as one word ^.howt fprinhling or pouring being the matter of gofpel baptifm, or given fo much as one circumflancc; which makes it look as though fprinkling or pouring ware ever either commanded or pradtifed. Indeed had not. Pupe Clemont, in the year i 305, have told us that fprinkling. was valid, fcriptural, -goipel baptifm, no Chriftian ivt the firtt eighteen hundred years of Chriftianity, would have known that it was fo ; and all might have proceeded on in their ignorance, and have believed, that as there were but one IjOrd, one faith, io there was but otie valid, fcriptural, gofpel baptifm. In much the fame ftate of ignorance might the Chrillian world have now been, with refpeft to another important matter, had not Mr. A. been raifed up to inftruft us, that there are different kinds of gofpel baptifms. Does n.")t this bufinefs of Mr. A. do worfe than confound his argument ? Does it not make his Popilh baptifms look worfe than it would for him to give up his argument from Heb. ix. 10? In fiiort, had he not better have taken my advice, if he would m.iintain his fide, to fay nothing about it? 6. We will now attend to Mr. A.'s laft and mod formi- dable argument againft immerfion, as being the only gof- pel baptifm. As this Li/} and main argument is bat the old Antichrijiian argument, with a new drefs, it might receive but little notice, were it not that by repeatedly turning it over before the public, they may, one after another, fee the mark of the beaft upon it. Another confidcration may 44 Second Expofiion of render it'advlfable to pay fome attention to it ; and it is this : This their Jirjl and lajl argument is the only argu- ment for which they have even a plaufible pretence. It was the principal argument which Cyprian in the third century ufed for fprinkling, or afFufion ; and it is the laft which Mr. A. ufes in tlie nineteenth. Cyprian doubted its validity ; but Mr. A. is fomewhat confident that it will anfwer. We will now hear his argument. vSays he, page 40, 41, 42, "To conclude this part of the controverfy on the mode of baptifm, omitting the much that might be faid in favour of fprinkling and afFufion, as both warranted in the fcriptures, I will content myfelf with one remark ; and that is upon the impraci'ual'dity of the ordinance according to your account of it. In befieged cities, where there are thoufands and hundreds of thou- fands of people ; in fandy deferts, like fome parts of Af- rica, Arabia and Paleftine, and in fome northern regions, where the ftreams and the ponds, if there be any, are Ihut up by impenetrable ices ; and in fevere and extenfive. droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab ; fufficiency of water for animal fubfiftence is almoft unpro. curable. In fome cafes it is entirely fo ; infomuch that millions of human beings have fuffered great diftrefs by thirft. Now fuppofe God fhould, according to the pre« didions of the prophets, pour out plentiful effufions of his Spirit, fo that all the inhabitants of one of thefe regions or cities fhall be born in a day ; upon your hypotheus there is an abfolute i,ppclTibility they ihould be born into ths kingdom, while there is this fcarcity of water; and this may laft for months ; yea, as long as they live. And thefe thoufands and hundreds of thoufands of Chriftians, mud remain all this while, and perhaps die, without having cnce the confolatton of fupping with their Redeemer. Now it muft require very clear evidence to convince me, that the eifence of baptifm lies in that which, in fo many cafes of this kind, muft defciit the very defign of it; and that baptifm is ever an indifpenfable prerequifitc to the Lord's Supper. This moreover is altogether unlike what we find on the face of apoftolic practice." Thus fays Mr. A. in the light of the nineteenth century ; and what does it all come to ? The following remark may fliow. I. The whole of it is argumenfum aa pa/fiones, that is, an argument addrelfed to the paffions and prejudices of men. Mr. Aujiin's Mijiakes. 45 2. We muft make Chrift's pofuive inftitutions bow to our convenience jufl when it fuits us, becaufe in fome pof- fible cafes, which have never yet happened, and never will, we could not be baptized according to the comnnand and pattern given, with refpedt to that ordinance. 3. God may, not according to tlie predidions of the prophets, give a great rain from the upper fprings, and fliut up the lo'w:;r ones, fo that a nation or city may ba bora ia a day, and there be, at the tim^, not water fufficient to baptize them, therefore baptifm cannot always mean bap- tifm, that is, immerfion ; but mud fometimes mean ran- tifm, that is, fprinklhig. 4. If- thoafands and hundreds of thoufands fli ould be born, on that very day in which they had fpent the laft of the water, which the city, or fandy defert contained, what would Mr. A. do then ? Would he not do as fome of the popilh monies are faid to have done, baptize them with fand ? 5. But there is another difficulty. Suppofe their vines fliould not yield their fruit, what would he do then, as to the fecond gofpel ordinance ? No doubt he would fubllitute water, or fome other liquid, if he had any ; for if he may, to fuit the times, change the very efTence of one ordinance, he may, no doubt, change the element of another. But fuppofe he had no fubftitute, fo that it would be utterly impoffible to fap with his Redeemer; then Mr. A. woulJ, if confillent with himfelf, conclude, that Chrift never in.- tended to coinmand the real ufe of bread and wine, or any other material elements in the ordinance of the fupper ; for the want of bread and wine may happen as often and to as great multitudes, as the want of water. Then he might conclude thus :. "Now it mud xe(\mre very clear e-v'ulence to convince msj. that \^e ejence of the Lord's fnppcr lies in that ivhich, m fo many cafes oi this kind, mujl d'feat the very defign of it." Thus Mr. A. with the very fume argument, by which he condemns my principles, judifics the Quakers. Jud fo far as his argument is good in one cafe, it is the fame in the other. His argument is either good, for nothing, becaufe it proves too much, or elfe it proves jud enough, and the Quakers are in the right. 6. The '■'•fo many cafes of this- kind,^^ which he fuppofes mud defeat the very defign of baptifm, are mere imagina- tion ; not one of them ha^ ever occurred,, or is ever like to. E 2 4^ Second Expofitlon of 7. But his concluding words are particularly noticeable ; they are thele : *' This moreover is altogether unlike what we find Ow the face of apoftolic praflice." If he mean, that what he hath been paying, and that his whole argument is altogether unhke what ve find on the' face of apoftolic pradice, it is a folemn truth. For we do, indeed, find not a word of his popilh and wicked ar- gument and pracflice in any of the writings of thofe holy men. We appeal to the Bible, to ftubborn facts, and to the common fenfe of all mankind, if there be, in any one text of the whole Bible, where it fpeaks of gofpel times and gofpel ordinances, fo much as a fmgle fhade of likenefs between the apoftohc pradice and Mr. A.'s argument, and the errors which he would fupport by it ^ But if he intend by his clofing aflertion, that liis argument and tenets are altogether like what we find on the face of apoftolic prac- tice, then his aifertion is very illy founded, and, deicrves a worfe name than I choofe to give it. But this I will fay^ it may, at leaU, be numbered among his otlier great mil- takes, and the argument itfelf may increafe the number of his weak ones. A man of fonfc muft indeed have a miferable fide, to be compelled to ufe fuch miferable arguments in the defence I of it. 1 can bear with tolerable patience to hear Mr. A. accufe me of repetitions, for I had rather be guilty of a thoufand, than to have one fuch argument as this juftly laid to my account. 7. Were it not for the importance of the prefent con- troverfy, I might be apprehenfive fome of my readers would gladly difmifs the remaining errors of Mr. A. ; but when it is confidcred that his err< rs, generally fpeaking, belong to a great clafs of n-.en, and that fome, who are ■with him in them, are not only men of fenfe and erudition, but of piety too ; and befides, when it is confidered, th;it where his errors are expofed, many may have them, and, more may take heed not to imbibe them ; then it will ap- pear that too much cannot be done to bring them into their defircd difreped. I fliall therefore fet another clufter of them to public view. In the firft place we fhall fet them down, as Mr. A. has given them to us in his 43d page, and then expofe them individually. They are contained in his words which follow. " There is but little hazard, that your moft partial readers will be quieted by the new in- vention of yours, as much at variance with common fenfe, and with the ex|>laaations of your Baptift brethren, as with Mr, Auftin's Mi/takes. 47 the fcrlptures, that the covenant of circamcifioa is but a token of the covenant of grace. That it is but a mere law, and that circamciriou itfelf is this covenant. This is twifting and turning indeed. ' The covenant of circunxci- fion equal, (fay you) every man-child being circumcifed j every man-child being circumcifed equal, the cii-cumcifing of the flelh of their forelkin ; the circumciung of the flefh of their forefkin equal, the token of the covenant between God and Abraham j here the token of the covenant be- twixt God and Abraham equal, the covenant of circumcl- fion : for it is a well known axiom, that things that are equal to the flime are equal to one another.' This alge. braic equation, my friead, in pity to you, I will leave under a fmiple quotation." Some of his errors contained in this quotation are, I. His calling: it an invention of mine, to confider the covenant of circumcifion as but a token of the co^oenant of grace. This is far from being an. invention of mine. For fiith the Lord, Gen. xvii. 9, 10, 11. "Thou fh a It keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy feed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye fhili keep be- tween me and you and thy feed after thee ; every man-child among you Ih ill be circuindfed ; and ye fliall circuincife the Jl'JJj of )'0\xr f jr. Ji'in, and it fLiU be a token of the covenant l; tzuJxt me and you." In the 13th verfe, God, fpeaking manifeftly of this fima covenant of circumcitlon, faith, My covencuit fh ill bo in your Ji.'Jh, for an everlafhing cove- nant." Alfo in verfe 14. fpeaking of the fame covenant:,, the Lord faith, " And the uaoircumclfed man-child whofe jleOi of his forefkin is not circumcifed, that foul fhall be cut off from his people, he \i\X\\hrolien my covenant" Does^ Mr. A. fuppofe, that the uncircumcifed man-child had. broken the covenant of grace ? If he do, the fcrlptures fay- no fuch thing. He had broken the covenant of circumci- fion, or the law, or covenant of circumcifioiv had not bee» obfe.rved with relation tohim. Thus we fee my invention is. the good old Bible account of the matter. However, it is not to be weadered at, that he fhould wilh. to get rid of this matter by calling it a new invention of mine. For thi j good old Bible account deftroys his anti-chrilHan notion of putting children into the covenant of grace by baptizing them. For all the plea which he has for this fuperilitious bufmefs, is, that Abraham and his feed put their children, as he and his brethren erroneoufly fuppofe, into that cove- nant, by circumcifing them. But this Bible account of 48 Second Expofitiou of clrcumcifion removes this part of the myjli-ry of inicjaity ; and lliows th;it Abrah;ini's children were not put into the covenant of grace by being circumcifed, and fo it deftroys- the notion of judaizuig Chrillians patting theirs in by bap- tifm. 2. Another error in the above qaotation Is, his repre- fenting what he calls my new invention, as being at va- riance with common fenfe, and with the explanations of my Baptill brethren, and with the Bible. As to the explanations of my baptized brethren, I know not what they are, not recollecting, or having never feen any of them. Yet, finding that ray invention appears tc harmonize perfeJlly with the Bible reprefentatitjn, and knowing that the Bible and common fenfe agree, and alfo knowing that my baptized brethren generally agree with both, I conclude, tliat I am not greatly at variance with either of the three. 3. His next error in^ this clufter Ishis deolaratio:i, that my confidering the coven.uit of circarncifion to be but a. toi'en of the covenant of grace, and that circumcii'ion itfel£ is this covenant, is tiv'ijTtng and turning indeed.. I appeal to the Bible and common feme, if I have not gone fide by fide with both oi them. If £ h ive, there is neither t wiping nor turning about it, fave it twids his erro- neous fentiments, aid turns \i\s njtim of patting h.\s gracekfs children iato the covenant of grace^ by f,)riiikiing them, out of credit, and m.ike> it appear as it ihoulJ, an.inveuT tion of man. Tnis is what I call, goin':^ right forward. 4. The other error, wliich I Qi lil here mention, is his unveafonable pity towards me. It was fo great, that he has left us all in ignorance of what the covenant of cir* cumcifion is. The public wouM. have been under great obligation to him, had he- pitied me leli, and fo had given them a plain view, or clear account of the covenant of cir- cumcifion. But as the matter is, the public mad dill be uninformed, or elfe take my new invention, the good oli^ Bible reprefentation of this matter. 8. Another noticeable error of Mr. A.'S is his implicit denial, that the Paedobaptitl theory is clogged with the abfurd principle, and pratflice too, fo far as their principle and pradice agree, that if a South-Carolina planter be converted, his houfehold are difciples of courfcj and are to be baptized, though his flaves be 5000. Thisisjuft their abfurd principle and praiflice too, fo far as they are coi> fifteat with tliemfelves : and Mr, A. has implicitly denied Mr. Aiijiin's Mi/lakes. 49 it, and as he confefTes It to be a clog to their theory, if true, and alfo an abfurdity, it appears to me expedient, in this place, to prove the fa S trained fjldiers or fervants yO Second Expofition of born in his houfe, and how many bought with his money wcjknow not. He might have many more, before th^ day ot their circumcifion. For afterwards he was called a mighty prince, Gen. xxiii. 6. Now all thefe, which Abraham poifeired on the day of circumcifion, let them be 50, or 500, or 5000, were all circumcifed, on account of Abra- ham's being a good man, full of fairh, or on account of the covenant of circumcifion, which was made with him. The principle of the Pasdobaptills is founded on this very bufinefs, and is meant to fquare with the covenant of cir- cumcifion ; and their pradice with the praftice of Abra- ham. Befides, their principle is, that every believing pa- rent or mafter of his family, is to his family as Abraham was to his. Hence my charge againfl: them is, that to be confillent with their principle, and to go through with their theory, they mull baptize a converted S^uth-Carolina planter and all his houfehoid, whether he have 5, 50, 503, or 50QO flaves belonging to it. Upon thefameprinciple, I might add, to be conjijient nu'ith themfehes, they would be, in this particular, downright papifts, and baptize the fubjeds of a mighty prince, becaufe he was converted. If this principle be a gofpel one, it will bear examination, and not be the worfe for being pra(5lifed to perfection. If it be al^furd •when pradifed thoroughly, it is not the lefs fo when prac- tifed fmally. The only difference is, the abfurdity does not appear fo glaring. 2. My other argument is, That all the evidence for in- fant baptifm, to which the Paedobaptifts can make any plau- fible preteafion, is founded upon the above abfurd principle. They can make no plea, that the families of the jailer, Stephauus and Lydia w^re baptized upon the faith of the parent or mafter, but upon the principle, that they were tlius baptized, becaufe Abraham's family were circum:ifei upon his faith. Now I argue thus. If it be according ta the gofpel to baptize a fm ill family, or houfehoid, on the faith of a believing parent or m.ifter, it is according to the fame gofpel to baptize a larger one ; and, if the principle be good, the larger the better, if there be any ad\Mntage in it, for then the more will be pronted. Becauie I thus argue, Mr. A. chirges me with wilh'ng to clog the Pasdo- baptift theory with this abfurdity in praftice. I confef;, I am not for halving matters, but for having good principles thoroughly praclifed, and the abfurdity of bad one? fully to appear. Mr. Aujlln*s Miftakes. 51 I corfider inyfelf as having turned hinges evidence. I fee my former errors, and renounce them ; I condemn them, as having been pradifed by myfelf, and cannot juftify them as pradifed by others. If my arguments be jufl, Mr. A. confefies their praftice is abfurd ; or that it is abfurd to praiSife upon fuch a the- ory. If the praflice be abfurd, the theory is fo too. If my arguments be not juft, if they be not founded upon the very principle of their pra(flice, they are invited to expofe them, and to do it thoroughly. But if my arguments be corrcd, then they are invited to leave their abfurd practice, and come up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord againli the mighty. Upon the fame page, whence he took the laft quotation, Mr. A.lells me that he highly efteems the gofpel ordi- nance of baptifm ; it is hoped that his fluure writings will bear a better tefiimony in his favour. On the fame page, he alfo infcims me, he has expofcd himfelf to great perfon- al trials, to guard the facrednefs of that ordinance. Would it not be well for him to expofe himfelf to a few more, that he might keep the ordinance according to the command- ment and pattern given ? In page 48, he (through an error of judgment^ charges m-e with condemning myfelf. His words are. ♦' You have attempted to fix opprobrium upon the doflrine of Paedo- baptijm, by deriving it from the foul fmk of popery, and upcn its abetters, as enlifled under the banners of Antichrifl. But you have condemned yourfelf with refpefl to the firft, by conceding, that fprinkling-was pradlifed in the cafe of clinicks before popery exifted, and that infant baptifm was in general praftiied in the days of St. Auftin." Here the good man's error is in his judgment. I have never conceded that fprinkling, for gofpel baptifm, was pradlifed in the cafe of clinicks, or in any other cafe, before popery exided. The wyjlery of this itiiquity began to work even in the apoftles' days, and popery had gotten con- f derable footing, when they fnbflituted fprinkling in the cafe of fick perfons, for gofpel baptifm. When St. Auftin fiourifhed, popery was in its full tide of fuccefsful exper- iment. It had new fpread over nighly all what was call- ed the Chriftian world, fave the Heretics, as the pjedobap- tifts called them, in the rallies of Piedmont. Thefe God preferved from the mark of the Eeaft ; and they never lubmitted to the po•\^ers of Antichrifl. Thefe were the progenitors of the prcfent E?ptifl[s j and by the Rom.anifts, 52 Second Expofition of they were ftyled the oldeft herefy in the world. Hence, Mr. A. inftead of flowing a contradidion of mine, has through error of judgment, added one to the number of his miftakes. However foul the fink of popery is, from that came Pasdobaptifm, and it is one of the main pillars of the man of fin. Kefides, all who plead for it, plead for the ] principal ordinance and pradtice of Antichrift. Chrift ] hath no where commanded Pasdobaptifm ; nor has he in ; any place commiffioned his minifters, either to preach or praiflife it. But tlae Pope hath done both. In his 49th page, he appears to have fome clofing ftrokes. " On the whole, fays he, the controverfy between you and me is brought to an iflue. It is this. The foundation of your j fiadotvy fabric ivas laid in ajfertion : The juperfiruUure nuas reared in ajfertion : It has been attempted to be holden. up by af- \ fertion ; and it has at lajl vanifoed as a mere Jhadowy thing." j Even this aflcrtif n requires a little proof. By it Mr. A. expeif^cd to give the finifhing (Iroke to the taking aivay of 1 »?)' defenjive armor, I frankly confefs, it hath as much pow- ; erful efficacy towards removing it, as any paflage, or even page W'hich preceded it. I might, however, have excepted the two fird lines of his title page ; for there he tells us that it is done. Had he not given us the infor- mation, in the firft outfet of his pamphlet, that Mr. Merrill's defenfve armor was taken from liim, no perfon who un- derftood the controverfy, would have gathered the idea from any thing which followed. We will now turn our attention for a moment to his laft ' Letter, in which he makes fome obfervations upoa my clofing one to him. In this he does not appear in perfe(5lly good humour. All his fentences do not appear like apples of gold in pidlures of filver. He fays that the court, by which his errors were tried, is not in the Bible. This is alfo his miftake ; for all the texts in the Bible, which fpeak of a particular fubjecfl, is the Bible with refpect to that fub- je(5l. He alfo tells me that I entirely loft fight of the ob- ject which I fhould have had in view, the fupport of my own theory and pradtice. This is alfo his mirtake ; for I kept in fight the fupport of my own theory and pra<5tice, / and the deftrudtion of his. He farther fays. That the court, ' which was eredled wr-s not the one to which he appealed. This is a third miftake ; for it was the Bible with refpecl to his three great Antichriftian errors ; which are, fprink- ling for gofpel baptifm, manifcft unbeliever? the fubje(5ts Mr. Aujiiris Mijlahs, 53 of brptlfm, and communion wiih unbaptized perfons. By the Bible thefe three vere tried and condemned. Had Mr. A. when he wrote liis reply, poirefTed a Tolemn fenfe of this truth, that by the Bible he, as ■well as I, rauft be jildged at the laft day, he would, probably, have omittedfev-ji eral of his epithets, and have endeavoured to prove, unlefs he were convinced of his errors, that though the court was a good one, yet he had not a fair hearing. ' Had he come forward, and have fhown that any of the witnefTes were bribed, or rather that the fenfe of their teftimony was perverted, and requefted a re-hearing, ancl obtained it, as he might have done, and then have brought forward fomie of the witneUes again, and have fhown, in open court, that they juflified his principle and praflice, and condemned mine, then he would jultly have caft the charges vipon me ; but to be out of humour, as I have feen fome, after trial had, is not the beft way to prove the innoccncy of his errors. Had he have confidered my ufige towards him, not of the belt kind, furely his wifdom was to have proved his fen- tence vnijuft. Then would he have righteoufly brought on me the two-fold crime of juftifying the guilty, and con- demning the innocent ; yes, had he been able to have pro- duced one text, which fhould fpeak for him, he would have been juftified, according to a ftatement which I made at the time, and before the court, in thefe words, ♦ Every text is allowed to be a good witnefs, and to poffefs evidence fufficient to fet the accufed free, xrpon bearing teftimony in his favour.' Had he have found one text to his pur- pofe, he could have been acquitted before the public, be- fore his own confcience, and alfo before the Judge of all. But fo long as he fnall fubfritute hard words for hard ar- gument, he may not be fully acquitted before cither, and will convince but fcA' that his caufe is good. However, I by no means fault him for bringir.g no -text to his help ; for 1 knevy beforehand that he had none to bring. Otherwife 1 fhould not have been fo bold in con- demning his errors, and in warning him to forfake them. His fault is in retaining them after they have been tried by the Bible and found ivanting. I well knew, that a degree of feverity was ufed with his errors, but as truth would fully juftify fuch a ufe, it was confidered that the obflinacy of the cafe called for it. Error muft be treated as beirg what it is. the enemy of God and man; and thegrofs errors of Mr. r 54 Second Expofition of A. may call for feverer treatment ftill ; for they belong to the man of fin, whom the Lord will condemn with the Spirit of his mouth, and will dcllroy with the brightnefs of his coming. ^ Did Mr. A. know the figns.of the times, he would not wave written with fo.much contempt as he has done. His courage, and that of his brethren too, in their wicked oppo- fition againfl the Baptiftswillfoon fail them. He doubtlefs recollects what a bloody decree was iffued againfl: the Jews, •in the days of.Haman, the fon of Ham.edatha, the Agagite, and fignfd in Ahafuerus's name, and fealed with the king's feal, to dcftroy, to kill, and caufe to periih, all Jews, throughout the hundred twenty and feven provinces, from India to Ethiopia. Trobably he has alfo recollection of the decree which was iifued at Efther's fuit, by which the Jew-s had full liberty to ftand for their lives, and to deftroy, to flay and caufe their enemies to perifh. This hath been written in the boojc of Efther, for our learning. The Pope and his conclave, prompted by their rooted hatred towards the baptized church, have ilfued their decree againfl; them to deftroy, to kill and caufe them to perifli. But a very different decree is ; now gone forth, of which Mr. A. hath either not heard, or yet dift>elieves. Indeed, it may be that the Baptifts themfelves have not, generally, had the information, or dare not fully credit it, that tliey now have, according, to the decree of the King, a perfect liberty to ftand for their lives, and to deftroy, to flay and cauie to' perifh, by the fword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, not Mr. A.'s errors only, but alfo all the laws, tra- ditions, ftatutes and ordinances of antichrift. The report of this decree may be to Mr. A. like as the fecond decree of Ahafuerus was to the enemies of the Jews, whilft they difbelieved it ; but it will have a very ditfcrent effed upon both him and his brethren, when the certainty fhall be known, v.hich they will foon know, and to their coft too, except they fpeedily repent of their hatred to the baptized church. It is tliis decree which emboldens me to ftand for my life in the prefent controverfy ; and fills me with ex- pe<5tation, that as it happened to the Jews, that they had rule over them that hated them, fo it fhall foon be that all who walk in all the ftatutes and ordinances of the Lord blamelefs, fhall be in honour, and all their adverfarie. con- founded. Let me not feem to Mr. A, or to the i eader, like Lot to his fons-in-law. Mr. AuJiirCs Mtfiakes. '55 In his concliifion, he informs the reader that his public correfpondence with me is clofed. It might have been as well for him, and more for the credit of his errors, to have taken Solomon's advice, and to have left off contention before he had meddled with it. But he adds, p. 53, *• Should any other appear to advocate the do(ftrine, that immerfion is the exclufive mode of baptifm, and effenual to it, he will not be entitled to a public reply, unlels he fhall make ufe of fome new topic of argument, or give old arguments a much more plaufible form than they have yet aflumed. And he mull be holden to the Scriptures as his fource of evidence, becaufe there can- be no eiTential • doftrine, iaftitution, or duty, which the Scripture Itfelf does rot clearly afcertain." It is not difficult to affign the reafon why Mr. A. re- quefts his opponents to employ fome new topic of argument ; for their prefent topics, plain fcnpture precept and example, with their deductions, he finds very hard to be managed. Yet, to the confufion of his whole fcheme, he fays, •' There can be no eflential do(5trine, inftitution, or duty, which the Scripture itfelf does not clearly afcertain." Upon this dec- laration of Mr. A.'s the following queftions are propofed to the reader : 1. Do the Scriptures clearly afcertain, that fprinkling is the matter of gofpel baptifm ? 2. Does the Scripture clearly a/certain, that infants and houfeholds of unbelieving adults are the fubjeds of gofpel baptifm ? 3. Does the Scripture clearly afcertain, that unbaptized perfons are to be admitted to the communion ? The anfwer to each of thefe is thus, that it does net. Then the conclufion from Mr. A.'s premifes is clearly this. That fprinkling for baptifm ; that infants, or unbelieving houfe- holds for the fubjetfts of bapdfm ; and that communion with the unbaptized, are not eifential dodrines, inftitutions, or duties. Hence, he is amufing the public, and earneftiy contending for uneffential matters. This conclufion is juft, for it is indeed a truth, that his antifcriptural notions are not effential, fave to the fupport of worldly inftitutions, and to the caufe of the man of fin. What we have more to offer, is a few conclufions from what we have pafFed over. 1. We conclude, that Mr. A. has a weak and bad caufe to defend. For no good man, pofTeffing talents and ^6 Second Expofttion of education, could ufe fuch falfe and beggarly arguments, make fo many miftakes, be guilty of fuch mifrepiefenta- tions, and fill his pages with notorious errors, in the defence of a good caufe, or in the fupport of truth. 2. We conclude, that Mr. A.'s whole performance, which we hive examined, is one continued heterogeneous mixture of falfe arguments, weak arguments, miftakcs, mifx-eprefentations, and errors ; for we have attended to almoil every page, and have found them to be of this de- fcription. 3. We conclude, that his reafons for quitting the field of public correfpondence with the Author, are but too ob- vious. We would fuggeft the idea, whether it would not be advifable for him to change his fide, or never enter the like field ngain. 4. We conclude, that Mr. A. who is no doubt a worthy charader and a man of fenfe, has been raifed up by the Lord to expofe the weaknefs of his antichriftian caufe ; for he is a man of too refined an education to ufe fo much ribaldry as too many of his denomination have done ; at the fame time, he is a man of too much honefty, not to expofe his real fentiments ; and finding no judicious argu- ments to fupport what he really believed true, he has, with as much plaufibility as he could, made ufe of the beft argu- ments which his bad fide afforded. 1 hefe arguments, in their very nature, having no tendency to bring conviction to unprejudiced rrands, vrill ferve to open to public view the weaknefs and wickednefs of that caufe which fo labours, and has need of fuch management in its defence. Nothing is wanting, to the ruin of his caufe and errors, in the judg- ment of the candid and impartiil portion of the commu- nity, but to have chem clearly expofed. A few more fuch publications as his lift will accomplifh this buiinefs. 5. We conclude, that Mr. A. has no confident notion of that kingdom, called Chrift's vlfible church, which the God of heaven was to fet up in the time of the four great rTiOnarchies, or during the days of thofe kings fpoken of by }3aniel the prophet ; for in parts of his pamphlet he ap- pears to know not any difference between the fphitual king- dom of Chrift in this world, which hath continued at leall fmce the converfioa of Abel, and his viftble kingdom, which was fet up during the Roman empire, and was at hand when the Baptiil came preaching in the wildernefs und baptizing in Jordan. Mr. Atijlin-s Mtflakes, if 6. We conclude, that Mr. A.'s three great errors, which- are fprinkling or pouring for baptifo, manifefl unbelievers the fubje(f^s of baptifm, and unbaptized church members and communion at the Lord's table with them, are all of a piece ; fbr he has not found, nor can he find, one text of fcripture to fupport either of them.. Befides, each of thefe errors ftrongly tends to deface and diforganize the vllible church of Chrift. They mufl therefore be parts of the man of fm. 7. We conclude, that whild Mr. A. has been writing; his Letters to the Author, he had not for his main objeft the knowledge and defence of the truth ; for if he had,, evidence would not have failed him in every particular, nor would he have made fuch notorious mii'takes and blun- ders in every page. It is not truth, but error, which com- pels men to go fuch a crooked courfe as he has travelled. Nor does truth require hard words to be employed in her defence ; her arguments are fufficiently trying for the erro- neous tp endure. Hard words are ufually the attendants, on a bad caufe ; but truth is encompafied with hard and fevere arguments. To oppofe the truth is like kicking, againft fharp pointed pins ; the more refolute the oppofi- tion, the more does the oppofer injure himfelf. Would Mr. A. look into the difturbances of his own bofom, he- would find they are unlike what thofs feel, who are calmly^ yet earneftly vindicating the ways of God to men. 8. We conclude, that a real Chriftian mud be greatly blinded by prejudice, to believe Mr. A.'s errors, when there is not one text in the Bible which fpeaks a word in favour of either of them, and when, at the fame time, every text which fpeaks of the fubje^l is direcflly againft, them, and explains and defends the oppoGte ; as the reader may fee by reading the Author's twelfth Letter to Mr. A. Lajlly. We conclude, that as the baptized church have- the open volume of revelation on their fide, and the Cap- tain of the Lord's hoft for them, and as the time is now come in which they fhould have liberty, full liberty, to ftand for their lives, they fhould now be lirong in the Lord and in th$ power of his might, putting on the whole armour of God,, that they may be able to ftand againft the wiles of the devil ; for they indeed have to wrelHe, not merely againft flefh and blood, but againft principalities, againft powers, againft the rulprs of the darknefs cf this world, 5^ Second Espofiiion, ^c, agamft fptritual wickednef«-in high places. At fuch a time Heaven may well exped every Chriftian to do his duty • then -will the conflid be fhort, and the Lord's battle glori! oufly won. As Joab faid to his brother, (2 Sam. x. 12.) at the critical moment when an hard fought battle was jult commencing, fo I fay to my baptized brethren, Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of our God ; and the Lord dc that which feemeth him good. With defires for Chrift's rifing kingdom, I. am, the reader's and troth's friend,. DANIEL MERRILL. SrHIW B O O K S Vorfalcly Manning tsf Lojung, No. 2, CorrihiU^ THE Ghriftian Banner. A Sermon, preach- ed before the Lincoln Baptized Aflbciation, and at their requell made public. By Daniel Merrill, a. m. {_Pnce xzkctj. I Mr. Merrill's Seven Sermons on the Mode and Sub- ]e. If I do not miflake^ every candid Chrflian will be offended at the fame things ^ before he fhall have carefully perufed all thofe falfe and delu" ftry arguments, affertions, and inftnuations, of Mr. Worcef- ter'sy by which he would keep in credit his Judaizing fcheme^ ( iv ) and retain the vail on many who begin to fee. My prayer to the Father of Lights is, that he ivill fpeedily rend the vail from off the hearts of his onvn people. Truth, and not viffory, is my obje5l. Whether the reader be a friend t$ the nuriter, or the reverfe, is not a matter of fo much folici~ tude to me, as that the reader be a friend to himfelf ; then IV ill he feek for truth, and receive it, though it prove y for the prefent, painful, and deJlruBive to his errors. The fire of love and truth mufi burn up our error t^ or we and they mufi be defiroyed together. Such as fear God, cannot be difpleafed with the requefif that they will not be fofwayed by prejudice and cufiom, as /» believe Mr. Worcefier without evidence, atid difbelieve me, nuhen the evidence is fully before them. If I have not fairly and fully proved his Sermons to be erroneous and unfounded^ I afk not to be believed ; but if I have, I afk this ftmple quefiion — Why will you not believe me ? If the truth be fet in full view, can you difbelieve and yet be innocent ? Deftring that truth may prevail) to the fpeedy ruin of my own and the reader^ s errors, I am hisy with affe8ion, THE AUTHOR. ScBCtvicK, October 47, i8o6. Two T>ifcourfes, ^c, ilj ■his Jtidaizing theory. But neither in his text, nor in any other part of this epiftle, is there a word in favour of his legal plan. But on the contrary, the whole of it was writ- ten, purpofely to deftroy fiich a principle, which began to work among Chriftians, even in the apoftles' days. ' '/ In this epiille, Paul mentions two covenants, one con- tained in tlie following, and fimilar words ; " In thee fhall all the nations of the earth be blelfed." This covenant was confirrned of God in Chrift to Abraham, four hun- dred and thirty years before the other, the Sinai covenant, was given ; alfo this covenant of promife was made known to Abraham, more than twenty years before the inJUtution of the covenant of circumcifion, which was afterwards in- corporated into the Sinai covenant. Neither of thefe cov- enants hath any thing to do with the covenant of circum- cifion, fave the covenant of ch'cumcifion was a token of the former, and is includ-ed in the latter, and binds the fubjeds of it to perform all the legal duties which that en- joins. Hence the apoftlefcarcely gives fo much as a hint, through the whole epiftle, of the inftitution of the covenant of circumcifion- Where he mentions the covenant itfelf, it is, to difluade his brethren of Galatia from the practice -of it, and to urge them to be wholly feparate from it. Greatly the reverfe is it with Mr. W. The covenant of circumcifion is the theme of his difcourfe, and the bafis on which his principle refts ; from the beginning, to the end of his Sermons. At the fame time, he fully manifefts throughout that he has no corredl idea of the covenant of circumcifion ; for he continually confounds the covenant of promife with the covenant of circumcifion. Indeed, he muft thus confound covenants, or his theory would have Eo plaufibility. But I haften to unfold Mr. Worceftef's confufed and abfurd ideas, that the public may be aftonifhed at the ■blindnefs and confuficn of many of their leaders. The firft confufed and abfurd idea of Mr. Worcefter's, which I (hall now mention, is contained in his expofition of his text. We will fet down his text, and then his expo- fition. His text is,* ** And if ye be Chr'ijl's, then are ye Abra^ ham's feed, and heirs according to the promife.'" His ex- pofition follows, ' If ye be Chrift's, then are ye brought 1 8 Letters on Rev. S. Worcejier^s into a covenant relation to Abraham, are juftified in the fame manner in which he was, and are entitled to all the pri-oileges and hlejjings which were contained in the promi/es made to him and his feed.* That the confufion and abfurdity of this expofition may appear, nothing more is necefTary than to mention fome of the privileges and bleffings which were contained in the promifes to Abraham and his feed. Some of thefe privi- leges and bleffings of Abraham's are, that in him all the nations of the earth fliould be bleffed ; that he {hould be a father of many nations ; that kings fhould come out of him ; that the land of Canaan fhould be their poffeffion ; and that Chrift fhould be of them, as concerning the flefh, &c. &c.* The reader can judge for himfelf, as to the confiftency, or abfurdity of Mr. Worceller's expofition. If every be- liever in Chrift be entitled to all the privileges find blejfings which were contained in the promifes made to Abraham and his feed, then is he corred, otherwife abfurd. If ev- ery believer be an Abraham, and if the children of every believer be the children of Abraham, &c. &c. then is Mr. Worcefter's notion juft, otherwife it is confufed and incon- fiftent M'ith common fenfe. The next thing which I fhall mention, is one of his falfe flatements. It is in the next fentence but one, to the expo- fition of his text. ♦ It is,' fays he, ' particularly to be remarked, that with a view to convince his Galatian brethren, of their unhappy error, in refpeift to juftification, he afcends to the memorable period of the inttitution of the church in the family of Abra- ham, takes the covenant then made with Abraham and his feed, and traces it down in the tranfmiffion of its privileges and bleffings to the Gentile church.' This propofition is, indeed, as Mr. Worcefler fays, to be particularly remarked, for notiiing is more falfe and delufory, than is what he here aflerts. It is not only far from truth, but it is abfurd. It is far from truth : for Paul does not afcend to the memorable period of the inflitution of the church in the family oi Abraham, but to ihe period m which God made to Abra- ham this promifc, " In thee fliall all nations be bleffed.'* This promife Paul, repeatedly brings to view, in the chapter in which is Mr. Worcefter's text ; and this promife was made * Gen. zii. and xvii. Rom. i« $. Two DifcourfeSi ^c. ig more than inventy years before the infiitvtion of the church in Abraham's family, Befides, that Mr. Worcefter might have no excufe for miftaking the matter, Paul exprefsly tell us, that the covenant, of which he is writing to the Galatians and to us, and by which he difluaded them, and. by which he diifuades us, from adhering to the covenant of circum- cifion, was four hundred and thirty years before the law ; whereas the memorable period .in which a church was infti- tuted in Abraham's family, was not four hundred and ten years. Let any who are able compare the dates. Further, if a church were inftituted in Abraham^s fam- ily, it was by the covenant of circumcifion. For, previous to the giving of that covenant, there is no more appearance cf a church in his family than in Job's or Lot's. To fup- pofe that Paul referred the Galatians to this covenant, to reprove them for their error, in feeking juftification by the law, is doubly abfurd ; for their very error confifted in adhering to this covenant. Alfo, he told them, that, upon their being circumcifed, they were debtors to do the whole law. The propofjtion now under confideration is not only falfe and abfurd, but delufory. By it Mr. Worcefter would teach his own people and the public much as the Judaizing teachers taught the Galatians, that except they were cir- cumcifed and kept the law of Mofes, they could not be faved. He does not ufe the fame words with thefe de- ceivers, but the leading ideas through his Sermons appear to go upon the fame principle ; and in page 52, his words come fo nigh, that probably the perverters of the Galatian church would not be offended at them. His words are, ♦ It is not, indeed, certain, that if you be unbelieving and difobedient, your children will be finally loft; ; for God may, as often in his fovereign mercy he does, go out of the limits of the church., and beftow his grace on thofe who are aliens from the commonwealth of Ifrael, and ftrangers to the covenant of promife. But if, in this cafe, he does beftow grace upon your children, it will not be in purfu- ance of any covenant engagement to you.' This language harmonized but too well with thofe troul- krs of the church, of whom Paul fays, " / ivould they were cut of." Mr. Worcefter's propofition next to that which we have been confidering (page 8) is, * The apoftle's whole argu- ment proceeds upon the plain fcripture ground, that the covenant which was made with Ahrahami and which con- 30 Letters on Rev. S. Worcejer's ftituted the church in his family, was ftill in force, and w^s- never to be abrogated; that the Gentile churches ^^^^ ch^JX 'V^u' ' u''"""'' ^' "^"^^"S one with the Jewifh church ; and^tha^, by v.rtue of that covenant, believers of e.er) age and nation were to be confidered as the children ot Abraham, /«/..../.;,^, Ij Svlne right, all ihe privileges and bieji^gs- compr^fed ni the /r.,«^'^.. made to him and his feed.' 1 nis propcfition contains another of Mr. Worcefter'« falfe ftarements delufory fophifms. and abfnrd ideas. This propofition ,s full of falfe ftatements anden-oneous affc'v! tioris» In the /^ place he confounds the covenant which was- confirmed or God m Chrift, with the covenant of circum- c.hon, and gives h,s readers to underftand that they are both one: whereas the Bible tells us that the latter is but the token (^{ tne former, Gen. xvii. In the «..v/ place, he tells us, ' That the apoftle's whole argument proceeds upon the plain fcripture ground, that the covenant which was made with Abraham, and which conptutedthe church m his family, was ftill in force, and ^Z never to be abrogated.' The apoftk, inftead of going, as Mr. Worceflcr fays upon the fcnpture ground, that the covenant which wa' inade with Abraham, and which confntuted the church in lus family, was ftill in force, and never to be abrogated, does not, m the w^hole chapter, fo much as once mfntion that covenant by which a vifible church was copftituted in Abraham s family, unlefs it be to reprove the /boM Gala- t.ans, who were giving heed to Judaizing teachers, who were preaching amx^ng them this covenant of circumcifion. i^aul goes, indeed, upon the plain fcripture ground, and upon th.5 plam icnpture ground too. that the g^fpel church v.-as and is built upon the promife made to Abraham lone before the covenant of circumcifion was ever mentioned* and upon the covenant which was confirmed of God in Ghnft four hundred and tliirty years before the law, and more tha« twenty before there was any vifible church fcrmed m Abraham's family, or the covenant given upon which It was conftrtuted. What Mr. Worcefter here men- tions of the covenant and conftitution of a church in Abra- ham s family, is manifeftly a mere delufory fophifm or- deception ; for the apoftle does not fo much as once inti^ mate any luch thing. • •• See,G*I. iii. 8, i;, and Gen. xii. 3. Two Difcourfes, '<£fc. Si 3. In the propofition now under confideration, Mr. Worcefter tells us, that the Gentile churches were em- braced In that covenant, as making one with the Jewi(h church. Here he comes out, and fhovvs himfelf to be one of the Judaizing teachers : but the apoftle fays not a word of any fuch thing. 4. Says Mr. Worcefter, * And by virtue of tha^t coyc- nant, believers of every age and nation were to be confid- ered as the children of Abraham.' Reply. The apoftle BO where fays, that ever any one believer, of any age or nation, was to be confidered as a child of Abraham by virtue of that covenant by which a church was conftituted in his family. The apoftle fays, " If ye be Chri/i's, then are ye Abraham's feed ;" not, if ye be circumcifed, or be in the covenant of circumcifion. The abfurdity oi the idea, in tlie clofe of the pr-opofition,' * of believers inheriting, by divine right, all the privileges and bkjftngs comprifed in the promife, made to Abraham and his feed," has been already expofed. Thus falfe, delufory, and abfurd is Mr. Worcefter's main propofition, which leads to and introduces his no lefs falfe, ■delufory, and abfurd doctrine. It may be pleaiing and profitable to the reader, to have here ftated a few general truths, which relate to the matter in hand, and may ferve to explain it. J. It was by virtue of the covenant of grace and promife, which wa^ revealed, and which was confirmed of God in Chrift, that Abraham was made a faithful faint. 2. It was by virtue of the covenant of circumcifion, -or by Abraham's compliance with it, that he and bis family were conftituted a vifible church. 3. It is by virtue of the fame covenant of grace and promife, by which Abraham was made a faint, that the nations cf the earth aie bleffed in or by him, and many are made believers in Chrift. 4. It is by virtue of obedience to the ordinances of Jefus Chrift, and eipecially to the firft, viz. bapiifm, that believers are conftituted into vifible gofpel churches. The reader underftanding the above plain truths, we will now proceed to confider the dodrine, which Mr. Wor- cefter would have us believe to be contained in his teut. ' The text, then, (fays he) thus contemplated, in its con- nexion, prefents for our confideration this great and inter- efting doSrine, viz. /« God's covenant of promife with Abraham B 2 22 Letters on Rev. S. Wcreefier's co..ain,d in .} l^ztrfZ:!"" '""'Y "'"' *W of tim,.' ■' i"""'"""" g'neral,.^, do„-n to ihi dofe That, the public may at once fee tV,a, ,T.. ■ nexion between Mr. WorcefterVw!, ^ u 5 "."" ">"■ he ftys it preiint,, I wi 1 he' fe.^'?'' "J^ ''"'"" wi"*.. three, verfesne,;- preceding " "■' ='"- ^""l ">^ been ,.pU i„to «J^ /^T ^ ^^^ X"" -, >■>- free' Aer": rndtf, '^" "," '^T^' *"^ '-«*" ^"^ no'; CI rift JeTu:.5" Ve "* T.^^t ' 1" '^ ^'^ ^" "^ '" wer\"rt-biS;:ii^=--^^^^^^^ have been baptised 'into "A^:\: TclP^r:^ cording to t\,^p„„:j, oi anurndfonf Ye/ {im'viotc £.t .- or in the ':^\. SVi^it^tr th^'chtZ ' '"or 1' oShtfo%,;:J -r if ^' b,^° -i-e, a'r'the- p^bl" rst«/? '--Cerrh- ':^^^^^^^^^ , uie i^aiatians. Faul, by mentioninff in verfe 8 the rn^^ A few confequences will now be ftated t.n ukolly,, not a fingle zdea being found in u a. he fu^ Tiuo • D'lfcoiirfes^ Iffc. 2-3.' 2k Mr. Worcefter appears to have wholly mifunderftood the- covenant of which Paul fpeaks, in the chapter whence he took bis text ; this covenant being compkteiy diftinsSl from the covenant which gave- vilibility to the church in Abraham's family. 3. Mr. Worceller is manifeftly far from knowing, that the thing, and the only thing, which conlHtutcd Abraham's family into a vifible church, was his circumcifing, at God's command, all the males in his houfe. Had Mr. Worcefter liave known this, he would have difmilTed his Sermons before he delivered them, and not fo darkened counfel by words without knowledge. 4. It is manifeft, that Mr. Worcefter is full in fentiment with thofe who troubled the Galatian churches-; and that he hath perverted his text and the intention of the apoftle, that he might defend the very herefy which Paul laboured' to deftroy. For all which thc^e Judaizing teachers en- deavoured, was to bring the gofpel church to- the ftandard of the Jewifti ; and- what Mr. Worcefter endeavours is, for fubftance, the fame-thing.* The public, and every reader, is de/ired to hear irve patiently ; for, if the Lord will, 1 have many things yet to fay, that I may, through the grace of the Lord Jefus, deliver many from the Judaizing tenets of Mr. Worcefter and his brethren. In the mean time, may Jefus pofTefs my heart, and the public my beft. vallies and zealous labour for their good. I am, &c. We appeal to -the Bible, to Jliibborn fads, and to common fenfe. . LETTER im MEN, BRETHREN, AND FATHERS, IN my -la ft I fet before you Mr. Wbrcefter's- text, dodrine, and feveral things connefled with them*; and mentioned the covenant of which Paul fpake, and * Sec page. 8, 9,anU every other pageia tij Sermons, 24 Letters on Rev. S. Worcejicr's fhewed how Mr. WorceRer millook the whole matter. In this you may expect to find the manner in which he handles his iubjed, and Ibme of his arguments, expoied. His general method of difcourfe was, * I. To fhow that the covenant which was made with Abraham, and by which the church was formed in his family, was intended to be perpetual, or to continue throughoiit all generations ; and, ' II. To fhow more particularly what provifion was made in that covenant for the continuance of the church formed by it, and for the tranfmiflion of the bleffings con- tained in it.' His next words are, * It cannot be neceflary, in a la- boured manner^ to prove, that by the covenant made with Abraham, a church was formed in his family.* Here he takes for granted, or as not neceflary to be in a laboured manner proved, the very fubjed which, of all others, it became him to prove thoroughly, if he could. Had he but proved, or will he now prove, that the confirmation of that covenant, of which Paul fpeaks, Gal. iii. 8, 17, or that the being aBually interejled i-n that covenant was what conftituted Abraham and his family a vifible church, then would we grant him all he afks. But ftubborn fafts will forever keep it beyond his power to prove any fuch thing. For, as has been before obferved, the promife that all the families of the earth (hould be blefTed in Abraham, and this covenant alfo was confirmed, and yet there was no vifible church in his family for more than tiuenty years after : nor was it conftituted till the covenant of circum- cifion was given, and in full pradlice. Thefe are ftubborn fadts, which Mr. Worcefter cannot remove, till he blot out the page of revelation. — Thus the firft principle, and the whole foundation, on which he built his difcourfes, and his oppofition againft the gofpel church, being removed, we might leave the fuperftrudure to fall of itfelf, were it not that he has many difingenuous remarks and unfounded affertions fcattered through the whole of it. Mr. Worcefter has done as is ufual for the ingenioufly erroneous to do ; in the firft place, tah for granled the JirJI principles which were neceftary to be proved, yet incapable of proof, and then proceed with confiderable plaufibility. Says he, (page 10) 'Several arguments in fupport of the propofition, that the covenant made with Abraham and his feed, and confequently the church formed by it, did not ceafe on the i]^iodadioa oi the gofpel difpeniAtioni> Tvjo Dlfcourfes-^ Isfc. 2-^, but were intended to continue througliout all generation.-)*, 1 will now, my brethren^ fubmit to your confideration.' It is fufficient jull to remark, that the co'venant which gave vifible exiilence- to the church in Abraham's family did ceafe, an J was never intended to continue in the vifible church of God, but till the feed . Q\o\Ad come to whom the promife was made. Paul is my firll vi-itnefs. Gal. v. 5. " If ye be circumcifed Chriil fhali profit you nothing." Paul is my fecond vvitnefs, i Cor. vii. r8. " Is any called in uncircumcifion ? let him not become clrcumcifed.'^ This covenant of circumcifion was the only covenant which ga\^e viability to a church in Abraliam's family. Paul told all believing Gentiles, and- allJews, wha were not circumcifed, that they ought not to keep this covenant. It ought, therefcjre, to have ceafed ; and it did generally, fave where Paul's oppofers kept it alive. My third witnefs is, the apof- tles, eiders, and- the whole churclT at Jerufalemi who lent to the Gentiles, that they need not ohferve the covenant of cW" cumctfion. See Acts xv. Mr. Wbrcefter's arguments are now to be confidered. His frfl is, ' By the covenant made with Abraham, Ire v.'as conllituted the father of all them that believe.' Anf'wer. No perlbn, who underftands the controverfy between thofe who hold to the gofpel difpenfation, and thofe who plead for the continuance of the Jewifh, will deny the truth of the propofition, which contains Mr. Wor— cefter's firft argument ; but every perfon who has any con- fiderable knowledge of the fubjeftj will deny that the argu- ment hath a'ny connexion with the thing to be proved by if. Let Mr. Worcefter only prove, that Abraham was, by the covenant of circum,ci^.on,conftituted the father of all them that believe, aiul we will grant his argument to pof- fefs weight ; but till he does, his argument is defervedty confidered without ioree. But, fays he, page 12, 'If we be members of a different churrh, formed by a different covenant from that of Abra- ham, what relation have we to Abraham ? in what refpeft are we his children ? how is it that we are bleffed with him ?' Anfiuer. Not by being in a vifible church ftate, either Jewifti or Chriilian ; but by being the children of God by faith in Chrift Jefus, Gal. iii. 25, 29, and according to the promife, Gen. xii. 3. xxii. 18. Beiides, Abraham pofTeffed faith, and received the promifes, not whilft in a church , ftate.j not in circumcifiott, but in uncircumcifion. J.uft fo, if. 26 Letters on Rev. S. WorceJier*s ever we be blefled with faithful Abraham, it fhould be, -not while we be in a church ftate, but before we be bap- tized ; then we may receive baptifm as Abraham did cir- cumcifion, as a feal of the righteoufnefs or fmcerity of our faith. Nor did Abraham, as Mr. Worcefter (page 12) would have us believe, receive the promifes) while being the covenant father of a vifible church ; for when he re- ceived the promifes there was no vifible church. His Jecond argument is, ♦ God's covenant of promife with Abraham comprifed all the bleffings and privileges ever -promifed to believers and to the church.' Suppofe we grant all this too, what hath It to do with the bufmefs on hand ? how does it {how that the gofpel church is but the Jewifh church in continuation ? for the covenant of promife was confirmed of God in Chrift, and made manifeft to Abraham, before the Jewifh chuTch ex- iftei ; and the bleffings and privileges promised to believers, may be enjoyed by the gofpel church after the Jewjfli is abolifhed. Says Mr. Worcefter, page 14, * I will eftablifh my cove- nant between me and thee, and thy feed after thee, fays the Lord to Abraham, for an everlafting covenant, to be a Gcd unto thee, and to thy feed after thee ; and in thee, and in thy feed fhall all the nations of the earth be ble/Ted.' All this is trne ; but what, in particular, hath this to do with the conftituting of Abraham's family into a vifible church ? Mr. Worcefter fubjoins, • Thefe promifes, my brethren, are of vaft comprehenfion.' Certainly they are. They, by implication, comprehend all the bleffings and privileges which have been enjoyed by the Jewifh church ; and all which have been, or fhall be, by the gofpel church. Yet there is not fo much as the leaft hint, in any one of them, that they comprehend what he brought them to prove — that the Jewilh and gofpel churches are one and the fame church. Again, fays he, on the fame page, * To Abraham and his kedy fays the apoftle, were the promifes made. To Abraham and his feed, comprehending Meffiah, and all true believers as included in him, were made the promifes, which comprife all the bleffings ever to be conferred upon the cliurch and people of God.' If we grant all this, ftill it hath nothing to do with the point in queftion, fave it be in his application of it, to deceive the credulous, and aug- ment the darkuefs of the blind. Two Di/cour/es^ Isfc, 27 Mr. Wercefter adds, « Was this covenant then, fo vaftly comprehenfive with refpeft to its bleflings, ever to be abro- gated ?' We reply, Surely not. He afks again, ' Was the church which was formed by it, and fo richly endued, ever to be aboliihed ?' Our anfwer is, Firft, the vifible church in Abraham's family was never formed by this covenant ; and fecondly, that the Abra- hamic church was never fo richly endued, nor was ever any other church, as Mr. Worcefter fuppofes. The prom- ifes were not made to Abraham and the church, Jewifh or Chriflian^ but to him and his feed, which is Chrift. He again afks, ' Was there to be another covenant, com- prehending more and greater blefTmgs, another church, more largely and richly endued V Our reply is. No, no. But I am tired of fuch queftions, which are wholly from the point. Mr. Worcefter appears to have forgotten his fubje(fl:, or to have no argument which is applicable. Should he tell us that the Englifti are white, and therefore the Africans are of the fame complexion, his pofition and argument would be of equal aptitude and force with what he hath as yet faid. His note, pages 17, 18, (hould have a m.oment's atten- tion, for by it, it is manifefl. that he is wholly unacquainted with the feiitiments of his opponents, as to the covenant of promife, mentioned Gen. xii. 3. xxii. 18. Gal. v. 8, 17. and in many other places. * As nothing (fays he) could be more unfounded, fo nothing could be more derogative of the honour of the God of Abraham, than the fentiment, that the covenant made with Abraham and his feed was only a temporal covenant, and included only temporal bleffings.' Had he been but fmally informed as to the Baptift fentiment, with relation to the above mentioned covenant of promife, he could never have honeftly fuggeft- ed, that they hold the fentiment which he in his note im- plicitly charges to their account. Mr. Worcefter's third argument is now to be confidered, and it is in thefe words — ' The covenant made with Abra- ham and his feed, is the covenant of which, in the New Teftament, Chrift is faid to be the Mediator, and which is defignated as the covenant to be eftabliftied with tlie churcl* in the days of the gofpel. For this i§ the covenant that I will make with the houfe of Ifrael, After thofe days, faith' the Lord, I will put my laws into tlieir mind, and write them in their hearts : and I will be tlieir God, and they ihall be my people.* Very well; but this ts not the core« sS Letters on Rev. S. Worce/ier^s Eant of circumcifion, by which the Jewifh church was con- ftituted, or by which Abraham's famiiy was formed into a vilible church. This is the new and better covenant, which hath better promifes than had the covenant of circumcifion. We Itill fee that Mr. Worceller's argument makes nothing to his purpofe. Page 19, he tells us, 'The Sinai covenant, the Mofaic " law of commandments contained in ordinances, as it was added but for temporary purpofes, has waxed old, and is •^^aniftied away.' Then the covenant of circumcifion is gone -with it : for, fays Paul, " I tefiify to every man that is cir- gumcifed, that be is a debtor to do the whole lanv^^ Gal. v. 3. What Mr. Worceiler aiferts in pages 19 and 20, ought tQ arreft the attention of the public ; for in thefe pages he hath, to carry his Judaizing fcheme, direftly contradided the word of the Lord by both Jeremiah and Paul. His words are, ' As the Lord faid to Abraham, / nuill ejlablijh my covenant betiveen rue and thee, and thy feed after thee, — to be a God unto thee, and to thy feed after thee ; fo he faid to Ifrael in Egtpt, I ivdl take yen to me for a people, and / iv'dl be to you a God ; and fo he faid concerning the houfe of Ifrael and the hoife of Judah in the days of the gofpel, I will put my. law in their irtiuard parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they (hall be my people. The covenant, or the great and leading promife of the covenant^ as expreifed in thefe feveral injlances, is the fame. — On the Jlighieji infpeSion, it is plain that the corENANT, mentioned in the feveral injlances now before us, is one and the same ; — and in each of the inftances, the great promife is, To be a God to the church, and to the seed of the church.* Here Mr Worcefter hath dared to contradift the word of the Lord in dired terms ; and to this he hath been com- pelled, that he might fupport his Judaizing fcheme, his anjicl^riftian error. . ThVword of the Lord is, Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, 33, " Behold, the-d^^s come, faith the Lord, that I will make a new cov' cn{V^;,%r\th the houfe of Ifrael and with the houfe of Judah ; NQT-ii^ccording to the covenant that I made with their fathers^ iri tn^:day that I took them by the hand, to bring them put Qil-jt^ie land of Egypt ; { which my covenant they brake, altha^Si I was an huiband unto them, faith the Lord;) but fl^ Jhall be the covenant that I will make with xh^,- houfe tf;,Ifrafl>,:After thofe days, faith the Lord, I will put my law frt-^^^fjr.jn ward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will be^t^^- God, and they fhall be my people." ii^xQ Two Difcou?fes, ^c. 29 -Mr. Worcefter aflerts, that God's covenant with the houfe of Ifrael in Egypt, and in the tiajs of the go/pel, are one and the same. God faith, that the one is not according to the other. The word of the Lord by Paul, Heb. viii. 8, 9, 10. is, *« Behold, the days come (faith the Lord) when I will make a n;io covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, and with the hotife of Judah : not according to the ccvetmnt that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, &c. How long (hall the religious world be deceived, by men who make a bufinefs of wrefting, perverting, and contra- diding the word of the Lord ! Mr. Worcefter not only wrefts, perverts, and contradidts the fcriptures, but he alfo adds to them, as we fhall have repeated occalion to {how. One inftance we have in the words juft quoted from page 20 ; ' And (fays he) in each of the inftances, the great promife is, To be a God to the church, and to the feed of the church.^ — ' To be a God to the feed of the church.' This is clear addition, for which he hath rea- fon to expedl God will reprove him. For in this inftance he not only adds to God's word, but manifeftly contradifts it. For, fays Paul, Gal. iii. 16. "To Abraham and his feed were the promifes made. He faith not, And to feedsy as of many ; but as of oncy And to thy feed, which is Chrift." Befides, if the great promife is to the feed of the church, what then became of this promife, as to xhefeed of the churchy in Abraham's family ? Out of perhaps a thouf^nd members, only the feed of Ifaac manifeftly blefTed, and but one of his, even Jacob. Into what abfurdities does Mr. Worcef- ter's theory drive him ! Page 2 3, fays he, < So plain from the fcriptures it is, that the covenant made with Abraham is continued under the gofpel, and therefore that the church formed by it is alfo ftili continued.' As Mr. Worcefter fat out with con- fufed ideas, or without any idea, of that covenant by which a vifibie church was conftituted in Abraham's family, fo he proceeds on in darknefs. His argument in plain Englifli is this — Vhe covenant which God made with Abraham, to be a God to him and to his feed, is continue.d under the gofpel ; therefore the church formed by the covenant of circumcifion is ftill continued. Here his antecedent and confequewt have no connexion ; the one «s trucy the other falft. 2,0 Letters on Rev. S. Worcejier^s Mr. Worcefter's note, page 23. is not pleafing, for it is not true. The principal idea in it is, * From this fource (the unfcripturat blending of the Abrahamic and Sinai cove- nants together) fprang the error of the legal Jews, in for- mer ages ; and from this fame fource has fprung the error of the denters of the Ahrahamic co'oenant and church, or 'f.e Antipsedobaptilts, in modern times.' Anjiver. A more unjuft ftatement, or a more illib'^ril fuggeftion, I prefume was never made by the man of hn. Biit before we fhall have done with Mr. Worcefter, we fhall find he has many fimilar ones. As to the legal Jews, we will pafs them ; but as to the Antipaedobaptills, we afk, Do they, in modern times, or did they ever at any time, deny the Abrahamic covenant ? Our anfwer is. No : nor is Mr. Worcefter able to mention a time in which they denied it. They deny h"s perverted ufe of it. They deny that the covenant which was manifefted to Abraham in Ur, or Haran, and which was confirmed of God in Chrift four hundred and thirty years before the law, was that covenant by which a vifible church was formed in Abraham's family. But they have never denied, nor have they the lead inclina- tion to deny, that covenant, which promifed to Abraham, that in him and in his feed all the nations of the earth fnould be blefled : nay, they believe in this covenant, and hope to fhare in the bleflings contained in it. How long fhall thofe who lead God's people, caufe thera to err from the right ways of the Lord ! I am, &c. We appeal to the Bible, to Jtuhhorn fads, and to common ferje. LETTER IV. KIIN, BRETHREN, AND FATHERS, JL OU will, no doubt, join with me in fenti- ■:ir.ent, that Mr. Woreefter's arguments ought to be critically examined ; and that when a ruler in Ifrael comes tcrward, with fet purpofe to impofe his errors on the public, his Two Difcourfesy ^c, . 31 arguments fhould be fully inveftigated and thoroughly re- futed. I muft, therefore, call your attention to his nejtt argument, which is, — Fourth. * 1 he church under the gofpel is uniformly in the fcriptures reprefented as being the lame church, or a continuation of the fame church, which v/as formed in the family of Abraham.' The propontions on which he formed his preceding ar- guments we have cheerfully granted to be true, and iliowed that they have no relation v/ith his fubjeft, which he would eftablifh by them ; but this argument, or the propofition on which it is built, has no truth in it. The fcriptures give no fuch reprefenlation, as Mr. Worcefter here tells us that they uniformly do ; at leaft, I find no fuch place. I find no place where the fcriptures give fo much as a diftant hint that the church under the gofpel is but a continuation of the Jewifh church. The fcriptures explicitly teftify juft the contrary from what Mr. Worcefter afferts. — But we will hear him illuftrate and enforce his argument a little. Says he, page 24, ' It would be very remarkable indeed, if this was not the cafe. It would be very remarkable indeed, if, in the fcriptures, Abraham and his feed were reprefented as making two or more diftind and quite dif- ferent families ; or if the children of Abraham under the gofpel, who are only heirs according to tlie promife made to him, were reprefented as compofing a church, entirely diftinft and different from that which was founded in the family of their father : but fuch a reprefentation is, in the fcriptures, no where to be found.' Thus Mr. Worcefter comes out in full, that the gofpel church is but a continuation of the church formed in Abra- ham's family. We might have left him to poflefs his opinion in quietnefs, had he not have attempted to per- fuade the public that the fcriptures fay the fame thing ; but as the matter is, we wifli the public, and Mr. Worcefter alfo, to hear a few words, which the fcriptures fay on this fubjeifi-. Paul, fpeaking of the Jews and Gentiles, and of the church as made up of both, fays, Eph. ii. 14, 15. " For he (that is, Chrift) is our peace, who hath made both one^ and hath broken doivn the middle tvall of partition between us ; having aboljjhed in his flefh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himfelf of tivain one nepf man.'' Here, if I underftand the apoftle corre(ftly, and the public will judge, Paul direftlf 32 Letters on Rev. S. WorceJier*s contradidls what Mr. Worcefter affirms the fcnptures uni- forinly reprefent. Mr. Worcerter fays the gofpel church is the old one continued, the apoiUe fays it is a neiv one : the pubhc will judge whether Mr. Worcefter or Paul is to be credited. .; Daniel, ch. ii. 44. whilft interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream, fpeaking of the gofpel church r r kingdopi, fays, " And in the days of ihrfe kings ft all the God of heaven Jet up a kingdom, which {hall never be deftroyed : and the kingdom fhall not be left to other people, but it fhall break in pieces and confume all thefe kingdoms, and it fliall (land forever." Here the prophet Daniel fays, " 7J6f God of heaven JJjall fet up a kingdom," within a certain limited period, between the exiftence of the Babylonifh kingdom and the deftru(5tion of the Roman. Mr. Worcefier fays, the God of heaven fhall continue, enlighten, and enlarge the old "Jeivtjh kingdom, or church. The public will believe whom they pleafe, Mr. Worcefter, or the prophet Daniel. Jefus Chrift faid to the Jews, Matt. iv. 17. ••Repent: for the kingdom of Leaven (the gofpel church) is at hand." Mr. Worcefter fays, The old Jcwfh church, or kingdom, was about to be revived Again, fays the Lord, John iii. 3. •• Except a man be born again, he cannot fee the kingdom of God :" that is, none but fuch as are born again, are qualified fubjeds for the kingdom of God, or can be interefted in its bleflings. Mr. Worcefter, if I do not miftake him, fays, If the good man of the houfe believe, all who are in his houfe may fee the kingdom of God, or do ^ by divine right inherit all the hlejfmgs and privileges of the gofpel church, this kingdom of God.* The public will Itill judge whom to believe. The fcriptures fay, that the converted Jews were, in the apcftles' days, added to the gofpel church (A<5ls iii.) Mr. Worcefter fays, the Jewifh and gofpel churches aie one; and of confequence, the converted Jews could not be added to the gofpel church, for tliey belonged to it from their childhood or infancy. The apoftle to the Hebrevvs, ch. xiii. 10. fays, ''We have an altar, whereof //>f_y have no right to eat -who ferve the tabernacle c'' that is, thofe who abide with \.hG Jeivifj church, have no right to gofpel ordinances. Mr. Worcefter fays, the Chriftian altar and the Jewifh tabernacle are fubftantially the fame, or the Jewifh and gofpel churches are both one ; and therefore, fuch as ferve the one, have a right to eat of the other. Two Di/cour/es, ^c, . 53 This is but a fmall fample of Mr. Worcefter's difagree- ment with the fcriptures : we ihall fee more foon. In pages 24, 25, Mr. Worcefter gives us a large quota- tion from the fixtieth chapter of Ifaiah. He brought it forward to prove that the Jewifh and goipel churches are one and the fame. He tells us, < that the whole chap- ter is in point, but a part may fuffice as a fpecimen.' Had he given us the whole, every reader might have feen that every part was out of point, as to w^hat lie would prove by- it. The 2 ift verfe informs Mr. Worcefter, that this chapter knows nothing of this Judaizing fcheme. The prophet addreffes this chapter to the gofpel church ; and in verfe 2 1 , fays to her, ' Thy people alfo fhail be all righteous J** This was never true of the Jewilh church, nor of any church formed after the model of the Jevv^ifh. This promife was. never made concerning the Jewifli national church ; but to Zion, the people of God, for the comfort of the pious few, who were waiting for the confolat'wn of the fpiritual Ifraelites. This promife does not belong to any church, nor was it ever fulfilled to any, fave to the gofpel churchy to the church formed according to the commandment and pattern given — of none but believers. Thus, had Mr. Wor- cefter quoted the whole chapter, it would not only have been, totally from his purpofe, but it might have been feen by- all his readers, that the promifes in it did not apply to the old Jewilh church, nor to the modern Jewifh churches, like his own, and all others which are compofed of believing parents and their unrighteous children ; but to the churchy whofe members are baptized upon a profeffion of faith, or upon their being manifeftly all righteous. Mr. Worcefter's other remarks and fcripture paffages, under this argument, appear equally applicable with the above ; not one of them having any relation to the fubjeft which he wifhes to prove. When a man fets off in a wron? diredion, he gains nothing by continuing his courfe. Mr. Worcefter's Jifth argumer.tative propofition is, — « The covenant made with Abraham is exprefsly declared to be an everlafting or perpetual covenant j a covenant to continue to the lateft generations,' Reply. By covenant, muft be here m.-'ant, either — firft, that covenant which, by way of eminence, and on account of the promifes contained in it, is called the covenant of grace ; or, fecondly, the covenant of circumcifion If the firft be intended, we by no means deny but it is an ever- c 2 34 Letters on Rev. S. Worcejier^s lafting covenant, and never in time nor in eternity to be forgotten : yet this covenant is not, as has already been fully Ihown, what gave vifibility to a church in Abraham's family. If the fecond be the one meant, then its everlaft- ing continuance is equal to the everlafting inheritance which was given to the feed of Abraham in the land of Canaan. This covenant of circumcifion was commanded, and this promifed inheritance in the land of Canaan was given, in Gen. xvii. Bo'h are faid to be everlafting, yet in a limited fenfe ; for when the Romans, under Titus and Vefpafian, deftroyed tlie Jewifti church and nation, their inheritance was removed, and their covenant of circumcifion was of no ufe, fave to continue them a diftind people, that they might be a reproach, a taunt, and a by-word, among all nations ; and alio to make it manlfeft in future, that God's predi(5tions by the prophets were of him. But the public is defired to notice, that whatever Mr. Worcefter might intend by the everlafting covenant, that it hath noth- ing to do with the main obje(fl which he would eftablifh by it, namely, that the gofpel church and Jewifh are one and the fame church : for that covenant by which the Jewifh church was conftituted, had nothing to do with tlie forma- tion of the gofpel church. After Mr. Worcefter had adduced as many texts as he pleafed, which were foreign from his point, he fays, page 31, * Such, my hearers, is a compendious view of the fcrip- ture proofs, that the covenant which was made with Abra- iiam, and by which the church was conftituted in his fam- ily, was intended to be perpetual, or to continue throughout all generations. I fay, a compendious view ; for in order to give an ample and complete view, we fliould be obliged to prefent the whole fcriptures in their connexion. I'he whole fcriptures, in their connexion teftify, that Abraham is, under God, the father of the church ; that to liim and his feed all the promifes were made ; that the church, built on the foundation of the apoftks and prophets, is one ; that the covenant confirmed in Chrift, with Abraham and his feed, four hundred and thirty years before the commence- ment of the Mofaic difpenfation, was never to be dif- annulled.' Here Mr. Worcefter does, as he has done in all his pre- ceding arguments, mix truth and error together. We all grant, and fully believe, that the covenant which was con- firmed of God in Chrift four hundred and thirty years before th&' law, wa? never to be difannulled. But we all Tvjo Difcourfes, feV. 35 deny, and fully difbelieve, that the church in Abraham's family was formed by the giving or by the obferving of that covenant ; and Paul, as we have already obferved, fhows us, and declares to us, by giving us the year in which that covenant was confirmed, that it was not. At the time of the confirmation of this covenant, there was no vifible church in Abraham's family, nor for many years after. Mr. Worcefter has, through all his arguments, taktn for granted the only thing wliich it was neceifary to prove. Had he only proved this one thing, namely, That the cov- enant of promife, which was manilelled to Abraham in Ur, or Haran, and confirmed in Chrift four hundred and thirty years before the law, was the covenant which confti- tuted his family into a vifible church ; and that all believ- ers, who are interefted in this covenant in gofpel times, are, of necenary confequence, in the vifible gofpel church ; and that the being interelted in this covenant, did in Abra- ham's time, and does in gofpel times, conllitute the iavoured perfons, and no others, members of the vifible church ; then would we not have contended with him againft the onenefs and Jamenefs of the Jewifli and gofpel churches. But he has done no fuch thing : nor does he appear to have done any thing elfe, fave it be to prove what no Baptift denies, and then to take for granted what neither faint nor fmner fliould ever believe. He proves, that the covenant which was confirmed of God in Chrift four hundred and thirty years before the law, was never to be difannuUed. This we all believe. — He takes for granted, that the Jeivljh churchy which was inftituted upon the covenant of circum- ■cijion, is one and the fame thing with the gofpel church, whofe members are, as the prophet declared they Ihould be, all righteous. This no perfon ought to believe. Had he undertaken to prove, that the church of Rome, and that the Proteftant church, generally, are formed after the model of the old Jewilh church, we ibould have be- lieved the fa ham's family, if any vifible church fubfifted there. 3. The children of all thefe worfhippers of devils, muft be baptized : for, fays Mr. Worcefter, * no arder, no iniima" tion, has been given, that the feal in its prefent form is notj as it was exprefsly required in its ancient form, to be ap- plied to the children oixha church.^ 4. Mr. Worcefter has now, according to his antichriA tian fcheme, hundreds of hea.thens fea/ed, fea/ed in the churchy fealed m the covenant oi grace : for 'circumcifion (he tells us) is the outward, the appointed, feal of the covenant, and- baptifm is appointed in its place.' How much like the man of fin does Mr. Worcefter appear, whilft he is urging upon the Chriftian world, or church, principles inevitably connedired with fuch c0?-;fcr-" quences ! When the leaders >of God's people will not abide by his word, but take liberty to alter, change, and mangle it at their pleafure, they make ftrange work, and plunge " therofelves and their followers into many hurtful errors, • R 2 46 Letters on Rev. S. lVorceJler*s One great occafion of Mr. Worcefter's abfurdlties, into which he hath run, and falfe ftatements which we have already feen, and of more which we fhdll foon fee, is his unufual boldnels in wrefting the Icriptures, and afTerting things which he knew not. Perhaps no one thing hath had greater influence in darkening his mind, and bhnding him from the truth, than his remarkable miftake, in iiflerl- ing, more than thirty times, that circumcijwn and laptijm are the feal of the covenant of grace. When any perfon ac- quires a habit of faying what is not true, it is not ftrange, fliould he believe himfelf when no other perfon fhould. This is, no doubt, the cafe with Mr. Worcefter. Speaking of circumcilion and baptifm, he tells us, page 53, 'The feal has, indeed, been altered.' Reply. It is not fully believed by the writer, that Mr. Worceller intentionally fpake fah'ely ; at the fame time, thaie is not a word of iruih in what he fays, about circum- cifion and baptifm being a feal of the covenant, and of the Jeal of the covenant heing altered. 1 here is not a Angle word of this in the fcriptures of truth. Would the public be perfuaded to fearch the fcriptures, as the more noble Bere- ans did, they would find that infant fprinkling is all a mere delufion or invention of men, like this feal of the covenant, with which Mr. Worcefter makes fuch a ihow of argument. In pages 53, 54, he fays, • Circumcifion was formerly the appointed pre-requifite of admiflion into the church of Cod ; baptifm is now the appointed pre-requihte of admif- fion into the fame church. In a word, (fays he) baptifm is of the fame import, and of the fame ufe in the church, under the prefent difpenfation, as w^as circumcifion under the ancient.' Here is trutli and error mixed together, as they are in all his pages. It is true, that circumcifion was formerly nnd always the appointed pre-requifite of admiffion into the Jewiili church, or it was the initiating ordinance. It is alfo true, that baptifm is now, and ever was, from the 'ie- ginning of the gofpel church, the appointed pre-requifite of admiffion into it, or it is ever the vifible admiiTion itfelf, notwithftanding the great miftakes of Mr. Auft;in and others, as to this matter. But it is not true, that circum- cifion and baptifm are, as Mr. Worcefter fays they are, pre-requifites of admiffion into the fame church ; for in Ads iii. we are informed, that the very perfons who were circumcifed and admitted to the Jewifii church, were after- wards baptized and added to the gofpel church. It would Two D'lfcGurfes, Iffc. 47 be an abfurdlty to fay, that a perfon was added to a fociety, 01 which he was at the time, and had long been, a conllant irember ; but, as«abfurd as it is, this is Mr. Worceiler's notion of-' the buiinefs. His theory is, that the converted .J(;ws were, by baptifm, added to the church, of which they had been member' from their infancy. Befides, it is not true, as lie afl'erts, ' that baptifm is of •the fame import in the civurch under the prefent difpenfa- tion, as was circumcihon under the ancient.' For circum- cifion, when adminiilcred, according to the command, at eight days old, only imported, that the fubjetft was a child of Abyaham, after the flefh, or a child of a converted or profelyted heathen ; where.is baptifm, when adminilfered according to the command and pattern given, importSy that the lubjecls of it aire the children of God by, faith in Chrift. Jefus. Thus we fee, that his theory leads him farther and faither into error and niiftake. Again, fays Mr. Worcelter, ' The whole analogy of fcripture gots to fupport this fentimient, that baptifm has, in facl, taken the place of circumcifion ;' and then, to ef- tablilh his fentiment. deduces a pafiage of fcripture which fays nothing to the point, but only mentions the circum- cifion of Chrill, which was made without hands. If this eleventh verfe of the fecond chapter of Coloffians, have any reference to ivater baptifm, it is all gathered from the twelfth verfe, which fpeaks of being buried and raifed again in bap- tifm. Should we allow Mr. Worcefter to be correft, in his application of the eleventh verfe, to prove that baptifm hath taken the place of circumcihon, then it would prove the ruin of two of his ill-fupported opinions, with which he hath, of late years, been amu fmg the public. One is, his traditionary notion of fprinkling for baptifm ; for the text has no intimation of fprinkling for baptifm, but of being buried and raifed again. The other is, his opinion, that this text in Coloffians, and the parallel one in the fixth chapter of Romans, intend fpiritual baptifm ; which they cannot, provided the natural import of the text is, that Chriftian baptifm hath taken tlie place of Jewilh circumcifion. In this way Mr. Worcefter might make progrefs in deftroying his errors ; ruin two old ones by the introdudion of a new one. So inconfiftent is error, that fuch as abide in it, can- not make ftraight paths for their feet. In the fame page, he tells us about an exprefs precept for adminiftering the covenant to the infant feed of the church, and that the f^me i precept QCxW remains in force, 4'S Letters on Rev. S. Worcejler'' s unlefs ex-prefsly repealed. His words are, ' There was, Tinder 't^ie former difpenfation, an cxprejs precept for admiit- iftering the covenant to the infant feed of the church. That precept, varying only as the feal is varied, ftill remains in force, unlefs it have been exprefsly repealed.' Here is the appearance of fomething new. Under the former difpen- fation, we are told, there was an exprefs precept for admin~ yierir.g the covenant to the infant feed of the church ; and unlefs this precept have been exprefsly repealed, it ftill remains in lorce. Here, if Mr. Worcefter have the truth, •w^, who are Chriftian adminiftrators, muft adminifter the covenant to the infant feed of the Chriftian church. What covenant ? The covenant of baptifm ? No, for there is no fuch covenant mentioned. The covenant of" circumcifion ?' No ; for if we be circnmcifed Chrift; fhall profit us nothing. What covenant then ? The coven.mt of Sfrace, or the new covenant i" No, for to adminilter that is God's prerogative. But we may be more inquiiltive than Mr. Wercefter will allow ; for he tells us, (after he had taken every thing for; granted, which it v.'as neceffary for him to prove) that it is arrogance lor us to demand any explicit precept, in the New Teftament, for our pradtice in relation to infants, under the new difpenfation. His words are, * It is arrogance, there- fore, to demand, for we have no right to exped, an explicit renewal of this precept to be found in the New Teftament, any more than of the precept for the obfervance of the fabbath.* This is a Ihort way of doing bufmefs, to tell us to believe without evidence, and praftife without precept or example ; and, if we hefitate, call us arrogant. Mr. Worcefter's note, psges ^^y ^6, muft now have a moment's attention, that the public may fee the fallacy, deception, or imprudence of the man, when he manages his opponents' arguments. If he will confefs his ignorance of the Baptifts' fentiments, then what he hath afferted may- be palfed over ; but otherwife,. his management is highly cenfurable. But we will hear a compreffed view of this note, and two former ones, as put together by himfelf. His words are, * The very palpable inconfiftencies, noticed in this and two former notes, it may not be improper to exhibit to- gether in one point of view. ' I. The covenant made with Abraham and his (etd^ was only a temporal covenant, and formed only a temporal church ; yet the great promife of the covenant had refpe^, not to natural, but only to fpiritual feed ! 'Two Difcourfes.) l^c, 49 * 2. Though the great promife of' the covenant had re- fped, not to natural, but only to fplritual feed, yet the covenant was long ago abolilhed. tiince the coining of Meffiah, God is no longer, by covenant, the God of Abra- ham and his [fpiritual) feed ! * 3. Though the great promife n? the covenant had no refpeft to natural ieed, yet the natural feed were not only admitted to the feal of the covenant, but even, as members, to all tlie privileges of the church ! ' 4. Though the Abrahamic church was a type of the Chriilian church, and in that church children were admit- ted to the feal of the covenant, and to ail the privileges of members ; yet in the gofpi;l church, they are neither to be recognized as members, nor even regarded as fit fubjeds for the feal of the covenant ! ' Such (fays he) are a few of the abfurdities of the Anti- pasdobaptift Icheme.' If Mr. Worcefter knew no better, he Is not to be envied.; if he knew better, and yet hath given this fophiftical view of his opponents' fentiments, he is to be difefteemed. We w'lU now fupply, in the above particulars, what Mr. Worcefter ought not to have omitted. Afterwards the public will judge, whetlier abfurdities attach to the Bap- tifts, or darknefs and miireprefentation to Mr. Worcefter. It ought, however, to be previoufly obferved, that the Bap- tifts never advanced the abfurdities which he fets to their acccunt : he nianufadlured them to his liking, and then charged ihcm upon his opponents. It may alfo be ob- ferved, that the Baptilts diliike his antifcripturalyic/, v.-hich he fees fit to aiTix to the covenant. The above particulars, fomewhat reflified, are, 1. The co'venant of circnmc'Jion, made with Abraham and his ieed, was only a temporal covenant, and formed only a tem.poral church ; yet the great promife of the co'venant of grace had refpedt, not to natural, but only to fpiritual feed ! 2. Though rhs great promii'e of the covenant of grace had refpefl, not to natural, but only to fpiritual ised, yet the covenant of ciicumcifion was l<~>ng ago aboliflied. Since the ccm'ir.g of Meffiah, God is no longer, by the covenant of circumcifion, the God of Abraham and his (fpiritual cr) natural feed ! 3. Though the great promife of the covenant of grace had no rofpeft to the natural feed, yet the natural feed were rot only admitted to civcumcifion, the feal (he Ihculd have 50 I etters on Rev. S. Worcc/l€r''s Hiid token) f»f the ccA'CuJiUt of grace, but even, as n.er;> bers, to all the privileges of the Jewiili church ! 4. Though the Abrahamic church was a type of the- ChriPcian church, and in that church clnldren were admitted to circumcifion, the feal (the token) of the covenant of grace, and to all the privileges of members ; yet, in the golpel church, they are neither to be recognized as mem- bers, nor even i-t?garded.as tit fubje^ls for baptifm, the feal, token, or ciitivard prcftjp.on of internal righteovfnefs, and of their being partakers of the covenant of grace / At the clofe of each of thefe fuppfed Antip3Edobapttft abfurdities, he adds a note (J exclamation, or admiration ; and, indeed, it is a little to be admired, that he fliould, in four inftances at once, pervert the true fentiments of the Baptifts, and of his own free choice, turn them into abfurd- ities ; and, after he had hniilied the matter, wonder at it himfelf, and by his notes of admiration, fet the world at wondering. The public will determine whether there be any abfurdi- ty in the above particulars, fave what Mr. Wor.cefter has oocafioned by his unfcriptural feal, and by mifreprefenting the fentiments of the Baptifts. In pages 57, 58, he has another note, which is nearly as full of error and palpable mifreprefentations as the pre- ceding. But the writer is tired in correcting a man, whofe errors are as numerous as his lines. However, we muft anend him farther, for fome of his mod reprehenfible management is yet before us. With fixed intention to defend truth, and to dete Baptifm, \h