:^' 
 
 sawpp* 
 
 '««.■ 
 

 1£ 
 
 w^ f% '^m:^ 
 
 '1^^ 
 
 
 
 CL 
 
 
 .:5 
 
 
 <o 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 Ic 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^»^ 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 *!5 
 
 »-i 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ♦w 
 ^ 
 
 |zi 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 
 iz; 
 
 (U 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 o 
 
 bi) 
 
 rs 
 
 •25 
 
 8 
 
 -< 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Iz; 
 
 E 
 
 .«0 
 
 <o> 
 
 M 
 
 cj 
 
 "Ki 
 
 jif^ 
 
 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 1^ 
 
 -*-* 
 «<*-» 
 
 Ph 
 
 v.! 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 5^ 
 
 1 
 
 % 
 
 
 -a 
 
 8 
 
 ^ 
 
 E 
 
 
 Si 
 
 s 
 
 1^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 <f^', 
 
^^ 
 
OF A 
 
 DZSBATS ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISK, 
 
 BET WEEK 
 
 >N, AND 
 
 MR. JOHN WALKER, A MINISTER OF THE SECESSION, AND MR* 
 ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, A BAPTIST MINISTER^ 
 
 Published by Mr. Campbell; 
 
 SliRIES OF LETTERS, 
 
 ADDRESSED AND DEDICATED TO THE UNITED PRESBTTEHIASr CON- 
 GBEGATIOKS OF 
 
 MINGO CHEEK AND WILLI AMSPORT, 
 
 BY THEIB AFFECTI01?ATE PASTOTa, 
 
 SAMUEL RALJSTOJV. 
 
 Second Edition Corrected and Amended. 
 TO WHICH IS NOW ADDED, 
 
 70 OBJECTIONS MADE BT BOTH MR. CAMPBELL AND 
 
 "*"'■ . . ' MR, WALKER. 
 
 "He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neigh- 
 bour Cometh and searcheth him." Soeomon, 
 ♦'Search the Scriptures." Christ. 
 
 WASHINGTON, PA. 
 
 Printed hy John Grai/son, 
 1825„ 
 
Western District ofPennsyhania, to wit: 
 
 BE IT REMEiMBERED, That OH the eighteenth day 
 of May, in the forty-ninth year of the independance 
 of the United States of America, A. D. 1825, Sam- 
 uel Ralstox, pastor of the United Presbyterian 
 Congregations of Mingo Creek and Williamsport, of 
 the said district, hath deposited in this office, the ti- 
 tle of a book, the right whereof he claims as author, in the words 
 following, to wit: "A Review of a Debate on Christian Baptism, 
 between Mr. John Walker, a minister of the Secession, and Mr. 
 Alexander Campbell, a baptist minister; in a series of letters, 
 addressed and dedicated to the United Presbyterian Congrega- 
 tions of Mingo Creek and Williamsport, by their affectionate pas- 
 tor, Samuel Ralston, second edition corrected and amended. To 
 which is added a reply to objections made by both Mr. Campbell 
 and Mr. Walker. *Hethat is first in his own cause seemethjust; 
 but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him' — Solomon. *Search 
 the Scriptures' — Christ" 
 
 In conformity to the act of the congress of the United States, 
 entitled, **An act for the encouragement of learning, by secimng 
 the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and propri- 
 etors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned." — And 
 also to the Act, entitled, ♦'An act supplementary to an act, en- 
 titled, "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing 
 the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and propri- 
 etors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned," and 
 extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engrav- 
 ing, and etching historical and other prints." 
 
 WM. WALKER, Cl&rh 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 *v^ 
 
 LETTER r. 
 
 Covenant of circumcision not the covenant of grace; nor cove- 
 nant whereby the land of Canaan was secured to the J*ews — the 
 land of Canaan secured to the Jews by the covenant recorded in 
 Gen. 15. — The church defined — the church in the wiMemess a 
 real church of God. — The identity of the Patriarchal, Abrahamic, 
 and Christian churches ^^(^ued from Rom. 11. and Eph. 2. — The 
 right of the infants of cliurch members to baptism argued from 
 Mark 10: 14, and Acts 2: 38, 39 — covenant mentioned in Gal. 3; 
 and Rom. 4: the same — positive precept and precedent — objec- 
 tions answered — comparative practical eifect of the Baptist, and 
 Pedobaptist system. 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 The right of infants to the ordinance of baptism argued from 
 the meaning of the Greek word OiKog,j^The baptism of the Hou- 
 ses of Lydia, of the Jailor, of Cornefeus, and of Stephanas ex- 
 amined, and objections answered — Their right argued from Mat. 
 28: 19; and 1 Cor. 7: 14— Dr. Gill's and Mr. C*s exposition of this 
 passage examined, and exposed. 
 
 LETTER m. 
 
 That an evangelical faith and repentance are not required of an 
 adult in order to baptism argued from Isai. 5: 1—4; Luke 13: 5-9; 
 and Acts 2: 38 — John's baptism — the baptism of the Jews on the 
 day of Pentecost — of the Samaritans, and Simon Magus — of the 
 Eunuch — -of Lydia, and the Jailor examined — objections answered. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 The meaning of the Greek word baptizo in the New Testa- 
 ment — of the prepositions en, els, ck, and apo — John's baptism — 
 baptism of the 3000 on the day of Pentecost — of the Eunuch — of 
 Saul — of Cornelius, and his friends — of Lydia — of the Jailor — and 
 of Christ, considered — The mode of applying water in baptism 
 emblematical oi the pouring out of the spirit's influences — charge 
 that Pedobaptism uniformly lestds to persecution, examined, and 
 repelled — The spirit and tendency of anabaptism examined. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Alledged misrepresentations answered — objection to the cove- 
 nant of circumcision being an ecclesiastical covenant answered — 
 Mr. C's defence of his saying, "that Judaism was essentially oppo- 
 site to Christianity," examined — Queries respecting Joel 2. and 
 Acts 2: 38, 39, answered — Address to Mr. C. 
 
JV CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Objections against circumcision and baptism being means of re- 
 generation, answered — sinners are required to pray for regenera- 
 ting- grace — The word '^Saijjts/' when predicated of members 
 of the christian church, does not mean regenerated persons only 
 =— Address to Mr. C. 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Objection to the argument that haptisma, and baptizo, are used 
 in ditferent senses, answered — classical authority that bapto and 
 haptizoy are used to signify to sprinkle, or besmear — Baptismos 
 and baptizo used in Heb. 9: 10; 1 Cor. 10: 2; Luke 12: 50; and 
 1 Cor. 12: 13, to signify to sprinkle — quotation from Dr. Rice's 
 Pamphleteer. — OwE>r, Calvij^, Beza, Mastricht, and Leigh 
 say, that baptizo signifies to wash by sprinkling, as well as by im- 
 mersion — baptizo when denoting the mean of initiation into the 
 church used in its secondary sense — baptism by sprinkling suited 
 to all persons, in every climate, and every season of the year: not 
 50 by immersion — Saul of Tarsus baptised while standing. 
 
 LETTER Vin. 
 
 Mr, C's attack on the characters of Calvin, and John Knox the 
 Scotish reforaier repelled — that adults must profess faith in Christ 
 before they are baptised, a principle common to Baptists andPe- 
 dobaptists. — Inadequacy of Mr. C's proof of an unbroken chain of 
 a Baptist church from the apostolic age to the present day — Proof 
 of a Pedobaptist church in the first century, from Acts 2: 39; 8: 
 12, &c. — from Irenseus and Justin Martyr in the second — from Ter- 
 tuUian, Origen, and Cyprian in 3d — from Augustine and Jerome 
 in the 4th — and from Pelagius and Celestius, in the 5th centuiies 
 — not necessary to prosecute the proof farther — testimony of Dr. 
 Wall, and acknowledgement of !Mr. WmsTO^f a Baptist — Ad- 
 dress to Mr. C. — Address to Philalethes. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Charge of misrepresentation examined and repelled — Mr. C's 
 argument against infant baptism, that faith is required in or- 
 der to baptism, examined — ^^Ir. Macalia's argument for the iden- 
 tity of the Jewish and Christian church — ilr. C's objections to 
 lit-. M's argument, and to my argument from Rom. 11: 13-25, and 
 Eph. 2: 12-22, examined, and answered — Objection to the ar- 
 gument for infant baptism from the meaning of the Greek word 
 QlJrQs — fi-oxn the baptism of the House of the Jailor — of Lydia — 
 of Cornelius — of Stephanas, answered — other families, besides 
 that of Stephanas baptised in Corinth — A feeble reply to the ar- 
 guments for infant baptism, from Acts 2:38, 39; from Mat. 28: 
 19; and 1 Cor. 7: 14 — Mr. C's new precept and precedent for fe- 
 male communion, examined, and exposed. 
 
CO>fTENTS. V 
 
 LETTER X. 
 Dan. 4: 33; Lev. 14: 15, l6; and Rev. 19; 13, adduced as in- 
 stances of hapto being used to signify to weti or to stain — Objec-- 
 tions to the argument that haptizo in Heb. 9: 10; 1 Cor. 10: 2; 2 
 Pet. 3: 21, means to sprinkle, answered — Dr. M'Knight's notes on 
 2 Peter 3: 21; and Rom. 6: 3, 4, examined — Objections to the ex- 
 position of Luke 12: 50; and 1 Cor. 12: 13, answered— ilr. C's- 
 new theory of prepositions— Objections to the argument for bap- 
 tism by affusion, from John's baptism— the baptism of the 3000— 
 the baptism of the Eunuch— the baptism of Cornelius— and the 
 baptism of Saul of Tarsus, answered — Address to the baptised 
 youth. 
 
 LETTER I. TO MR. WALKER. 
 
 The covenant of grace defined— If the covenant of circumcision 
 was the covenant of grace, as is affirmed by Mr. W. then, all the 
 circumcised, and all the baptised must be saved. — The meaning 
 of the word ^'^everlasting" in Gen. 17: 7, considered— Psal. 89: 35, 
 26t has no reference to the covenant of circumcision. — Gal. 3: 29, 
 has reference to the invisible, and not to the visible church — 
 Heb. 8: 8-10, not a proof that the covMiant of circumcision was 
 the covenant of grace — Objections to the position, that the cove- 
 nant of circumcision was an '^Ecclesiastical covenant," answered 
 —Rom. 3: 1, 2, examined,^ and shewn to be an unequivocal proof, 
 that the covenant of circumcision was not the covenant of grace 
 —Abraham the father of a natural, and spiritual seed— the one en- 
 titled to church-membership on account of his circumcision: the 
 other to eternal life on account of their own faith. 
 
 LETTER n. 
 
 Objection that a speculative faith is disobedience and displea- 
 sing to God, examined, and refuted— That unregenerate persons 
 may be introduced into the church,, argued from the fact, that A- 
 braham's male household amounting to 318, and the generation of 
 Jews born in the wilderness, amounting to 600,000, were circum- 
 cised by the command of God, without reference to their charac- 
 ter, as pious, or not pious— Objections to Psal. 87r 5; Gal. 4: 26; 
 and Rom. 11: 20, as proofs that the church is the usual birth-place 
 of the children of grace, answered. — Objection to the interpreta- 
 tion given to the Greek verb metanoesatCy and to the words, "be 
 baptised for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost," in Acts 2: 38, answered— The cases of Simon 
 Magus, and the Samaritans reconsidered— Objections to what is 
 said in third letter respecting the baptism of the Eunuch, and of 
 Lydia, answered — The objection, that to introduce unregenerate 
 persons into the church, corrupts the church, operates more 
 against Mr. W*s system, than that which he opposes, and over- 
 turns Paidobaptism — John's baptism not christian baptism, argued 
 from Acts 19: 1-5, and from other passages of the scriptures— 
 Objectiona^Rswered, 
 *2 
 
BHSFAOE. 
 
 %. 
 
 IT is not improbable, but that som^ on reading the title 
 page of this book, ma j exclaim, What ! another book on 
 Baptism — Has there not been enougli written on that sub- 
 ject; and can any thing more clear and forcible be said, 
 than is said bj Peter Edwards in his * 'Candid reasons 
 
 FOR RENOUNCING ANTI-PEDOBAPTISM?" 
 
 To this I would only observe, that although I am per- 
 suaded that light is yet to be shed on the question, "What 
 is the real character of the church, and for what purpose 
 was she erected in our world;" I would not have publish- 
 ed a single sentence on that point, nor jet on the subject 
 of baptism, had not Mr. Campbell changed the former 
 ground of the controversy, by denying principles in rela- 
 tion to the church, which have been admitted by all baptist 
 writers who have preceded him, Mr. Jones excepted. 
 These principles, in my opinion, involve in them, the es- 
 sence of the question; and for my own part, I cannot de- 
 fend infant baptism, but by that view of the church which 
 I have taken, and exhibited in the following letters — If it 
 is scriptural, as I believe it is, it saps the foundation or 
 the baptist system. 
 
 Mr. C. has repeatedly asserted, that the Greek word: 
 baptizo, signifies "to immerse, and to immerse only;: 
 and that it is so used by all writers sacred and profane, a 
 few 'interested' Pedobaptists excepted. " The bold and 
 confident manner in which this assertion is made, is cal- 
 culated to make an impression on the minds of the un- 
 learned; it was therefore thought necessary, and deemed 
 a duty to undeceive such, and to rescue the church of God 
 from that obloquy which he has poured upon her, under 
 the Abrahamic dispensation of grace^ He ha3 also min- 
 
VIU PREFACE. 
 
 gled with his discussions on baptism, much obloquy and- 
 indiscriminate abuse of the Pedobaptist clergy, with the 
 evident design of producing anarchy in their churches, 
 and I am persuaded, with the expectation, that he himself 
 would be chosen, "to ride on the whirlwind, and direct 
 the storm." This, I have passed by with a few occasional 
 remarks, being confident that all his efforts will be una- 
 vailing with the intelligent and serious part of the reform- 
 ed churches, and that the unceasing slander which he has 
 poured out on their pastors, in almost every page of his 
 writings, will ultimately recoil on himself. 
 
 I shall only farther observe, that I have endeavoured to 
 be as perspicuous and concise, as the subject, and the 
 range which the controversy has taken, would admitj and 
 if I shall have succeeded in undeceiving a single indivi- 
 dual who may have been in danger of being led astray by 
 Mr. C's confident and unfounded assertions, my labour 
 in writing will be fully compensated. I commit this book 
 to the guidance and care of the Great Head of the Church, 
 praying, that he will pardon what is mine, and bless 
 whatever in it is agreeable to his holy word, to the estab- 
 lishing the reader in *Hhe faith once delivered to the 
 saints.," 
 
REVIEW 
 
 ^F A DEBATE ON 
 
 LETTER L 
 
 YOU ask my opinion of such public debates, and of 
 this one in particular. I have never had but one opinion 
 of such exhibitions, as it is victory, and not searching after 
 truth, that is usually the object of ther combatants; and 
 should any of tliem, at the beginning, found their argument 
 on false principles, this will necessarily lead them to adopt 
 other principles equally false, in defence of the original 
 one; and thus the whole must end in worse than unprofit- 
 able and indecisive wrangling. 
 
 We have a striking example of this in the debate now 
 under review. — Mr. \Valker assumed as his fundamental 
 principle, that the covenant which God made with Abra- 
 ham, recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis, and of which 
 circumcision was a sign and seal, was the covenant of 
 grace; whence he argued the right of the infants of church 
 members to be introduced into the church by baptism, as 
 they had from the establishment of that covenant been in- 
 troduced by circumcision; the former, under the present 
 dispensation, coming in the place of the latter. Now, as 
 circumcision was the seal which God himself affixed to 
 that covenant, and as a seal, the moment it is affixed, 
 gives the person on whose behalf the covenant was made, 
 all the advantages therein contained; it follows by inevi- 
 table consequence, that if that covenant was the covenant 
 of grace, then, every circumcised person must be saved; 
 and if baptism is come in the room of circumxision, that 
 every baptized person must be saved also — a position, I 
 am persuaded, which no Pedobaptist will defend. Some 
 Pedobaptist writers, who, with Mr. W. have assum.ed that 
 the covenant of circumcision, as the protomartyr Stephen 
 
10 
 
 emphatically calls it, was the covenant of grace, have en- 
 deavoured to free themselves from the above consequence, 
 by saying, that there is an external and internal relation 
 to the covenant of grace; and that circumcision and bap- 
 tism form the external relation only. But what is an ex- 
 ternal relation to a covenant? Is it not, in other words, to 
 be out of a covenant? If the word has any meaning at all, 
 this it must be; but as circumcision was the seal which 
 Jehovah himself affixed to that covenant, then, whatever 
 that covenant was, it follows, that the instant a proper 
 subject was circumcised, that moment he became interest- 
 ed in all its privileges and appurtenances. 
 
 You are now, no doubt, ready to ask, what was that 
 covenant or dispensation, as it alters not the case, nor af- 
 fects the argument by which of these names it may be 
 called; and what were the advantages thereby secured te 
 the circumcised? I answer, it may be called an ecclesi- 
 astical covenant; or a covenant whereby Jehovah was 
 pleased to bind himself by the seal of circumcision, to 
 send a Redeemer of the family of Abraham into the world 
 — to preserve in his family a visible church, until that Re- 
 deemer should come; and, as his infinite wisdom saw best, 
 to appoint, from time to time, and continue with them 
 such ordinances as would be the best medium of accepta- 
 ble worship, and best calculated to interest them in the 
 merits of this Redeemer; and when this Redeemer v/ould 
 come, to ingraft the Gentile nations into this church, and 
 consequently to bestow upon them those means equally 
 with the Jews. In a word, it was a covenant, or dispen- 
 sation, graciously designed, and wisely calculated, as a 
 mean to an end, to interest them in the blessings of the 
 covenant of grace, consisting in pardon, sanctification, 
 and eternal life. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, on the other hand, affirms again and 
 again, "that its promised blessings were temporal — every 
 one temporal — that circumcision conveyed no spiritual 
 blessings to the Jews — It guaranteed that they should be 
 a numerous and powerful nation— that God would be 
 their king, and that they would individually inherit the 
 land of Canaan." 
 
 The apostle Paul, however, teaches otherwise in the 
 third chapter of his epistle to the Romans, first verse. As 
 if he foresaw that in future days such bold and unscriptu- 
 
ral assertions would be made for the purpose of supporting 
 a favourite system, he proposes their objection in almost 
 their own words, and then gives it an answer, which one 
 would think would silence the objection forever. "What 
 advantage hath the Jew? and what profit is there of cir- 
 cumcision? Much every way, but chiefly because that 
 unto them were committed the oracles of God." And 
 what he meant by the oracles of God, he tells us in detail 
 in the 9th chapter of the same epistle. '*To them pertain- 
 ed the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the 
 giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promi- 
 ses: whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the 
 flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed forever." 
 And as if this was not sufficient to prevent such bold and 
 unscriptural assertions, the same apostle, in the third chap- 
 ter of his epistle to the Galatians, quotes the principal 
 provision of that covenant, and styles it the preaching of 
 the gospel to Abraham. "And the sciipture foreseeing 
 that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached 
 before the gospel to Abraham, saying, in thee shall all 
 nations of the earth be blessed." From these quotations 
 then it appears, that besides the promise of a Redeemer, 
 that covenant sealed or confirmed to all the circumcised, 
 all those ordinances, which infinite wisdom saw best cal- 
 culated to interest them in the forgiveness of sins, to be 
 purchased by his blood, together with the sanctification 
 of their natures, or what is emphatically styled ''the cir- 
 cumcision of the heart;" in allusion to which circumcision 
 is called '<« sign," as well as "a sea/." 
 
 I am aware that it will now be asked, was not the pos- 
 session of the land of Canaan promised to Abraham in 
 that covenant; and is it not expressly mentioned as one of 
 its provisions? It is indeed recognised in that covenant, as 
 what was secured to him and his seed in another and dis- 
 tinct covenant, recorded in the 15th chapter; but which 
 Mr. C. for very prudential reasons, as respects his sys- 
 tem, has entirely overlooked in that catalogue of the 
 scripture covenants which he has given us in the appendix 
 to his book. ''And God said unto Abraham, I am the 
 Lord which brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to 
 give thee this land to inherit it. And Abraham said, 
 Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? 
 And God said unto him, take me a heifer of thjree years 
 
12 
 
 old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three 
 years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young j)igeon. And 
 Abraham took unto him all these, and he divided them in 
 the midst; and laid each one against another, but the birds 
 divided he not. — And it came to pass when the sun was 
 down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a 
 burning lamp that passed between these pieces. In the 
 same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, say- 
 ing unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of 
 Egypt unto the great river Euphrates." 
 
 I am aware also, that Mr. C. may reply; all this affects 
 not his system, for he denies that there was a visible 
 church in the world until the day of Pentecost. 
 
 It is no.doubt a matter of surprise to you, and to others 
 who read your Bibles, that he should have the effrontery 
 to contradict Stephen, who told the Jews "that Moses 
 was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that 
 spake unto him in Mount Smai, and with their fathers, 
 who received the lively oracles to give unto them:" 
 Acts vii. 28. The secret is this — Mr. Peter Edwards, of 
 England, had proved beyond all contradiction, by a plain 
 and simple logical process, the ri^ht of infants to be ad- 
 mitted into the church by the ordinance of baptism; and 
 as it had not been denied when he wrote, that the Jewish 
 nation was a \isible church of God; and as it was undeni- 
 able that infants were introduced into that church by cir- 
 cumcision; and as their right was not repealed by Christ or 
 his apostles, but recognised by both; and as baptism is 
 now the rite of initiation, he drew this fair and irresistible 
 consequence, that infants ought to be baptized. It requi- 
 red no great degree of penetration to see, that this simple 
 and plain argument overturned the whole Baptist system 
 respecting infants. Something must be done to prop the 
 tottering fabric, and as nothing else could avail, the late 
 David Jones, a Baptist minister, ventured on the bold ex- 
 pedient of denying that there was a church of God on 
 earth, until the days of John the Baptist, which has been 
 re-echoed by Mr. C. mth this difference, that Mr. C. 
 dates his church from the day of Pentecost, or the first 
 ' church at Jerusalem. The reason why Mr. Jones com- 
 menced his church with John the Baptist probably was, to 
 maintain the propriety of the name v/hich Baptists have 
 assumed; and perhaps the reason why Mr. C. differed 
 
13 
 
 from him was, that he saw the absurdity of dating the 
 Christian church with a man who died before the Cliristian 
 dispensation commenced. 
 
 When Mr. W. adduced the words of Stephen as a 
 proof that there was a church in the wilderness, what is 
 Mr. C's reply? That the Greek word ecclesia, which is 
 translated church, signifies any kind of an assembly; and 
 that it is used by the writers of the New Testament to 
 signify a lawful and unlawful assembly, as well as the 
 church of Christ. — That it is by some accompanying epi- 
 thet, or other circumstance, that we are to ascertain in 
 which of these senses we are to understand the word; and 
 that there is nothing in the passage adduced that can lead 
 us to understand it in any other sense, than merely the 
 multitude of the Jews assembled in the wilderness. At 
 any rate, he tells us, <'That it was an assembly or church 
 of Jews, and not an assembly of Christians, or a church of 
 Jesus Christ." p. 41, 42. 
 
 This last part of the reply, which I have stated in his 
 own words, is not only a quibble, but a very sorry quibble; 
 and similar to an objection which he brings against infant 
 baptism — that baptism is not mentioned in the 17th chap- 
 ter of Genesis. For, was it to be expected that the church 
 of God w^ould assume, or be called by the name of the 
 church of Christ, until he should come into the world; or 
 that an ordinance would be called by its name tvv^o thou- 
 sand years before the dispensation of which it was a part, 
 commenced, and when another ordinance that prefigured 
 it, was just appointed? 
 
 With respect to the first part of the reply, there is that 
 in the passage which, in my opinion, fixes the meaning of 
 the word ''church" as the church of God. Stephen tells 
 us that in this church in the wilderness, there was an an- 
 gel, emphatically^ styled the angel who spake unto Mo- 
 ses in Mount Sinai, and delivered to him what he calls 
 "the lively oracles," to be delivered to their fathers, or 
 the ordinances respecting the worship of Jehovah. I ex- 
 pect that it will be admitted that this angel was none otli- 
 er than the Son of God; and the circumstance of his deliv- 
 ering to the Jews, by the hand of Moses, the lively oracles, 
 is a proof that they were a church in the proper sense of 
 the word: for what is a church of God, but a number of 
 persons set apart for worshipping him agreeably to his 
 own institutions? 3 
 
14 
 
 That the principle I wish to establish may be the more 
 clearly seen, and the merits of the debate now under re- 
 view clearly seen also; it is necessary to make a few ob- 
 servations respecting the commencement, nature and de- 
 sign of the church of God. I agree with Mr, C. that the 
 Greek word eccksia, Vt^hich is translated church, signifies 
 a number of persons assembled for the purpose of worship- 
 ping God, and this implies in it their being possessed of 
 ordinances of divine appointment, as the medium of accep- 
 table worship, and means of grace; but I object, when he 
 says that all these persons must be saints, ''or called from 
 darkness to God's marvellous light " Saints, or persons 
 regenerated in the church, are indeed a component part of 
 it; but it was designed to embrace others, whose duty and 
 privilege it is to attend on the ordinances of divine ap- 
 pointment, that by the blessing of God on his ov/n ordi- 
 nances they may be regenerated. For this definition of 
 the church I have the authority of Clu'ist, who compares 
 the kingdom of heaven, or the gospel church, to "a net 
 cast into the sea, which gathered of every kind," and to 
 <'ten virgins, five of which were wse and five foolish;" 
 and farther proofs of the justness of this definition will be 
 adduced in the course of these letters. 
 
 Now, that there was a church of this character from 
 Adam to Abraham, is clearly intimated from what is said 
 in the oth chapter of Genesis concerning Seth;* "that to 
 him was a son born, and he called his name Enos; then be- 
 gan men to call upon the name of the Lord," or as it is in 
 the margin, "then men began to call themselves by the 
 name of the Lord," probably in contradistinction to Cain, 
 
 * The existence of the church as a medium of redemption may- 
 be traced to the very first promise in Genesis 2: 15. A Redeemer 
 under the appellation of the "seed of the woman" was then pro- 
 mised. **The coats of skins" with which the Lord God clothed 
 Adam and Eve, were doubtless the skins of beasts offered in sa- 
 crifice, as there was then no need of the flesh of beasts for food; 
 nor were the beasts g-iven to man for food, until after the deluge. 
 Those coats were doubtless figurative of the righteousness of the 
 Redeemer which is frequently compared to a garment, which co- 
 vers the moral nakedness of those who put it on by the hand of 
 faith. Luke 15: 22. Rev. 3: 18. Abel's offering up the firstlings 
 of his flock in sacrifice to God was doubtless one circumstance that 
 rendered the offering acceptable, while Cain's was rejected; as 
 Abel's offering had reference to the blood of Christ, while Cain's 
 iiad no such reference. 
 
15 
 
 who is said to have gone out ''from the presence of the 
 Lord;" or separated himself and descendants from his true 
 worshippers. And hence, no doubt, the distinction be- 
 tween ''the sons of God, and the daughters of men," the 
 intermarriage of which was the cause of the universal del- 
 uge; the latter seducing the former into idolatry. The 
 church at this period was indeed patriarchal, or confined 
 to the families of the faithful; every head of a family being 
 king and priest of the family, who offered up sacrifice, 
 the only mode of initiation, medium of worship, and mean 
 of grace, that we read of at that time, both on his own be- 
 half, and on behalf of liis family. This did Abel — ^this 
 did Noah, vvhen he came out of the ark — and "this did Job 
 continually," In the days of Abraham, polytheism and 
 idolatry so far prevailed as to threaten tlie very existence 
 of the church; whereupon, God revealed liimself to that 
 distinguished personage, made the covenant with him al- 
 ready alluded to, and bound himself by the seal of circum-: 
 cision "to be a God to him, and to ms seed after him," 
 or to maintain a visible church in his family, or the means 
 of grace, which he had appointed for the salvation of sin- 
 ners. The privileges of the church were also enlarged 
 at this time, by the appointment of circumcision as a mode 
 of initiation for the males, infinite wisdom seeing that 
 the ancient mode of sacrifice answered all the purpose to 
 the females; females, as well as males, being permitted to 
 eat of the sacrifices. And as an intimation that in due 
 time the Gentiles would be taken into the church, Ishma- 
 el, and the servants of Abraham, "born in his house, of 
 bought with his money from any stranger," were allowed 
 to be circumcised, together with proselytes from the sur- 
 rounding nations. In Egypt another ordinance v/as ad- 
 ded — the ordinance of the passover, designed not only as 
 a commemoration of the deliverance of the children of Is- 
 rael from Eg}^tian bondage, but of a far greater deliver- 
 ance which Jehovah had promised to accomplish in due 
 time — the deliverance of guilty sinners by the sacrifice of 
 his Son; for an inspired writer tells us, "even Cln-ist 
 our passover is sacrificed for us." In the wilderness va- 
 rious sacrifices and ablutions were added, the former in- 
 dicating the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice for sin, and 
 the latter, like circumcision, signifying the necessity of 
 puiity of heart in order to salvation. When they entered 
 
16 
 
 the promised land, every male was required to appear 
 thrice annually before the Lord in the temple of Jerusa- 
 lem, for the purpose of offering those sacrifices which the 
 law required. Here then, we have all the characteristics 
 of a church of God — a people separated from the world, 
 and furnished with ordinances for his service; and ordi- 
 nances too, as I shall show in the proper place, that pre- 
 figured the positive institutions under the present dispen- 
 sation. Hence, then, we find that people designated as 
 '■'a chosen nation" — "a kingdom of priests, and a holy na- 
 tion" — ''and a peculiar treasure" to God, above all peo- 
 ple — epithets ascribed by the apostle Peter to the Christi- 
 an church. "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal 
 priesthood, an holy nation, and a peculiar people, that ye 
 should shew forth the praises of him v*ho hath called you 
 out of darkness into his marvellous light." 1 Pet. 2: 9. 
 Hence we read of ''the congregation of Israel — the con- 
 gregation of the Lord — the congregation of saints" — and 
 "the assembly of the saints;" words of the same import 
 as "church;" and which might be read, the church of 
 Israel — the church of the "Lord-— and the church of the 
 saints: and hence, saith the Psalmist, "I will praise the 
 Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly cf the up- 
 right, and in tlie congregatioyi.^'^ From all which the 
 reader is left to judge, v/hether Stephen meant by '*f Ac 
 c/mrcA in the wilderness," the church of God, or the mere 
 multitude of the Israelites — or an unlawful mob. 
 
 But not only is it evident from the foregoing passages, 
 and numberless others that might be a.dduced, that tlie 
 Jewish nation, in consequence of the covenant of circum- 
 cision, was a visible church of God; but the vievv^ I have 
 given cf it, exactly accords with vrhat Jehovah himself says 
 of it in the 5th chapter of Isaiah, under the metaphor of a 
 vineyard. "My beloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful 
 hill, and he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, 
 :iVxd pkmted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in 
 t}ie midst of it, and also made a wine press therein. And 
 he looked that it should bring forth grp^pes; and it brought 
 forth wild grapes. And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
 and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my 
 vineyard. What more could be done to my vineyard 
 that I have not doner For the vineyard of the Lord of 
 hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah is his 
 
17 
 
 pleasant plant P Our blessed Lord appears to have had a 
 view to this allegory of the church in liis parable of the 
 vineyard, in the 13th chapter of Luke 5 and the apostle 
 Paul to both in the 6th chapter to the Romans: where, 
 speaking of baptism, he styles it a being planted in the 
 likeness of Christ's death; a proof by the v/ay, that he 
 considered circumcision and baptism as appointed for the 
 same purposes. 
 
 It is necessary also here to observe^ that the church, 
 under the patriarchal and Abrahamic dispensations, was 
 not different from that under the dispensation by Christ, 
 but one and the same; differing indeed in external rites, 
 but the same in substance and in essence. When the 
 Abrahamic dispensation began, though new ordinances 
 were added to it, it was yet ingrafted into the patriarchal 
 dispensation, constituted a church by sacrifice, t^'pical of 
 the death of Christ. That the Christian dispensation is 
 ingrafted into the Abrahamic, is affirmed and argued by 
 Paul in his epistles to the Christian churches. In the 
 eleventh chapter of his epistle to the Romans, he fitly 
 compares the covenant of circumcision on wliich the Jew- 
 ish church w^as founded to "a good olive tree" — Abraham, 
 with whom it v/as first made, to "its root," its provisions 
 to "its fatness"^and the circumcised offsprings of Abra- 
 ham to its "natural branches:" and, by a very common 
 figure of speech, the Jev^dsh nation as constituting the 
 church of God at that time, are compared by Jeremiah to 
 "a green olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit." He tells 
 us that the natural branches v/ ere broken off "because of 
 unbelief," or fir not receiving Christ as the Messiah, v/ith 
 the exception of a remnant that received him as such, and 
 thus still adhered to the good olive tree, and constituted 
 the church. He tells us also, that some of the Gentile 
 nations, Avhom he fitly compares to a wild olive tree, were 
 "cut out of this wild olive tree," by believin* in Christ, 
 and by faith ingrafted into the good olive tree, in the place 
 of -tho^^oken off branches, and "partake of its root and 
 fatness." And it is worthy of particular attention, that 
 the apostle, in the 23d and 24th verses, alluding to the 
 restoration of the Jews, does not say with Mr. C. that 
 they will be ingrafted into what he calls the Christian 
 church, commencing at the day of Pentecost, but into 
 their own olive tree, or that church founded on the cove- 
 
18 
 
 nant of circumcision, and out of which they were cast by 
 their unbelief. "And they also, if they abide not still in 
 unbelief, shall be grafted in, for God is able to graft them 
 in again. For if tliou wert cut out of the olive tree which 
 is wild by nature, and wert grafted in contrary to nature 
 into the good olive tree, how much more these which be 
 the natural branches shall be grafted into their own olive 
 TREE?" — grafted in with their offspring as formerly, "as 
 the bud is grafted in with the branch." 
 
 Let this be recollected; and what now is Mr. C's inter- 
 pretation of this beautiful and appropriate allegory? "The 
 good olive tree was the Jemsh nation," — but not as a 
 church of God, for this he denies — "the root and fatness 
 of the good olive tree was Jesus Christ; and in a still more 
 enlarged and exalted sense, the Christian church is the. 
 good olive tree: the natural branches denote the Jews." 
 p. 29. 
 
 Let us now test this interpretation by what the apostle 
 tells us about this good olive tree and its natural branches. 
 The natural branches, says he, were broken off from the 
 good olive tree; that is, according to Mr. C's interpreta- 
 tion, the Jews were broken off from the Jews, or the Jewish 
 nation, from the Jewish nation^ If we will try it by the 
 h^^othesis that the Christian church was the good olive 
 tree, it will be this:^ — The Jews, the natural branches of 
 the Christian church,, were broken off from the Christian 
 church: but, according to Mr. C's system, the Christian 
 church did not commence until the day of Pentecost, and, 
 the Jews were broken off before this time by their not re- 
 ceiving Jesus as the Messiah, and crucifying him as ait 
 impostor. I need scarcely say that the absurdity of this 
 interpretation is so palpable, as to be almost capaW^ of 
 being felt, and is as opposed to itself, as the arctic is to 
 the antarctic pole. But this is not alL He tells us in 
 the foregoing page, "that Judaism and Gentilism were 
 both distinct from and essentially opposite to Christianity." 
 What now shall I say to this? I feel an unwillingness to 
 call it blasphemy, or a speaking injuriously of God; and 
 yet I know not a milder term w-hereby it can be designa- 
 ted. Judaism is an universal term comprehending all 
 the doctrines, commandments, and ordinances, delivered 
 by God to Moses; and you are now doubtless ready to ask^ 
 what could induce him to bring down the doctrines and- 
 
19 
 
 precepts of Judaism to a level with the doctrines and pre- 
 cepts of Gentilism; and the ordinances which Jehovah ap- 
 pointed for his own worship, to a level with the impure, 
 licentious, and horrible rites of Gentile idolaters, whose 
 altars often streamed v/ith the blood of their own children, 
 and of other human victims, sacrificed to theii- idol gods? 
 The same principle that induced him to deny that there 
 w^as a church of God in the Jewish nation, together with 
 that unrelenting hatred to infant baptism which he mani- 
 fests in almost every page of his book. For he clearly 
 saAv, that the admission of a church in that nation, and 
 that the Christian church was ingrafted into it, overturned 
 his whole system, and furnished Pedobaptists with an un- 
 answerable argument for infant baptism, as I hope ta 
 make a])pear in its proper place. Surely there is not a 
 thinking person whose mind is not perverted by a system, 
 but will say, there must be something rotten — rotten to 
 the very core, in that system, to support which, compels 
 a man to pour contempt on that church of God, and his 
 ordinances, "which he hath purchased with his own 
 blood." 
 
 But so intent is Mr. C. on degrading Jews and Judaism, 
 that he insists that it is impossible that they could be a 
 church of God, because the apostle says in the S2d verse 
 of this chapter, "that God hath concluded them all in 
 unbelief, that he might have mercy on all,"" and he warm- 
 ly recommends this verse to the consideration of all Pedo- 
 baptists. I have considered it, and to understand it as 
 Mr. C. does, would be to set the apostle in opposition to 
 himself. For although he says that the Jewish nation in 
 general were rejected by God from being his church, be- 
 ca^ise of their rejecting his Son, yet there was "a remnant 
 according to the election of grace:" that although "blind- 
 ness happened to Israel," it was "but in part:" and that 
 only "some of the branches were broken off." What then 
 does he mean in that verse? — That Jehovah's bestowing 
 a dispensation of mercy on Jews, or Gentiles, was alto- 
 gether an act of sovereign grace, as both were equally 
 sinners, and both equally needed a redeemer^ and to re- 
 deem Gentiles as well as Jews, was the ultimate end for 
 which Christ came into the world, and erected a church as 
 a medium of redemption; and although professed friends 
 sometimes join with avowed infidels, in pouring contempt 
 
20 
 
 on that church, and his holv word, he hath declared that 
 "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And who 
 does not see, that to place Judaism on a level with Gen- 
 tilism, is virtually sa}^ng, that the Old Testament cannot 
 be the revelation of a holv Gods for, if Judaism is essenti- 
 ally opposite to Christianitj, Gentilism cannot be any 
 thing more than essentially so. 
 
 But this chapter is not the only place wherein Paul,. 
 who was a Jew by birth, not only recognised the exis- 
 tence of a church in i!iie Jewish nation, but affirms that 
 the Christian church was built upon it. In the 2d chap- 
 ter of his epistle to the Ephesians, he says, ''Wherefore 
 remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, 
 who are called uncircumcision, by that which is called the 
 circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time 
 ye were without Christ, being aliens from the common- 
 vrealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
 promise, having no hope, and without God in the World : 
 but now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were afar off 
 are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our 
 peace, who hath made both otie^ and hath broken down the 
 middle wall of partition between us. Now therefore ye 
 are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens 
 with the saints, and of the household of God: and are 
 built," (not as Mr. C. says, upon the foundation of the 
 apostles alone, but) "upon the foundation of the appstles 
 and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- 
 stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together, 
 groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord. " 
 
 Having now proved the existence of a church of God 
 from Adam to Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ, 
 and the identity or oneness of that church under those 
 dispensations, and also the present dispensation of grace; 
 we are now prepared to estimate the force or weakness of 
 Mr. W*s arguments in favour of infant baptism, drawri 
 from, the oneness of the church, and the force or weakness 
 of Mr. C's replies. The limits I have assigned to this- 
 ietter, mil not allow me to review all the arguments used 
 on the occasion; I shall therefore confine myself to those 
 that seem to have most bearing on the point in dispute. 
 
 Mr. W. we are told, produced that passage from one 
 ©f the evangelists, where it is said, that little children 
 were brought to Christ, that he might put his hands en 
 
21 • ' 
 
 them and prajj and his disciples rebuked them that 
 brought them — ''But Jesus said, suffer little children to 
 come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven." From this passage Mr. W. argued, 
 "that by the kingdom of heaven we must understand ei-. 
 ther, the church of Christ on earth, or the kingdom of 
 heaven above: if we understand it of the church on earth, 
 then doubtless infants are said to be members of it; and if 
 we suppose that the kingdom of heaven or the irndsible 
 church above is meant, t]\en they must be born of the 
 Spirit, and consecjuently fit subjects for baptism." 
 
 As I do not know whether Mr. Ws argument from 
 this passage is stated with accuracy and precision, or not, 
 1 shall therefore not make any remarks upon it. ^Ir. C's 
 objections, however, are; that this transaction took place 
 previous to ilie appointment of baptism as an initiating 
 ordinance into the Christian church; and that it w^as a 
 blessing and not baptism that was requested for these 
 children. Be it so — the words "of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven, " however, prove that Christ considered and 
 acknowledged them as a component part of his church at 
 that time; and Mr. C. is now called upon to show at what 
 time, and by whom they were cast out. x\ware, it would 
 seem, of the force of this argument, he says, that the 
 words ^"of stfch^^ only mean similarity; and in support of 
 this he adverts to another passage, where it is said, "th-at 
 Jesus called a little child to' him and set him in the midst 
 and said, Except ye be converted, and become as little 
 children, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. " 
 It is enough to say in reply, that the words "of such" and 
 "as little children" are "dissimilar in signification; the 
 former usually referring to persons, and the latter to 
 character. As for the silly pun, which he exhibited on 
 the occasion, that as baptism and blessing both begin with 
 a B, either will suit tlie advocates of infant baptism., I am 
 heartily willing that he shall have all the honour that be- 
 longs to it; and those who tlien heard it, and those who 
 now read it, will estimate all its worth and force. 
 
 Mr. W. also produced, in favour of infant baptism, 
 Peter's memorable address to tlie Jews, on the day of 
 Pentecost. Acts 2: 38, 39, "Repent and be baptized ev- 
 ery one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 
22 
 
 Ghost. For the promise is to joii, and to your children, 
 and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 
 God shall call." According to Mr. C's statement (pages 
 50-54) Mr. W. argued, that as the promise in this passage 
 evidently referred to Gen. 17: 7. "I will be a God to 
 thee, and to thy seed after thee^" and as the children of 
 the Jews are equally included with the parents in it, when 
 he urged the parents to be baptized — that the children 
 ought to be baptized also. 
 
 To this Mr. C. objects, by saying tliat the promise in 
 this passage does not refer to Gen. 17: 7, but to the prom- 
 ise of the extraordinary influences of the Holy Ghost, 
 mentioned by the prophet Joel in the second chapter of 
 his prophecy, and referred to, and applied by Peter from 
 the 16th to the 21st verse. Be it so; and what follows? 
 This : that whatever that promise was, it is undeniable that 
 Peter urged it as an argum-.ent, why the Jews and their chil- 
 dren should be baptized. 
 
 But that the promise referred to in this passage cannot 
 refer to the prophecy of Joel, is evident from the following 
 considerations. That promise had been already fulfilled, 
 in the miraculous gift of tongues, conferred on the apos- 
 tles, for the purpose of cjualifying them for preaching the 
 gospel to the different nations of the earth to which they 
 were now to be sent. And as the "gift of the Holy 
 Ghost," as well as "the remission of sins," is mentioned 
 by Peter, as what the Jews whom he addressed were to 
 receive, upon their acknowledging Jesus to be the Messiah, 
 by being baptized in his name; then, accordirg to ^Ir. 
 C's interpretation of the passage, the three thousand that 
 v/ere baptized on that day, were all endowed Vv^ith the 
 gift of tongues. But there is not the smallest intimation 
 that this was the case; nor is it elsewhere mentioned that 
 this gift was to be expected by those who submitted to 
 Christian baptism. The fair conclusion then is, that the 
 ordinary influences of the Spirit, as a spirit of sanctifica- 
 tion, are there intended, and are therefore properly con- 
 nected with the remission of sins. 
 
 Since then, the promise of the Holy Ghost, in his extra- 
 ordinary influences, cannot be intended in this passage, 
 it will be naturally asked, is there any corresponding 
 passage that will lead us to understand it as referring to 
 Gen. 17: 7? Before I ansvv^er this question, I would re- 
 
^23 
 
 mark, that the expression is not apromise, but "Me prom- 
 ise^^^ or a promise of a peculiar and distinguished kind. 
 The apostle Paul, I think, answers the question, when 
 speaking of the covenant of circumcision : he says, ''And 
 if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham- s seed, according 
 to THE PROMISE," Gal. 3: 29. And in his epistle to the 
 Romans (9: 8.) he uses the same phraseology, and says; 
 they that are the children of the flesh are not the children 
 of God; but the cliildren of the promise are counted for 
 the seed. With these passages in view, we now see the 
 propriety and force of Peter's argument. 
 
 From the time of Abraham, the Jews had enjoyed the 
 privilege of being admitted into the church by circumci- 
 sion, together with their children. — Baptism w^as now to 
 take its place. Hence says Peter, "be baptized every 
 one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission 
 of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." 
 And lest they should suppose that they themselves were 
 only entitled to be admitted into the Christian church by 
 baptism, and their children left out, he adds, "the prom- 
 ise is to you and to your children," or they are, by the 
 promise of God in the covenant of circumcision, entitled 
 to all the privileges under the new dispensation, to which 
 they were entitled under the old. But let the promise 
 mean what it may, what is the language of Mr. C's in- 
 terpretation? Tliis: the promise is to you, Jews, therefore 
 be baptized; the promise is also to your children, but they 
 are not to be baptized; or in other words, the promise was 
 once to your children, but it is nov/ revoked; but by 
 whom, or at what time, neither Mr. C. nor any other per- 
 son can tell. On the contrary, we have seen that it was 
 acknowledged by Christ during his life, and by Peter after 
 his death, "and after Christ had fully instructed the 
 apostles in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God." 
 
 There is another consideration, which, when duly 
 weighed, perfectly comports with, and strongly corrobo- 
 rates the interpretation I have given to this passage. The 
 Jews, we know, from Paul's epistles, were extremely ten- 
 acious of their privileges; and if their children, according 
 to the Baptist system, were now to be cast out of the 
 church, a fairer opportunity of doing so, and of obtaining 
 their parent's consent to the measure, never presented 
 itself before nor since. *'They were pricked to tha 
 
24 
 
 heart,'^ from a sense of their exceeding great guilt in cru- 
 cifying as an impostor, the Son of God, and their expect- 
 ed Messiah; and were thereby prepared to submit to any 
 thing that would remove the guilt of such an atrocious 
 crime; and they accordingly said to Peter and to the rest 
 of the apostles, ''Men and brethren, what shall we do?'* 
 Did Peter say to them as Baptists would have said, and 
 do say; be baptized every one of you, in the name of Je- 
 sus Christ for the remission of sins — for the promise is to 
 you, but not to your children? No — but he says, 'Hhe 
 promise is to you, and to your children; and to all that are 
 afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
 But whom does the apostle mean by the "afar off," in 
 tliis passage? Mr. C. tells us that it means what Joel in 
 his prophecy styles the ''remnant whom the Lord shall 
 call." I confess that I was amazed when I read this, as 
 it came from %man who in his book talks about ' 'quacks 
 in theology," and as I did ndt think there was any person 
 who read the Bible, and was acquainted with its phraseol- 
 ogy, but knew, that the remnant is usually, if notunifonn- 
 ly, applied to that portion of the Jcavs who believed in 
 Christ, and who should be saved from the direful calami- 
 ties awaiting that nation, and portrayed by Joel in that 
 prophecy in the strongest and most appaling colours. 
 But a passage in the epistle to the Ephesians, already ad- 
 duced, tells us that the words "afar off," designate the 
 Gentile nations: "but ye who sometime w^ere afar off, are 
 made nigh by the blood of Christ. " — Hence then, the plain 
 and unsophisticated meaning of the passage is; that not 
 only the Jews, in consequence of the promise of God in 
 the covenant of circumcision, were to be introduced, they 
 and their children, into tlie church, under the present dis- 
 pensation, but the Gentiles also, with their children, when 
 they should be called by the ministration of the gospel, to 
 the knowledge of Clmst, and thereby ingrafted into the 
 good olive tree. 
 
 As the passage now under consideration so fully estab- 
 lishes the right of infants, whose parents are church mem- 
 bers, to baptism; every art that ingenuity and sophistry 
 could invent, has therefore been employed to lessen its 
 force. Hence then Baptist writers tell us, that the word 
 "children" in scripture language sometimes means young 
 persons arrived to maturity, and Mr. C. in his book ap- 
 
25 
 
 plies it to the joimg men and maidens mentioned in Jo- 
 el's prophecy. Be it so, — it will not be denied that it is 
 also applied to minors and infants, and this is enough for 
 the Pedobaptist argument. And admitting that the word 
 in tills passage means young men and women aiTived to 
 ti^aturity, what would then be the scope of the apostle's 
 argument.^ This: The promise is to you, Jews, and to 
 your cliildren? but not to your children while under your 
 direction and discipline, but to your children when arrived 
 to maturity, and not under your direction, and when God 
 shall call them by his gospel to the knowledge of salvation 
 by Christ. I need not tell you ^w -foolishly this inter- 
 pretation makes the apostle speak; for this is no more than 
 could be said to the niost idolatrous Gentile. Such is 
 the absurdity of the Baptist interpretation of this impor- 
 tant passage: and who would have thought it, or rather, 
 who would not have thought i^, the intei-pj^tation of the 
 man who tells us, that on tke subject of baptism he "chal- 
 lenges all Christendom, ^l ^ 
 
 Aware how much tliis important passage stands in the 
 way of the Baptist system, Mr. C. tells us with an air of 
 triumph, in No. 3 of the appendix to his book, that by 
 deep research into chronology, he has at length found out 
 what will not only destroy the strong argument for infant 
 baptism derived from it, but what will '^tumble the whole 
 system of Pedobaptists to the ground." And what is it,^ 
 — That the covenant of circumcision, on which the forego- 
 ing argument is founded, was made thirty years after '*the 
 covenant of God in Christ;" and that it is the covenant of 
 God in Chi'ist, and not the covenant of circumcision, that 
 t1ie apostle alludes to in liis epistle to the Galatians, and 
 styles the preaching of the gospel to Abraham: — or, in 
 other words, that Pedobaptists argue from a wrong cove- 
 naiut, and consequently from wrong premises. 
 
 It is very fortunate, however, for the devoted Pedobap- 
 tists, that these two covenants of Mr. C's are one and the 
 same; and very unfortunate for him that they are so, as he 
 has thereby lost all the honour he expected from such a no- 
 table discovery. As the church of Rome has thrown out 
 the second commandment, because it forbids the making 
 and worsliipping of graven images, and split the tentli in- 
 to two, to make up the number; so Mr. C. for the sake of 
 his system, has thrown out of t)ie catalogue of his cove- 
 4 
 
£6 
 
 nants the covenant recorded in the 15th chapter of Gene- 
 sis, as I have already observed, and split the covenant 
 confirmed of God in Christ, into two, in order to make 
 up his number, or perhaps, because that number is consid- 
 ered bj some a number of perfection. 
 
 Now, that what is called the covenant of God in Christ 
 is the same with what is called the covenant of circumci- 
 sion, is evident, from the consideration that the provisions 
 and object of both are the same. It was first intimated to 
 Abraham in the 12th chapter of Genesis: — "Now the 
 Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thj country, 
 and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto' a 
 land that I 'svill shew thee; and I will make of thee a great 
 nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great, and 
 thou shalt be a blessing, and in thee shall all the families 
 of the earth be blessed. That it is this covenant the apos- 
 tle alludes to in the Sd chapter to the Galatians, is evi- 
 dent, from his quoting«one of its blessings with a small 
 verbal variation, very common with New Testament win- 
 ters, wben quoting the Old : and that it is the same that he 
 alludes to in the 4th chapter to the Romans, is also evi- 
 dent from his quoting another of its blessings with a small 
 variation also. In the former epistle and chapter, are 
 these words — "In thee shall all nations be blessedj" the 
 same as "In thee shall all the families of the earth be 
 blessed." In the latter epistle and chapter he has these 
 words — "I have nmde thee a father of many nations;" 
 equivalent to "I will make of thee a great nation." And 
 not only is this the case, but the very w^ords of Jehovah 
 himself, in the 17th chapter, is a proof, that the covenant 
 there mentioned was not a new covenant, but a covenant 
 already made. *^As for me, (saith God) my covenant is 
 9vith theep^ which plainly alludes to a covenant already 
 intimated; "and I will establish any covenant between me 
 and thee," or confirm my covenant between me and thee, 
 which he did at that time by the seal of circumcision. 
 
 From these considerations it is evident that the cove- 
 nant of God in Christ, and the covenant of circumcision, 
 are one and the same. It was styled by Paul "the cove- 
 nant confirmed of God in Christ (eis Christon) because it 
 had relation to Christ and his church; and it is called by 
 Stephen the covenant of circumcision, because it was con- 
 firmed by that rite thirty years after it was made— and 
 
lliereiore the Pedobaptist sjsteni still stands firm, notwith- 
 standing Mr. C's notable discovery that was "to tumble 
 it to the ground." You will have perceived, however, 
 tliat had Mr. C's great chronological discovery, so big with 
 mischief to the Pedobaptist system, been founded on fact, 
 it could not have affected my view of the subject, as I da 
 not consider that covenant to be the covenant of grace.* 
 
 But to tlie argument drawn from the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision in ftivour of infant baptism, Mr. C. replies, that 
 circtiincisioii and baptism are positive institutes^ ''and in 
 positive institutes we are not authorized to reason, what 
 we sliould do, but implicitly to obeyj and was there ever a 
 positive ordinance or institution founded solely upon in- 
 ference or reason — and can there be a positive institution 
 without a positiv e precept or precedent authorizing it— and 
 a limited commission implies a proliibition of such things 
 as are not contained in itj and positive laws imply their 
 ne<^aiive3, " 
 
 The amount and meaning of all this is — 'Hhat there is 
 no such precept or command in the scriptures as that in- 
 fants sha,ll be baptized," or precedent or example that 
 they were: and hence he infers that they are not entitled 
 to that privilege. When called upon by Mr. W. to pro- 
 duce a positive precept for admitting believing w^omen to 
 the ordinance of the supper, or precedent that they v/ere 
 admitted — w^hat does he do.^ — Does he dii-ect to the chap- 
 ter and verse that says that believing women are to be ad- 
 mitted to the Lord's table, or precedent that they were? 
 ■ — No — but he tells us in his usual style, a style sui generis, 
 
 *TIiat the covenant of circumcision was not the covenant of 
 grace, is apparent from Rom. 3: 1, 2, already adduced for another 
 purpose. 1 shall transcribe the passag-e again. *'What advan- 
 tag-e hath the Jew? or what profit is there of cii'cumcision? much 
 every way; cMefly, because that unto them were committed the 
 oracles of God." Here "the oracles of God" are said to be the 
 cAief advantage which those who were interested in that covenant 
 by circumcision, derived from it, and until it is proved that the 
 words "the oracles of God" imply in them justification, sanctifi- 
 cation and eternal life, this single passage settles the point at 
 once. If it is said that they are the appointed means for interest- 
 ing in those all-important blessings — that is the very thing I con- 
 tend for, but the means are not the end, nor the end the means. 
 As I understand that Mr. W. intends to combat my opinion on 
 tills subject, it is expected that he will not overlook this passage. 
 
28 
 
 '•that it is a pitiful and pcor come-off," "tlie most puerite 
 and childish reiort that he had ever heard used by adults 
 that had any kncv.ledge of words and' things.*' Then he 
 tells us that the Lord's supper was appointed for the 
 disciples of Christy but women are styled disciples; there- 
 fore they are to be admitted to the table of the Lord. He 
 has indeed fully proved the point: — but how.^ — was it by 
 producing his positive precept or precedent? No — for 
 there is no such precept or precedent, but by reasoning and 
 inference; to the destruction of his own rule, which he so 
 frequently and so sti^enuously inculcates, and which if 
 acted upon would exclude every female, however pious, 
 from the Lord's table, as the Lord's supper is as much a 
 positive institute as baptism. With respect to this rule 
 contained in the above quotations, and which is to be ap- 
 plied to infants, but not at ail to v»-omeD, he is only the 
 echo of Mr. Booth, and from the just severity, with vvhich 
 Peter Edwards, whom he very modestly styles a sophist, 
 had exposed it, I had expected that no man of common 
 sense and modesty v.ould have had the hardihood to bring 
 it forward again; and its re-appearance in Jilr. C's book is 
 a proof to what miserable shifts he is reduced to support 
 his system. 
 
 If it is asked how far we may safely reason with res- 
 pect to positive institutes? — So far I think, and no farther. 
 When the scriptures tell us that one positive institute is 
 come in the room of another, then we may safely infer, 
 that the latter is to be applied to the same subjects as 
 were embraced by the former, unless positively prohibited, 
 and to as many more as m.ay be expressly mentioned or 
 implied. We have seen that the church of God is one 
 and indivisible — that male infants were introduced into 
 it by the ordinance of circumcision under the Abrahamic 
 dispensation — that their membership instead of being re- 
 voked, was acknowledged by Christ in the most explicit 
 term.s — that baptism is now the initiating ordinance — and 
 being told that there is "neither male nor female in Christ 
 Jesus," or no sextual distinction of privileges under the 
 present dispensation; we may hence safely infer, that fe- 
 male as well as male infants are to be baptized, when 
 their parents are members of the church, and in good 
 standing. In this manner the apostle Peter reasoned on 
 the day of Pentecost: and in this manner may we safely 
 
29 
 
 reason on every passage tliat has a reference to the point.* 
 Mr. C. has another argument against infant baptism, 
 which he pronounces in the 31st page and elsewhere to be 
 unanswerable, and as settling the point at once. It a- 
 mounts to this. The scripture direction respecting bap- 
 tism is, believe and be baptized; but infants are not capa- 
 ble of believing, therefore they are not to be baptized. A 
 syllogism constructed on this plan will prove, that all in- 
 fants shall be damned. For instance; the scriptures tell 
 us, that he that believeth shall be saved: and he that be- 
 lieveth not shall be damned: but infants are not capable 
 of believing, therefore they shall be damned. It may an- 
 
 *It has been objected, that cu-cumcision could not have been- 
 desig-ned as a mode of initiation into the church, because it 
 was appointed for the males only. To this it has been replied, 
 that in all g-ood constitutions and governments, the civil and reli- 
 g-ious privileg-es of females, are implied, and involved in those of 
 their fathers or husbands; and therefore it was not necessary to 
 mention their church membership, specifically. There is truth 
 and force in the observation; and I think, that of itself it is a suffi- 
 cient answer to the objection. But besides this, it is apparent to 
 myself, that a church of God as the medium of redemption, was 
 implied, and involved in the first promise — "that the seed of the 
 woman should bruize the serpent's head;" and as sacrifices were 
 offered up to Jehovah in consequence of this promise; and as 
 both males and females eat of those sacrifices; and their eating" of 
 them implied a trust in the promise, that "the seed of the woman" 
 would in due time come into the world as a Redeemer; then, their 
 eating* of those sacrifices, amongst other purposes, appears to 
 have been the appointed mean of induction into the church under 
 the patriarchal dispensation of grace. The mode of initiation for 
 the males was indeed chang'ed in the days of Abraham, for wise 
 pm'poses; but the primitive mode continued unchang-ed in relation 
 to females until the coming' of the Redeemer, who bruised the 
 head of the old serpent by the sacrifice of liimself. And as all the 
 sacrifices appointed both under the Patriarchal and Jewish dis- 
 pensations, were, typical of this great sacrifice, they, with every 
 other Jewish ordinance, consequently ceased at the death of 
 Christ, and could no longer answer the purpose of a mean of ini- 
 tiation into the church for females: baptism was therefore ap- 
 pointed as a mean of induction for both males and females; "for 
 in Christ Jesus, says the apostle, there is neither male nor fe- 
 male." Either of the foregoing considerations and facts, is, in 
 my opinion, a satisfactory answer to the objection; and the fore- 
 going view of the origin, the design, and the Onexess of the 
 church may remove the difficulty arising from the circumstance, 
 that males Only, were introduced into the church by circumcision. 
 
 *4 
 
30 
 
 swer every purpose at present just to observe, that when 
 the scriptures say that he that believeth not shall be dam- 
 nedj and when they speak of faith as a pre-requisite for 
 baptism, they speak of adults only, and to include infants 
 in such passages betrays an unpardonable ignorance in 
 any man who has pretensions to a knowledge of letters, or 
 a disposition to impose upon the ignorant by a shameless 
 sophistry. 
 
 The same inexcusable ignorance or unblushing sophis- 
 try is also manifested, in his answer to the argument ad- 
 duced by Mr. W. in favour of infant baptism, from the 
 baptisms of the houses of Cornelius, ofLydia, of the jailer, 
 and of Stephanas. Mr. W. presumed that there were in- 
 fants in some of these houses; but Mr. C. in pages 72, 73, 
 confidently affirms there were none. As he has kindly 
 constructed syllogisms, not only for Papists, and Episco- 
 palians, but for Presbyterians on the subject of baptism, 
 I shall therefore throw his answers and proofs into the 
 form of syllogisms, both for brevity's sake, and that the 
 reader may at one glance see them just as they are — in all 
 their shameful nakedness. Cornelius was a devout man 
 and feared God, with all his house — Cornelius called to- 
 gether his kinsmen and near friends — Peter preached to 
 them all — the Holy Ghost fell on them that heard the 
 word, and they were all baptized : but infants are incapa- 
 ble of being devout, and of fearing God, or of hearing 
 preaching so as to understand it; therefore, there were no 
 infants in the house of Cornelius. The Lord opened the 
 heart of Lydia; and she believed and was baptized, and 
 her house — Paul and Silas visited her family, and when 
 they had seen the brethren, and comforted them, tliey de- 
 parted: but infants are incapable of believing and being 
 comforted; therefore, there were no infants in the house of 
 Lydia. Paul spake the word of the Lord to the jailer, 
 and to all that were in his house, and the jailer believed in 
 God, with all his house: but infants are incapable of hear- 
 ing the word of the Lord so as to understand it, or of re- 
 joicing from the same cause that the jailer did; therefore, 
 there were ho infants in the house of the jailer. The 
 house of Stephanas addicted themselves to the ministry of 
 the saints: but infants are incapable of addicting them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints; therefore, there wer^ 
 no infants in the house of Stephanas. 
 
31 
 
 As every person of good common sense is a good logician, 
 though not instructed in the systematic logic of the schools, 
 — every such reader will now easily see wherein the so- 
 phistry of the foregoing syllogisms, fairly consti-ucted from 
 his answers, lies. He will perceive that although the 
 word of God frequently speaks of infants and their privi- 
 leges, when children of believing parents; yet the scrip- 
 tures are not addressed to them as infants, but to adults 
 capable of hearing or reading, and of understanding what 
 they hear orreadj andthere^re to include them in warn- 
 ings, exhortations or promises addressed to adults, or to 
 class them with those who are subjects of duties, is sophis- 
 tical in the highest degree; and I am persuaded that he 
 will be constrained to say, there must be something radi- 
 cally unsound in that system that has recourse to such 
 shameful sophistry to support it. 
 
 It is true, that the argument for infant baptism deduced 
 from the baptism of those houses, is only presumptive; but 
 it is a presumption of the strongest kind; for as the con- 
 version of the heads of those families is only mentioned, 
 the inference I think is just, that the houses were bapti- 
 zed on account of the faith of the parents: and whenever a 
 minister of the gospel meets with a heathen or infidel head 
 of a fEHtiily, brought over to the Christian faith, and desi- 
 rous to be baptized, he is warranted by the example of 
 the apostles, "to baptize liim and all his straightway." 
 
 I would here farther remark, that Mr. C. according to 
 his own account, acted fully as disingenuously and sophis- 
 tically, with respect to the argument in favour of infant 
 baptism drawn from the testimonies of the ancient fathers 
 of the church, as in the instances now reviewed. Mr. W. 
 he tells us, produced extracts from the writings of Justin 
 Martyi', Irenseus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, 
 Jerome, and Chrysostom, who filled in the church a space 
 of time from the beginning of the 2d to the 4th century of 
 the Christian era; and all of whom mention more or less, 
 that infant baptism was practised in their day. And how 
 does Mr. C. meet this strong presumptive argument.^ 
 These fathers held some errors — and he consumes twelve 
 pages of his book in pointing out those errors, and portray- 
 ing them in the strongest colours; with the evident design 
 of making the impression that such dotards and errorists 
 wee not worthy of the least attention. But what if those 
 
fathers held some errors and fanciful theories? Does it fol- 
 low that they are not competent and credible witnesses for 
 facts that happened in their dav? and facts too in which 
 they themselves were engaged— the baptizing of infants; 
 and it is as witnesses for this fact, and not as standards of 
 orthodoxy, that Pedobaptist writers bring forward their 
 testimony. 
 
 I shall close this letter by obviating another objection 
 to infant baptism, and indeed the only one that ever ap- 
 peared to me to deserve a serious answer. As infants are 
 incapable of knowing what is done to them when they are 
 baptized, it is asked — '''Of what use can it be to them?" 
 Mr. C. frequently brings forward the objection, and with 
 an air of ridicule bordering on rancorous malevolence: and 
 frequently too out of place; for when the question was 
 about their right to baptism, bis usual phraseology is — 
 * 'infant sprinkling — ^infant sprinkling" — yea, the first 
 words of the title page of his book is "infant sprinkling," 
 as if that and nothing else had been the subject of debate. 
 
 It might be enough to silence such objectors by saying, 
 it is of divine appointment, "and who art thou, O man, 
 v\'ho repliest against God?" And it can be of as much use 
 now as circumcision of old. But besides this; we think 
 we can see in the institution a gracious provision for train- 
 ing up the rising generation for the Lord. By baptism 
 they are taken out of the visible kingdom of Satan, in 
 which air are born, as the children of a degenerate parent, 
 and PLANTED in the vineyard, or the church of God, the 
 usual birth-place of the children of his grace, and become 
 entitled, by the divine promise, to what Christ calls "dig- 
 ging about and dunging;" or such instruction by the word 
 and Spirit, tlu-ough the instrumentality of their parents, 
 and of the church, as is calculated to make them "trees of 
 righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be 
 glorified." And as God usually works by means or sec- 
 ond causes in the kingdom of grace, as well as in the king- 
 dom of nature; may we not venture to say that baptism 
 was also appointed as a means of regeneration for the in- 
 fants of his people dying in infancy, and whom he design- 
 ed to save? If it is not a means for this purpose, then 
 there are no means. ^Vliat God designs to do with all 
 infants dying in infancy, he has not told us, and to decide 
 peremptorily on tlie subject belongs not to man — the Judge 
 
of all the earth will not do them any -svrong^ but this we 
 know, that he has promised to sanctify and save some of 
 the children of his people. '"Thus sailh the Lord that 
 made thee, and formed thee from the v>'omb, which will 
 help thee: fear not, O Jacob, my servant, and thou Jes- 
 huran, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water on him 
 that is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground. I will pour 
 my Spirit upon thy seed ; and my blessing upon thy oft^- 
 spring; and they shall spring up as among the grass, and 
 as willows by the water courses.'' 
 
 And now Vvhat is the comparative, practical operation 
 and effect of the two systems? The Baptists take into the 
 church baptized adults only, and none others are consider- 
 ed under her direction and control; and hence the compar- 
 atively slow progress of Christianity in the East, under 
 their missionaries, zealous and indefatigable as they are| 
 while upon the Pedobaptist system, sanctioned by the ex- 
 ample of the apostles, of taking under her wings those hou- 
 ses, the heads of which profess the Christian faith, by be- 
 ing baptized, the inhabitants of Otaheite, of Eimeo, and of 
 other adjacent islands in the Pacific ocean, may be said, 
 according to the prophecy, "to be born in a day." The 
 Baptists leave their children in the visible kingdom of 
 'darkness, where there is no promise nor provision for their 
 regenei'ation; and if a gracious and sovereign God regen- 
 erates them, well and good: But Pedobaptists consider it 
 their duty and privilege to plant their children by baptism 
 in the vineyard of the Lord; hoping, that in his own time, 
 and according to his own promise, he will '-pour out his 
 Spirit on their seed, and his blessing upon their offspring," 
 "diat they may be trees of righteousness, the planting of 
 the Lord, that his name may be glorified.*' Those Bap- 
 tists who have embraced the whole of Mr. C's system, de- 
 grade the Old Testament dispensation of grace, by denying 
 that there was a church of God in the Jev/ish nation; and 
 consequently m.ust consider the ordinptnces appointed by 
 Jehovah, from the time of Abraham to the completion of 
 the tem.ple service, at best, as an unmeaning inefficient 
 mummery; but Pedobaptists consider them as unequivocal 
 proofs of the existence of a church amongst that people, 
 as ordinances ^ 'for the service of GocP^ are involved in the 
 very idea of a church, and belong to her essence; and also 
 
34 
 
 as precious means of grace suited to that day^ and gi-aci- 
 oiislj intended for interesting them in the Redeemer's 
 righteousness. From a vievf of the whole of this system^ 
 as a fitlier of a familj, and with the Bible before me, I 
 must say of such Baptists and their system, »'0 my sou], 
 come not thou into their secret^ unto their 'assembly' 
 mine honour be not united." I say this only of those 
 Baptists who have embraced the whole of Mr. C'ssystem| 
 for there are Baptists whom I esteem for their piety and 
 intelligence, and who, I am persuaded, abhor some of his- 
 principles as much as I do, I shali resume the subject in 
 my next letter. 
 
LETTER IL 
 
 AS the design of a Magazine is to furnish tlie public 
 with diSerent essays on difterent iisefal subjects, it cannot 
 therefore admit of any publication of any considerable 
 length. I was guided by tliis consideration when I wrote 
 the foregoing letter for the Presbyterian Magazine, and I 
 accordingly selected for review only those passages from 
 the word of God, that speak, as we think, of infant bap- 
 tism, and were brought ior\^ ard in the debate, and which 
 appeared to have most bearing on the point at issue, '.rhis 
 was the reason that I passed over the argument for infant 
 ]>aptism deduced from the account we have in the New 
 Testament of different families being baptized at different 
 times, with barely noticing what I deemed sophistical 
 reasoning on that subject by Mr. C. As I am not now so 
 circumscribed, I shall resume that point, and also exam- 
 ine one or tvv^o other passages introduced by Mr. C. in the 
 appendix to his book^ and these will embrace all he has 
 said on the subject. 
 
 I would therefore observe that the Greek words Oikos 
 and Oikia, which literally signify a liouse or dwelling place, 
 are used metaphorically both in the Septuagint"^ of the Old, 
 and in the Greek New Testament to denote the inhabi- 
 tants, with this difference, that Oikia signifies a man's 
 liousehold or servants, but Oikos is confined to the chil- 
 dren separate from the parents: examples of which shall 
 be adduced in the proper place. There may be instances 
 "where these words are used interchangeably, perhaps 
 through the carelessness of transcribers; but every person 
 who will take the trouble of examining the matter will find 
 
 * It may be necessary for the sake of some readers to obser^-e, 
 that by the ^'Septuaglnt" is meant a translation of the Old Testa- 
 ment, which was written in Hebrew, into the Greek language 
 ■about 150 years before Christ. It is this translation that is usually 
 referred to by Christ and the apostles. We refer to it only for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the true meaning of some words in 
 tlie Greek Testament, as many of the principal words are evident- 
 ly borrowed from it; nor mdeed without that translation, could the 
 real meaning of them be clearly ascertained, as we shall have oc- 
 casion hereafter to shew. 
 
that the distinction is accuratelj observed in the Nev\ 
 Testament. 
 
 The reason why Oikos is used to denote the children of 
 the owner of a household seems to be this — that as a house 
 or dwelling place is built up by degrees, and by succes- 
 sive actSj so a man's family is built up by degrees, by 
 cliildren born to him in suctession. In this sense it is 
 used repeatedly in 2 Sam. 7: 25 — 29. "And now Lord 
 God, the v,'ord which thou hast spoken concerning thy 
 servant, and concerning his house (Oikoii) establish it for- 
 ever, and do as thou hast said. — And let the house (Oi- 
 kos) of thy servant David be established before tiiee. For 
 thou, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed thy- 
 self to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house, 
 (Oikon,) — Therefore let it please thee to bless the house 
 (Oikon) of thy servant." The apostle Peter speaking of 
 believers as the children, and more immediate family of 
 God here below, uses the word in the same sense, and as- 
 signs the same reason respecting the use and propriety of 
 the metaphor. Ye also as living stones are built up a spi- 
 ritual house (Oikos) to offer up spiritual sacrifices accept- 
 able to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Epistle, 2: 8. 
 
 That the word House is used in the Old Testament to 
 designate cliildren separate from their parent or parents, 
 is evident not only from the foregoing, but the following 
 examples. '^Then went king David in, and sat before the 
 Lord, and he said, who am I, O Lord, and what is my 
 house (Oikos) that thou hast brought me hither?" 2 Sam. 
 7: 18. — "And thus saith the Lord, behold I will raise up 
 evil against thee [David] out of thine own house" (Oi- 
 kou.) 2 Sam. 13: 11. The same phraseology is used in 
 the New Testament. Hence then we read of Cornelius 
 and his house^ of Lydia and her house, of the Jailer and 
 his house, and of Stephanas and his house, in all of which 
 Oikos and not Oikia is used. It is true indeed, that the 
 English translators have sometimes rendered both words 
 house, jand sometimes household; but as I have already 
 observed, the distinction is generally obser\'ed with accu- 
 racy; and certainly it would have been better to have uni- 
 formly rendered Oikos, house, and Oikia, household, as 
 they have done in Phil. 4: 22. "All the saints salute you, 
 chiefly those that are of Csesar's household;" (Oikias) and 
 every one knows that it must have been Caesar's servants, 
 and not his children that are meant in that passage. 
 
3r 
 
 Having thus shewn that the word house is used in both 
 the Old, and the New Testament to denote children sepa- 
 rate from their parents; I would now observe, that it is 
 used to denote little children as a part of a house or family. 
 Thus in numbers 16: 27. It is said that Dathan and Abi- 
 ram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and 
 their wives, and their sons, and their little children. 
 Verse 32: And it (;3,me to pass that the earth opened her 
 mouth, and swallowed them up and their houses, (Oikous) 
 — swallowed up their little children as part of their hou- 
 ses, as well as their wives, their sons, and themselves. 
 And not only is this the case, but that it is also used to 
 signify infants exclusively, is apparent from the follow- 
 ing examples. According to a law of the Jewish theo- 
 cracy, if a married man died childless, then his unmarried 
 brother, and if he had no unmarried brother, then the next 
 of kin was required to marry his widowj and if he refused, 
 *'then, shall his brother's wife loose his shoe from oiF his 
 foot, and spit in his face, and say, so shall it be done to 
 that man who will not build up liis brother's house,^^ (Oi- 
 kon.) Deut. 25: 9. But how was his brother's house to 
 be built up? — By the surviving brother marrying his de- 
 ceased brother's widow, and by infants born to him by herj^ 
 but which were to be esteemed the children of the deceas- 
 ed brother. The marriage of Ruth to Boaz was in conse- 
 quence of this law: and we are accordingly told that when 
 he had espoused her, all the people that were in the gate, 
 and the elders said we are witnesses. "The Lord make 
 the woman that is to come into thine house, or dwelling 
 place, like Rachel, and like Leah, which two did build up 
 the house (Oikon) of Israel. — And let thy house be like 
 the house (Oikos) of Phares which Tamar bare unto Judah 
 of the seed which the Lord will give thee of this young wo- 
 man." Ruth 4: 12. I would again ask how was the 
 house of Israel built up by Rachel and by Leah? — certainly 
 by the infants brought forth by them from time to time. 
 And how was the house of Boaz to become like the, house 
 of Phares, but by infants to be born to him by Ruth, and 
 which are styled "tlie seed of this young woman?" Many 
 other examples of the word house being used to denote 
 little children, and infants exclusively, might be adduced, 
 but I shall mention only another in the 113 th Psalm, 9th 
 verse. ''He maketh the ban^en woman to keep house^ 
 5 
 
38 
 
 (Oiko) and to be the joyful mother of children." In this 
 passage, every reader will see that the barren woman's 
 heart was to be made glad by infants to be given to her by 
 the Lord, and who were to constitute what is called her 
 ^'hoitse^^ or family. 
 
 Now to apply the metaphorical use of the word hoiise^ 
 not only as an argument for, but rather as a positive proof 
 of infant baptism. We read in the New Testament of 
 the baptism of Lydia, and of her house, of the Jailer, and 
 of his house, and of Stephanas, and of his house, or house- 
 hold, as it is translated. The question now is, what did 
 the inspired penmen mean by the word "^wse," in the 
 record they have left us of these, and of other family bap- 
 tisms? They were well acquainted with the meaning of 
 the term in the Old Testament, as sometimes signifying 
 children separate from their parents, and little children, 
 and infants exclusively. The Jews to whom they wrote 
 had the same understanding of the word; and if it is ne- 
 cessary, it can be proved that the Greeks attached the 
 same idea to it, when used metaphorically. When the 
 Jews then read that Lydia and her house (Oikos) — the 
 Jailer and his house (Oikos) — and the house (Oikos) of 
 Stephanas were baptized, what would they, or what could 
 they understand by the word in those several passages? 
 Would they not attach the same idea wliich they had been 
 accustomed to affix to it in the Old Testament, namely^ a 
 man's or woman's children by immediate descent or adop- 
 tion, infants included? If according to the Baptist system, 
 infants are not to be baptized, then, the inspired penmen 
 have used a word calculated to deceive both Jews and 
 Greeks — ^but this is not to be admitted. I cannot con- 
 ceive of any possible way of evading the argument but by 
 alleging that they used it in a new and limited sense, as 
 embracing only children arrived to maturity, to the exclu- 
 sion of infants. But where is the proof of tliis? An in- 
 stance or two, if such can be found, of their using it in 
 this sense cannot overturn the argument; for to overturn 
 it, it must be proved that they always used it in that sense. 
 But this I fearlessly affirm cannot be done, for I have pro- 
 ved the reverse; and therefore it follows incontrovertibiy 
 that they attached the same idea to it, as had been af- 
 fixed by their sacred writers for upward of two thousand 
 years^ 
 
39 
 
 But that the soundness and force of this argument may 
 be still more apparent, I would observe farther, that al- 
 though there are other Greek words as Pais, Paidion, Pai- 
 darion; Brephos, Brephullion; Nepios, Nepion; and Tek- 
 non and Tekna; and which are frequently used in the 
 Septuagint, and in the Greek Testament to designate little 
 children and infants ^ yet none of them are used by the 
 writers of the New Testament in the account they have 
 given us of family baptisms. The reason doubtless was, 
 that these words are rather indeterminate in their mean- 
 ing, and are sometimes employed to denote persons ap- 
 proaching, or arrived to maturity, as well as little children 
 and infants. Thus in Gen. 37: 30, Joseph is styled _''a 
 child" (Paidarion) when sixteen years of age^ and Benja- 
 min '^a little one"'' (Paidion) when upwards of thirty. 
 It wa.s therefore with an evident design, that they used a 
 word so fixed and determinate in its meaning by a pres- 
 cription of two thousand years, that those who read it 
 would not be mistaken, but immediately understand by it, 
 a man's or woman's family, infants included. 
 
 I have extracted and condensed the foregoing argitment 
 from a pam.phlet by a Mr. Taylor, the Editor of Calm£t's 
 Dictionary. It would seem that Mr, C. has either seen 
 that pamphlet, or extracts from it also, in Dr. Ely's quar- 
 terly reviev/, or in the first number of the Pamphleteer, 
 edited at Richmond by Dr. Rice: and as the only possible 
 way of evading the force of this argument, he roundly af- 
 firms in pages 72, 7S-) 1st Ed. that the baptized families 
 mentioned in the 16th chapter of the Acts of the apostles, 
 and elsewhere, were all adults, and baptized on their own 
 profession of faith. I shall now examine what is said of 
 the baptism of those families, and if it shall appear that they 
 were not all adults, then I shall consider the question as 
 settled; and the public will certainly excuse me for not 
 noticing any thing he may publish on this subject, until he 
 completely overturns the foregoing, and this, and the fol- 
 lowing arguments. In such an event, I will become his 
 proselyte, and thank him for enlightening my mind. 
 And 
 
 First, Mr. C, infers that all the members of the house of 
 Lydia were adult persons, because it is said that Paul and 
 Silas, after they were liberated from prison, went to see, 
 and comfort the brethren in her house. Acts 16: 40. 
 
40 
 
 The very language of Lydia in the 16th verse is however 
 a strong presumptive argument that there were not any 
 believers in her family at that time. Had her family been 
 believers she would not have said, as she did, "If ye have 
 judged ME," but "If ye have judged us" "to be faithful, 
 come into my house, (Oikon) and abide there." As to 
 the brethren whom Paul and Silas w-ent to visit in her 
 house at the time alluded to; had Mr. C. read w ith atten- 
 tion the third and fourth verses of that chapter, he w ould 
 have found that Timothy was with them in their journey 
 from Lystra to Philippi. Had he read the 10th, 11th and 
 12th verses, he would have found that Luke, the relater 
 of the incidents of that journey, joined tliem at Troas— 
 "Therefore coasting from Troas z/."ecame a straight course 
 to Samothracia. " And had he read the loth verse, he 
 would have found that Luke was one of those whom tlie 
 kind-hearted Lydia not only besought, but constrained 
 "to come into her hoiis'e and abide there"- — "And she con- 
 strained us. " Putting these facts together, v/e may now 
 see that Timothy and Luke were the brethren whom Paul 
 and Silas went to see and comfort, after they themselves 
 were liberated from prison. These brethren were doubt- 
 less much depressed in mind on account of the imprison- 
 ment of their dear friends and companions; and this ac- 
 counts for the expression that Paul and Silas "v/ent to see, 
 and comfort them." To this may be added, that these in- 
 defatigable champions of the cross had been "certain 
 days" in Philippi previous to their imprisonment. It is 
 to be presumed that they preached the gospel during "those 
 days;" and as the preaching of the gospel was attended 
 with much power at that period, it is to be presumed also 
 that some believed. These w^ould naturally resort to the 
 house of Lydia, not only for the purpose of Christian fel- 
 lowship, but to condole with Timothy and Luke; and these 
 might also be among the number of those brethren whom 
 Paul and Silas w^ent to visit and comfort before they de- 
 parted. But be that as it may, the well attested fact that 
 Timothy and Luke abode in the house of Lydia during 
 the imprisonment of Paul and Silas, shews, that Islr, C's 
 inference respecting her family w^as deduced from false 
 premises. — So far then the foregoing argument stands firm. 
 
 Secondly; Mr. C. affirms that the family of the jailer, 
 mentioned in the same chapter, w^ere also adult believers 
 
41 
 
 and baptized on account of their own profession of faith? 
 because, as he expresses it, ''Paul preached salvation to 
 him, and his house" — because ''he spake the word of the 
 Lord to him, and to all that were in his house" — and be- 
 cause the jailer "rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
 house. " — A few remarks on each of these propositions or 
 premises will shew their fallaciousness, and the conse- 
 quent inconclusiveness of his inference. 
 
 The first proposition is, "That Paul preached salvation 
 to the jailer and his house." This, I presume is founded 
 on the 31st verse, and the word "5«rsi" in that verse, as 
 there is no other in the whole passage whence it can be 
 deduced. "And thej said, believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ and thoushalt he saved Midi thy house," (Oikos.) 
 
 That the real meaning of the apostle may be seen in this 
 passage, it may be necessary to observe, that the w^ord 
 salvation., like many other words in the scriptures, is used 
 by the sacred penmen in two or three different meanings 
 or acceptations. Som.etimes it is used to signify a deliv- 
 erance from temporal danger only. This is its meaning 
 in Exod. 14: 13, where Moses speaking of that deliverance 
 which Jehovah was about to vouchsafe to the Israelites, in 
 the destruction of their enemies, the Egyptians, says to 
 •the former, "stand still, ailB^see the salvation of the Lord 
 which he will shew to you to-day." As it respects spiri- 
 tual objects and interests, it is sometimes used to signify 
 the ordinances of the true religion. This I apprehend is 
 its meaning in John 4 : 22, where Christ tells the woman of 
 Samaria, "That salvation is of the Jews." And it some- 
 times means that pardon of sin, sanctiiication of heart, and 
 eternal life, which is promised to all true believers in Christ. 
 This is its meaning in Rom. 1: 16, where the apostle says, 
 '•I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the 
 power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth, 
 to the Jew first and also to the Greek." 
 
 That it is salvation in this full and unlimited sense that 
 Mr. C. intends in this proposition, will I expect be admit- 
 ted. Indeed, no other kind of salvation, nor any salvation 
 less than this, would answer his purpose, as he contends 
 that a profession of this salvation is what alone can entitle 
 an adult to baptism. This salvation as it regards adults 
 is promised to believers onlyj "He that believeth and is 
 baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be 
 •*5 
 
42 
 
 damned.*' Now, every tyro in the Greek language knows, 
 that the verb '''Fisteuson,^^ ^^believe,^^ in this verse, is in 
 the singular number, and was addressed to the jailer only, 
 and not to his house or family. As they were all adults, 
 according to Mr. C's inference, then, Paul did not preach 
 this full salvation to them, unless he preached a salvation 
 that may be obtained ¥/ithout believing, or that the children 
 can be saved by the faith of the parent. But as neither of 
 these can be admitted, the question now is, what did he 
 mean by the word '^saved^^ in that verse, as it has reference 
 to the jailer's family? The apostle Peter answers the ques- 
 tion in the 3d chapter of liis 1st Epistle 25d verse; where 
 he tells us that bapti^i is a figure, or rather an antiiype 
 C^antiti/pon^^) of the deliverance of Noah and his h6u«€ "py 
 water;" — '^the like figure whereunto baptism doth also 
 now save us." Not that we are to understand the apostle 
 as teaching that baptism is regeneration, or yet a seal of an 
 interest in the salvation purchased by Christ, to either 
 adults or infants, until they bring forth "the answer of a 
 good conscience toward God," as the fniit of a living faith 
 in a risen Saviour; but as one of the means appointed by 
 the Head of the Church, for interesting in that salvation, 
 and for communicating those renewing influences of the 
 Holy Spirit, without which no one can behold his face in 
 glory. That this is his meaning is apparent from his ad- 
 vice to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. "Be baptized 
 every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
 'jmission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost: for the promise is to you and to your children, and 
 to all who are afar oiF, even as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call." By thus bringing Peter and Paul together, we 
 learn what the latter meant by the word saved, as it res- 
 pected the jailer's family, in the verse now under conside- 
 ration. — -That by his believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 they would be brought under baptism as a mean of salva- 
 tion, together with the other means connected with it, and 
 which we are afterwards told was the case. Thus a due 
 attention to the tiTie import of the words "believe," and 
 *'saved," in that verse, shews the fallaciousness of Mr. C's 
 proposition, "that Paul preached salvation in its full extent 
 to the jailer and his house;" and the inference deduced 
 from it, that they were adult believers, and baptized on 
 their own profession of faith, consequently falls to the 
 ground. 
 
43 
 
 The second propo&ition from v/hich he has drawn this 
 inference is, that it is said in the S2d verse, '*that Paul 
 spake the word of the Lord to the jailer, and to all that 
 were in his house, (infants and adults.)" 
 
 I confess that I was surprized, when I saw the w^ord in- 
 fants attached to this proposition: and I am at a loss to 
 know what he intended b j it, and what purpose it w as to 
 answer in his argument. Did he mean that Paul spake 
 the word of the Lord to the infants of the jailer's family? 
 This is representing the apostle's conduct in a truly ludi- 
 crous point of lightj as infants are incapable of hearing the 
 word so as to understand it, and profit by it. Besides, to 
 admit that there were infants in the jailer's^ family is giv- 
 ing up the point at once; for as we are told in the follow- ing 
 verse, ''that he and all his we're baptized;" then, as infants 
 are not Capable of believing, it follows, that they were not 
 baptized on account of their own faith, but on account of 
 the faith of their parent. It would seem that he was led 
 to acknowledge that there v*^ere infants in the jailer's fam- 
 ily, from the scriptural meaning of the word house; with- 
 out reflecting that this acknowledgment subverted the 
 Baptist, and established the Pedobaptist system. But be 
 that as it may, the inspired historian's words imply that 
 there were persons in the jailer's house who were capable 
 of hearing and understanding the word, and the question 
 is, who were they.^ An inspection of the Greek w' ord trans- 
 lated house in that verse solves the question. It is not 
 Oikos, but Cikia, which when used metaphorically, as I 
 think is the case in this verse, denotes a man's household 
 or servants; and that the jailer's servants would be per- 
 sons capable of hearing and understanding the v/ord spo- 
 ken, is what was to be expected from his occupation. — It 
 is scarcely worth while to observe that little children and 
 infants are unfit guards for a prison. You will have seen 
 that this proposition, as stated by himself, instead of sup- 
 porting his inference, completely overthrows both it, and 
 the Baptist^ystem, so far as that system respects the right 
 of the infants of baptized persons to the ordinance of 
 baptism. 
 
 The third proposition is, that it is said of the jailer in 
 the S4th verse, that he "rejoiced, believing in God with 
 all his house." 
 
 Before I make any remarks on this proposition, it may 
 
44 
 
 not be unnecessary to observe, that the Anabaptist sys- 
 teni, as it was then styled, prevailed to a considerable de- 
 gree in England, at the time the translation of the Bible in 
 present use was made under James 1st. It has been fre- 
 quently observed? at least, strongly suspected, that the 
 translators, or a majority of them, w^ere inclined to that 
 system, from the manner in which they have translated 
 several passages connected with baptism. And indeed 
 the manner in which they have translated the passage now 
 under examination is a proof of it} and that the unlearned 
 reader should draw the inference from it, that the jailer's 
 family were adult believers, is nothing extraordinary: but 
 that Mr. C. who is the Principal of an Academy in whicli 
 the Greek language is said to be taught, and who, as a dis- 
 puter and writer on baptism, it is to be presumed, has read 
 this passage in the Greek testament, should draw that in- 
 ference from it, is extraordinary indeed 5 and the fact is a 
 proof, either, that he does not understand the grammatical 
 principles of the Greek language, or that a love of system, 
 and the bold defying ground which he has assumed in this 
 controversy, have so blunted his moral feelings as to in- 
 duce him to grasp at any thing that has the appearance of 
 supporting that system, and of m.aintaining that ground. 
 
 That these strictures are just, and not incorrect, will 
 be admitted by every person who is acquainted with tlie 
 Greek language, and has examined, or will examine the 
 passage in- the original text. I have already observed, 
 what, every school-boy who is reading the Greek testament 
 knows, that the verb '^pisteusoii^^ ("believe") in the 31st 
 verse, is in the singular number, and was consequently 
 addressed to the jailer, and not to his family. This is also 
 the case with the participle pepisteukoos in this verse. It 
 is also in the singular number, and in the past tense, and 
 signifies ''having believed,^^ and is consequently predica- 
 ted of the jailer himself, and not of his house, or yet of his 
 household. As for the adverb PanoikU it is evidently an 
 abbreviation of the noun Fanoikia, which signifies a whole 
 household; and the literal meaning of the whole passage is 
 this — "He rejoiced v/ith all his household, having himself 
 believed in God," or "having believed in God, he rejoic- 
 ed with all his household." I fear not contradiction to 
 this translation, from any man who understands the Greek 
 language. It is true indeed that some expositors under- 
 
45 
 
 stand bj the adverb ''PanoiW^ ''every ^art of the house or 
 dwelling places" and others "the whole house or family." 
 But admitting that either of these interpretations is prefer- 
 able to the one 1 have given; yet neither of them will coun- 
 tenance Mr. C's inference; for it is natural to suppose that 
 those of his children who were capable of being influenced 
 by the passion cf fear, would rejoice, when they saw their 
 father rejoice, although their joy proceeded only from the 
 circumstance of their having escaped the effects of the ap- 
 paling earthquake that caused "die foundations of the pri- 
 son to shake." In a vvord, the single consideration that 
 the children of the jailer were not called upon to believe, 
 while their father was, and the profound silence respecting 
 their believing, while we are expressly told of his "having 
 believed," is an evidence, that they were not capable of 
 believing, and as they were baptized, that they were bap- 
 tized on account of the faith oi" their parent. 
 
 Thus all the premises whence Sir. C. has inferred that 
 this house or family were adult believers, v, hen brought to 
 the touchstone cf the original t^-^t, prove fallacious | and 
 these premises evince, at the same time, either an igno- 
 rance of the elementary principles c^Tthe Greek language, 
 or a design to impose on the unlearned by a shameful so- 
 pliistry. He cannot but feel that he has placed himself 
 betwixt XT.a horns of a dilemma, and I know of no honour- 
 able way whereby he can extricate hims'elf but by acknow- 
 ledging his ignorance of what he ought to have known be- 
 fore he began to write. I feel disposed to impute the pal- 
 pable blunders he has committed in his examination of the 
 baptism of tliis family, rather to this cause than to a desti- 
 tution of moral principle, or a disregard to morar truth. 
 
 Thirdly; Mr. C. infers that the house of Cornelius men- 
 tioned in the 10th chapter were all believers, because it is 
 said that he was "a devout man, and one that feared God 
 witJi all his hoiisep^ and because it is said that when Peter 
 preached in Ms house, "the Holy Giiost fell upon them all 
 that heard the word." 
 
 That Cornelius, who was a devout man, should, like 
 Abraham of old, "command his children and household to 
 keep the way of the Lord," is vhat v.as to be expected 
 from his character, and what is usually the case with good 
 men. But it does not follow that all those children, who 
 in a state of minority are restrained from evil, and influ- 
 
46 
 
 enced by paternal authority and example to respect the 
 character of God, are true believers. Thousands, who have 
 been thus trained up, have given the fullest evidence that 
 the reverse was their character, as soon as they arrived to 
 maturity, and were removed from under the paternal eye 
 and authority. 
 
 That the Holy Ghost fell upon those "kinsmen, and 
 near friends," vv^hom Cornelius had called together on the 
 occasion, and that they were baptized on their own per- 
 sonal profession of faith, w^as indeed the case; but it does 
 not follow, nor is it said that this was the case with his 
 children or house. Peter, when defending himself for as- 
 sociating with Cornelius and his friends, who v/ere uncir- 
 cumcised Gentiles, mentions a circumstance in the 14th 
 verse of the following chapter, which, when taken in con- 
 nexion with the words '^Baptism doth 7iow saveiis,^^ and 
 compared with the words of Paul and Silas to the jailer, 
 fully proves that the house of Cornelius were not baptized 
 on their own account, but on account of the faith of their 
 parent. Paul and Silas said to the jailer, "believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy hoiisef^ 
 and Peter's account u, that an angel from Heaven advised 
 Cornelius to send for Simon whose surname is Peter, 
 "who v^'ill tell thee \jiot thein] words whereby thou and 
 all thy house (Olkos) shall be saved." Let it now be ob- 
 served that the words addressed to both houses are pre- 
 cisely the same, and the promise made to the one, is m.ade 
 to the other. But I have shevm that the promise of salva- 
 tion made to the house of the jailer must necessarily be 
 limited to the means of salvation. That this must also be 
 the meaning of the salvation promised to the house of Cor- 
 nelius is evident from the consideration that no "words," 
 however good, addressed to Cornelius, and believed by 
 him, could confer eternal salvation on his children; any 
 more, than that the children of the jailer could be thus 
 saved by his believing. It fallows then, that as the chil- 
 dren of the jailer were brought under the means of salva- 
 tion by baptism, in consequence of his believing and being 
 baptized, so, the children of Cornelius were brought under 
 the same means, by the same ordinance, by his believing, 
 and being baptized also. It is true that they are not spe- 
 cifically m.entioned amongst those whom Peter command- 
 ed to be baptized on that occasion; but that they were bap- 
 
47 
 
 tized follows from this consideration, that if they were not 
 baptized, the promise to them was not made good — ^but 
 this is not the case with the promises of God. 
 
 Fourthly; Mr. C. infers that the house of Stephanas 
 were believers, because it is said, 1 Cor. 15: 16, that 
 they were "the first finiits of Achaia, and addicted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints. " 
 
 There is a difficulty not only in the grammatical 
 structure of that passage, but in the directions given by 
 the apostles relative to that House, that has perplexed Ex- 
 positors and Commentators. The difficulty, however, as 
 far as it respects the point in debate, vanishes in a mO' 
 ment, when we consult the original text. When Paul tells 
 us, chapter 1: 16, that he baptized the household of Ste- 
 phanas, as it is translated, the word used is Oikos; but in 
 the passage now under consideration it is Oikia, which is a 
 proof that he had reference, not to the children, but to the 
 servants of Stephanas. Their being styled the first fruits 
 of Achaia, is a proof that they were converted to the 
 Christian faith at the same time with their master, and 
 this circumstance, together with the character for kindness 
 given of Stephanas himself, in the following verse, accounts 
 for their addicting themselves to the ministry or service of 
 the saints 5 and hence it follows that the house of Stepha- 
 nas alluded to in 1 Cor. 1: 16, is to be classed with the 
 house of Cornelius, of Lydia, and of the jailer. 
 
 The conclusion then, that forces itself upon the mind 
 from a close inspection of the baptism of those houses is, 
 that as the word House denotes the whole family, infants 
 included, and sometimes infants exclusively; ana as there 
 is not the least intimation that any individual of those 
 families believed, that they were baptized on account of 
 the faith of their parents. This conclusion is strengthened 
 by what we are told in the 18th chapter of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, respecting the baptism of Crispus and his house. 
 "And Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed 
 with all his house," and were baptized. Here we are told 
 that the family of Crispus were capable of believing, and 
 believed, and the circumstance is accordingly distinctly 
 related, previous to the account of their being baptized; 
 and if any of the family of Cornelius, of Lydia, of the 
 jailer, and of Stephanas, had been capable of believing, 
 and believed, can we suppose that the circumstance would 
 
48 
 
 not have been recorded also; for to record the triumphs of 
 the Gospel in that day, over obstinate Jews, and idolatrous 
 Gentiles, was the principal end which Luke had in view 
 in writing the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 I shall close this argument by just farther observing, 
 that as Mr. C. places such a mighty stress on ''a positive 
 precept, or precedent" for administering positive insti- 
 tutes, he may find both in the baptism of the Houses alluded 
 to, provided he will look at them with a true pliilological 
 eye, purged from the mists of prejudice. He will find 
 his positive precept in the meaning which the inspired his- 
 torians must have necessarily attached to the word 
 "House," and his precedent in the baptism of the houses 
 mentioned. But I am not to be understood as admitting*^ 
 that no doctrine is to be believed for which there is not a 
 positive precept, or that is not revealed m a certain form 
 of words; nor institute observed for which there is no pre- 
 cedent, or example, that persons of a certain age or sex 
 were admitted to that institute or ordinance. The doc- 
 trine of the resurrection of the dead is as much a positive 
 doctrine as what we are taught respecting the manner of 
 administering baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the per- 
 sons to whom they are to be administered; that is, human 
 reason could never have discovered it. And yet our bles- 
 sed Lord, in proving that doctrine against the Sadducees 
 who denied it, did not refer to any positive precept or pre- 
 cedent, but proves it by a train of reasoning, or by dedu- 
 cing consequences from scripture premises. ''But as 
 touching the resuiTection of the dead, have ye not heard 
 that which was spoken to you saying; I am the ^God of 
 Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; God is 
 not the God of the dead, but of the living." And admit- 
 ting that there is not a positive precept, or precedent for 
 infant baptism, yet Pedobaptists are certain that they are 
 correct, while they can prove it by legitimate consequen- 
 ces drawn from scripture premises; and for the validity of 
 such proof, they have the highest authority — the authority 
 of him who was "the truth" itself. It is on this princi- 
 ple that they admit believing women to the table of the 
 Lord, for let it be remembered that there is neither posi- 
 tive precept or precedent for admitting them; and it is on 
 the same principle that they observe the first day of the 
 week as the Sabbath; neither of wliich Baptists should do 
 
49 
 
 on their own principles, and if tliej acted consistent!^/ 
 And indeed, a sense of consistency has induced some 
 Baptists to deny that the first day of the week is to be ob- 
 served as a Sabbath unto the Lord. Why they have not 
 denied the Lord's Supper to women I know not, unless 
 that they saw, that to push their ideas of consistency so far, 
 would be such an outrage on the rights of pious women, as 
 would endanger their church, if not erase its very founda- 
 tions^ and I leave it to you to judge whether Mr. C's ar- 
 gument in p. 71, for admitting them, though valid enough, 
 is either as clear or as strong as the argument for infant 
 baptism deduced from the example of the apostles in bap- 
 tizing the houses of baptized parents.* 
 • But after all, deep-rooted prejudice may say, that we 
 are not positively told that there were any little children 
 er infants in those houses. In reply to this I would ask 
 the most prejudiced and prepossessed, if they can possibly 
 suppose that the inspired penman \v^ould use a w^ord that 
 not only embraces little children as a part of a family, but 
 is used to denote infants exclusively, if he knew that there 
 were no infants in those houses, or if he knew that infants 
 were not to be baptized. On the contrary, is not his using 
 such a word a proof that he knew that there were infants 
 in those houses; and of the houses of Lydia and the jailer 
 he had a personal knowledge, for, as we have shewn he 
 was at Philippi when they were baptized, 
 
 *It may be asked, why is it, that there is no '^express precept, 
 or precedent" for admitting- women to the ordinance of the sup- 
 per. The reason seems to be this: They were admitted to the 
 oi'dinance of the passover (Exod. 12,) which had reference to the 
 same object, as has the ordinance of the supper — *'the Lamb of 
 God who taketh away the sins of the world." And as every di- 
 vine gi-ant to the church, and every pri-vileg-e confeiTed on her 
 members, is in force until revoked, it was therefore not necessary 
 to mention their right in express terms. This, it would seem, is 
 also the reason, why the right of the infant children of church 
 members to baptism, thoug'h often refen-ed to, and agreed upon 
 by the inspired penmen is not mentioned in express terms. They 
 had been admitted into the church of God under both the Patri- 
 archal and Abrahamic dispensations of gi-ace, and acknowledged 
 as church members by Christ himself; (Mat. 9 : 14,) their right 
 then is still valid, unless it can be shewn, that it has been revo- 
 ked. This consideration may perhaps relieve the minds of those 
 who have been led astray, by the artful, but sophistical argument, 
 — *'that there is no positive precept or precedent for infant bap- 
 tism." 6 
 
50 
 
 But besides this, I will state a plain case, which has in- 
 deed been stated bj others, and which I think will decide 
 the question to every person who will be at the trouble of 
 making the experiment. We are told that Cornelius, 
 Ljdia, the jailer, and Stephanas were themselves baptized, 
 and their families also. Now let a list of all the families 
 in any given district be taken: let that list be presented 
 to a person entirely unacquainted with them; and let him 
 select four families out of that list; and then let the inquiry 
 be made, whether there is, or is not, a little child or infant 
 in any of those families. I have no hesitation in sa^dng, 
 that out of a hundred selections or trials, there would be 
 found a minor child or infant in some one of them, for one 
 selection where no such child would be found. Every per- 
 son versed in the science of calculation, will immediately 
 see that in the case now stated, there is not only a hundred, 
 but hundreds against one. From the whole I will now 
 venture to say, that the baptism of the houses referred to, 
 is not only a presumptive argument of the strongest kind 
 for infant baptism; but when duly weighed, and considered 
 in all its bearings, will of itself be decisive with every in- 
 telligent person whose mind is not warped by prejudice and 
 prepossession. May I not say more — ^that it is irresistible r 
 
 Another argument, if not a positive precept for infant 
 tism, is to be found in Mat. 28: 19, 20. ''Go ye 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing -them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you. " 
 
 The argument lies in tl|e meaning of the Greek verb 
 ^'matheteusate^^ in the 19th verse, which, although trans- 
 lated "teach," signifies to make disciples, as is acknowl- 
 edged by the ablest translators and commentators; jea, is 
 acknowledged by Mr. C. himself in p. 151; with this dif- 
 ference, that instead of making the risen Saviour say. Go, 
 and make disciples of all nations, he makes him say, Go, 
 and make disciples out of all nations. His reason for thus 
 supplying what he virtually tells us is wanting in the words 
 of the Saviour himself, and mending his commission to his 
 disciples, is very obvious to the intelligent reader. But 
 the Greek preposition ek which is sometimes used to signify 
 out qf, is not in tlie passage, and had it been omitted by an 
 
51 
 
 ELLIPSIS, then the nouns pania ta ethne, "all nations" 
 would have been in the genative, whereas they are in the 
 accusative case; and therefore, as every good linguist 
 knows, the clause translated, "Go, teach all nations," lit- 
 erally signifies, Go, disciple all nations. 
 
 From these observations the argument for infant baptism 
 is obvious and irresistible. The command and commission 
 is, to disciple all nations, of which infants and minors are 
 a large component part, and how this is to be done we are 
 told in the next following words, ''baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost^ 
 and when they are thus made disciples, then, they are to 
 be taught all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded. 
 Tliis you will have perceived is agreeable to the order of 
 nature, and the established practice of mankind resulting 
 from that order, in communicating knowledge to the young, 
 and illiterate; first to enrol them in a school, and then teach 
 them in that school the requisite branches of literature. 
 On the other hand, the system of the Baptist church, and' 
 tlieir practice resulting from that system, reverses this or- 
 der. They keep their children out of the school of Christ, 
 (and whose scholars should children be but Christ's?) and 
 if perchance they have learned out of that school the ele- 
 mentary principles of his religion, and profess faith in him 
 as the Son of God and Saviour of sinners, then they bring 
 them by baptism into his school or churcli, but which I trust 
 I shall shew'in the next letter was designed to be at the 
 sam6 time, the mother, the nurse, and the instructress of 
 those whom he designed to save. It is true that the preju- 
 dices, ignorance, and perverseness of men often counter- 
 act his wise designs; and that -«n}'' are saved through any 
 other plan, than that he himself has devised and revealed, 
 shews him to be "the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
 gracious" in deed ^ You will also have perceived that the 
 foregoing remarks were designed to apply only to the chil- 
 dren of church-members, and not to adult unbaptized per- 
 sons. With respect to such we are told in the 2d chapter 
 of the Acts of the Apostles, that they must possess a knowl- 
 edge of Christ as an all-sitfficient, and the only Saviour, 
 and be deeply sensil»le that they are guilty and depraved 
 sinners, before they can be baptized; and when such are 
 baptized, then, as in the cases of Lydia, of the jailer, and 
 others, their children or houses are to be baptized with 
 
52 
 
 tihem, as a part of the naiions for whom baptism was ap- 
 pointed; -'for the promise is to you Jews, (said Peter) and 
 to your children, and to all who are afar O/f (or the Gen- 
 tile nations.) even as many as the Lord our God shall eall/ - 
 
 But Mr. C. has not only tried to invalidate the argu- 
 ment for the baptism of infants deduced from the commis- 
 gion of Christ, to disciple them by that ordinance, by al- 
 tering or rather amending the commission with a word of 
 his own; he tries also in p. 153, to run the argument down 
 with high sounding words, and by worse than empty de- 
 clamation. ''To talk, (he tells us,) of an infant disciple, 
 or to say that an infant of eight or ten days old can be a 
 disciple or scholar of Christ, not only contradicts all scrip- 
 ture, but shocks all common sense. " 
 
 Surely Mr. C. did not reflect when he wrote this sneer- 
 ing, and in my opinion, impious sentence, that Christ 
 teaches his disciples or scholars, not only by his word, but 
 by his Spint. How soon .young cliildren may be taught 
 from the word of God, I will not positively say; but certain 
 I am that they are capable of receiving ideas concerning 
 God and things divine, much sooner than is usually ad:nit- 
 ted. Well attested instances that this is the case miglit be 
 produced, and which to some might appear almost incred- 
 ible. That they are capable of being savingly wrought 
 upon at any age — at the age of eight or ten days, will be 
 admitted by all who have scriptural views of the boundless 
 power and grace of God. To say as we do, that they arc 
 not capable of being thus wrought upon, can be "shocking 
 to the common sense" of those only who are under the dark- 
 ening and deleterious influence of an unscriptural system. 
 — And so far is it from being the case, that this doctrine 
 is "contradictory to all scripture," that, on the contrary, 
 it is amply supported by scriptural facts. The propliet 
 vSamuel, while yet a mere child, "was in favour both vith 
 the Lord and also with men:" and John the Baptist is said 
 to have been "filled with the Koly Ghost, even from his 
 mother's womb. " And to this I would add, that infants 
 are expressly called disciples in Acts 15: 10. "Now 
 therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of 
 the DISCIPLES, wiiich neither our fathers nor v. e viere able 
 to bear. " 
 
 The occasion that gave rise to their receiving this appel- 
 lation is distinctly recorded in the beginning of the chap- 
 
ter. In the 1st verse we are informed that certain men 
 came from Jerusalem to Antioch, '^and taught the breth- 
 ren (or the Gentile converts) saying, except ye be circum- 
 cised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."' 
 And in the 5th verse v,e are told that in Jerusalem, ''there 
 rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed 
 saying, tliat it v^as needful to circumcise them, and to 
 command them to keep the law of Moses. " A council of 
 the apostles and elders met at Jerusalem "to consider of 
 this matter." "And when there had been much dispu- 
 ting, Peter rose up, and said unto them, men and brethren, 
 ye know how that God a good while ago made choice of us 
 that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of 
 the Gospel, and believe. — Nov/ therefore vvhy tempt ye 
 God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples^ which 
 neither our fathers, nor we, were able to bear." 
 
 Nov/, that by the expression "disciples" in this verse, 
 the apostle meant infants as well as adults, will be evident 
 to every one who will but recollect, that under the Mosaic 
 dispensation, not only every adult male, but every male 
 child eight days old w ere to be circumcised, under the pen- 
 alty that "the uncircumcised man-child was to be cut off 
 from the people of God." But we are told in the 1st and 
 5th verses, that the Judaizing teachers, as they are usu- 
 ally styled, were for imposing the law of Moses on the 
 Gentile converts, and especially circumcision "after the 
 manner of Moses," or to the extent that it had been en- 
 joined under that dispensation. This Peter opposed, both 
 because the Mosaic dispensation had expired by its own 
 limitation, and because circumcision, then superseded by 
 baptism, was a bloody and painful rite, especially to in- 
 fants, and therefore he said with his usual warmth, "Why 
 tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, 
 which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" 
 
 The late and lamented J. P. Campbell has also adduced 
 this same verse as a proof that infants are called disciples, 
 and it seems that a Dr^ Lathrop, whose writings I have 
 not seen, has done the same thing. And how now does 
 Mr. C. who has '•'defied all Christendom''^ meet and confute 
 these formidable opponents? At first, indeed, he pays a 
 deserved compliment to his namesake's talents, and then 
 as an answer to his arguments in favour of infant baptism, 
 he calls him a sophist, or charges him with sophistry; but 
 *6 
 
54 
 
 as these are epithets which he liberailj bestows on evciy 
 Pedobaptist writer, we must consider them as words of 
 course. As for the poor Doctor, he pursues him with an 
 unceasing torrent of what he designed as witticisms, but 
 which some may call bj another name, throughout the 
 whole of the 15 2d page, and part of the next. He tells us. 
 that a "greater sophist on this subject, luas not appeared 
 for the twenty-five years last past" — and that his argu- 
 ments for considering infants as included in the word "dis- 
 ciples" in this verse, is "a figment so puerile, so diminu- 
 tive,'^^ "that had not a Doctor said so, he would have con- 
 sidered it out of all character to reply to it:" for it was 
 only the "brethren mentioned in the 1st verse that are al- 
 luded to in the 10th, to the exclusion of their infant chil- 
 dren." 
 
 Now, this assertion may perhaps pass with ISIr. C^ 
 friends and admirers, and with superficial readers of the 
 Bible^ but the person who wishes to understand w^hat he 
 reads will ask, w hat is meant by those emphatic words in the 
 first verse, "circumcised after the manner of Moses," but 
 which Mr. C. has carefully avoided explaining^ and what 
 is intended in the fifth verse "by keeping the law of Mo- 
 ses," and which he has also as cautiously avoided. Such 
 a person will ask, did the inspired penman mean that only 
 the Gentde converts themselves, and not their childreUy 
 should be circumcised, according to the recjuisitiou of the 
 Judaiz-ing teachers? No — for if that had been his design 
 he w^ould have simply said so, and the words, "after the 
 manner of Moses" v, ould have been altogether superflu- 
 ous. The question will recur; what did he mean by the 
 word "manner" in the first verse.^ If he understands the 
 Greek language, and consults the Greek Testament, he 
 will find that the original word is ethei, which the best 
 Lexicographers will tell him, signifies "rite, usage, cus- 
 tom." It cannot but then occur to him, that to be "cir- 
 cumcised" after the manner of Moses, must mean circum- 
 cision to the extent that was usual, and customary, under 
 the Mosaic dispensation. But according to that dispensa- 
 tion the male infants of circumcised parents were to be 
 circumcised also; and if the Judaizing teachers had requi- 
 red that the believing Gentiles were only to be circumcised, 
 and not their children, as Mr. C. asserts was the case, thit 
 would not have been circumcision "after the manner of 
 
55 
 
 Moses," and tliat would have been ''keeping the law of 
 Moses" only in part, as that law enjflined that rite, or or- 
 dinance, in a v.'ord, the conclusion which I think every 
 unprejudiced and reflecting reader of the Bible will draw 
 from the Avhole passage, must be this — that as the words 
 "circumcised after the manner of Moses" in the first verse,, 
 must mean the circumcision of infants and adults, then, 
 infants as well as adults must be meant by 'Hhe disciples" 
 in the tenth verse. 1 sliall only add on this point, that 
 admitting the interpretation I have given to these verses is 
 wrong, and that the conclusion I have drawn from that in- 
 terpretation is incorrect, still I must insist tliat the com- 
 mand of Christ in Mat. 28: 19, to disciple all nations by 
 baptism, is an unanswerable argument, if not a positive 
 precept, for infant baptism., and that tlie syllogism which 
 Mr. C. has been so kind as to construct from that passage, 
 for the Pedobaptists, is logically sound and good. It might 
 indeed have been more clearly stated, but I admii it as it 
 is — "Ail nations are commanded to be baptized, and in- 
 fants are a part of all nations: therefore infants are to be 
 baptized." 
 
 But Mr. C» m.ay say, that I have overlooked his criti- 
 cism on that passage, intended to prove that it vras not the 
 nations as composed of adults and infants that were com- 
 manded to be baptized, but believing adults only, and that 
 the syllogism was consequently unsound. 
 
 And what now is this learned criticism? This — that the 
 Greek nouns ''pant a ta ethne,^^ '^all nations ^^^ are in the^ 
 neuter, and ''autous,^^ "them," or the persons who are to 
 be baptized, is in the masculine gender, and as these words 
 do not agree in gender, then v/e must look out for some 
 noun that agrees with autoiis^ and Mr. C. has found it, 
 where few but himself would have looked fur it, in the 
 noun mathetas, which is not in the passage, but which he 
 tells us is included in the verb '•matheteusate,''^ 
 
 And what if ''ethne^^^ and ''autous^^ doaiot agree in gen- 
 der, are not nations composed of males and females; and 
 as according to the gi"ammatical statute, the masculine is 
 more worthy than the feminine or neuter genders; in what 
 other gender than the masculine, could the relative ''au- 
 tous^^ be put in a sentence of such a structure.^ There is, 
 a passage of a similar structure in the latter clause of the 
 y 19th and £Oth verse of the 9th Psalm, on which I would 
 
be glad to see Mr. C.^xercise his critical acumen accord- 
 ing to his own rif!e made and provided for Mat. 28: 19. 
 "Let the heathen be judged in thj sight. Put them in fear, 
 
 Lord, that the nations maj know themselves to be but 
 men.*' Now in tlie Septuagint translation of this passage, 
 the word ''heathen" and "nations," is the neuter noun 
 eiltne, and the word '-'them" is also ^^autous;^'^ and until 
 Mr. C. vviii prove that it is not the heathen in general, but 
 some particular individuals amongst them, that the Psal- 
 mist prayetii unto the Lord "to put in fear:" and until he 
 finds those individuals in the verb krithetoscm, "let them 
 be judged," he must excuse me if I shall consider his cri- 
 ticism on Mat. 28: 19, to be very meagre, and very misera- 
 ble. Perhaps he may choose to connect the words, "put 
 them in fear," v/ith "e//me", ''mations" in the 20th verse. 
 It amounts to the same thing, and the same task is before 
 him? for, according to his own rule, he must find the parti- 
 cular individuals who are "to know themselves to be but 
 men" — [anthropoi, a noun of the common gender,) in the 
 words kaiasieson nomothefon, in our version "put them in 
 fear," but in the Septuagint, "stand over them as a law- 
 giver." I shall leave the arrangement and connexion en- 
 tirely to himself, and when lie has performed this task, 
 
 1 shall furnish him with a few more passages of a similar 
 structure. 
 
 I shall only examine another passage, 1 Cor. 7: 14, not 
 only as a proof of infant baptism, but for the purpose of 
 pointing out some of the absurd and distorted views which 
 Baptist writers are compelled to give of the word of God, 
 in defence of their systein. The passage reads thus; "For 
 the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the 
 unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were 
 your children unclean, but now are they holy." 
 
 That we may have correct views of this passage, it will 
 be necessary to recollect that in Deut. 7: 3, the Jew^s were 
 forbidden to marry Gentile women. And when this took 
 place, then, the Gentile woman, and the children born by 
 her were to be put away as "unclean," or as not admissible 
 to the Jewish church, and which we are told in the book 
 of Ezra was actually done in his day. Should the Gentile 
 woman however become a proselyte to the Jewish religion, 
 as did Ruth the Moabitess, it altered the case, and she and 
 
her children became incorporated vvith the Jewish Ration^ 
 and entitled to all their religions privileges. The reason 
 for this strong prohibition, and severe statute,, as it may 
 appear to some, was, that the Jevv^s might be kept separate 
 from all other nations, and the fact ascertained that the 
 Messiah sprung from that nation, and also to prevent their 
 being seduced into idolatry by their Gentile wives. 
 
 it appears from the preceding context, that there v^ere 
 in the church of Corinth believing v/ives who had unbeliev- 
 ing husbands, and believing husbands who had unbelieving 
 wives. It would seem that the apostle had been a&ked the 
 question, v/hether the Jewish lav/ respecting such marria- 
 ges should be enforced on the Christian cnurches. He- 
 answers the question in the 12th and 13th verses^ "If any 
 brother hath a v/ife that believeth not, and she be pleased 
 to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the 
 woman that liath a husband that believeth not, and he be 
 pleased to dwell with lier, let her not leave him 5" and then 
 he assigns the reason for this advice, or rather command | 
 "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,^ and 
 the unbelieving v/ife is sanctified by the husband | else were 
 your children unclean, but now are they holy. " 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe that the words "un- 
 believing husband," and "unbelieving wife," plainly im- 
 ply, and v,hat the apostle says in the l£th and IStli ver- 
 ses expressly declares, that the law pronouncing the mar- 
 riage of a Jev/ with a Gentile woman illegitimate, has been 
 repealed, and is not now obligatory on the Christian 
 churches. It was enacted for the special and wise purpo- 
 ses mxcntioned, and when those purposes vvere ansv»^ered, 
 it expired by its own limitation. It is true that in 2 Cor, 
 6: 16, the apostle says to professing Christians, "Be ye 
 not unequally yoked together with unbelievers^" and as- 
 signs strong reasons why such connexions should not be 
 formed; but he does not say that such connexions when in- 
 advertently formed, are illegitimate, and the offspring il- 
 legitimate. On the contrary, in the passage now under 
 consideration, and in the preceding context, he repeatedly 
 styles the person v.ho had formed such a connexion, hu&~ 
 hand and loife, and the reason why he advises believers 
 not to marry unbelievers, v/as not, that such Trairriages are 
 dlegitimate, but on account of the inconveniences result- 
 ing from such a connexion to the believing party. 
 
It is admitted by both Baptist and Pedobaptist writers, 
 that the Greek words translated "'sanctified," and ''holy," 
 in this passage do not denote moral purity: as tlie believ- 
 ing husband or wife cannot confer faith on their unbeliev- 
 ing companions; nor can the believing parent or parents 
 impart regenerating grace to their children; but the idea 
 attached to the vrords by those two parties is very differ- 
 ent. Di-. Gill, the great champion of the Baptists, con- 
 tends in his commentary on the place, that the Hebrew 
 word translated "sanctified" signifies "legally es-poused," 
 and as a proof he refers us to the different Jewish Rabbies, 
 who used the word in that sense: to which he adds Job 1: 
 5, as so interpreted by the Jews; and thence he infers that 
 the words translated "unclean," and "holy" must mean, 
 the one, illegitimately, and the other, legitimately born. 
 
 That the marriage relation, and the marriage covenant 
 whereby that relation is formed, is aliiided to in the word 
 ''sanctified" is admitted: but that the apostle meant by it 
 **legally espoused," we cannot admit for this simple rea- 
 son; that in the preceding context he repeatedly styles the 
 persons who are said to be "sanctified," husband and wife, 
 and every one knov/s that the words husband and wife de- 
 note those who have been lawfully married to each other, 
 and that the epithet given in the Scriptures to those who 
 cohabit without being lawfully married, is, adulterers, and 
 adulteresses. With this recollection in view, every in- 
 telligent reader will now see, that this interpretation 
 makes the apostle write and reason very foolishly, or say- 
 ing that a husband, or a man lawfully married, is sancti- 
 fied, or lawfully married to his wife, or to a woman that 
 has been lav/fully married to iiim. Such a person will al- 
 so see that this is not the only absurdity which this inter- 
 pretation fixes on the reasoning of the apostle. He will 
 see, that it represents him as proving the legitimacy of the 
 marriage of the parents, by the legitimacy of the children; 
 or saying to the unbeliever you are legally espoused to t;ie 
 believer — why? — because your children are not illegiti- 
 mate, but legitimate; "for the unbelieving husband is 
 sa.nctified by the wife," &c. "else were your children un- 
 clean, but now are they holy. " 
 
 But besides this, although the word tra,nslated "sancti- 
 fied" is used almost numberless times in the Septuagint, 
 and in the Greek Testament, it is vet never used in the 
 
59 
 
 sense affixed to it by Dr. Gill in this passage. If that was 
 the case, his sagacity, and extensive Biblical knowledge 
 would have certainly discovered it, and he would as cer- 
 tainly have referred to it in support of his interpretation. 
 The circumstance of some of the Jewish Rabbles using it 
 in that sense is no authorit}'- for the scriptural meaning of 
 that, or of any other word. They all lived long since the 
 New Testament was written; and to establish a doctrine 
 by the meaning of the word that conveys it, it must be by 
 the meaning which the inspired penmen attach to it, and 
 not that of any other writers. As for Job 1: 5, where it 
 is said "that Job sent and sanctified his sons when the days 
 of their feasting v/ere gone about;" the words that imme- 
 diately follow, tell us that that sanctification had not the 
 least reference to his bestowing them in marriage. The 
 words are, "And he rose up early in the morning, and of- 
 fered burnt ofterings according to the number of them all; 
 for Job said, it may be that my sons have sinned, and cur- 
 sed God in their hearts; thus did Job continually." As 
 this was Job's continual, or constant practice, then, Job's 
 sons must have been very often '^espoused,^^ according to 
 the interpretation given to the word "sanctified" by the 
 Jews and Dr. Gill; for it is not to be supposed that he 
 would have produced their authority for the meaning of 
 the word, if that meaning had not met with his approbation. 
 
 With respect to the words translated "holy," and "un- 
 clean," the Dr. has not produced a single instance, from 
 either the Septuagint, or the Greek Testament, nor even 
 from a Jewish Rabbi, where the one is used to signify legit- 
 imately, and the other illegitimately born. The reason 
 was, that no such instance is to be found, and the inter- 
 pretation he has given them, is what he was compelled to 
 do in defence of his system, and from the meaning he has 
 attached to the word sanctified. Into such absurdities 
 and inconsistencies, are even great and learned men led, 
 when they attempt to defend an unscriptural system, which 
 they may have adopted through prejudice, or some other 
 cause. 
 
 Mr. C. differs from Dr. Gill with respect to the meaning 
 of the word "sanctified." Dr. Gill applies it to "the very 
 act of marriage," but Mr. C. to the "lawfulness" of mar- 
 riage itself. He agrees with the Dr. however, with res- 
 pect to the meaning of the words "holy" and "unclean," 
 
60 
 
 -fis denoting iegitimate, and illegitimate cliildren; but the 
 ground ofi which that legitimacy rests, and the source 
 whenca illegitimacy flows, is as novel and extraordinary, 
 as any thing to be found in his book. In p. 62, he tells 
 us as the meaning of the apogtle in this passage — "that the 
 '•unbelieving party was sanctified in, to, or by the believing 
 "party, and that the children barn in this connexion were 
 "lawful or holy — whereas should they separate^ the chil- 
 *'dren would according to the marriage covenant be un- 
 "clean or imJawful. — Marriage is spoken of in the scrip- 
 "tures,: as a covenant relation betv/een the parties — Mai. 
 "2: 14. She is thy companion, and the wile of thy cove- 
 '•nant. \Kiere is then a Ifoliness or legitimacy in th^ rer 
 '^lation — there is also an uncleanness or imlaivfulnesi jn 
 "any departure from it. ^Marriage is honourable in all,' 
 ' 'consequently IcavfiiL and the bed imdefilecL The char- 
 "acter of the parties in this relation aft'ects, and has ever 
 *'aftected their progeny. Children are either clean or un- 
 "clean, defiled or undefiled, holy or unlioly, lawful orun- 
 "lawful, according to the conduct or character of their 
 "parents with regard to this relation." 
 
 Such, is Mr. C's interpretation of this passage. But as 
 he lias also, not produced a single instance either from the 
 Septuagint or the Greek Testament, where the word trans- 
 lated ^-holy" when predicated of children signifies that 
 they are legit linage, and that the word translated "un- 
 clean'- when predicated of the same signifies, that they are 
 illegitimate; and as he has not assigned any reasons why 
 the separation of persons, lawfully married, bastardizes 
 their children, nor produced any statute from either civil 
 of ecclesiastical law to that support — then, until he does 
 this, he must farther excuse me if I shall consider his in- 
 tei-pretation of this passage,' as ano'dier of those wild and 
 illeD;itimate interpretations with wliich his book abounds, 
 and another proof that there mu^t be something radically 
 unsound in that sj^stem, which to defend, compels a man 
 to give such distorted views of the word of God, 
 
 Since then neither of the foregoing interpretations of this 
 passage can be admitted for the reasons assigned; thp ques- 
 tion nov/ is, what is its true import.^ To ascertain this, it 
 will be necessary to inquire into the scriptural meaning of 
 the Greek words '-hegiastai^^^ "'hagia^^^ '^ahatharta,''^ 
 translated "5W2/^/»:/?e.:/," '^holijy'^ ''wiclean.^^ With res- 
 
61 
 
 pect to the two first af these words, i\\e^ are frequently 
 vised in the Septuagint, whence they are evidentljs* borrow- 
 ed, and are applied to difterent persons and objects, in this 
 world,* and when thus applied, usually, if not uniformly 
 mean, that those pei^sons and things have been dedicated, 
 appointed, or set apart, for some special purpose, let that 
 purpose be what it may, good or bad, civil or religious. 
 An instance of the verb kagiazo being used to signify, to 
 devote or set apart for a purpose at lea.st bad in itself, oc- 
 curs in Judges 17: 3^ where Micah's mother tells him, that 
 the money w hich he had stolen from her, she had "wholly 
 dedicated to the Lord, to make a graven image, and a mol- 
 ten image." The words in th© Septuagiiit are '*/utgia- 
 zousa hegiasa,^^ which words, as they are usually transla- 
 ted in the New Testament would be ^ "sanctifying, I have 
 sanctified it." In the book of Joshua 20: 7, it is said that 
 the children of Israel ''appointed Kedesh, and other cities, 
 whither the man-slayer might flee from the avenger of 
 blood." In the margin of our Bibles it is '"'sanctljied'^ 
 Kedesh, &lc. for although the sevexty have not thought 
 proper to use the verb hagiazo^ yet in the Hebrew Bible it 
 is Kadosh, which corresponds to it: and this is an instance, 
 if not of hagiazo, yet of what amounts to the same thing, 
 of its corresponding word in Hebrew being used to signify 
 to set apart for a civil purpose. In the book of Leviticus, 
 the laberRacle, the temple, Vvith their furniture, are re- 
 peatedly styled "holy," because they vv^ere set apart for a 
 good, or religious purpose. The same idea is attached to 
 those words when applied to men whetlier they were con- 
 nected v.'ith religious subjects or not. Thus in Isa. 13: S, 
 the Medes and Persians are styled Jehovah's "sanctified 
 ongks," because they were selected as the instruments vvho 
 should overturn the proud, cruel, and idolatrous city of 
 Babylon^ and Dr. Campbell in the 4th part of his prelim- 
 inary dissertations, to his translation of the four Evange- 
 lists, has shewn by a number of examples that when those 
 words are applied to men connected with religious subjects, 
 as the Priests and Levites, they do not denote moral pu- 
 rity, but only that they were selected and set apart for the 
 service of the God of Israel. From tliis circumstance he 
 Also justly infers, that although these v/ords are frequent- 
 ly used in the New Testament to denote moral purity, yet 
 whenever they are predicated of persons who are members 
 
62 
 
 of the Christian churches, 4liej are to be understood as 
 meaning only, that such persons were ''devoted" or con- 
 secrated to the service of God. The necessity of the 
 above inquiry, and its use in ascertaining the true meaning 
 of the passage under consideration will appea^r when we 
 come to examine and answer one of Mr. C's objectionc. 
 
 I trust that I have proved in my first letter that the Jew- 
 ish nation were constituted a church of God by the ordi- 
 nance of circumcision, and thereby set apart for his wor- 
 ship and sei-vice. It was on that account, and not for their 
 moral purity, that they were styled ''a kingdom of priests" 
 — ''a holy nation" — and "a Jioly seedj" while the sur- 
 rounding nations were styled '-unclean," because they 
 were not within the pale of that covenant, and were more- 
 over worshippers of idol gods. That the surrounding na- 
 tions were styled "unclean" for the reasons assigned, is 
 evident from Isa. 52: 1, where "the uncircumcis^d and 
 unclean, '^re spoken of, and classed together as the same 
 persons; and also from Acts 10: 28. "And he [Peter] 
 said unto them, ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a 
 man who is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto a man 
 of another nation, (alluding to Cornelius an un circumcised 
 Roman) but God hath shewed unto me tliat I should not 
 call any man common, or unclean" — "«A:ai/icr?on"— the 
 very word used in the passage we are now examining. 
 
 From these observations and facts, you may now see 
 what the apostle meant when he said that the children of a 
 married couple, one of whom is a believer, ^'are not un- 
 clean hut holy.^^ — That as the Jews were constituted a 
 church of God by tlie ordinance of circumcision, in conse- 
 quence of v^^hich they are styled a '^lioly nation, and a holy 
 seed;" and as their children were admitted into the church 
 also by the same ordinance, in consequence of which they 
 are styled "a godly seed," and "the heritage of the Lord:" 
 so, the children of a baptized parent are to be admitted 
 into the church also by the ordinance of baptism, the mean 
 of induction under the present dispensation. The phra- 
 seology used by the apostle shews that this was his mean- 
 ing. The words are the same that are used in the Old 
 Testament, when the Jews and their children are mention- 
 ed as being within the pale of the covenant of circumcision; 
 and I fearlessly affirm that no man can account for his 
 styling the children of such a parent, "Ao/?/," and "nof 
 
b3 
 
 imclecm,-^ but on the princi}jk, that as the children ot" the 
 Jews were entitled to churc]i- membership in consequence 
 of their parents being circumcised; so, the children of a 
 baptized parent are entitled to the same privilege in conse- 
 quence of the professed faith of that parent. If this was 
 not his meaning, then, he has used language calculated to 
 deceive both Jews and Clmstians — ^but this is not to be 
 admitted, nor even supposed of the inspired apostle. To 
 this I v/ould only add, that the interpretation which I have 
 given to the words perfectly accords with what he says in 
 3i^-ph. 3: 6, and elsewhere; ' 'that the Gentiles should be 
 fellow heirs [with the Jews] and of the same body, and 
 partakers of his [Jehovah's] promises in Clirist by the Gos- 
 pel."— The intelligent reader need not be told that in the 
 J^ew Testament the cfet»H;k is frequently styled ''the 
 BODY OF Christ." 
 
 ■ • But Mr. C. objects in p. 63, that the • apostle's design 
 in the passage was to answer the question, w^hether mar- 
 ried persons, one of whom was a believer, should live to- 
 gether as husband and wife, but we adduce it as a proof of 
 infant baptism; and this is a mode of repelling an argu- 
 ment to which he has often recourse, when other means are 
 wp^nting. 
 
 And what if that was the apostle's main design.^ Does it 
 follow, that a writer in illustrating and enforcing his main 
 question, may not introduce other topics connected with, 
 or flowing from it. Nothing is more common with all 
 writers, sacred and profane, and the doctrines introduced 
 thus incidentally in the sacred Scriptures are to be receiv- 
 ed with a.s much assurance of their truth and importance, 
 as those contained in the main question. The objection 
 is truly silly; and he might as well say, that it was not 
 sanctitication, or purity of heart that the apostle m.eans in 
 those words "who walk not after the flesh, but after the 
 spirit," because his main design in the verse was, to prove 
 the doctrine of justification, or that true believers in Christ 
 are rescued from that condemnation to which they were 
 exposed previous to their belieAdng. — "There is therefare- 
 now no condemnation to them, tiiat are in Christ Jesus, 
 who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit:" Rom. 
 8: 1. 
 
 Mr. C. farther objects in p. 64, tliat the argument for 
 infant baptism deduced from the passage now under con- 
 
64 
 
 iideration ^'proves too iniicli/' for accordmgtoif, the iiPx- 
 Iselieviiig husband or ^rife ought to be baptized also, as it 
 is said that they are "saiicufied in, /o, or by the believing 
 v/ife or husband. 
 
 There is much reliance placed on this objection by Bap- 
 tist writers, for the reason mentioned by Mr. C but a 
 recollection of the question proposed to the apostle for 
 solution, and a recurrence to the scriptural meaning of the 
 word translated "scmctifiecP^ will dissipate the objection 
 in a moment. I have siiewn that tliat word when predi- 
 cated of human persons, signifies their being set apart for 
 a particular purpose, let that purpose be what it may. it 
 refers to the marriage relation in this passage, and the apos- 
 tle's reasoning and argument is obviously this — that ti^e 
 believing wife is not to depart from the unbelieving hus- 
 band, "if he is pleased to dwell with her," because he hai'h 
 been set apart to her as her husband by the inarriage cove- 
 nant, which nothing but adultery, or wilful desertion, or 
 death, can disannul. The same obligation is binding on 
 the believing husband with respect to his unbelieving wife. 
 He is "not to put her away," '^If she is pleased to dwell 
 with him," for she also hath been set apart to him as his 
 v/ife; or as it is expressed in Mai. 2: 14; *^She is his com- 
 panion, and the wife of his covenant;" and let it be here 
 recollected, and particularly noticed that the .verb hegias- 
 iai, or set apart is not, as it is rendered in our version, in 
 the present, but in the past tense. Let it also be recol- 
 lected that this is not the idea attached to the word by 
 Dr. Gill, and other Baptist writers. The Di". confines the 
 meaning of the apostle to '•Hhe very act of mary^agc^ "or 
 represents him as sa^nng that the believer "is legally es- 
 poused" to the unbeliever. This the apostle saith in tlie 
 terms **husband and wife," and then directs their attention 
 to the design, and if I may so s])eak, to the very essence 
 of marriage, as a contract entered into for life, and v/hich 
 nothing but the causes just now mentioned can destroy. 
 This is one part of his ^argument why persons lawfully 
 married should not separate, and was designed to correct 
 the principles, and counteract the practices of both Jews, 
 and Gentiles who were in the habit of 'dissolving the mar- 
 riage covenant on very frivolous pretences. But this is 
 Hot the whole of his armament. In the question ^proposed 
 ■?v solution, op.e of the narties v/as a believer, and the apos. 
 
63 
 
 tie takes occasion to enforce his argument Tdj that circum- 
 stance, and from that consideration. The children of 
 such, says he, are not 'hmdean^^^ or unlit subjects for the 
 kingdom of God, or the Gospel church, as is the case with 
 the children of those parents both of whom are unbeliev- 
 ers, but "/io/?/5" or entitled in consequence of that parent's 
 faith, to be set apart for the service of God bj the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, that they may become "a godly seed,'* 
 by being trained up by that parent ''in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord. " This is one of the important ends 
 to be answered by that ordinance, and for which it was 
 appointed 5 and every one may now see, that that end, im- 
 portant as it is, would be frustrated, at least in part, by 
 the separatiGn of the parents, as it is not unusual, when 
 such separations take place, for both of the parents to claim 
 a part of the children, and those claimed by the unbeliev- 
 er, instead of being trained up in the knowledge and ser- 
 vice of the true God, would be trained up in infidelity 
 with all its concomitant evils'. In a word, as I understand 
 the passage when viewed in connexion with the preceding 
 context, the apostle argues against the separation of hus- 
 band and wife, first, from i^atd nature, design, and perpet- 
 ual obligation of the marriage covenant; and secondly, 
 where one of tkem is a believer, that their childiren are 
 entitled in consecjuence of that circumstance, to be in- 
 troduced into the church by baptism, that they may be 
 trained up in the knowledge of the true God, but which 
 important purpose might be frustrated oy the parents sep- 
 arating the one from the other. 
 
 But besides tliis, it would be a sufficient answer to the 
 objection to say, that the cases of husbands and wives, and 
 of parents and children, are by no means parallel. The 
 unbelieving husband or wife are adult persons, and capa- 
 ble of believing, but this is not the case with their infant 
 children; and it is their not believing when they are capa- 
 ble of it, that unqualifies adults for admission into the 
 church. The relation subsisting between those two par- 
 ties is also very different. The believing parent, or pa- 
 rents, are the root whence their children derive that fed- 
 eral holiness that entitles them to church membership; for 
 as the apostle argues on this very point in Rom. 11: 16; 
 "If the first fruit be holy, so is the lump; if the roo^ be 
 holy, so are the branches', but the believing husband is ixfv 
 *7 
 
66 
 
 where styled the root of the unbelieving wife, nor the be- 
 lieA^ng wife the root of the unbelieving husband. * To 
 which may be added, that the apostle, in the passat^e, 
 speaks of the holiness of such children as a doctrine with 
 which the church of Corinth were well acquainted, and 
 which they had reduced to practice by devoting, or setting 
 apart their children to God in the ordinance of baptisiii — 
 '•Else v.ere your children unclean, but now are they holy,*' 
 or members of the visible church. 
 
 Before I dismiss this passage, it may not^be unnecessary 
 to observe, that although I have no* adapted the interpre- 
 tation usually given by Pedobaptist writers to the word 
 '-'^sandiji&d^^^ yet there is no material difference betwixt 
 as. The usual interpretation is, that the cohabitation of 
 the believing liusband with the unbelie\ing wife, and of the 
 believing wife with the unbelieving husband is lavvful, or 
 now sanctioned by divine authority. Tliis is indeed tnie, 
 but it is the consequence of the marriage covenant whereby 
 they were set apart to each other as husband and wife, and 
 not on account^ the faith of one of the parties. The ob- 
 jection which I have to the usual interpretation is; that it 
 varies the meaning of the two words "sanctified and holyf ' 
 gives to the former of those words a n^.eaning, v/hich I do 
 not kno\¥ is once given to it in the Septuagint, whence it is 
 borrowed and applied; unnecessarily substitutes the effect 
 for the cause, and thus obscures the reasoning of the apos- 
 tle. It is true that the former of those words has reference 
 to the marriage relation, and the latter to that federal ho- 
 liness which entitles the children of a believer to baptism: 
 but the simple idea attached to both appears to be the same 
 ^-that the unbeiie\-ing husband and believing wife have 
 been set apart to each other for one purpose, and their 
 children are to be set apart for another purpose, the con- 
 text in the one case, and the phraseology used in the other 
 plainly indicating what those purposes are. 
 
 I shall close my observations on this passage by just re- 
 marking, that admitting that the interpretation which I 
 have given to the word '^sanctifiecP^ is wrong, and the usual 
 Pedobaptist interpretation is right; and admitting farther 
 that both are wrong, and that the apostle meant something 
 else by the expression; yet that mistake does not, cannot, 
 affect the argument for infant baptism deducible from the 
 words, '-Else wer^ your children unclean, but now are 
 
br 
 
 they holy.*' And I again fearlessly affirm, that no inter- 
 pretation consistent with the scope of the Old and New 
 Testament, with the settled meaning of their language, and 
 with tlie conduct of Jehovah in establishing and preserving 
 a church in the v/orld, as the designed birth place of the 
 children of his grace, can be attaclied to the whole pas- 
 sage* but this — ^tbat as the children of the Jev/s wefe enti- 
 tled to be introduced into the church of God by the ordi- 
 nance of circumcision, in consequence of their parents pro- 
 fessing the true religion: so, the children of a parent or 
 parents professing Christianity are to be introduced into 
 the same church by the ordinance of baptism 5 for that 
 what is' now called the Christian, vras ingra^d into the 
 Jewish church, I ti^ust I have fully proved in ihe forego- 
 ing letter. 
 
 That you may have a full and comprehensive view of 
 this important subject, I shall in my next inquire into the 
 nature of that repentance and faith, which is required of 
 adults, to entitle them to admittance into the chiu'ch by 
 baptism. 
 
LETTER liL 
 
 FROM the view which I have given of the church and 
 Iter ordinances in my last letters, you will have perceived, 
 that I do not consider circumcision and baptism as primarily 
 designed for the purpose of building up believers in holi- 
 iiess^ but as ordinances designed for the conversion of sin- 
 ners of a certain character. My view of the subject is 
 briefly this:'— When a Gentile, or Jew not circumcised, 
 Vv'as rationally persuaded that Jehovah v/as the true God — 
 tiiat the ordinances delivered by him to Moses were the 
 only ti]ue means of grace, and mediums of acceptable v/or- 
 ship — that it ^vas the command of God, and his duty and 
 privilege to attend on these meani> that he might obtain 
 grace; and under this impression attended with diligence 
 on these means for this important purpose; then, he was by 
 circumcision to be planted in the church of God, and his 
 children \\'iih him; and when he, or they, brought forth 
 the fruit of a living faith, then, i}>\ey v/ere to be admitted to 
 the ordinance of the passover, and circumcision was to him 
 or them, as to Abraham of old, "a seal of their interest in 
 the righteousness of faith;" far Abraham was constituted 
 the father of a spiritual^ as v/ell as of a natural seed; Gal. 
 3: 29. And by parity of reasoning, when a careless or 
 profligate sinner, a heathen, or infidel, under the present 
 dispensation, is morally convinced that he is a tost and 
 perishing sinner — that Jesus is the only Saviour of sinners 
 — ^that in order to obtain an interest ia his atoning bloody 
 and the regenerating influences of his Spirit, it is the com- 
 mand of God, and his duty and privilege to attend on the 
 means of grace appointed by Christ, and diligently attends 
 on these means for tliis purpose, then, that person is to be 
 planted by baptism in the church of God also, and his mi- 
 nor offspring with liim; and v/hen he or they bring forth the 
 fruit of a justifying faith, baptism is to them also a seal of 
 their interest in .the righteousness of faith; and they have, 
 moreover, a right to the ordinance of the supper, designed 
 to build up believers in holiness, and to strengthen them 
 in their journey through this world to Immanuel's fair 
 land. 
 
69 
 
 I have no daiibt, but that every Baptist, and some Pe- 
 dobaptists, crre now ready to assail me, and sayj does not 
 one a]X}stle say that "v/ithoiit faith it is impossible to please 
 God^^' and another, that "faith without vvorks," or a spec- 
 ulative f^tidi, "is dead:" and will you say that such a failhj 
 though attended with a conviction of sin, entitles a person 
 to admittance into the church of God ? To tins I reply, that 
 I believe as firmly as any of you, that there is no'vy-ork re- 
 ally good that does not proceed from a li\xng faiths that 
 v\dthout it there can be no acceptable approach to the table 
 of the Lord) and that vdthout it, no adult person can be 
 saved) but it does not fallow that a speculative faith ac- 
 com.panied »yvdth a deep sense of guilt, may not, by divine 
 appointment, answer the end ef a qualification for admit- 
 tance into the visible church. We do not dilFer about the. 
 importance and necessitjy of a living faith) our difference 
 is con«erning the nature and design of the church. You 
 consider \l as designed for the reception of regenerated 
 persons only) I consider it as designed not only for the re- 
 ception of such, but as primarily designed for the regen- 
 eration of sinners of a certain character througli baptism, 
 as the appointed mean. A speculative faith and sense of 
 guilt, in adults, is necessary, in the nature of things, for 
 this purpose. Considered a,b3ti'actly, they are not evil ex- 
 ercises of mind, inthem^selves, and answer a valuable pur- 
 pose as far as they go) for you will grant that it is exceed- 
 ingly vv'icked not to believe that there is a God, and that 
 Christ is the Son of God) and not to be sensible of our mis- 
 erable situation as guilty and morally polluted sinners. 
 Now tliat this faith, and this feeling entitles adults to ad- 
 mittance into the church by baptism, I hope to make ap- 
 pear from an examination of the terms of admittance into 
 it both under the former, and present dispensations of 
 grace. 
 
 For this purpose I v.'ould now observe, that when it 
 pleased God that the church should assume a more visible 
 and compact form in the days of Abraham, he expressly 
 commanded that not only that distinguished patriarch him.- 
 self, "with all his seed,"" but that all born in his house, or 
 bought with Li.^ money of any 3tran,^eir3, should be intro* 
 duced into the church by circumcision, declaiiiig at the 
 same time, "that the man-child, the fiesli of whose fore- 
 skin was not circumcised, should be cut ojf from the peo- 
 
pie 01 God^*' or should not be considered as belonging to 
 his church. I would now ask my Pedobaptist readers, who 
 believe with Stephen, that "Moses was in the church in 
 the wilderness," if you can believe that ail these, with all 
 their countless offspring, to the coining of the Messiah, 
 were true believers 5 but the command was given by God, 
 who knew the heart and could not be deceived. There 
 is no way of accounting for tliis matter, but by admitting 
 that circumcision was appointed as a mean for producing 
 '^the circumcision of the heart." And, indeed, this view 
 of the subject perfectly corresponds with what Jehovah 
 himself says of his vineyard, or his church, in the 5th 
 chapter of Isaiah, already alluded to. ''My beloved had 
 a vineyard in a very fruitful hill; and he fenced it, and 
 gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the 
 choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and 
 also made a wine -press therein. ».flnd he looksd that it 
 siwuld bring forth grapes.^^ Whatever diiferehce of opi- 
 nion there may be about the meaning of the fencing, gath- 
 eiing out the stones, the tov/er, and the wine-press; one 
 thing is incontestible, tliat all this care and apparatus was, 
 tliat the vine planted therein should h: tng forth grapes. 
 Our blessed Lord's parable of the vineyard, in the ISth 
 chapter of Luke, corresponds also with this view of the 
 church under that dispensation, and is almost a copy of 
 the. foregoing allegory. "A certain man," says he, "A«.i 
 a fig-tree planted in -his vineyard, and he came, and 
 sought fruit thereon but found none. Then said he to the 
 dresser of the vineyard; behold these three years I came 
 seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none; cut it dov/n, 
 wdiy cumbereth it the ground. And he ansv/ering, said 
 unto him, I^ord, let it alone this year also, until I dig 
 about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well; and if 
 not, then af.er that thou shalt cut it down." Let it here 
 be recollected, that tlie barren fig-tree, in this parable, is 
 not threatened because it was there; for it is expressly 
 said, that it was planted by the orders of the owner of the 
 vineyard — "And a certain man had a fig-tree planted in 
 his vineyard:" but threatened because, planted and dug 
 around, and^ftged, it did not bring forth fruit. How 
 opposite is this view of the design of the church, as given 
 by God and his Son, to that viev/ which Mr. C. and even 
 some Pedobaptists, give us of it: and how opposite the con 
 
n 
 
 duct of Baptists in planting tlie church, to that of the hus- 
 bandman, when he is about to plant an orchard, or a vine- 
 yard ! The husbandman looks for young trees or plants of 
 the fruit -bearing kind, that have not yet brought forth 
 fruit, and plants, and digs about and dungs them, tha.t they 
 may bring forth fruit; but should they happen to find a 
 tree of the fruit -bearing kind, bearing fruit in the wilder- 
 ness, they root it up, and then plant it in the vineyard, or 
 the church. Hov/ opposite, also, to what is said in the 
 Scriptures, cf Zion, or the church. "And of Zion it shall 
 be said, this and that man was born in her;" Psalm 87. 
 Jerusalem, (another epithet of the church) which is above, 
 and is free, is also said to be "the mother of us all :" but ac- 
 cording to their plan, the church is not the mother, but 
 only the nurse of lier children; and not an heir of grace 
 should be '^'^born again" in the visible kingdom of gi'ace, 
 or the church, but in the visible kingdom of darkness, or 
 of the devil; nor should "Zion ev'er travail, and bring forth 
 children." To which I would add the declaration of the 
 apostle respecting the good olive tree, or the Jewish 
 church, in the 11th chapter of his epistle to the Romans, 
 already adduced. The Jews, wiiom he styles natural 
 branches, were broken oif, he .tells us, by unbelief; and 
 the Gentiles, by faith, gi-afted in their stead. "Well; 
 because of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou stand - 
 est by faith.. Be not high-minded, but fear." Now it 
 follows by fair consequence, that the faith by which the 
 Jews stood, was a faith that could be, and was lost; but 
 this is not the case with the faith of God's elect: and that 
 the Gentiles were grafted into the good olive tree, by the 
 same kind of faith by which the Jews w ere once grafted 
 in, and by which they stood, but which finally degenerated 
 into what the apostle styles "unbelief." 
 
 And when we look at the history of that nation, it per- 
 fectly comports uith what the apostle says in that chapter. 
 They fell into idolatry at various times; but as they still 
 worshipped Jehovah in conjunction with their idol gods, 
 and for which they vvcre severely and justly punished, at 
 different times, they were not broken ofl. Hence, then, 
 we find Jehovah calling them liis people, =and a people in 
 covenant with him; when at the same time he cliarges them 
 with the basest idolatry. Hosea 5: 12, ''My jjeqple &sk 
 counsel at their stocks* and their stafi* declareth unto them: 
 
for fixe spirit of whoredoms liatli caused them to err, raid 
 the}^ haTe gone a whoreing from under tlieir God. " Thej 
 tinisted in the promise of God tliat he would send them a 
 Redeemer; but when that Redeemer came, "thej received 
 him not," but cracified him as an impostor: in consequence 
 of which, with the exception of a small remnant, "who re- 
 ceived him,*' they were broken oftTromthe good olive tree, 
 and the Gentiles grafted in their stead. Their rejecting 
 Jesus as the promised jlessiah, was i]\e unbelief, on ac- 
 count of which they v/ere broken off; and the Gentiles re- 
 ceiving him as such, wa.s the faith on account of which 
 they were grafted in, and by which they stand; and al- 
 though this general faith is not of a saving kind, yet it is 
 involved in it, and a saving faith cannot be, nor exist v/ith- 
 out it. 
 
 To this it may be objected — tliat the Mosaic dispensation 
 being typical, or only '-a shadow of good things to come,''' 
 was tiierefore comparativ'ely obscure, and the qualifications 
 of admittance into the cliurch ir. ore general and undefined: 
 but the gospel dispensation being the substance of these 
 shadovA's, the qualifications are therefire more distinctly 
 defined. Hence thi-n,' "faith and repentance, if not al- 
 ways, yet most frequently, are required as prerequisite 
 qualifications of admittance into the church by baptism; 
 and it has generally been admitted that tins faith, and this 
 repentance, mean a living faith, and evangelical repen- 
 tance." I sliall now examine this point. 
 
 The first passage which occurs on this point, is the mem- 
 orable address of Peter to the Jevv'*, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, already adduced for ano'her purpose. *'Repent, 
 says he, and be ba])t!zed, every orie of you, in the name of 
 Jesus Chris*, for tlie remission of sin&, and ye shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the lioiy Ghost." 
 
 I need scarcely observe to those who are acquainted 
 with the Greek language, tliat the Greek noun, metanoia, 
 and the verb inetanGeo, which are uniformly translated in 
 our Bibles ''repentance," and "to repent," are used in the 
 New Testament in at least three different senses; or rath- 
 er, that in some places they are used in a more extended 
 sense than in others. This is the case in all languages, on 
 account of the poverty of words; and it is from tlie drift 
 oand design of the writer or speaker, the character and cir- 
 cumstances of the hearers, and other considerations, tlia^ 
 
}ve are to ascertain in what sense the word is used. For 
 instance, inHeb. 12: 17, the Greek noun metanoia which 
 is translated repentance, signifies simply "a change of 
 mind," and this is the first or primary meaning of the 
 word. "Lest there be any fornicator or profane person^ 
 as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth-right. 
 For ye know, that afterwards, when he would have inher- 
 ited the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place of 
 repentance^ though he sought it carefully with tears." I 
 need scarcely observe, that the repentance mentioned in 
 this passage, is not predicated of Esau, who is styled *'a 
 profane person;" but a change of mind in his father Isaac, 
 who, by a divine impulse, had given the blessing of the 
 birth-right to his brother Jacob, because Esau had sold it 
 to him for a morsel of meat. Again: it is used to signify a 
 sorrow for sin, as exposing to punishment. This, I pre- 
 sume, is its meaning in Mat. 12: 41, when it is said of the 
 men of Nineveli, "that they repented at the preaching of 
 the prophet Jonah." It is also used to signify a sorrow 
 for sin, as not only exposing to deserved punishment; but 
 as offensive to God, and defiling in itself, and which issues 
 in a reformation of heart, and of life. In this sense it is 
 used, 2 Cor. 7: 10. "Godly sorrov/ v»^orketh repentance 
 unto salvation, not to be repented of," and v/hen used in 
 this extensive sense, there is often some accompanying 
 word, that fixes its meaning, as in this passage, and in 
 Acts 3:19. "Repent and be converted, that your sins may 
 be blotted out." 
 
 With these remarks in view, let us now inquire from 
 the design of the speaker, and the character and circum- 
 stances of the persons addressed, in which of these sen- 
 ses, we are to understand the verb metanoeo, in the pas- 
 sage now under consideration. The Jews, shortly before, 
 had crucified Jesus as an impostor, because he afiirmed that 
 he vv'as the Son of God, and their promised Messiah. Pc;- 
 ter, by comparing his character with the character given 
 of the Messiah by the prophets, succeeded in convincing 
 them, that he was really the promised Messiah, whom they 
 expected. The guilt of crucifying as an impostor, their 
 ^expected Messiah, "pricked" them to the heart; and they 
 said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "men and 
 brethren, what shall we dor" Peter says, Metanoesate; — 
 "change your minds" with respect to this Jesus of Naz- 
 
74 
 
 areth, whom you have considered as an impostor, and crii- 
 cined as such: and, as an evidence that jour change of 
 mind is real, ''be baptized every one of joii in tlie name of 
 Jesus Christ," (^ submit to that ordinance which he hath 
 appointed as the badge of discipleship to himself. And 
 to encourage tl^em so to do, he adds, "this baptism is for 
 the remission of sins," or a mean appointed bj him, that 
 you may receive the.remission of your sins, and the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost in his sanctifying influences; for, as I have 
 already observed, there is no-ground to conclude, from 
 what is said of those who were baptized on this occasion, 
 that they all received the gift of the Holy Ghost in his ex- 
 traordinary influences in the gift of tongues. This, I 
 think, is, the plain, obvious, and unsophisticated meaning 
 of the passage, and of the words "for the remission of sins." 
 And Vv'hat now is the meaning whicli those who contend 
 that the repentance here mentioned means an evangelical 
 repentance, give to tlie words "for the remission of 
 sins.^" This: that baptism would be to them a seal or evi- 
 dence th.at tlieir sins were remitted, and that they had re- 
 ceived the gift of the Holy Ghost. I would ask such to 
 produce any similar phraseology from the New Testament 
 that conveys that idea; and further — do such think there 
 is any person whqse mind has not been perverted by a 
 system, who would ever dream that tlie phrase "for the 
 remission of sins," means a seal or evidence of the "re- 
 mission of sins." When the apostle Paul wished to tell 
 us that "Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a 
 seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, being yet 
 uncircimicised," he uses the words "sign and seal;" and 
 if Peter, who was under the influence of the same Spirit 
 of truth, -when he addressed the Jews, designed to convey 
 tli,atidea, he could not possibly use words more unsuitable 
 than those he has used on tliat occasion. 
 
 It may be objected, that the Jews are said to be pricked 
 to the heart, previous to their being baptized — but tliis 
 surely is only an evidence of their being deeply convinced 
 of sin, but not a scriptural evidence of an evangelical re- 
 pentance; and the expressions are no stronger than those 
 of Cain, when he said, "my punishment is greater than I 
 ^ can bear;" or tlian those of Judas, when he said, "I have 
 ginned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." 
 
 It mav be further objected, tiiat m verses 41, 42, it i-: 
 
said of those persons "that thej glaclij received the word,'' 
 and that after then- baptism "Vhey continued stedfastly in 
 the apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and in breiiking of 
 bread, and in prayers. " If from this it is^rgiied, that they 
 were true believers, (and I vrili not contest the point,) it 
 rather strengthens than vv^eakens my argiinient, as this is 
 said of them after they were baptized; God, according to 
 the words of Peter blessing his own ordinance for this im- 
 portant purpose. And if it is replied, that it is said of 
 them ''that they gladly received the' word" previous to 
 their being baptized, tiiis is no stronger an expression than 
 what is said of the stony ground hearers, in the parable of 
 the sower; nor is it strange that those w'no had crucified 
 the Lord of life and of glory, as an impostor, would gladly 
 receive the news of a mean for removing the guilt of such 
 an atrocious act. 
 
 There is a.nother circumstance attending this remarka- 
 We event, which, v/hen duly considered may go far in fix- 
 ing the meaning of the word ''repent." Peter, v/e are 
 told, began his sermon at the sixth hour, or at nine o'clock 
 of our reckoning. How long he preached vv'e are not told, 
 as we have only a skeleton of his sermon. Although tiiere 
 were one hundred ?vnd twenty disciples present, we are 
 not toldtliat any of them vv^ere clothed with the ministen- 
 al character, or had a right to baptize except the twelve 
 apostles. Now, as an evidence of an evangelical repen- 
 tance could be only obtained by conversing with those 
 persons, I Vv^ould ask, had the iipostles time to converse 
 with three thousand, so as to obtain a ground of hope that 
 they were true penitents, and baptize them the same day 
 in any mode; for let it be recollected, that the Jev/ish day 
 began and ended at the setting of the sun. But as their 
 saying to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and 
 brethren, what shall we do.'^" and their readiness to sub- 
 mit to an ordinance appointed by the despised Nazarene, 
 v»^as an evidence of their change of mind respecting Jesus 
 of Nazareth., and that they were continced sinners; the 
 way w^s clear for baptizing them immediately, according 
 to my view of tlie subject; and there was time enough for 
 the twelve to do so by affusion, but surely not by immersion. 
 
 If to this it is objected, t'uat a profession of the religion 
 CI Jesus, was, in those troublous days, a strong evidence of 
 an evangelical repentance; and that the apostles were more 
 
sr6 
 
 competent to decide on the cliaracter of men than tlielr 
 successors^ I reply — that there Vvas no ])ersecution of tlie 
 Christians at that time, nor until after the martyrdom of 
 Stephen: and the apostles in such cases v/ere not discer- 
 ners of the spirits of others. Pieter himself had not that 
 gift in the case of Simon Magus, and only came to i]\e: 
 knowledge that he v/as in the gall of bitterness, and in the 
 bond of iniquity, by his ofreringthe apostles money for the 
 purchase of the Spirit's extraordinary influences. 
 
 Although it belongs not immediately to the subject in 
 hand, nor affects my present argument^ I would observe, 
 before I dismiss the point, that the observations I have made 
 on the foregoing passage may help to fix the meaning of 
 the repentance connected wfth the baptism of John. It 
 was a baptism * 'unto repentance," or designed to produce 
 a change of mind in the Jews respecting the Messiah who 
 v/as shortly to appear. They expected him as a magnifi- 
 cent conqueror who v»^as to deliver them from the Roman 
 yoke^ and w^ere accordingly scandalized at his po^r and 
 mean appearance. Besides; they supposed that their re- 
 lation to Abraham was all that was necessary for salvation. 
 Hence said John to the Phiirisees and Saducees who came 
 to Ills baptism, ''O ! generation of vipers, who hath warned 
 you to flee from the wrath to coma.^ bri?ig forth therefore 
 fruits meet for repentctiice^^^ (or evidential of a change of 
 mind in the impoitant point that concerns 3'our salvation} 
 •'and think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham ■ 
 to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these 
 stones to raise up children to Abraham." But should it 
 be contended, that the repentance preached by John, as 
 connected with his baptism was an evangelical repentance: 
 this, however, must be granted, tliat it was a baptism 
 ••unto repentancf," or designed to produce that f^reice in 
 the heart — understand the w ord as you may, it affects not 
 my argument. 
 
 Having thus ascertained the nature of the repentance 
 required in order to baptism, I shall now inquire into the 
 nature of that fiiith, that is required for the same purpose. 
 The first place vre read of faith as a prerequisite f )r baptism 
 is in the 8th chapter. YVe are told in verses 12, and l?^ 
 that when the Samaritans believed Philip preaching the 
 diings concerning the kingdom of God antl tlie name of 
 Jesus, they v/ere baptized both men and w omen. "Theii 
 !^imon hi aiself believed also, and was baptized.'' 
 
,77 
 
 It maybe sufficient for mv yjurpose, here just to observe, 
 that there is nothing said of the faith on account of which 
 tliese persons were baptized that fixes it down to a living 
 faith. The reverse is strongly implied; for the expression 
 is, that ''when tliey believed Philip preaching the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus 
 Chi-ist," or when they professed an assent to the general 
 doctrine, that Jesus of Nazareth was the only Saviour of 
 sinners, ''they w^ere baptized both men and women.'' 
 And indeed the character and conduct of Simon affords a 
 strong presumption, tliat Philip had not required of him an 
 evidence of a living faith; for can it be supposed, that a 
 person possessed of this faith could suppose that the Spirit's 
 extraordinary influence could be purchased by money? 
 
 But those who differ from me on this subject, no doubt, 
 are now readv to say, there is a Baptism recorded in this 
 very cliapter— that of the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia, 
 wherein the faith recjuired is fixed in its meaning to a liv- 
 ing faith, for Philip's vvords are— '-If thou believest vath 
 ail thine heart, thou niayest." 
 
 Before I would make any remarks on tl\is memorable 
 transaction, it is necessary to observe, that the question is 
 not, have true believers a right to baptism? for they have 
 a right to all the ordinances of the dispensation of grace 
 under which they live: and the ordinances v.hich were ap- 
 pointed and designed for the conviction and conversion of 
 sinners, were also designed for building them up in holiness 
 
 bapt] 
 
 racter of Simon ^lagus; and more than probable, the cha- 
 racter of the Samaritans; for it is said of them, "that they 
 all gave heed to his sorceries, Jind said — this man is the 
 great power of God." But what now is the character 
 v/hich is given in this chapter to the eunuch of the queen 
 of Ethiopia? If not a Jew, he was a proselyte to the Jew- 
 ish relig,ion, and he had travelled from Ethiopia to Jeru- 
 salem, for the purpose of worshipping the true God accor- 
 ding to his own appointments. How was he employed in 
 his chariot on his return?— Reading the prophecy of Isaiah, 
 one of the greatest of the Jewish propliets. What was his 
 conduct, when Philip, a poor man, and probably in mean 
 apparel, joined the chariot, and said, one v/ould think ra- 
 
Iher abruptly, ^Hmderstaiidest thou what thou reaclestr" I)id 
 he frown upon, and repulse him as an inipcrtment inquisi- 
 tor? No: he candidly acknowledged his ignorance, and 
 manifested the teachable disposition of a child of God, by 
 desiiing Philip to come up, and sit with, him in the chariot, 
 for the purpose of instmcting him in the meaning of what 
 he read. I have indeed frcquentlj heard from the pu'plt, 
 of the '^ conversions^ of this eunuch; but for my ovrn part, I 
 can see the features of an humble and zealous worshipper 
 of the true God, in the short history given of him. And 
 if we must have the word; his "conversion" was of the 
 secondary kind, from tiie Jewish to the Christian dispen- 
 sations of the grace of God. Yv'hilst at Jerusalem, he had 
 heard, no doubt, from the c]>ief priests, that Jesus was a 
 vile impostor, and was returning to his own country with 
 that pernicicms impression. God, in his good providence, 
 sent Philip his way in a miraculous manner, to undeceive 
 him, and to preach Jesus to him as th.e Messiah that w^as now 
 come. It is implied in what fuiloA\s, that Philip unfolded 
 to him the nature and design of the ordinance of baptism, 
 aiid the obligations on all who acknowledge Christ as Lord 
 and Master, to be baptized into his nauie. ''And as tliey 
 went on their w-ay, they came to a certain water, and the 
 eunuch said, see here is water — what doth hinder me to b& 
 baptized.*' And Philip said, if tliou belicvest with all thine 
 heart, chou mayest. And lie answered and said, I believe 
 that Jesus Chiist is the Son of God. 
 
 And now, vv^hat is tliere in this interesting historical 
 fact, that militates against the doctrine T am defending? 
 Vv'as there any thing more in his profession than a sincere 
 ■ncrsiiasion, that Jesus, ^^hom he had, no doubt, been led 
 ^0 consider as an impostor, was tlie Son of God; whicli I 
 need not tell you, a man m.ay believe, and thousands do 
 sincerely believe, and yet are destitute of the faith of 
 God's elect. The argument of those who contend, from 
 this passage, that a profession of a living faith is required 
 in order to baptism, is founded on the assumption, t!iat 
 this man w^as a sinner, and that "to believe with all the 
 licart" means a justifying faith; as it is elsewhere said, 
 "that with the heart inan believeth unto righteousness.'' 
 But admitting that he had been a sinner, I must contend, 
 that to believe with all the heart, imports nothing more 
 rhan ninccviiy^ and I need not say, that we sincerely be- 
 
iieve, on competent e\4dence, a hundred historical factsV 
 as Avell as that Jesus, is the Son of God: and it is not so 
 much believing "with the heart,'' as believing unto right- 
 eousness, that dei^i^cs the character of faith in that pas- 
 sage. Thus a mi^iiite consideration of that interesting 
 baptism, instead of miiilatiDg against, supports the posi- 
 tion I am defending. 
 
 The observati-fiiB made on the baptism of the eunuch, 
 are equally applicable to the baptism of Lydia, recorded 
 in the 16th chapter. Her conversion as an unregenerated 
 person, is also of:en spoken of, as implied in these words, 
 '•the Lord opened her heart, that she attended to the things 
 spoken by Paul." Although there is not perhaps as full 
 evidence of her saintshlp as that of the eunuch; yet there 
 is that said of her that aifbrds strong presumptive evidence 
 tliat she was a saint previous to her being baptized. It is 
 said of her that she ''worshipped God," and was one of 
 those women who resorted to the river side for prayer^ 
 Avhich v>'as usual with the i^ious Jev/s when in heathen 
 lands. "By the rivers of Babylon there we sat doM^n,. 
 yea, we v/ept v«hen we reniembered Zion:" Pscdm 139. 
 Frc;m these considerations, then it appear?, that if not a 
 Jewess, she vt'as a proselyte to the Jewish religion, and the 
 expression, "that the Lord opened her heart, that she at- 
 tended to the things spoken by Paul," can mean nothing 
 more, than that, like the eunuch, she was convinced by the 
 preaching of Paul, of the change of the dispensation of 
 grace from Judaism to Christianity, in consequence of 
 which "she was baptized and her house." 
 
 I shall now return to an examination of tlie baptism of 
 Saul of Tarsus, recorded in the 9th, and of Cornelius and 
 his fiiends, mentioned in the following chapter. With re- 
 spect to Saul, there is nothing said of his faith and repent- 
 ance previous to his being baptized. But fi-om what he 
 tells us in the 22d chapter, Ananias said to him on thai 
 occasion, the inference I think is just, that in that ordi- 
 nance he received the remission of his sins. "And nov 
 why tarriest thou.? Arise, and be baptized, and wask 
 AWAY THY sixs," — ail expresslou similar to that of Petei 
 on the day of Pentecost, "Be baptized every one of you 
 for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gilt of 
 the Holy Ghost. " It appears that Saul, from the time he 
 was struck down on his journey from Jerusalem to Da- 
 
80 
 
 mascus, %yas hi the spirit of bondage, until after his bap- 
 tism. Such was the agony of his soul, tiiat he neither eat 
 nor di-ank, for three days; and it would seem that, accord- 
 ing to the words of Ananias, that in that ordinance he re- 
 ceived the internal evidence of the Spirit, of the washing 
 of regeneriition, and of liis interest in Christ; for we are 
 told, that immediately after his baptism, "he received 
 meat and was strengthened." 
 
 What I have said respecting the baptism of Saul of Tar- 
 sus, is the case with the baptism of Cornelius and his 
 friends. There is nothing said about their faitJi and re- 
 pentance previous to their being baptized. True, indeed, 
 it is said that while Peter was preaching to them, and pre- 
 vious to their baptism, ''the Holy Ghost fell on them that 
 heard the word;" but we are expressly told that it was in 
 his miraculous gift of tongues. "And they of the circum- 
 cision which believed were astonished; as many as came 
 with Peter; because that on the Gentiles also, was poured 
 out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the}'' heard them speak 
 with tongues, and magnify God:" And I need scarcely 
 observe, that tiiis gift was conferred on some w4io were 
 destitute of saving grace, and remained so. But admit- 
 ting that his saving influences were given at the same time 
 yith his extrai>rdinary gifts, what is the consequence? 
 This only — that true believers ha.ve a right to tlie ordi- 
 jiance of baptism, wiierever found, as Abraham had to the 
 ordinance of circumcision. 
 
 j The baptismof the jailer, recorded in the 16th chapter, 
 How remains only for examination. We are told, that 
 klarmed by the earthquake that shook the foundations of 
 i\e prison, "he called for a liglit, sprang in, and came 
 trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought 
 
 tem out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved .^ And 
 ey said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt 
 lie saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the 
 vord of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And 
 1b took them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
 slripes, and- was baptized, he and all his, straightway." 
 ' Let it now be observed, that there is nothing said of this 
 jjian previous to his baptism, "his trembling, and falling 
 down before Paul aiid Silas," that is indicative of any 
 4iing more than a deep sense of guilt; and not stronger 
 Ihau that of Cain and Judas, And although Paul and Si- 
 
81 
 
 las exhort him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 lie might be savefl, they do not say tliat this faith was a 
 prerequi site qualification for baptism. * When ' ' the j spake 
 the \vo!'d of the Lord to him, and to ail that were in his 
 house," they, no doubt, explained the nature and obliga- 
 tions of baptisms and that he received througli that ordi- 
 nance, as the appointed medium, ''peace in believing," and 
 '^joy in the Holy Ghost," is apparent from what is said of 
 him after being baptized, as it is translated— "And when 
 he had brought them into his house, he set meat befqre 
 them, and rejoiced^ believing in God with all his house." 
 It may perhaps not be unnecessary, to observe in this place, 
 that although the Jev/s, on the day of Pentecost, Saul of 
 Tarsus, and this man, received the remission of sins, and 
 
 * "That the word '^saved" in tliis passage, must be understood in 
 the limited sense I have mentioned in the second letter, will I 
 think be admitted for the reasons there assigned. It may be worth 
 while to enquire whether the word ''believe," should not be un- 
 derstood in a restricted sense also; and if any unanswerable rea- 
 son can be assigned; why we must understand by it a justifying- 
 faith, and not as importing only an assent to the scriptural propo- 
 sition that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and the only Saviour of sin- 
 ners, which a person may do, and yet be destitute of the faith of 
 God's elect. In this inquiry the character of the jailer as a very 
 ignorant heathen should be kept in view, and the inquirer v/ill 
 ask, if the jailer's mind was furiiished at that instant with such 
 previous knowledge, as is necessary in the nature of things, for 
 understanding such a complex idea as justifying faith; and if Paul 
 and Silas would not deem it necessary to inculcate first, an assent 
 to the elementary preposition that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour 
 of sinners, before they proceeded to inform him of the necessity 
 of receiving him as a prophet, priest and king, in order to salva- 
 tion. In this manner, I presume. Missionaries to the heathen pro- 
 ceed. In this manner Paul him.self proceeded with the people 
 of "Athens; and if he and his colleague proceeded in this way on 
 that occasion, then it follows, tl"iat by the faith reccnunended, they 
 did not mean a justifying faith, but an assent to the elementaiy 
 principle that Jesus is the only Saviour of sinners, and as what 
 would entitle himself and family to be brought under the means 
 of salvation by baptism. That they d'd afterwards unfold the 
 nature, and inculcate the necessity of a jiistifying faith is implied 
 in what we are told in th.e following verse, "And they spake unto 
 him tlie Avord of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.'*" 
 The intelligent reader will liovrevcr see, that supposing they 
 meant a justifying faith, that circumstance does not affect my pre- 
 sent argument, nor my views of the nature and desig-n of the Qiv 
 dinance of baptism, as exhibited in these letters. 
 
peace in believing, through the ordinance of baptism, yet 
 it \\as not the case with Simon Magns. The duty is ours, 
 and we must leave it to a sovereign God, v.hen, and to 
 whom, he will bless his own ordinance. 
 
 Having thus examined all the baptisms recorded in the 
 New Testament, it does not appear that Ihei^ is one of 
 them wherein the .profession of a living faith, and of an 
 evangelical repentance, was required of the person baptized. 
 And not only is this, the case? but 1 4iave showed that thei-e 
 is clear intrinsic evidence in these pUce.?, that baptism is 
 spoken of as a mean of grace far convinced adults. " And 
 to this I would add, that the element of water to be iis^d 
 in this- ordinance, is a strong presumptive evidence tliat it 
 was designed for that purpose. In i]\Q ordinance of the 
 supper, bread and wine,, that strengthen and refresh tlie 
 vxaried body, are tlie appointed symbols; an evidence 
 that it was designed f'.)r strengthenina; and refreshing the 
 tru^ believer in his journey to Immanuel's land: but in 
 baptism, the symbol is water, whicli was designed, and is 
 used, for washing away the filth of the body, an evidence 
 i f that it w^as designed, throuo;!! the inSuences of the Spirit, 
 I to wash away the filth of the soul: and I know not what 
 else Chvist could mean when he says, "Except a man be 
 born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God." John 3: 5. 
 
 From the uiwle it appears, tiiat circumcision and bap- 
 tism v/ere designed for the same purpo.-ies — that the latter 
 has taken tlie place of the former; and that ijbe ordmante 
 of the supper has taken the place of the Jewish passover. 
 Th.at baptism has taken thQ place of circuuici-iion, is evi- 
 dent from the epistle to the Colosr-^lans £: 10, 11. "Ye are 
 complete in him who is the head of all principality and 
 power: in v;hom also ye are circumcised v, ilh the circum- 
 cision made withtrat hands, 5?/ the circumcison of Christ." 
 Tiiat the circumcision made vv^ithout hands, m£>ans renova- 
 tion of heart, will not be disputed; but this, the apostle 
 says, was effected by the circumcision of Christ, as the 
 mean; and what he meant by the circumcision of Christ, 
 he tells us in the next words — ^"buried with him in bap- 
 tism;" another proof, you will perceive, that baptism, be- 
 sides being the appointed mean of initiation into the cimrch 
 at present, v^^as designed for producing renovation of 
 heart. That tlie Lord's supper has taken the place of tiie 
 
passover, is also evident, from 1 Cor. 5: f, 8, already ad- 
 duced. *'For even Christ, our^iasspver, is sacrificed for 
 us; therefore let us keep the feast ^ not with old leaven, nei- 
 ther %ith"the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with 
 the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. " From this 
 passage it appears, that the pa^schal lamb, in the manner 
 of hisdeatli, not only typified Christ, the lamb slain from 
 the foundation of the world, for the sins of many, but the 
 manner presciibed fo^ eating it, with unleavened bread, 
 signified 'the necessity of ''sincerity and truth;" with the 
 absence of "malice and wickedness," in eating the Lordl^s 
 supper, to which the apostle evidently alludes in this chap- 
 ter under the metaphor of a feast — "Let us keep the 
 feast," &c. 
 
 Mr. C. however, and other Baptist writers object; by 
 saying; that there are some circumstances in which cir- 
 cumcision and. baptism, and the passover and the Lord's 
 supper do not resemble each other, and that the pass(Wer 
 was eaten by little children, as well as by adults. 
 
 Types were designed to resemble the persons, or things 
 typified, sometimes in one point only, and sometimes in 
 more than one, and to object to circuoicision and the pass- 
 over, as types of Baptism and tlie Lord's supper, because 
 there are some circumstances in which those ordinanciis do 
 not agree, argues an ignorance of the natu-re and desig^i of 
 types. Indeed, according to the objectioi)^ tliere cannot 
 be any type ^^ hatever; foj' although there are some circum- 
 stances in which tv/o persons or things agree, yet there are 
 circumstances in which they necessarily disagree. And 
 that little children eat of the passover, is, perhaps, rather 
 an assumption than a fact. The directions of Jehovah res- 
 pecting this circumstance a,re these— "And it shall come 
 to pass when your children shall say unto you, wha.t mean 
 you by this service.^ that je. shall say, it is the sacrifice of 
 the Lord's passover, who passed over the liouses of the 
 children of Israel, in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians 
 and delivered our houses." Exodus 12: 26, 27. Here, 
 then, these children were such as were capable of asking a 
 pertinent question, and of receiving and understanding a' 
 suitable answei". But admittingthat they did — what then.^ 
 The passover was not only typical of Clu'ist,' our passover, 
 or of the Christian passover, but u as also commemorative 
 of the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian 
 
84 
 
 bondage; little children therefore might v/ith propriety eat 
 of it, as it had respect to that event, while the intelligent 
 adult saw in it a more interesting deliverance — the redemp- 
 tion of guilty men by the sacrifice of the Son of God. 
 
 But to all this it is objected, that Christ himself has said, 
 '•that he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." 
 And what is the argument deduced from these words that 
 a living faith is indispensably necessary in adults to entitle 
 them to baptism? This — the faith here mentioned is of the 
 saving kind, because salvation is promised to it; but it is 
 prefixed to baptism; therefore a saving faith is necessary 
 for baptism. Well, according to this manner of reason- 
 ing, baptism is necessary for salvation, for it is also prefix- 
 ed to salvation. Tiiis vvill prove too much, not only for 
 Baptists, but for Pedobaptists, who differ from "me on this 
 point But these important words have a meaning; and 
 M'hat is it.^ This simply — that tiue believers have a right 
 to baptism, if not baptized, and sliall be saved; not because 
 they have been baptized, but because they liave believed. 
 
 It may be also objected, that my view of tlie subject 
 opens the door of the clmrch to all indiscriminately. The 
 reverse is' the case. It excludes the grossly ignorant, and 
 immoral, and admits only the inqairing and pra3dng sinner: 
 for to n'dj that a person who has seen his lost, and perish- 
 ing state as a sinner, and his need of an interest in the ato- 
 ning blood of Christ, and oftlse renewing influences of his 
 Spirit, will not pray for these all- important blessings, and- 
 •^forsake his evil ways", is a contradiction in terms. It is 
 said of Saul of Tarsus, while in the spirit of bondage, 
 "Behold lie prayeth I" 
 
 It may be f^irther objected, that at best, it is calculated 
 to fill the church v.ith unregenera. e persons. Tiiose vvho 
 make the objection, in making it still keep in their eye tlieir 
 own views of the church, as designed for the admittance of 
 regenerated persons only, or persons professing that they 
 have "passed from deatli unto life;" and Mr. C. tells us 
 tliat in the debate with Mr. W. he read, in support of tliis 
 position, the addresses of tlie apostles in their epistles to 
 the different churches, wherein they uniformly address 
 them as saints or regenerated persons. He also tells us, 
 that he highly esteems the writings of the late Dr. Campbell 
 of Aberdeen — that ]ie considers him as one of the gi-eatest 
 critics of modern times — and that in the debate with Mr. 
 
85 
 
 AV. he read extracts from his preliminary dissertations, 
 and critical notes in support of part of his system. Now 
 if he will turn to that part of Dr. Campbell's dissertations 
 already referred to, Dr* Campbell will tell him what every 
 good linguist also knows to be the fact; that there are two 
 words, kadosh, and chasid, in Hebrew, and hagios, and 
 hosios^ in Oreek, which, although they are uniformly 
 translated holy, are very diSerent in their real meaning — 
 that kadosh in Hebrew, and its corresponding word hagios 
 in Greek, when applied to persons, means only persons 
 "devoted to, or destined" for a sacred purpose; and that 
 chasid in Hebrew, and its corresponding word, hosios in 
 Greek, has reference to character, and means '*pious, or 
 devout. " And if lie will turn to his Greek Testament, he 
 \'?ill find, that the apostles never address the members of 
 the clmrches to wliich they wrote, as hosiois, or pious, but 
 as hagiois en Christo, or persons who, by bein^ baptized, 
 were devoted to a sacred use, or under obligations to be- 
 come pious, or pure in heart. This judicious criticism, 
 which will not be disputed, disvsipates the objection, over- 
 turns Mr. C's view of the structure of the church of God, 
 and all the arguments he has used to support that view, and 
 you will perceive, exactly accords with that view of it, I 
 have attempted to exhibit and defend. 
 
 As for tliat portion of the church which consists of com- 
 municants or those who profess godliness, the view I have 
 ^ivenis,in my opinion, best calculated to preserve its hon- 
 our and purity. As it is expected, and in some churches 
 required, of those who are baptized on the contrary sys- 
 tem, that they come to the ordinance of the supper; and 
 from the strong desire that some unbaptized persons have 
 to be accounted church members, and of some parents to 
 iiave their children baptized, a snare is laid in their way, 
 to profess having experienced what they never felt, and 
 thus improper persons are introduced amongst communi- 
 cants, and the ensnared person eats and drinks judgment 
 to himself, at fne table of the Lord. Let this important 
 subject be strictly examined, and let tlie ministers of the 
 Gospel candidly and carefully tell those wliom they bap- 
 tize, or parents who have their children baptized, that they 
 are thereby brought under the strongest obligations to 
 ^void the pollutions of the world, '*and to seek the Lord 
 ^.nlil they find him;"' — that although by baptism they and 
 9 
 
8G 
 
 their child reu are planted in the vineyard of the Lord, and 
 what is styled by Chiist, "digging about and dunging" is 
 secured to them by the seal of God himself; yet they are 
 not to rest contented until they experimentally find the 
 tiling signified by baptism, the washing of regeneration by 
 the Spirit of the Most High. And if they or their children 
 when they grow up, fall into the pollutions of the world, 
 or become careless in their attendance on the means of 
 grace, then, let the discipline of the church, in admonition 
 or rebuke, be exercised upon them; and if they refuse to 
 be reclaimed, let them be finally cast out of the church. 
 I know, and regret that this is not usually the case; hence 
 then a mistaken view of the design of the churcli, together 
 vnt\\ the negligence 6f her officers, has led Mr. C. and oth- 
 ers to represent infant baptism as a useless and inefficient 
 ordinance, and his own distorted views of the subject, has 
 also led him to pour unsparing contempt on that '-church 
 of God whicli he purchased v/ith his own blood." 
 
 As I have said, that a belief that Jesus is the Son of 
 God, and the only sa%iour of sinners, accompanied with 
 a sense of guilt, entitles an adult person to the ordinance 
 of baptism; I have been asked by way of objection, — "If 
 God does require of sinners, any other faith and repen- 
 tance, than a living faith, and evangelical repentance." 
 
 To prevent misapprehensions, I will repeat what I have 
 said more than once, that no other faith and repentance, 
 but a living faith and evangelical repentance, can be of 
 avail to the saving of the soul. But that God does require 
 a faith and repentance which are not of an evangelical 
 character, in order to our exercising a living faith, and an 
 evangelical repentance, and' for other purposes, is appa- 
 rent to myself, not only from express declarations in his 
 holy word, but from what that word tells us is the way in 
 which the Divine spirit creates the soul anew in Christ 
 Jesus. For instance; the apostle James, I think, mentions 
 with some degree of approbation, a faith which is not of 
 the saving kind. "Thou believest that there is one God; 
 thou doest ivellj the Devils also believe and tremble:" 2. 19. 
 The design of the apostle in the preceding context is to 
 shew, that a speculative faith, as it is sometimes called, 
 cannot avail to the justification of the sinner, nor afford a 
 ground of hope that we are in a justified state. Why?-— 
 Because, as he tells us, "it is dead," or inoperative as re- 
 
87 
 
 gards good works, — "'even so faith if it hath not good 
 works is deady being aione." But lest the inference 
 iiiouid be drawn tliat this faith is of no avail Vv hat ever, nor 
 required of us by God, he tells those who have exercised 
 it, that so far tliey have ^'done zvell;''^ but then, they should 
 remember that the fallen angels for whom no redemption 
 was provided, "believe also that there is a God" — and 
 that Jesus Christ is the son of God, (Mat. 8; 29.) and yet 
 tremble under his righteous displeasure^ and consequently 
 that those who are the subjects of tliis speculative faith on- 
 ly, should aspire after that faith "that works by love, pu- 
 rifies the heaii;, and overcomes tlie world." Since then, 
 it is so far "e^-e/Z" in sinful men to believe that there is a 
 God, and that Jesus is the Son of God, it is surely required 
 cf them by God, v/ho requires nothing but v.hat is right, 
 and forbids nothing but is wrong. And to this I will add, 
 what I have already observed, that although this specula- 
 tive faith is not of a saving character, jet a saving faith 
 cannot be, nor exist without it. 
 
 That there is also a repentance, or sorrov/ for sin as 
 exposing to deserved punishment, required by God, and' 
 required too, in order to the sinner's exercising that "re- 
 pentance unto salvation that needeth not to be repented 
 of," is apparent also from express scripture declarations. 
 In Eph. 5; 14, the apostle introduces Jehovah himself as 
 addressing sinners thus — "Av/ake thou that sleepest, and 
 arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." 
 Here, i\ic sinner who is said to be morally dead, is called 
 upon to arise from this death, and to go to Christ, that he 
 may obtain light. But in order to this, he is previously 
 called upon to "«z6'«/t:e," or to realise his danger and ex- 
 posure to wrath, as what is necessary in the nature of 
 things, to dispose him to prize the salvation by Christ: 
 for Christ himself has said, "that he came not to call the 
 righteous," or those who suppose they are righteous, "but 
 sinners," or those who are sensible they are sinners, "to 
 repentance." 
 
 Perhaps it may be said, that saints are said "to sleep," 
 when the principle of spiiitual life is inactive in their souls; 
 the passage may therefore be addressed to such. Saints 
 while in the foregoing state, are indeed said "to sleep;" 
 but they are never said to l3e dead — "dead in trespasses 
 iipA sins." On the contrary they are said to be "alive from 
 
88 
 
 the dead" — "and alive to God through Jesus Chiist out 
 liOrd:" and it is, I think, properly observed by Dr. Guise, 
 in a note on tliis verse, that as the death of the body is in 
 the scriptures frequently compared to sleep^ the apostle- 
 ilierefore compares the moral death of the sinner, to sleep 
 also, because both states are states of insensibility. And 
 to this I v/ouldadd, tha* the exposition which I have given 
 to the foregoing ]-«issage&, is agreeable to what Christ him- 
 self tells us is the w^ay in which the spirit applies the re- 
 demption purchased by his bloody to those a-duU persons 
 whom the father designed to save. ''And when tlie spirit 
 is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, 
 and of judgment" — m* first of sin, and then of righteous- 
 ness, and then of judgment. Since then, this is the way 
 ia which the spirit operates on the sinner*s heart for the 
 important purpose of disposing him to believe in Christ to 
 the saving of his soul; it follows, that it is the sinner's du- 
 ty to be thus convinced; but what is his duty is required of 
 God; nor are we to suppose that the divine spirit produces 
 any change in the sinner's heart that is not required of 
 God, and required too far important purposes. 
 
 I have been also asked by way of objection — ''Does not 
 God in his holy word call upon the sinner to submit imme- 
 diately to the sceptre of his grace, in Christ; and is it not 
 the duty of the sinner to submit immediately when Jehovah 
 calls; and if so, where is the room for the exercise of that 
 faith and repentance which you say is a prerequisite qual- 
 ification to entitle an adult to the ordinance of baptism?" 
 —Jehovah does indeed thus call upon sinners; and it is the 
 sinner's duty ta submit immediately to the gracious call. 
 But it is implied in the very nature of the divine call, or 
 command, that the sinner should realize iiis danger and 
 spiritual maladies; else, as I have shewn, he ccmnot, or 
 rather he ivill not obey the call. All who are acquainted 
 with the philosophy of tlie human mind, do know, that al- 
 though its operations are more rapid than the forked light- 
 ning, yet it does, and necessarily must attend to one sub- 
 ject of thought, before another. Nor will any person say, 
 that under the agency of the abnighty and omniscient spirit, 
 a sinner may not be illuminated, convinced, and converted 
 in a moment; nor would I say 1 hat this may not be the case 
 with some individuals. But I may safely say, that this 
 h^s not been the case widi the great body of tho&e wKa 
 
89 
 
 have been "called from darkness to God's marvellous 
 light." The 3000 on the day of Pentecost, and the Jail- 
 or of the city of Philippi, appear to have been convinced 
 and converted in the space of a few hours. Saul of Tar- 
 sus appears to have been tliree days, and three nights in 
 the spirit of bondage, and many of the cliildren of God, 
 have been'not only days but months in the same situation. 
 As this then, is the usual way in v^^hich sinners are brought 
 to Christ; and as it is the way of the spirit to convince 
 them, first of sin, and then of righteousness, and then of 
 judgment, before he bows their wills to the sceptre of 
 graces then, as I have already observed, the belief ai all 
 tiiose doctrines respecting the spotless purity, and inflexi- 
 ble justice of God; the evil of sin, and the depravity of their 
 own hearts which they received while passing from death 
 unto life : and all the anguish of soul which results from a 
 belief of those truths, were required of them by God, and 
 required, as 1 think, for the purpose of qualifying them for 
 adjiiittance into the church by baptism, as one of the means 
 through vv^liich the almighty spirit disposes them *'to re- 
 ceive and rest upon Ciirist for salvation, as offered in the 
 Gospel. " 
 
 Perhaps, some may be ready to say, that I have been 
 proving truisms. I will only observe, that the two last 
 objections have been seriously urged against the doctrine 
 advocated in this letter; and by men too, of no contempti' 
 ble understandings — It was therefore that I noticed them. 
 
 Finally; it has been objected, that my views on this, 
 point are contrary to the confession of faith of the Pres- 
 byterian church, which together with the Catechisms say; 
 that adults must "profess faith in Christ, and obedience to 
 him," before they can be baptized, and by this faith the ob- 
 jectors understand a living, or justifying faith. 
 
 This objection has been brought on the presumption that 
 I have adopted that confession, as the confession of my 
 faith, which is true; and consequently partakes of the na- 
 ture of the argumentum ad Iiominem, which although of- 
 ten a. sorry argument, is yet sometimes deserving of atten- 
 tion. The creed of the Presbyterian church on the sub- 
 ject of Baptism is exhibited in the 28th chapter of their 
 confession of faith, which I shall now examine for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining, if by the faith mentioned therein, we 
 must understand a living faith; for let it be cemembered^ 
 *9 
 
■j6 
 
 that both ill that chapter, and in the catechisms where faith' 
 is mentioned in connection with baptism, it is faith — sim- 
 plj — ^indefinitely — or faith without any qualifying epithet. 
 
 In the first section, Baptism is said to be to the baptized 
 person, "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of re- 
 generation, of the remission of sins, and of his giving up 
 to Gocl through Jesus Clirist, to walk in newness of life." 
 
 It is admitted that baptism is a seal of all this to the 
 ti^ie believer who is baptised, but surely not to the bapti- 
 zed unbeliever; and that persons who were not true believ- 
 ers at the time, were baptized by the apostles cannot be 
 denied — vv itness Simon Magus, and Ananias, and Sapphi- 
 ra. I am persuaded that the objectors do not, cannot un- 
 derstand this section in any other sense than that which I 
 have mentioned 5 or as only declarative of the benefits re- 
 sulting to the true believer from his being baptized into 
 the name of Jesus; and therefore no argument can be le- 
 gitimately drawn from it, that a living faith is required of 
 adults in order to their baptism. This will be still more 
 apparent when we examine the remaining sections. 
 
 The second section tells us, "that the water is to be ap- 
 plied in that ordinance," in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost— The third ''that dipping 
 into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly ad- 
 ministered by pouring, or sprinkling water on the subject^* 
 — And the fourth, "that not only those tliat actually pro- 
 fess faith in, and obedience to Christ, but the infants of 
 one or both believing parents are to be baptized." 
 
 In the fifth section it is said, "that although it be a great 
 sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet gmce and 
 salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that 
 no person can be regenerated without it, or that all that 
 are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated, " 
 
 Here, baptism is expressly alluded to more than once, 
 as a regenerating ordinance, or a mean of regeneration; 
 and it is distinctly said, that grace and salvation are an- 
 nexed to it, although not inseparably — this, we have also 
 said in a preceding part of this letter. It follows then, 
 that by the faith mentioned in the fourth section, as a pre- 
 requisite qualification for baptism, we are not to under- 
 stand a saving faith, as that faith does not precede, but is 
 a consequent of regeneration. John 1: 11 — 13 — "He, 
 rChrist] came to his own, and his own received lum not 
 
91 
 
 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to 
 become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his 
 name; which were born not of blood, nor of the vvill of the 
 tlesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
 
 And that by the '^grace'' mentioned in the fifth section, 
 and which is "annexed*' to baptism, we are to understand 
 not confirming but regenerating grace, is apparent from 
 the circumstance, thai in the sixth, or following section, it 
 is promised alike to adults and infants — "The eificacy of 
 baptism is not tied down to the moment of time wherein it 
 is administered; yet notwithstanding by the right use of 
 this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but 
 really exhibited anti. conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such 
 (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, ac- 
 cording to the counsel of God's own will, in ins appointed 
 time.'' 
 
 Here again, baptism is spoken of as an efficacious ordi- 
 nance, or an ordinance through which the Holy Ghost cdn- 
 veys regenerating grace to those, whether adults or in- 
 fants, whom a sovereign God designed t-o save, and at that 
 time that his infinite wisdom .sees best. So far then are 
 our views on this point from being contrary to the confes- 
 sion cf faith of the Presbyterian church, they are sanction- 
 ed by it; and those objectors who may have adopted that 
 confession, or yet what is called the Westminster confes- 
 sion of faith, may nov/ see, that on this point they have de- 
 parted from that "form of sound words. " But this is not 
 all: our views are agreeable to the words of Peter on the 
 day of Pentecost, "Be baptized /or the remission of sins, 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;" but how 
 their system can be brought to quadrate with the apostle's 
 words, is, what I cannot see. 
 
 W ith respect to the profession of "obedience to Christ," 
 which is mentioned in connection with faith, we cannot, 
 in consistence with the doctrines taught in the two prece- 
 ding sections, understand by it any tiling more, than a 
 profession of the person who is to be baptized, that he is 
 resolved in a dependance on divine aid, "to cease to do 
 evil, and to learn to do well;" to respect, and to attend 
 upon the ordinances of divine institution; together v/ith a 
 submission to the discipline of the church of Christ. I will 
 only add; that these duties resulting from the privilege of 
 being brought by baptism into the visible church, are to be 
 
92 
 
 considered as msans connected with baptism itself^ through 
 which a sovereign God communicates regenerating grace 
 to those adults and infants, whom, his infmite wisdom did 
 not see best to regenerate, at the moment when they were 
 baptized. The remaining section of this chapter only 
 teajs, ''that the sacrament ^f baptism is but once to be ad- 
 ministered, to any persori,^' 
 
 I shall in the next letter, consider t\\e mode, or as Mr* 
 C. expresses it, the action of baptism. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 HAVING in my last letters bnefly reviewed Mr. 
 C's book so far as respects the church of Gody and the right 
 of infants to baptism, before I enter upon a review of the 
 mode^ it may not be amiss to present you again with some 
 of his rules respecting positive institutes, that you may 
 see how far he is himself governed by them on this part of 
 the subject. **In positive institutes we are not authorized 
 to reason what we should do, but implicitly to obey — and 
 can there be a positive institution without a positive pre- 
 cept or precedent authorizing it?" It may also not be amiss 
 to set before you the 99th question^ of his new catechism, 
 with its ansv/er. " Q. How do you view all Pedobaptists 
 with regard to this ordinance of baptism? Can you, accor- 
 ding to the Scriptures, consider them baptized persons, or 
 do you consider them as unbaptized? A. There is only 
 one baptism, and all who have p.ot been immersed in the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, after professing 
 the faith of the Gospel, have never been baptized, and are 
 now in an imbaptized state.''^ 
 
 You will have perceived, that according to this answer, 
 not only infant baptism, but the baptism of adults, if not 
 by immersion, is a nullity, and consequently, that there is 
 no church of God-*-no lawful ministry, amongst Pedobap- 
 tists; and you will reasonably expect, that for the purpose 
 of sliowingus our exceeding great error, according to his^ 
 own rule made and provided for this case, he will tell us 
 the chapter and verse in which it is said, that baptism is ta 
 l>e administered by immersion only, and that baptism ad- 
 ministered in any other mode is null and void: and further, 
 you will also expect, the words of this chapter and verse 
 to be so clear, and distinctly defined, as to admit of no oth- 
 er meaning, and like axioms to involve their own evidence. 
 And is not this the case? Not at all; his rule of "positive 
 precept and precedent," is only to be urged when little 
 children are to be driven out of the church, where they had 
 been planted by Jehovah himself; but abandoned, as of no 
 manner of use, when the right of women to the Lord's sup- 
 per, or immersion, is the ques-tian. He reasons too, and 
 
94 
 
 infers, like any Pedobaptist: and instead of telling us where 
 the ''positive precept or precedent*' for immersion is, he 
 appeals to lexicographers and biblical critics, in support of 
 his opinion. You will not understand me as condemning 
 a recourse to the foregoing authorities, when under tlie 
 flirection of a sound critical knowledge: but you cannot 
 but see how inconsistent, if not ridiculous, it is in Mr. C. 
 who tells us, that "in positive institutions v/e are not au- 
 thorized to reason what we should do, but implicitly to 
 obey;" and more especially Vv'henhe tells us, that the very 
 existence of the church depends upon baptism being ad- 
 ministered by immersion, as it is admitted on both sides 
 that baptism is the mode of initiation. But let us hear 
 him and Mr. W. on the ^oint. 
 
 Mr. C. tells us that Mr. W. alleged in favour of admin- 
 istering baptism by pouring; the Avater on the subject, that 
 the Greek verb bapfizo, vv'hich is translated in our Bibles 
 baptize, does not necessarily signify to dip^ but to sprinkle 
 or pour — that the v/ord is used in this sense in Luke 1 1 : 39, 
 '*A certain Pharisee asked Jesus to dine with him, and he 
 went and satdov/n to meat; and when the Pharisee sav/ it 
 he marvelled that he had not first washed (ebapisthe) before 
 dinner:" — that it was not his whole body, but his hands,, 
 that were alluded to in this passage : — that this was done 
 by pouring water on the liands; and as a proof, he mention- 
 ed what is said of Elisha, that he poured water on the 
 hands of Elijah. Mr. W. also alleged, that "bafto," 
 the root of "baptizo," is sometimes used in this sense, 
 and as a proof of this, mentioned the case of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, whose body is said, Dan. 4: 33, (ebaphe) to be 
 wet with the dev/ of heaven; but this could not be by im- 
 mersion, but by the dew being sprinkled upon him. 
 
 To this Mr. C. replied by producing, 1. The opinion of 
 Dr. Campbell of Aberdeen, who, in his notes critical and 
 explanatory to his translation of the four evangelists, trans- 
 lates the verb BAPTizo ''to dip, to plunge, to immei^e.*' 
 2. The authority of Scapula, who also renders the word 
 ''to plunge, to immerse, to dye, because colouring is done 
 hy immersion." 3. The atithority of Stockius, who says, 
 that "generally it obtai?is by the natural import of the 
 word, the idea of dipping in, or immersing. Specially 
 and properly, it signifies to immerse, or to dip — figurative- 
 ly it signifies to \\ash, because anv tiiinsc that is v. ashed is 
 
usually dipped or i:ninersc-d in water.-' And to these he 
 adds the authority of Parkhiirst, who renders it, 1. "To 
 dip, immerse, or plunge in water. 2. To wash one's self, 
 to be wasiied, wash., i. e. the hands by immersion or plun- 
 ging in water. 3. To baptize, to immerse, or to wash ^\^th 
 water in token of purification." ^Vhence ]Mr. C* infers 
 that immersion is the uniform meaning of the terra, and 
 '*that there cannot be found one solitary instance in all 
 the dictionaries of the Greek language, nor in classical 
 use, tliat hapto or baptizo signifies to sprinkle or to pour." 
 — Let this be remembered. 
 
 Witli respect to his first authority. Dr. Campbell, who 
 says, "that although the words baptein^ and batizein often 
 occur in the Septuagint and Apocr}j>hal writings, and are 
 always rendered to dip, to Vvash, and to plunge, the in- 
 stance adduced by Mr. W. of Nebuchadnezzar's body 
 being icet with the dew of heaven, is a proof that he v/as 
 mistaken. But this is not all. Tlie late Rev. John P. 
 Campbell, of Kentucky, in his book, in answer to Mr. 
 Jones y>. 29 — 36, by a minute examination, and detailed 
 \iew of all the places where the words are used in the 
 Septuagint, has proved incontrovertibly, that their prima- 
 ry meaning in that translation of the Old Testament, is, 
 "to smear, to tinge, to wet with some liquid;" and that to 
 immerse is only a secoiidary meaning; and that the vul- 
 gate translation of the Scriptures, Vvitii Pagninus, Buxtorf, 
 and Tromius, critics of high reputation, render the words 
 in the foregoing primary meaning. Mr. C. has animad- 
 verted on some places in this book; but for very pi-udential 
 reasons has overlooked that part of it I have alluded to. 
 
 As to his second authorities. Scapula and Stockius, 
 as I have not access to them at present, I must allow Mr. 
 C. all the force he can derive from their opinion. With 
 respect to Parkhurst, his last authority, he at first garbles 
 his definition of the word baptizo; though for what reascni, 
 I will not positively say, he afterwards acknowledges it. 
 Mr. C's quotation from Parkhurst's Lexicon, is, '»to dip, 
 to immerse, to plunge in water:" but Parkhurst's words 
 are, 1. To dip, immerse, or plunge in water:, but in the 
 ^€iv Testmnent it occurs not strictly in this sense, unless 
 so far as this is included in sense 1 a7id 3, below; aiid this 
 js in perfect accordance with the definition of ScHLEusxERy 
 one of the best and most esteemed le?dcographers of mod- 
 
96 . 
 
 eintiitss. His definition is this. Baptizo*-^!. Properly 
 to immerse and dye, to dip into water, "//t this sense^ 
 indeed, it is ?iever used in the New Testament, but it is so 
 used with nome frequency in Greek authors," *'as it is not 
 nnfrequent to dip or immerse something in water in order 
 to w^h it." As the limits assigned to this letter will not 
 permit me to enter into a fuller investigation of the word 
 B*APTizo, in the New Testament, I would only furtlier ob- 
 serve, that from the definitions of it given by Parkhurst and 
 \Schleusner, confessedly the ablest lexicoj2;raphers of mod-^ 
 em times, it fully appears, that although it was used fre- 
 quently by Greek writers to denote immersion, yet it is 
 never used in this sense in the New Testament: and I 
 boldly affirm that there is not a good Greek linguist who 
 has read, or will read, Mr. J. P. Campbell's book but will 
 be fully convinced that this is the case. Nor is it strange 
 that the writers of the New Testament should affix a 
 meaning to it different from the Greek writers of the day. 
 The Greek writers, says Schleusner, used it not unfre- 
 quently, though not always, to denote washing by immer- 
 sion 5 but the writers of the New Testament use it in a 
 figurative sense, denoting the application of water to the 
 body as a religious rite, and a divine ordinance appointed 
 for the purpose of initiating into the church, and for ob- 
 taining the remission of sins, and the purifying influences 
 of tlie Holy Spirit. Hence said Peter on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, '^'Be baptized every one of you for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." It 
 follows then, tliat unless other words and circumstances 
 connected with baptism determine the mode of applying 
 water to the subject, the word haptiz:o cannot. 
 
 But in a,ddition to the foregoing lexicographers and crit- 
 ics respecting the meaning of the verb baptiza, Mr. C. tells 
 us that the Greek prepositions en, eis, ek, and apo, which 
 are connected with it, show that its meaning is "to im- 
 merse;" as en and eis, he says, signify in and into; and 
 ek and ap)o, ''out of." In Matthew 3: 6, en is, indeed, 
 translated in; "and were baptized of him in Jordan, con- 
 fessing their sins." But in the 11th verse, and in Mark 
 1: 8, and in John 1: 26, it is translated "with," <'I in- 
 deed baptize you with (en) water." But v/hy might not 
 en be translated in, in the 11th as well as in the 6th verse. 
 To have done so. would have Biade the passage say some- 
 
%7 
 
 tiling worse than nonsense. The whole verse reS^s tliiis : 
 *^'I indeed baptize you with (en) water unto repentance: 
 but he that cometh after me is mightier tlian I, wliose shoes 
 I am not worth}^ to bear; he shall baptize jou with (en) the 
 Holy Ghost, and with fire." I need not tell you what a 
 gross impropriety it would liave been to have tranflated 
 the latter clause of this verse thus: he shall baptize, or ac- 
 cording to Mr. C. immerse you in the Holy Ghost, and in 
 fire. But not only does this preposition signify in and 
 with, but according to Schleusner, and Parkhurst, one of 
 Mr. C's high authorities, it signifies also at^ 7iig% by; and 
 Mr. J. P. Campbell has detailed several passages from 
 the Septuagint, and nine or ten from the New Testament, 
 wherein it must necessarily be so understood. Mr. C. 
 however, says, p. 154, that J. P. Campbell "has found 
 one or two passages" only^ where en may be translated 
 "a/;" and his reducing tv/enty instances to one or two, 
 tells us with wliat caution his quotations from the writings 
 of other raen are to be received. 
 
 The observations I have made respecting the preposition 
 £71, are also applicable to the preposition eis. It signifies 
 hi, into, at, near, towards. And although in Mark 1 : 9^ 
 it is translated in, in connexion with baptism; and in Acts 
 8: 39, into; yet every reader may see, that in the first of 
 these places, it may with propriety be translated at, and 
 in the second, to; and Mr. Campbell, of Kentucky, has 
 detailed in his book, p. 5S, no less than nineteen or tvven- 
 ty passages from tlie Nevv^ Testament Vv^here it must ne- 
 cessarily signify at, near, to, or towards. 
 
 The same observations are alss applicable to thje prepo- 
 sition ek. It is equally indefinite in its meaning. Mr. 
 C. indeed, tells us, that Mr. Moor, professor of Greek in 
 tlie University of Glasgow, defines it '^as denoting that a 
 person departs out of a place, or that any thing is taken 
 out of another thing." But Parkhurst, another of liis au- 
 thorities, defines it thus: ''■ek 1, governing a genitive case, 
 1. It denotes motion from a place, out of, from;^^ and ac- 
 cording to tliis definition, the words "ei foit hudafos,^^ in 
 Acts 8: 39, which are translated "they came up out of the 
 water," should have been rendered, "they came up from 
 the water" — but we will meet with this passage again. 
 
 As for the other preposition apo, which is used in con- 
 nexion with baptism, Mr. C's autiiority, professor Moor, 
 10 
 
98 
 
 defines it ''the departure, or the dislance of one person or 
 ilmigfrom the pliice of another." This is the word that 
 is us~ed in Mark 1 : 10, wliere it is said of Jesus, that '•'com- 
 ing out of (apo) ihe water, he saw the heavens opened;" 
 and according to Mr. €'s own authority, sliould have been 
 translated "coming /ro?5J the water he saw die heavens 
 opened." And although it may be used in other senses, 
 yet'j/'rom" is its primary meaning, and as Mr. Campbell, 
 of Kentucky, justly observes, ''if g/jo, when used in con- 
 nexion vv^itli baptism, be rendered/rom, then ekj in parallel 
 pass.nges must mean ihe^ same thing; and ei.s, and e/?, con- 
 joined with them in the same description, cannot express 
 jnorethan «/, or/o." p. 53. »• 
 
 .But with the doctrine contained in the above quotation, 
 Mr. C. is highly displeased, and in the fulness of his soul, 
 and the exuberance of his zeal for soundness in the faith, 
 he charges him and Peter Edv/ards, who made the same 
 observation, "with shutting the gates of heaven and of hell 
 ])y their criticisms," and virturdl^^ saying, "that when a 
 person is in the house he is only at the door; and wlien in 
 bed is only at the side of it:" after which he demolishes 
 this monstrous doctrine, and refutes these dangerous criti- 
 cisms, by the following irresistible argument. '-Excellent 
 critics — O bigotry! O prejudice! Not Egyptian darkness 
 was half so fatal to Egyptian eyes, as tliy sable sceptre to 
 the eyes of the mind."' p. 154,"^ 5. 
 
 NoM', the whole of this powerful argument is dissipated 
 in a moment, wluin tlie reader reflects that it was not the 
 meaning of the prepositions en and m, as connected with 
 heaven and hell, but as connected with baptism, that the 
 late Mr. Campbell alludes to in the above quotation. He 
 does not say that "m OuRy^Nox" does not signify into 
 heaven; nor that "ei.s Geennan" does not signify into 
 .hell: but he says, that as Bethabara was not a river, but 
 a place in the vicinity of Jordan; then, as "en Bethabara,''^ 
 in John 1 : 26, necessarily means at Bethabara, so, en Jor- 
 danee, and eis ton Jordanen, in Mark 1 : 5 — 9, should have 
 been translated not in^ but at, Jordan, because those pas- 
 sages have reference to the same thmg — the place where 
 Jolui was baptizing: tliat as ''apo ton hudatos,'^^ in Mat. 3: 
 6, necessarily means ''from the water," according to Mr. 
 C's own authority, so, "ek t-ou hudafo^i,^'' in Acts 8: 39, 
 should have been translated "from the water" also, be- 
 
99 
 
 eause both passages have reference to tlie situation of tiie 
 persons baptized. And it now rests upon Mr. C. to prove, 
 if he can, tliat en^ and eis, and apo, and eh, when relating 
 to ike. same thing in tiiose passages, must necessarily have 
 a difterenf. jneaning. This would be far more satisfactory 
 to tlie public, and lionourable to himself, than such tre- 
 mendous apostrophising. Such things in the present day 
 will not be accepted in the place of argument, much less 
 for "a positive precept 'or precedent" for immersion, in 
 administering the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 And novv^ v/hat is tlie result of this part of the review.^ 
 This- — that nothing perfectly decisive respecting the mode 
 ef admiiiisteriiig baptism, can be legitimately inferred from 
 tliie vfGY'lbapHzo^nov from the prepositions connected v*'ith 
 it. Tliat although tliat Vv'ord is used by Greek writers to 
 signify "to wash by immersion," yet they use it also to 
 signify to wash byotlier means:— that although there have 
 been, and are men distinguished for literature, who un- 
 derstand it in its primary meaning when used to denote 
 the mode of initiation into the church; yet, there have 
 been, and are, men of as great critical acumen, and at- 
 tainments, who contend that it is not then Uied itiits pri- 
 mary but secondary sense, or to wash by pouring water 
 on the person thus initiated, in allusion to the manner of 
 the spirit's operations on the human heart; and every mail 
 of reading knows, that the number of the latter, far exceeds 
 that of the former. And certainly, if a doctrine is to be 
 established by the meaning of the word that conveys it, it 
 must be by the meaning; which the inspired penmen attach 
 to it, and not that of heathen writers. So far then, as we 
 have conducted our review, there has nothing appeared to 
 autiiorize Mr. C. to assert so roundly as he has done, that 
 baptism is to be administered by immersion, and by im- 
 mersion only. 
 
 But v/e are told in the New Testam^ent of different per- 
 sons being baptized at different times, by different bapti- 
 7.ers; perhaps an examination of those passages may shed 
 further light on the subject. To this I have no objection, 
 if you are willing to attend me. 
 
 The first upon record is the baptism of John, mentioned 
 by all the evangelists. Matthew informs us, that in those 
 days (the reign of Tiberius, emperor of Rome) ''came John 
 the Baptist, preaching in the widerness of Judea" — "and 
 
loo 
 
 ihere went out to him, Jerusalem, and all Juciea, and tile 
 region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in or 
 ett Jordan, confessing their sin!-." The question now is; 
 why did John choose the banks of tiie Jordan for preaching; 
 and baptizing? The Baptist answer, or rather hypothesis is, 
 t'lat he might have a sufficient depth of water for immersing. 
 -But another may be assigned. It was foretold of John that 
 he should confine his ministry to the wilderness 5 ^'I am, 
 says he, the voice of one crying in 'the w' ilderness." What 
 now distinguishes a v/ilderness from other places? This — • 
 that the soil is sterile, and destitute of springs of water. 
 Jordan ran through this wilderness, and the hypothesis that 
 John chose the banks of Jordan for Xhe purpose of obtain- 
 ing a sufficient supply of Vi'ater for the vast multitudes that 
 resorted to his ministry, is, for any thing that hath yet ap- 
 pieared, just as good, and as probable as that of the Bap- 
 tists. This hypothesis is considerably strengthened by 
 what is said of him, John 3: 23, ''that he was baptizing at 
 iEnon, near Salim, because there was r/ucch ivater there,^'* 
 This translation does not exactly express the meaning of 
 the original. The Greek words are, -''poUa Itudala^^^ 
 V'bich, Although sometimes used to denote rivers, as rivers 
 are a collection of springs, yet every linguist knows, that 
 many springs of water, are their literal and primary mean- 
 ing. It is not pretended that there was, or is any river at 
 iEnon; and Robinson, the Baptist historian^ dextrous as 
 lie is at evading every argumicnt that favours baptism by 
 affusion, cannot tell, after all iiis research, whether ^non 
 w-as a natural spring, an artificial reservoir, or a cavernous 
 temple cf the sun. — Schleusner, however, tells us that the 
 word signifies a fountain, and that it v/as not far from Jor- 
 dan; and this circumstance added to the description "/30/fV 
 hiidoia^'^ or many springs of water, is a jiroof tliat John 
 chose it for the purpose I have mentionecl; tor on the Bap- 
 tist h\T3othesis, that John chose the places for baptizing, 
 where there was a sufficient depth of walci for im.mersion, 
 he would have remained by the river Jordan. 
 
 Eut there is another circumstance that militates strongly 
 against the Baptist hypothesis. It is this. Both Matthew 
 and Mark tell us, ''that Jerusalem, and aUJudea, and the 
 region round about J or da.n went out to John's baptism, and 
 Avere baptized of lilm." What the exact population of 
 Judea was at that time, I will nijt precisely say. But Jo- 
 
101 
 
 ^ephus, their own historian, tells us, that seventy years af- 
 terwards, 1,350,000 of thciii v\'ere cut off in their wars 
 Avith tlie Romans, as many more led captive, besides those 
 that escaped, which probably amounted to more than one 
 third of the whole popiilalior. We may theref^jre say, 
 that there were four or five millions of inhabitants in Judea, 
 in the days of John the Baptist. We ^v'ill also suppose 
 that only one million of them were baptized by him, 
 althougli tlie words of tiie evangelists intimate that the 
 greatest number were. It is the opinion of the best chro- 
 nologists, that John did not exercise his ministry longer 
 than eighteen months, and at farthest not longer than tv/o 
 years, I v/ould nov/ ask any thinking person if it w&s 
 possible for him to baptize one million, or near one million 
 of persons, in that space of time, by immersion. But it 
 v\^as practicable by att'iision, and upon the supposition that 
 a number of them stood before him in ranks, and that he 
 poured the v/ater upon them fi'oni his hand, or from some 
 suitable vessel, '■• 
 
 But this is not all. John tells us that his baptism was 
 figurative of the baptism '^'with the Holy Ghost and with 
 iirei'' and which the apostles experienced on the day of 
 Pentecost^ when "there appeared unto them cloven tongues^ 
 like as of nre, and sat upon each of them. And they were 
 all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with 
 other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance:" Acts 2: 
 3, 4. Bat this as foretold by the prophet Joel, is styled 
 '•a pouring out the Spirit," and had John's baptism been 
 administered by immersion, it could not have been a proper 
 ligure of this extraordinary ' 'baptism with the Holy Ghost 
 and with fire." And to this I would just add, that admit- 
 ting it could be incontrovertibly proved, that John's bap- 
 tism was administered by immersion, yet it would not 
 thence follow that Christian baptism was to be adminis- 
 tered in the same manner. John's baptism belonged not 
 to the Christian, but to the Jevrish dispensation of grace; 
 but the certain mode of administering Christian baptism 
 
 *Robmson, the Baptist historian, p. 32, Bendt. ed. tells us that 
 John baptized but very few persons. What reason does he assign 
 for this assertion in opposition to the express declaration of the 
 evangelists to the contrary'' His OAvn ipse dixit. What could in- 
 duce him to such a bold measuije? He saw the force of the argu- 
 ment I have mentioned above, and had no otliex v.ay of evading it. 
 *}0 
 
10:a 
 
 Is to be sought for from an examination of the baptism?* 
 recorded under that dispensation. This I shaU also now 
 attempt. 
 
 The first of these that occurs, is the baptism of the three 
 thousand on the day of Pentecost, recorded in the second 
 chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. The scene is laid in 
 Jerusalem. The followers of Christ, amounting to 120 
 men and women, vi ere assembled in one place aoreeably' 
 to his orders. According to his promise, the Holy Ghost 
 in the form of cloven tongues, as of tire, fell, or was poured 
 out upon them, and they spake with tongues as the Spirit 
 gare ihem utterance. \\ hen this was noised abroad, the 
 multitude came together. Peter preached to them 7 They 
 were deeply convinced of their guilt in crucifying tlue Son 
 of God as an impostor; ''and said to Peter, and to the rest 
 of the apostles, men and brethren, v.hat shall we dor" Pe- 
 ter exhorted them, ''to be baptized in the name of Jesus 
 Christ for the remission of sins." They 'cbniplied; and 
 as many as received the word gladly were baptized; "and 
 the same day there were added unto tliem about thrco 
 thousand souls.*' 
 
 I have said in my third letter, that none but the twelve 
 apostles had authority at that time to administer the ordi- 
 nance of baptism; and as all this happened in the apace of 
 seven or eight hours, that there was not time for the twelve 
 apostles to baptize three thousand persons^ by immersion, 
 though practicable by aftiision. To this it may be object- 
 ed, that the seventy disciples of whom we read in the gos- 
 pel by John, were no doubt present, and had a right to 
 baptize as well as the twelve apostles. Be it so — ^but 
 where was the water for the immersion of three thousand 
 persons, n^.any of whom nmst, even according to this hy- 
 pothesis, be immersed at the same point of tune. Some 
 tell us in the brook Kidron; but this brook was very small, 
 and dry a considerable part of the year. Others tell us, 
 that they could have been baptized in the Aioiten sea of 
 the teniple. But is it at ail probable that the chief priests, 
 who had the oversight and command of the temple, ^\ ould 
 suffer them to pollute it, by administering an ordinance of 
 the abhorred Kazarine? Besides; there is not the least in- 
 timation in the sacred history, that they removed from the 
 place where they had at first assembled; and all could be 
 done where they were, and without confusion, and with a 
 
lOS 
 
 few quarts of v/ ater, if dene by aiiasion. From iliese few 
 suggeatioas, and other circumstances that will naturally 
 occur to the reader, he will draw his own inference, 
 whether these three thousaad were baptized by immersion, 
 or by affusion, or pouring water on the head of the subject. 
 The baptism of the Samaritans and of the Eunuch of the 
 queen of Ethiopia, present themselves next for examina- 
 tion. There is nothing said of the mannei' of the baptism 
 of the Samaii ans5 but cf the Eunuch it is said, ''they 
 went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, 
 and he baptized him. And when they were come up out 
 of tii«^va,ter, the Spirit of ihe Lord caught Philip away 
 that he saw him no more. '' 
 
 Mr. C. tells us, p. 131, as a proof I suppose of baptisifi 
 by immersion, that king James 1. of England, '*by whose 
 authority die present version of the scriptures was made, 
 prohibited the translators from translating into English 
 ^hcqTiUTtia and hapiizo^^ where these v*ords respected the 
 rite; but ordered them to adopt those woids as they had 
 been adopted by\he Vulgate." ''And that had the trans- 
 lators been 'dtfib€rty, instead of the command on the day 
 of Pentecost,' "6e iaptized every one of you," it would 
 have read be dipped every one of yoti- — and in regard to 
 the Eunuch, instead of the woixls "he baptized him., it 
 w ould have read, he immersed him. " 
 
 "^^ hat Mr. .C. says is true history. The depraved hean 
 of man is strongly opposed to the simplicity cf the gospel, 
 and the sinrplicity of its ordinances. Hence then, not 
 only nev/ rices have been added to those instituted by 
 Christ, but additions made to those he has appointed. 
 1 his was the case with the ordinance of baptism. ^ In tha 
 days of Tertuliian, if not before, an idea began to prevail 
 from some unguarded, and perhaps hyperbolical expres- 
 sions of that father, or from his mistaking the sign for the 
 thing signified, and the means for the thing to be obtained, 
 and which depends entirely on sovereign grace, that there 
 was a regenerating mliuence in baptismal water.* Hence 
 tlien it is easy to see, that pouring a small quanrity cf wa- 
 ter on the head of the person to be ba-otizcd v/culd not be 
 
 * O felix sacraments m aqtis nostrae, quia ablutis delictis pristi*- 
 nje ccccitatis ill vitam Kteniain liberamur — sed nos pisciculi secun- 
 dum ichthun nostruti Jesum Chjistum in aqua nascimur. 
 
104 • 
 
 eonsidered as eiiicacioiis as hnnisrsmg the whole body iu 
 th9 supposed purifying. element; nor are evidences want- 
 ing in tlte present day of the deleterious eiiect of that opi- 
 nion. In the dark ages of Poper;,' this opinion "grew 
 vvith its growth, and strenf^theiied with its strength," and 
 infected almost all the churches of Clu-istendoui, and the 
 Aiiglican church with the rest; nor did it lose ground until 
 the revival of learning at tlie era of the reformation. ICing. 
 James, though somewhat pedantic, was yet a learned man, 
 being educated by the celebrated Gkoiige Buchannan. 
 He knew t!ie imposing idea of immersion in baptism was 
 tlie prevailing idea in England | and therefore gave the or- 
 def-s mentioned by Mr. C. rightly judging, that the light 
 of increasing literature, and the cultivation of biblical cri- 
 ticism would, in due time, settle the meaning of the words 
 bapfisma and baptizo, in the New Testament. Nor was 
 he mistaken. The vote given not forty years after\vards 
 in the Westminster Assembly, alluded to by Mr. C. in the 
 following page, is a proof how muc'h ground the doctrine 
 of immersion ha'd lost in tliat space of time, by the increase 
 of sound literature. The translators obeyed the king; but 
 who is there acquainted with the Greek langu;ige, and 
 who has read the New Testament in that language, bu', 
 must have seen that not an opportunity oiiered itself of 
 translating in favour of immersion that they did not em- 
 brace. Although they translate "Cii'' to, and '*(>/r' from, 
 in different places, yet whenever they met v»^ith them in 
 connexion wi'h baptism, thry invariably render the one 
 into, and the other out of. U-it strong as their prejudices 
 and prepossessions were, it is astonishing that the circum- 
 stances of the baptism now under consideration, and the 
 language of the inspired historian, did not induce them 
 to translate "£'/s*' /o, and '^e/c" from. Philip and the 
 Eunuch were together in the ch?riot, and according to Je- 
 rome, Sandys, and other travellers, who have visited the 
 place, a sinall stream of water (!i hudoor) ran beneath 
 them. And instead of translathig the passage they went 
 down to the w'ater, and came v,\ffrom the water; they have 
 rendered it, 'Hhey went down into the v/ater, ana came 
 up out of the water. " They evidently designed to convey 
 the idea, and make the impression, that there was immer- 
 sion in the case; and I have frequently heard these words 
 'juoted as a proof of it^ and Mr. C. seems, in page 154s to 
 
105 
 
 understand the words as conveying this idea. But siiclir 
 do not reflect, that the words thus understood, imply that 
 Philip was immersed as well as the Eunuch: for it is said 
 that ''tliey Vv'ent down into the v.-ater, both Philip and the 
 Eunuch; and they came up out of the water." But read 
 the passage as it ought to have been translated; "they went 
 down to the v. atfer^ and the^y came up from the water;" 
 and all the absurdity of the baptizer being immersed as 
 v/ell as the person baptized, disappears; and the passage 
 is rational, solemn, and instructive. I deem it unneces- 
 sary to say a vv'ord more respecting tliis interesting baptism, 
 as I am persuaded that there is not a person whose mind 
 is not prepossessed by a system, and who will weigh the 
 circumstances attending it, but will be constrained to say 
 tliat the Eunuch v/as baptized by affusion, and not by im- 
 mersion. 
 
 The baptism of Saul of Tarsus, recorded in tlie 9th, and 
 of Cornelius and his friends, mentioned in the following 
 chapter of the Acts, were administered, the one in the 
 city of Damascus, and the other in Cornelius' own house. 
 It is merely said of Saul, that when Ananias laid his hands 
 upon him, "there fell from his eyes as it had been scales, 
 and he received his sight forthwith, and arose and was 
 baptized." It is also said of Cornelius and his friends, 
 that when the Holy Ghost in his miraculous gift of tongues 
 fell upon them, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, 
 that these should not be baptized who have received the 
 Holy Ghost as well as we.^ and he commanded them to be 
 baptized in the name of the Lord." I would only here 
 remark, that what is said of these baptisms, conveys tlie 
 idea that they were baptized in the places where they were 
 — Said in the house of Judas, and Cornelius and his friends 
 in Cornelius' house; and that immediately too, on Saul's 
 receiving his siglit, and after i\i^, Holy Ghost had been 
 poured out on Corneitus and his friends. Every circum- 
 stance conveys the impression that they VN^ere baptized by 
 affusion; nor is there a single circumstance that fiivour* 
 immersion. 
 
 As for the baptism of Lydia, and of her hGuse, recorded 
 in the 16th cliapter, it is not said Vvliere it was administer- 
 ed. There is, indeed, mention made of her resorting to 
 one of the iews prose?!che, or places of prayer, by a river 
 .jside; but there is not the least intimation that she and h^v 
 
106 
 
 fwuse were baptized at or in that river. But I think it i^i 
 certain that the jailer and Ills housCy mentioned in the same 
 chapter, were baptized in the prison, and the strong pre- 
 sumption is, bj affusion and not bj immersion. For al- 
 though it appears that there was" a river near the city ot" 
 Philippi, it is not to be siq^posed that he would leave his 
 charge, and at midnight go Vv'ith his koiise^ and Paul and 
 Silas, to that river, for the purpose of being baptized. • Be- 
 sides, it is said, that after tlie alarm by the earthquake^ and 
 after they had spoken the word of tlie Lard to him, and to all 
 that were in his house, and after he had washed their 
 stripes, "he was baptized, and all his straightway," or im- 
 mediately. The refusal of Paul and Silas on the next 
 day to leave the prison, until i\\Q magistrates themselves 
 *'vv'Ould come and fetch them out," is a strong presump- 
 tion that they would nor, and did not, leave it in the nig;ht. 
 Here again every circumstance attending this extraordi- 
 nary baptism, affords the strongest presumption that it 
 v.'as administered by aifiision; nor is there a single cir- 
 cumstance in favour of its being administered by immer- 
 sion, p 
 
 Having thus examined all the instances of Chrisfiau 
 baptism that are mentioned with any degree of detail in 
 the New Testament, you will have perceived that there is 
 not a circumstance attending any one of them that fa- 
 vours immersion; and you will also have perceived with 
 what caution Mr. C's assertions and conclusions on this 
 point are to be received. In p. 141, when su niilug up 
 his arguments in favour of immersion, he mentioas this 
 cne: '^the places where this rite v/as a^Uninl-stered — in 
 rivers^ and wivere there was 'nuch v/ater." There 1^3 no 
 river, nor even much water men+ioiiefl in any of tiiem, the 
 baptism by John excepted. The three thousand on ih^ 
 flay of Pentecost were b.iptized in \\\ii city of Jeru'salem, 
 v/here there was no river, nor even much v/ater; Saul iii 
 the city of Damascus, and in the house of Judas; Corneli- 
 us and his friends in Cornelius' house: and you and the 
 reader will draw the conclusion whether thejaiU^r and hi* 
 kouse were baptized in the prison, or elsewhere. 
 
 I have designedly postponed a considera.tion of the Bap- 
 tism of Christ himieif, to diis place; because it had not tlie 
 ifiost distant relation, nor resemblance to John's baptism. 
 as admim:jtered to the Jevvs; nor yet to tlie baptism aftet^ 
 
\vaids appointed by himself: and to rea&ou from it, M'itli 
 respect to either the uature, or mode of Ch^l!^tian baptism, 
 is something worse than preposterous. John's baptism was 
 a baptism ''unto repentance/' or a mean designed for pro- 
 ducing repentance: and Christian baptism was appointed 
 as a mean for obtaining ''the remission of sins, and the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost;'' and I need not tell you, that to 
 say, that Christ was baptized that he might obtam repen- 
 tance and the remission of sins, would be blasphemy of a 
 very atrocious character. What was it then? — It was the 
 appointed mean whereby he was publickly consecrated to 
 Jns priestly office. The Jewish High Priest was a distin- 
 guished type of him in that respect: and whoever vvill com- 
 pare the bajitism of Christ, with the directions given by 
 Jehovah to Moses in the 4Cth chapter of Exodus, fur the 
 consecration of Aaron and his sons to that office, will see, 
 that the type was exactly fulfilled when Jesus was bapti- 
 zed, or washed vrith water by John. — -'Thou shait bring 
 Aaron and liis sons to the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation^ and v»ash them with water; and thou shalt 
 put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint and sanc- 
 tify him, that lie may minister unto me in the Priest's of- 
 fice." Now, v,e are told that when Jesus was baptized, 
 "Jerusalem, Judea, and the region round about Jordan" 
 had resorted to Jo'in's baptism — Hare then, was the con- 
 gregation of Israel. In the 45th Psalm, and 61st chapter 
 of Isaiah, the influences of the spirit which were given 
 Avithout measure to Christ, are compared ~to »'Oil;" and 
 we are farther told that when Christ A^as baptized, the 
 Spirit of God, prefigured by tise holy anointing oil \i\ the 
 consecration of Aaron, descended like a dove, and lighted 
 upon him. Then, and not ill then, did he enter upon his 
 mediatorial work, which is an additional proof of the pro- 
 priety of the explication I have given to that memorable 
 transaction. And h^re I cannot but observe, that those 
 ministers who call upon their hearers to go down into the 
 water in imitation of Christ; and d.ose per^jons %\ho say 
 they have followed their Lord aiid master m his baptisin, 
 know not what they are say. ng, I would only farther re- 
 mark on this point, that as .he Jewish higli priests were 
 washed witli v/ater before the door ia the tabernacle of the 
 congregation, we n;a" safely infer, that it was not by im- 
 mersion, as we do not read^ of any suitiiDle bath provided 
 
for the purpose; and that the type might be fuliilled in all 
 its parts, another fair inference follows, that Jesus was not 
 baptized bjimmersion^ and to this I would add, that here 
 is another instance of the verb baptizo being used in an- 
 other sense than "to immerse." 
 
 1 shall only notice another argument of Mr. Ws on this 
 point, with Mr. C's reply. As a proof that pouring or 
 sprinkling, are scriptural modes of applying water in bap- 
 tism, Mr. W. says Mr. C. p. 124, argued, that baptism had 
 not only a reference to the Spirit's influences; which are 
 frequently said to be ''poured out;" but to the blood of 
 €hiist, which is called 'Hhe blood of sprinkling." Mr. 
 C. admits that water in baptism is an emblem of the Spi- 
 rit's influences; but denies that it is an emblem of the 
 blood of Christ. I admit that it is not so, directly, but 
 indirectly, it is; as it was in consequence of Christ's obe- 
 dience unto death, that the Spirit's influences are given 
 for the purposes of regeneration and future holiness. And 
 that it is so, is evident from the words of Peter on the day 
 of Pentecost — "Be baptized every one of you in the name 
 of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- 
 ceive the ^ift of the Holy Ghost." Here, the obtaining 
 the remission of sins, the consequence of receiving the 
 blood of Christ by faith, and tlie renewing influences of 
 the Spirit are conjoined by the apostle, and urged as an 
 argument to induce the Jews to submit to the ordinan-ce of 
 baptism. But aitliough Mr. C. admits that water in bap- 
 tism is an emblem of the Spirit's influences; yet he tells 
 us, that "when baptism is spoken of in relation to the in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit, it denotes the overwhelming m- 
 fluences of that Almighty agent, in consequence of which 
 all the facuides of the mind are imoued by it." Tne 
 ''"overwhe/niing^^ influences of the Spirit, is not a scrip- 
 ture expression, and you may be ready to ask what he 
 means by it I will not posiriveiy say that he means the 
 same thing as immersing; but as he pleads for baptism by 
 immersion, and as immersion is a being literally over- 
 whelmed in water, and is so termed by Baptist writers; 
 then, I may suppose that he means the same thing as 
 being 'Hminersed''^ in the Spirit's influences. But why not 
 use the word "ij.imersed." That would have startled, 
 and had an unfavorable effect on the reader of the Bible, 
 who has met with the words, "the blood of sprinkling"— 
 
109 
 
 *'the sprinkling of the blood ,of Jesus Cluisf' — 'Ht«; 
 sprinkling of clean water upon the church that she might 
 be clean" — "the pouring out a Spirit of grace and suppli- 
 cation" — "the pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh" — ^**the 
 pouring out the Spirit on the seed and offspring of the 
 people of God"— -and "the pouring out the gift of the Holy 
 Ohostj" but never once of any being immersed in the'bloQd 
 of Christ, or being immersed in the Spirit's influences. 
 
 You will now jud^e, to wliich of the two systems, the 
 argument of baptismal water being an emblem of the Spir- 
 it's renovating influences, belongs. You will also judge 
 whether Mr. C. has produced such "positive precept, or 
 precedent," as authorized him to say, 'Hhat all who have 
 not been immersed in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, after professing the faith of the gospel, have 
 never been baptized, and are yet in an unbaptized state;" 
 thereby, unchurching all the churches in the world, the 
 Baptist church excepted; and the Baptist church too, un- 
 less he can prove unequivocally, that the apostles baptized 
 by immersion, an<l by immersion only; and also trace a 
 succession of Baptist churches from their time to the pres- 
 ent day. "•Hk labor, hoc opus esj;" Mr. C. is in honour 
 bound to do so in defence of his new catechism; and tlie 
 public expectation will be, that if this is ever done, it will 
 be by the theological hero who, on the subject of baptism, 
 has "defied all Christendom." But ere he attempts 
 this, let me beg leave to observe to him, that the proof of 
 the apostles baptizing by immersion only, must be (accor- 
 ding to his own rule,) "by positive preceptor precedent:" 
 and with respect to the Utter, there must not be a broken 
 liak^n the chain. For as not only infant baptism, but the 
 baptismof adults,' if not by immersion, is according to his 
 catechism a nullity; then, as persons baptized in either of 
 these ways, "are still in an unbaptized sta.te," they have 
 no right to preach the gospel, much less to administer the 
 ordinances of the Christian dispensation to others. I am 
 persuaded that there is not a moderate and intelligent 
 Baptist, who will say with him, that a mistake in tlie mode 
 of administering baptism, infers this sweeping and iuadmis- 
 sibie consequen CO. As well might it be said , that th e deatfi 
 of Christ is not commemorated by the humble communi- 
 cant in the ordinance of the Sapper, because, instead of a 
 full meal or supper, he eats only a small piec8,.of bi-ea^j 
 .11 
 
110 
 
 and drinks but a spoonful of wine; as that baptism is null 
 and void, because water is applied to only a part, and not 
 to the whole of the body. Nor can the above consequence 
 be inferred from a mistake respecting some of the subjects. 
 For, admitting that Pedobaptists are mistaken wdth respect 
 iodhe right of the infant children of church members to 
 baptism, the utmost that could be lawfully inferred is, that 
 in those cases they misapply the ordinance. I repeat my 
 persuasion, that there is not a modej-ate and intelligent 
 Eaptist w^ho will admit of the foregoing consequences, and 
 who will not consider their cause weakened and not 
 strengtliened by those novel and crude doctrines, whence 
 he has attempted to draw these illegitimate conclusions. 
 I sliall close tliis review, witli briefly noticing a number 
 of heavy charges, v.hich Mr. C. brings against the Pedo- 
 baptist system, as a system, in the Sd No. of the Appen- 
 dix to his book. 
 
 1. "It is will-worship, or founded on the will of man, 
 and not on the will of God." 
 
 2. <'It has carnalized and secularized the^church." 
 
 S. * 'It imposes a religion upon the subjects of it, before 
 ihey are aware of it." 
 
 4. '*Ithas imlfo^mly inspired rr persecuting spirit." 
 
 5. ''That it inspires the subject as soon as he recogni- 
 ses the action, and understands it as his parents explain it, 
 with an idea that he is better than a heathen, or now in a 
 stale difiering from an unbaptized person." 
 
 The first ami -fifth of tliese charges have been incidental- 
 ly noticed, and I trust fully obviated, in the preceding let- 
 ters. The second can never liappen, but where the church 
 and state are amalgamated: and we are not to argue against 
 a thing, from the abuse of it. The tliird is silly, as it is 
 weli known, that the prejudice of education is as strong in 
 ihc) children of EaptistSj as of Pedobaptists.^ The fourth, 
 ♦•that it"has zmi/brm/?/ inspired a persecuting spirit," is 
 indeed a serious charge, and if well founded, would be a 
 strong argument that it is ''founded on the willof man, and 
 not on the will of God. " But what is the proof which Mr. 
 C. adduces in s:upport of this heavy charge? A detailed 
 account from Benedict's History of the Baptifiis, of seven 
 ] crsons being ill-treated in Virginia, and tl)ree or four in 
 Sir.i^sachusetts, on account of their opposing and probably 
 -infVnr^ ij-Hint baptism. I thii)k I am as much oppo-ed 
 
Ill 
 
 as Mr. C. can possibly be, to perseculioii of any kind, ana 
 to any degree, on account of religious tenets; but who can 
 refrain from smiling v/hen he reads this mighty proof of 
 Mr. C's unqualified assertion, '-that infant sprinkling, (as 
 he is pleased to term it) has uniformly in.vpired a persecu ■ 
 
 ag" suirit?" 
 
 \s principles, however acquired, are tlie sources of ac 
 tion, it may be v/orth while to inquire if there is any thing 
 in the Pedobaptist system, that has a tendency to beget and 
 cherish the hateful spirit of persecution.— According to tlic 
 Pedobaptist system the minor children of church members 
 are planted by baptism in the vineyard or visible church of 
 God; and their parents are thereby brought under obliga- 
 tions^ and voluntarily promise in the more immediate pres- 
 ence of God, and oflhe assembled church, ^ Ho bring them 
 up in the nurture and adm-onition of the Lord." No\\ 
 ' ue would think that cliiidren thus educated, bid as fair to 
 ;i)ibibe the mild and benevolent principles of tlie gospel. 
 a. 3 the children of Baptists whose parents are not under the 
 iniiuence'of tlie foregoing obligations. Again: according 
 to the Pedobaptist system, baptized minors are -taught, or 
 ought to be taught, that in consequence of their being^ plan- 
 ted in the vineyard of the Lord5t'iiey are under special ob- 
 ligations "to avoid the pollutions of tlie world," and t(» 
 seek by prayer, and a diligent attendance on the means of 
 grace the thing signiQed by bairtlsm, the washing of re- 
 generation, "by the Holy" Spirit. " Now I should also 
 think, that children thus instructed, and,v*'hdse ininds are 
 imbued vvith this principle, bid as fair, if not fairer, to be 
 respecters of things divine, and to be as humane, benevo- 
 lent, and orderly members of society, as the children of 
 those who are taugh.t, that th.ey are under no such obliga- 
 tions from the aforesaid privileges 5 but taught, that tliey 
 are in the visible kingdom of darkness, and if God converts 
 them it is well, if not, they are not blamable: for Mr. C. 
 tells them in p. 29r, that "for his own part, he conceives 
 it to be as reasonable to blame a man for being black, or for 
 not being seven io-iii high, as to blame him for not being a 
 Christian." And I will venture to affirm, that children 
 ihus educated, and thus early impressed, vdll bear a com- 
 -jnaison in the aggregate with the children of Baptist fam- 
 iiies, for a respect for things divine, and for all those char- 
 ities tliat are the supports of society, and the sweeteners 
 
of social life. I will venture-to affirm more, that three- 
 fourths, if not nine -tenths of those who are at present en- 
 gaged in suppressing the current of abounding immoraiitjy 
 und in spreading the benig-n principles- of the gospel of 
 peace, afid of love, are those who have been baptized in 
 i-ifancy. Facts are stubborn arguments, and all theories 
 and speculations, however specious,^ must give way to, and 
 bow before them. I freely admit, that many baptized in 
 infancy were persecutors, and addicted to ail kinds of 
 wickedness; but the question is, was this ihe consequence 
 of their being baptized in infancy,, or of the Pedobaptist 
 system as a sj»stem; or the abuse of it in those churche* 
 that are unhappily amalgamated with the state; or in those 
 churches that have departed from the truth; or in those 
 where the doctrine of baptism is not correctly understood B 
 
 After Mr. C. had thus roundly and unqualifiedly asser- 
 ted "that infant sprinkling has unifornilij inspired a per- 
 secuting spirit;'' he also informs us, *4hat every body 
 knov/s, that Quakers and Baptists have never persecuted." 
 Quakers have nothing to do with the present question, but 
 it may be also v/orth while to inquire iiito the fact as it res- 
 pects Baptists; and also to examine whether, there is any 
 thing in the Baptist system, that has a natural tendency ta 
 produce this hateful and wicked spirit. 
 
 Baptist historians are very fond' of telling us, that th«y 
 are descended from the Paktrobrussians, and other an- 
 cient sects, who are usually .considered amongst the wit- 
 nesses for the truth in the dark ages of Popery. Be that 
 as it may, it is unquestionably certain that the present 
 Baptist churches, both in Europe and America, are sprungs 
 i'rom the Anabaptists, who started up in Germany at the 
 lommencement of the Reformation. Their peculiar prin- 
 ciples are distinctly recorded^ and transmitted to us by 
 MosHEiM, and otlier ecclesiastical Historians, "They 
 held," says Mosheim, '^that the church of Christ ought to 
 be exempt from all sin: that all things ought to be common 
 amongst the faithful: that all usury, tithes, and ^tribute, 
 ought to be entirely abolished: that the baptism of infanis 
 was an invention of the devil: that every Christian was in- 
 vested with power to preach the gospel: and consequently,: 
 tjiat the church stood in no need of ministers or pastors: 
 that in the kingdom of Christ civil magistrates were useless:. 
 •ind thn.t God still continued to reveal his will to chosen 
 
113 
 persons by dreams and visions. " Eccl. Hist. London ed, 
 
 Vol. iv. p. 440. 1 rp f r 
 
 And what was the practical operation and effect ot these 
 principles, and especially of the leading principle of a spot- 
 less church, whence all the others naturally and necessa- 
 rily sprung? Was it a high respect for things ^divme, and 
 humanity, and benevolence, and orderly obedience to the 
 laws.? Norbutthe most unparalleled blasphemy, anarchy, 
 and licentiousness, with an attempt under Munzer, Stub- 
 NER, and Storck, and other leaders, to overturn all gov- 
 ernment in church and states and after disturbing the peace 
 of Germany, and of the surrounding countries for a con- 
 siderable time, and wounding the Reformation in its very 
 vitals, they v/ere at last with considerable difficulty dis- 
 comfited, and dispersed by the German princes. 
 
 And who is there, who has carefully read Mr. C's book, 
 but must have noticed the leading and distinguishing prin- 
 ciples of those turbulent fanatics? They pled for a spotless 
 church, and so does Mr. C. — a plausible and imposing 
 idea indeed, but which I trust I have shown is contrary to 
 the design of Jehovah in erecting a church amongst guilty 
 men. They hated and despised the Pedobaptist clergy of 
 the day; and who has read Mr. C^s Catechism* and other 
 parts of his book, but has been struck by the rancour man- 
 ifested tlierein against the Pedobaptist clergy of the pres- 
 ent time, a.nd tile attempts he ha.s made to bring them into 
 contempt and disrepute? They called "infant baptism an 
 invention of the devil;" and although Mr. G. has not used 
 the same language, yet he has given the fullest evidence 
 that he hates it as cordially as ever the German Anabaptists 
 did, by the unceasing ridicule he has attempted to pour up 
 on it in almost every page. And if it is a fact, (as I be- 
 lieve it is,) that he is'the wTiter of several essays published 
 in i\\ii- Washington Reporter^ with the si^^nature of Can- 
 DiDus, against moral societies, and the laws of Pennsyl- 
 vania against vice and immorality, who is there who has 
 read these essays, but must have seen th.at he iias imbibed 
 all the leading theological, and political principles of 
 Munzer, Stubner, and Storck; tind tiiat should those 
 principles be generally imbibed; then, as similar causes 
 produce similar efiects^'the orderly, liappy, and respectable 
 
 ''Vide Quest. 11. 16, 18. 19. r'B. 69, 
 
114 
 
 state of Feiinsjlvama would soon experience all the cal- 
 amities that Germany and the low countries once experi- 
 enced ii'om the Anabaptists under the specious pretence 
 cf erecting a spotless church. 
 
 As these letters inaj be read by some who are not ac- 
 quainted ^vith Mr. C. or who know not his general moral 
 character, I feel it to be a duty which I owe to him to say, 
 that I do nottliink he has any such designs, and that should 
 such an event take place, his moral habits would not suffer 
 him to take any part in scenes of anarchy, licentiousness 
 and blood. It is a plausible and unscnptural theory that 
 iias led him to speak and Avrite as he has done, and what is 
 no uncommon thing with even good men, his head is at va- 
 riance v»dth his heart. But although I believe that Mr. C. 
 w^ould take no part in the practical operation of his own 
 principles, yet as human nature is tlie same in all ages, and 
 in all countries, I have no doubt but that there are daring 
 and unprincipled men amongst us, who, if a favourable 
 opportunity offered, would re-act the scenes of Germany 
 in the 16th century, under the plausible pretext of erecting 
 a spotless church here below. I have not however any^ 
 apprehension of present danger from the principles incul- 
 cated in the essays alluded to, as they have been encoun- 
 tered bv a writer with the signature of 'Timothy, ^vhose 
 strictures have completely neutralized their deleterious 
 tendency to all, the grossly ignorant alid the lawless ex- 
 cepted, the number of which, when compared with the 
 mass of our citizens, is, I trust but small. 
 
 It was with reluctance that I have introduced the Ger- 
 man Anabaptists at all into this review. It v,as not with 
 die design of hurting the feelings, or casting a reflection qn 
 tiie present Baptist Church. For although I think them 
 mistaken on the subjectof baptism,. with respect to the in- 
 fants of church members, and the mode of administering 
 that ordinance, yet I feel happy in saying, that they have 
 evinced for upwards of a century past, that they have re- 
 nounced the anarchical principles of their predecessors, 
 and that they are as firm supporters of lawful civil govern- 
 ir.ent as any other religious denomination. It was to point 
 out to Mr. C. the daiigerous tendency of those principles 
 be has imbibed and avowed 5 to induce him to review his 
 prcserd creed; and to induce those who have i;ead his book 
 to veil eci before they adopt those principles. His book has 
 
115 
 
 been pubiished at a most inauspicious period. For some 
 years past, Christians of difterent denominations were 
 gradually approaching each other, and a hope was enter- 
 tained, that all who held the doctrines of grace, would at 
 no very distant day be consolidated in.to one impenetrable 
 phalanx, and be to the enemies of God, and of His Ciuist, 
 '^as terrible as an army mth banners. " The writings of 
 Dr. Mason of this country, and of Dr. Hall of the Baptist 
 Church in England, on Christian communion, v/ere produ- 
 cing a happy effect: but Mr. C's inflammatory publication 
 is directly calculated to widen the breach, as far as it may 
 have effect, and to set those who hold the same fundamen- 
 tal articles of religion, in bitter hostile array against each 
 other. I hope, however, that the time will come when he 
 will reflect on this part of his conduct with regret: that he 
 will retrace his steps and repair the evil which I am per- 
 suaded he has done to the church of God, and the interests 
 cf a benevolent religion. 
 
 I have now finished my re^dew of Mr. C's book. Mr, 
 C. may perhaps say that it is a brief review indeed; for 
 there are many things in his book which I have not even 
 glanced at. That is indeed true; but I expect that it will 
 be admitted, that I have noticed all his prominent points, 
 and principal arguments against Pedobaptism; and if I 
 have overturned these, then, the minor points and argu- 
 ments must necessarily fall vvith them; for when the foun- 
 dation is removed, the superstructure must fall to the 
 ground. It is highly probable that he will reply to these 
 letters, and I would just conclude by observing, that 
 should I reply to him, it v;\\l be upon the following condi- 
 .tions: — 1. Ihat my arguments are to be met and combat- 
 ted by the word cf God, or sound logical reasoning; and 
 not by such apostrophes as I have already noticed, and tlie 
 following addressed to Pedobaptists in his book. **0 hu- 
 man tradition, how hast thou biassed the judgment, and 
 blinded the eyes of them that should know; under thy 
 influence we strain at a gnat and swallovv a camel!" — 
 **^\hat a compound of inconsistencies is necessary to con- 
 stitute a Pedobaptistl!!*' 2. That we are to*^hear no 
 iiOre about sponsors in baptism, nor of parents promising 
 that their children shall be religious: such things areas 
 absurd and ridiculous in the eyes of Presbyterian Pedo- 
 baptists. as they are in his, *S, Tsor any' more bills of 
 
116 
 
 fare for dinner on occasion of the baptism of the children of 
 right honourable or dishonourable men. An intelligent pub- 
 lic should never be insulted v/ith such miserable stuff in- 
 stead of argument. Perhaps, Mr. C. thinks himself en- 
 titled to a little indulgence in such things, as he tells us 
 in the conclusion of his book, that he has a dash of satire 
 in his constitution, and \yhich he finds it difficult to sup- 
 press; or to use his own language, he has a ''genius natu- 
 rally inclined to irony, which he has often to deny." 
 Well, although ridicule is not a test of truth, yet as it is 
 of use, for exposing and correcting buffoonery, pedantry, 
 extravagant opinians, and extravagant and immodest pre- 
 tensions to superior talents and attainments, he has my 
 full and free consent to indulge it liberally against any 
 thing of that kind in these letters, or any thing else, that 
 deserves the satiric lash. But it must be irony; for gen- 
 uine satire is one thing, and punning on letters in the al- 
 phabet, quibbling on single words, horrific apostrophising, 
 and empty declamation, are another. To such things or 
 such like things, I will assuredly never again reply. Once 
 is enough; perhaps too much. 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 I HAVE said in the close of the last letter, that should 
 Mr. C. reply, I would reply to him on the following con- 
 ditions only, — that we should have no more of that empty 
 and tremendous apostrophising to Pedobaptists in general^ 
 and to the Pedobaptist clergy in particular, with whicli 
 his book abounds: with other extraneous matter then men- 
 tioned and which had not the most distant relation to the 
 subject of controversy. After much threatening, and a 
 lapse and labour of twelve months, Mr. C. has at length 
 published '^Strictures" on three of the foregoing letters, 
 and called to his aid another \\Titer with the signature of 
 Philalethes. As Mr. C. with a^ single exception, haa 
 substantially complied with the proposed conditions, I 
 therefore feel myself at liberty, and am induced by other 
 considerations, to reply to those stricturesj Philalethes 
 shall also be noticed in the proper place. It is true, that 
 Mr. C. has given full scope to what he calls his ^^ genius 
 for ii'ony," or ridicule, but as I trust I shall shew by 
 sound argument that it is pointless and harmless, I shall 
 overlook it at present, and not reply in the same style- 
 For aith.ough ridicule is of use when genuine, and applied 
 to proper subjects; and although I think I could manage 
 that weapon full as well as he can; and I would not wish 
 for a better mark than Mr. C. as a writer, either in his 
 style, or manner cf reasoning; yet the sacredness and im- 
 portance of the subject and of the cause which I plead, 
 forbid it on the present occasion. But when I say so, I 
 am not to be understood as saying, that if in the course of 
 the ex'amination of his strictures, any thing absurd or silly, 
 or injurious to the character of Jehovah, and of his holy 
 word, or to the interests of his church, should present it- 
 self, that I sha,U not pourtray it in what I consider its true 
 colours, and in sucli language as the occasion may demand, 
 Mr. C. commences his attack by saying that I have a- 
 postrophised as much in my letters as he has done in his 
 book, and that. I have misrepresented him in no less than 
 eight different instances. Those who have read my let- 
 ters know, that tliere is not in any or all of them, a single 
 
lis 
 
 ai^orslrophe to either Baptists, or Baptist niimsters. I have 
 indeed made a few occasional reflections, or rather drawn 
 a few consequences from some of liis arguments against 
 infant baptism, but if those consequences do not naturally 
 and necessarily How from those arguments, or if they are 
 clothed in indecorous or unsuitable language, then they 
 have operated, and vrill operate against myself, and no^t. 
 against Mv, C; but of this the public have judged, and will 
 judge. Having made these prefatory observations, I shall 
 now examine the alleged misrepresentations. 
 
 ''Misrepresentation 1st." p. 6. ''Mr. R. says, Mr. C. 
 for very prrtdenficd reas'cns as respects his system, has en- 
 tireli/ overlooked in that catalogue of covenants which he 
 has givoi us in his book, another and distinct covenant 
 recorded in Gen. 15;" but this Mr. C. denies, and refers 
 us to pages 157, and 169, where he tells us, he has mention- 
 ed and considered that covenant to be the same as tlie cove- 
 nant of circumcision..* 
 
 I have again examined those pages, and there is not i}a^ 
 least mention, nor yet reference in either of them to the 
 covenant recorded in the 15th chapter of Genesis. That 
 that covenant and the covenant recorded in the ITth chap- 
 ter were distinct covenants, is evident fi'om this—that they 
 were in ad e at difterent periods, for difierent purposes, and 
 were ratified by dllierent seiVs. According to the chro- 
 nol(?gy of Dr. Scott, the covenant recorded in /.he 15ch 
 was made 15 years before that recorded in the 17tH chap- 
 ter. The first of these covenants had for its object the 
 securing of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham^ 
 nor is there any i\{\n^ else mentioned. In the second this 
 is indeed recognised for the strengthening of Abraham's 
 faith; but its principal provision, as I Imve shewn from the 
 4th chapter to the Romans, and tlie Sd chapter to theGala-i 
 tians, compared with Gen. 12: S, and 17th chapter, 4, 7, 
 secured the sending a Redeemer of his seed into the world, 
 too-ether Avith the establishing of a ciiurch in his family as 
 the medium of redempticm until that Redeemer would 
 come; when the Gentiles should be taken into that church 
 equally with the Jews.- The first was sealed in this man- 
 ner; "and it came to pass that when the sun v.ent down, 
 and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning 
 lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day 
 the Lord made a covenant with Abram sayiiiJC^ unto thy 
 
seed have I given this land, from the river of Eg}^t unto 
 the great river, the river Euphrates 5" but the second was 
 sealed by the rite of circumcision. Now Mr. C. saw- all 
 this in my first letter, and if my reasonings, references, and 
 deductions from the passages just now mentioned v.ere 
 wrong, why did he not point them out, and not say, as he 
 has. done, that I have misrepresented him. From these 
 observations, his '^prudential reasons" for overlooking the 
 covenant recorded in the 15th ch!ipter are very evident," 
 and very obvious. For as the land of Canaan v/as secured 
 to the seed of Abraham by that covenant, then, it was not 
 secured by the covenant oi circumcision, as he so often and 
 baldly affirms, unless he can prove that God made two q^- 
 venants at different times, and confirmed by diiferent seals, 
 for the same purpose. That the land of Canaan would be 
 mentioned or recognised in the covenant of circumcision 
 is what was to be expected for the reason assigned? but I 
 liave proved -by the apostle Paul that that covenant had 
 respect to Christ and his church, consequently there was a 
 church of God in the Jev/ish nation, and" how strongly tiiis 
 operates against the Baptist system Mr. C. is fully aAvare. 
 
 Mr. C also objects in this, and the foliov/ing page, that 
 1 have said that the covenant of cir<:umcision secured 
 '"•spiritual blessings" to the Jews, whereas he tells us these 
 consist "'in the regenerating influences of the Holy Spirit, 
 pardon, justification, and eternal life.'* I have not used' 
 the word "spiritnaP' in that sense. I used it in the sense 
 the apostle Paul uses it, in his 1st epistle te the Corinthi- 
 'ans, Qlh, 11, where speaking of his preaching and other 
 ministrations among them he says, *'If we have sown unto 
 YOU spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap 
 vour carnal things.^" And if I had not the apostle's author- 
 ity "for the use of the expression, the sense in which I used 
 it is so obvious to every reader, that Mr, C's objection 
 shews a want of argument, and an attempt to supply that 
 want by a '*sorry quibbling" on words. 
 
 I shall coijsidei- the 2d, 3d, and 4th aliened misrepre- 
 sentations together, as they are connected with one anoth- 
 er, and refer to the same thing. Tlie charge is this — tliat 
 I represent him as saying that there was no church of God 
 in the world until the day of Pentecost, without referring 
 to the page or pages v.heve he -has said so: but which he 
 deine?, and refers us to p. 40, and elsewhere, Vvhere he 
 
120 
 
 tells us he has said that thfere was such a church in th^ 
 world. I did consider, and I still do consider him as say-* 
 ing so. Mr. W. had produced Acts 7: 36 — "This is he 
 that was in the church in the wilderness," as a proof that 
 the Jewish nation were a church of God in the fullest ex- 
 tent of the word, or a people set apart for the worship and 
 service of Jehovah, and to whom were given for this pur- 
 pose ordinances of divine appointment as the means of 
 gi'ace, and the medium of acceptable worship. . If Mr. C. 
 acknowledged, and now acknowledges this, where was the 
 use of the criticism on the word ekklesia in p. 41, as signi- 
 fjing any kind of an assembl}', lawful or unlawful j and 
 wjb^t the meaning of the following quotation from page 42. 
 "Thus the word ekklesia, or church, was used by the holy 
 * 'penmen of the New Testament to denote any sort of an 
 ''assembly. Like the word synagogue, the epithet made 
 *'it either an assembly of Jews, "or a synagogue of Satan'* 
 ^' — this criticism I am confident neither my opponent nor 
 *'any man acquainted v/ith the Greek will deny. Hence 
 "it follows that this quotation from the 7th of Acts proves 
 ^''nothing favour able to his views, inasmuch as it means no 
 "more than an assembly or congregation in the wilderness, 
 '■'■without any regard to the character of it. It was an as- 
 "sembly or church of Jews, and not an assembly of Chris- 
 "tians, or a church of Jesus Christ.*' 
 
 Without noticin>^ any farther the silliness of the obser- 
 vation, "ihat the church in the wilderness" could not be 
 "an assembly of Christians;" I appeal now to any reader, 
 and to every reader, if I had not ground for saying that Mr. 
 C. denied that there was a church of God in the Jewish 
 nation, in the sense in wliich I have explained the word. 
 But Mr. C. to use one of his own classical expressions, has 
 Ids "come ofl'," for he tells us, that there is a great diiFer- 
 ence betvvixt the phrase, "a church of God," and the plirasc 
 "the church of Jesus Christ;" and he refers me to Mur- 
 ray's English Grammar who will tell me that there is a 
 great diiFerence betwixt the phrase "//ie son of a king" and 
 "« son of a king." There is a difference wi*h respect to 
 the designation of the individuals, but none whatever that 
 affects, or can affect their character and relation as sons; 
 for "a son of a king," is as much the son of a king, as the 
 person who may be dcsigr.ated as"//ie son of a king;" or in 
 other v/ords the article the^ or «, affects not their sonship. 
 
121 
 
 Mr. C. is OiFended because I called sacK things quibbling, 
 and if it is not, I know not what quibbling is. But as he 
 places so much strcss on the definite article the in this case, 
 I hope it will end this part of the controversy, and convince 
 idm that the <:hurch in the tvilderness was a church of God 
 in tlie fullest extent of the word, when I tell him that 4n 
 the Septuagint the word translated churchy has the defi- 
 nite article attached to it. It is te ekklesia, "the 
 church;'' the very Avord used in Acts 2: 47, and 20: 28, 
 to'denote what Mr. C. calls "the church of Jssus Christ.** 
 
 But Mr. C. has another distinction in support of his hj~ 
 pothesis; for it is not only an hypothesis, but as I shall shew 
 in the proper place, it is worse than an hypothesis. It is 
 this — "the Jews were the typical congregation or church 
 of Go<l, but christians are the real congregation or church 
 of God.^' And does the circumstance of the Jewish church 
 bein^ typical prove that it was a false church of God, for 
 real is opposed to that which \sfahe. But passing by this, 
 lest it should be called quibbling, he might as well say that 
 the sacrifices oftered by Abel, Abraham, Job, and others, 
 vvere not rea/ sacrifices, and not acceptable to Jehovah, be- 
 cause they vrere typical of the sacrifice of the Son of God In 
 our nature. Perhaps he means by the word "Christians,'' 
 regenerated persons. These, are indeed a component 
 part of the church of God, and constitute what is called the 
 invisible church, but there never was, and perhaps never 
 v,-ill be a period wherein the church was entirely composed 
 of such, no, 'not even amongst Mr. Cs friends, the Bap- 
 tists. Shrewd and intelligent deceivers can thrust them- 
 selves into any Church, and even the well-meaning are of- 
 t«n deceived, and suppose that to be a work of saving 
 grace in their hearts, which they after^vards find proceeded 
 from another cause. But why all this contemptible quib- ' 
 bliiig about definite and indefinite articles; and why all this 
 saying, and unsaying, and saying the same thing again? 
 This! apprehend — he saw that it would be dangerous even 
 with some of his friends, to deny positively that there was 
 a church of God in the Jewish nation, and to admit it, sap- 
 ped the foundation of his system. But we will meet with 
 this subject again wherein Mr. C's views of the Jews and 
 of the Jewish church will be more fully developed. 
 
 '^ Misrepresentation oth.^^ — *'Mr. R. declares that Mr. 
 C. savs that the church of Christ was built upon the anos- 
 "12 
 
1£2 
 
 ties alone.*' — I have shewn that Mr. C. says tb^t there was 
 no real church of God in the Jewish nation, it %11oavs then 
 bj inevitable consequence that what he cdfli^s the real 
 church of God could notbebuiltupon the Jewish prophets 5 
 but the apostle says that it was <'bui]t upon the foundation 
 of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
 the chiet corner stone.-' 
 
 *'Jiz5TejDrc5€?i/cf2on 6th.*'— "Mr, R. writes, Mr. C. has 
 another argument against iiifant baptism which he pro- 
 nounces p. SO (31) and elsev/here, as settling the point at 
 once. It amounts to this. The scripture direction res- 
 pecting baptism is, believe, and be baptized, but infants 
 are incapable of believing, therefore they are not to be bap- 
 tized." "Now Mr. R. why did you not quote my words? 
 but you could not, for there is no such pronounced in 30th 
 (31st) page — no, nor in any other page as you stated it." 
 
 I did not say that the syllogism is there in the very words 
 T have stated, but the premises of the syllogism are there, 
 or I am greatly mistaken. In p. 22, Mr. W. adduced the 
 11th chapter to tlie Romans as a proof that the Jev/ish na- 
 tion under the metaphor of a good olive tree were consti- 
 tuted a church of God by the ordinance of circumcision, 
 and that the christian church v/as ingrafted into it. In re- 
 ply Mr. C. says in pa^e 31, "that infants are excluded f^m 
 any participation in this good olive, seeing \\\VLt faith is re- 
 quired to any enjoyment of its root and fatness, and the 
 only means of ingrafting into it." You will now judge 
 who it is that has misrepresented the other; and how he 
 could bring forward such a charge, v/hen his whole book, 
 and the whole Baptist system is predicated on the princi- 
 ple that infants ought not to be baptized, because they are 
 incapable of believing. 
 
 ^'Misrepresentation 7th." — That I represent him as 
 < 'defying all Christendom on the subject of baptism." — So 
 I understood him in more places than one, and I think that 
 there is scarcely a person who has read his book, but will 
 say that they have '-m^erstood him as I have. It seems 
 however that he confines the ^''defying ivords^'^ to one par- 
 ticular point, but as that point has a strong bearing on the 
 subject, it is no misrepresentation, nor statement that can 
 aifect his arguments in the smallest degree. 
 
 "•Misrqiresentation 8tii." — That I represent him as say- 
 ing that the primitive fathers of the church were incompe- 
 tent and incredible v, itnesses for facts; v.hereas he has said. 
 
153 
 
 in p. 110, »*that many of them were good men, and faithful 
 witnesses of facts.'' 
 
 I acknowledge that I had read, and recollected Mr. C's 
 words now quoted wlien I wrote that he represents those 
 fathers as witnesses not worthy of credit; nor had I the 
 most distant apprehensioa that either he or any other per- 
 son who had read his book would ever charge me with mis- 
 representing him; as I considered them as words without 
 meaning, or at best as words of mere finesse, designed to 
 cover, and render somev/hat palatable the torrent of abuse 
 he was pouring out on their characters; and that every oth- 
 er reader would be of the same opinion. The point at issue 
 at the time betwixt him and Mr. W. was this. Mr. W. 
 produced extracts from tlie writings of those fathers as t'ney 
 are usually styled, for the purpose of proving that infant 
 baptism was practised in the church in their day. Mr. C. 
 endecfvonred to m.ake those extracts speak a different lan- 
 guage. This was fair, provided lie could do so, without 
 perverting their Vvords; but no farther should he.have gone, 
 if he believed them to be "good men, and faithful witnesses 
 of facts." Eut instead of this, he assails them with, and 
 throws upon them all that moral filth, v/ith which the his- 
 tory of the Socinian Robinson abounds; aiihough he knew 
 at the same time that Mr. J. P. Campbell has repeatedly 
 detected Robinson of falsehood, and v/ith slandering the 
 character of those fathers. I would now ask, v.'hat was 
 the meaning of all this, and what possible relevancy could 
 it have on the part of Mr. C, but to destroy or lessen their 
 character as witnesses; for the credibility of a v/itness may 
 be completely destroyed without charging liim in direct 
 terms with lying, or a disregard for truth. And indeed 
 Mr. C. himself in p. 108, speaks of those fathers in such 
 terms as impeaches at the same time, their competency and 
 credibility as vvitnesses. "Suppose these very men them- 
 selves (says he) had taught and practised infant baptism 
 (which however with all their errors they did not) would 
 it have been farther from Wq doctrine taught in tne New 
 Testament than the notions they entertained; and how 
 much is their teztimony worth on any doctiinal point not 
 clearly revealed in the New Testament. - ' Again — "The 
 most orthodox of the fathers v\ere full of wild notions and 
 extravagant fancies that would dishonour the lowest grade 
 of Christians amongst iis.''^ Here let it be remembered 
 that Mr. C. affirms, that supposing they had "taught and 
 
1:24 
 
 praetised infant baptism," yet tlieir '^testimony is of littTo 
 ^orth" on account of the wild notions which they held. 
 Some of them indeed held some '^fanciful theories,'' and 
 I liave no objection to say errors; but none of them denied 
 uiedo-ctrine of original sin, the divinity of Christ, and th^e 
 doctrine of the atonement for sin by the merit of hisbioocT, 
 '.vl'.ich the Baptist historian Robinson denied, and whose 
 slanderous tilth he pours upon them with an unsparing 
 band. And now if Mr. C. will produce one or two can- 
 did, disinterested and intelligent persons w^ho have read 
 tliat part of the debate, and who will say, that they did not 
 understand him as endeavouring to destroy or lessen the 
 credibility of those fa timers, then, I will promptly acknowl- 
 edge my mistake, and as promptly repair any injury I may 
 be convinced his character may nave received by what I 
 have written on tltat point, I may have mistaken him. 
 
 tions have very little reference to the main question, and 
 that they must be uninteresting to the reader. I will only 
 say, that I would not have noticed the alleged misrepre- 
 sentations at all as they respected myself, had I not been 
 aware that my not noticins; them vrould have been interpre- 
 ted as so many arguments for tne Baptist, and agamst the 
 Pedobaptist system. Whatever concerns myself individ- 
 ually shall be avoided as much as possible in this, and the 
 following 1 etters.. 
 
 In pges il, 12, Mr. C. ahks me in ids own njanneri 
 but which I shall not imitate, ^•by what authority I have 
 said that the covenant of circumcision was an eccJc^iceshcal 
 covenant whereby Jehovah was pleased to bind hin>self by 
 the^ seal of circumcision to send a Redeemer of the family 
 of Abraham into the w^orld," 'nvhen no such thing is once 
 mentioned nor even hinted at, in the wiiole transactioni^ 
 nor is such covenanted by the seal of circumcision in the 
 whole Bible?" 
 
 I answer by the authority of the apostle Paul, who in. 
 Gal. 3: 8, quotes one of the provisions of that covenant and 
 applies it to Christ. ''And the scripture foreseeing that 
 iiedwovdd jtisfify i\\Q heathen through /caV/i preached be- 
 fore the Gospel to Abrahain saying, in tliec shall all natitms 
 ^^ lilessed.-' The heathen, "says the apostle, w^ould be 
 iustified thv^-^'gii faith; not surely in Abraha^n, but by faith 
 
125 
 
 iii Christ designated in the words, "In thee shaU natioiia 
 be blessed," because he descended from Abraham accord- 
 ing to the flesk. In pursuing his subject the Apostle styles 
 this very covenant, "the covenant of God in Christ'' (eis 
 ChristonJ because it had relation not only to Christ him- 
 self, but to his church, as is clear from the v/ords of the 8th 
 verse — "preached the Gospel to Abraham." All this I 
 have said in my first letter, and it behooved Mr. C. to have 
 overturned it if he could. As the viev/s I have given of 
 these passages overturn the very foundation of his system 
 his friends and the public undoubtedly expected this from 
 him, or at least that lie would make the attempt. But he 
 has carefully avoided it, and tries to divert their minds from 
 the point by. sneering at what he calls "my new discovery.'* 
 
 But Miv C. may say, that the passages I have quoted 
 from the epistle to the Galatians have reference to the co- 
 venant recorded in the 12th, whereas the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision is recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis. I 
 have assigned my reasons why I consider those two coven= 
 ants as he styles them, to be one and the same, and it behoo- 
 ved him also to have overturned my arguments if he could. 
 But this he has not even attempted, but taken the shorter, 
 and to himself the more convenient method of pointless ri- 
 dicule. — His friends must feel mortified and disappointed. 
 As for my styling that covenant "an ecclesiastical cov- 
 enant," I cannot see any impropriety, but a propriety in 
 doing so. The words "covenant of circumcision," as it 
 is styled by Stephen, are rather indefinite, implying only 
 that circumcision was the seal of that covenant, and it is 
 incumbent on every man who writes so as to be under- 
 stood, to tell his readers in what sense he understands 
 such expressions. 
 
 In p. 13, Mr. C. calls upon me for the proof of a syllo- 
 gism in favour of infant baptism extracted from the 'wri- 
 tings of Mr. Peter Edwards. 
 
 A syllogism if fairly constructed,, like an axiom, in- 
 volves its own evidence; if not, it is sophistical, llie sj\- 
 logism alluded to was, and is before him. If it is sophis- 
 tical, he should have shewn it. Tliis, his friends also ex- 
 pected from him 5 -but instead of this, he calls upon me to 
 prove what if correctly stated proves itself. The reason 
 of this silly demand doubtless was, that he found it intan- 
 gible^ at least bvhiniself/ " ' ' 
 
126 
 
 I iiave said in my first letter tliat in tlie time of Abra- 
 nam "the privileges of the church were enlarged by the 
 appointment of circumcision as a mode of initiation for the 
 males, iniimte wisdom seeing that the ancient mode of sa- 
 crifice answered all the purpose to the fem.ales; females as 
 well as males being permitted to eat of the sacrifices." 
 From this Mr. C. draws the following consequences in 
 page IS. "1st. nd^llifants in the church for 2400 years — 
 Sd, no females is -the Jewish church if circumcision ivere 
 the initiatory ritej*' after which he tries t^ ridicule theidea. 
 of circumcision being an initiatory rite for the males, be- 
 cause it was painful. 
 
 The iirst of the foregoing consequences is founded on 
 the assumption that by males and {4m-al«s I meant adults 
 only. But I have nof said so, and that I meant infants as 
 well as adults Mr. C. might have knovvn from a preceding 
 sentence, where speaking of the church in the patriarchal 
 age, I have said, "that every head of a family was king 
 and priest of the family^ and offered up sacrifice the only 
 mode of initiation^ medium ofv/orship, and mean ofgrace^ 
 4hat we read of at that time, both on his own behalf^ and 
 oni:)ehalf of hisfamily^^ — a word that impliesy and in- 
 ducies in it, the infant as well as the adult, the female as 
 Well as the male. The second consequence is flatly con- 
 tradicted by these words, ^'intinite wisdom seeing that sa- 
 crifice answered all the purpose to the females,, females as;^ 
 well as males being permitted to eat of the sacrifices.'*' 
 And if the circumstance of circumcision being a "painful 
 rite," was a reason why it should not have been appointed 
 as a mode of initiation into the church for males, the same 
 reason if good, 's\ill prove that it should not have been ap- 
 pointed fur any pui*pose whatever. " >^ • 
 In pages 14, 15, 16, Mr. C. boldly defends what he Iras- 
 said in the 28ih page of his hooky— ''that Judaism and 
 Gentilism were loth distinct from, and esse^itially oppo- 
 site to Christianity:^ He draws his materials of defence 
 from the alleged vrorthlessness of the Jewish dispensatioi^ 
 and ordinances as styled by the apostle Paul, "th£ rain- 
 ibtraticn of death and condemnation^' — ''ivcak andleggar- 
 hj [dements*^— carnal cGmmandmenis hnpo'sed vpon them 
 iiUihe time of reformation---''^ a yoke cfhondage^^ — and at 
 best but the "shadow of good things to come," and which 
 '-made nothing perfect'- — that the same a[)Ostle hath said, 
 '^ij'ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothings ■ — - 
 
12T 
 
 iiom the coiTuplion of the Jewish doctrines by the Pliari- 
 sees and Sadducees — and from the wickedness'of the Jews: 
 who crucified Christ, and persectited his followers. 
 
 This is indeed a horrible picture of Judaism as dra^vn by 
 the pencil of Mr. C. and as it seems he understands, and 
 Vvoujd wish us to understa.nd some of the foregoing quota-, 
 tions: and if true, it is no wonder that he classes it with 
 "Gentilism, and as esseiitialiy opposir^-to Christianity;*' 
 and if I yiev/ed it as he does, 1 coul^ not believe that Je- 
 hovah the author of it v.as aholyBeing; yea more,. I would 
 join with Thomas Paine, in saying that the Old Testament 
 was ''the word of the devil." — But let us exainine the pic- 
 ture a little. 
 
 In 2 Cor. 3: 7, the apostle doe& indeed style ihe Jewish 
 dispensation, comprehending in it the covenant at Sinai, 
 a *'minibtration oi death and condemnation written and. 
 enpaven in stones." But why does he style it so? Does 
 he mean, or could he mean that the whole of it led down to 
 eternal death all who embraced it? This, as has been ob- 
 served, would reflect on the ciiaracter of the God of IsraeU 
 as promulgating and enjoining a dispensation that would 
 lead down to eternal death and condemnatioR all who re- 
 ceived it. What then was his meaning? This — that the. 
 mo,ral law requiring justly, perfect obedience, and as justly 
 dencijncing the curse of iiie^ Law-giver for the least diso- 
 bedience, was. promulgated, as it v/ as, amidst terrible thun- 
 derisgs and lightnings, for the purpose of convincing not 
 only the Jevv's, hut us, that 'iby the deeds of the law 
 no flesh can be justified," because "all have sinned :" and to 
 induce the Jews to look for justification to him who was pro- 
 mised to come. *^i€>;take away sin by the sacrifice of him- 
 , ^elf, typified in the vanous sacrifices enjoined upon thejnf. 
 ^.^— and lis to look also to the same Redeemer as come, and 
 who has shed his blood for the remission of sin, and whose 
 . blocd when received by faith ''cleanseth from all sin," 
 That this was the meaning of the apostle in the passage is-, 
 evident from this, that in the words that immediately fol- 
 low, .he styles this very ^^ministratioir^ "glorious," but 
 the ministration of the spirit, or the Gospel dispensatioj). 
 as more ''glorious;" because the one as typical was onlj| 
 a "shadow of good things to come," but the other hpld^ 
 out to our view "the lamb slain from the fouridaticnof the 
 world" as come, and dyingthe just ftr the unjust! 
 
 In Gal. 4: 9, the apostle also styles the ordinances of the 
 
im 
 
 Jewish dispensation and cHurch, <«weak and beggarly ele- 
 ments." But in what sense were they so? and on v/haf 
 occasion did he say so? They were weak and beggarly only 
 w'hen compared with the simpler and more significant ordi- 
 nances of the Christian dispensation. In the one^they 
 had reference to a Redeemer who was to come; in the oth- 
 er tlley respect him as already come; and in this sense, I 
 apprehend it is, ^st^, "the least iiv^the kingdom of heaven 
 is greater than Johii^aptist," because he died before the 
 Christian dispensation commenced^ Besides, the persons 
 to whom the apostle addressed those words were Gentiles 
 by extraction, and had been seduced by- the Judaizing- 
 teachers to observe the Jewish in conjunction with the or- 
 dinances of the Christian dispensation^ the apostle there- 
 fore used as strong language as the subject could possibly 
 admit, for the purpose of convincing them of their folly and^ 
 mistake. 
 
 InHeb. 9: 10, the same ordinances ure styled ^'carnal or- 
 dinances" imposed on the Jews '"until the time of refor- 
 mation." 
 
 The word * 'carnal" or fleshly, is used in the scriptures 
 in different meanings or acceptations. In Ez.ekiel 36: 26, 
 it is used to signify a penitent and believing heart. — "I 
 will take away the heart of stone, and eive you an heart of 
 flesh." In the writings of Paul it is frequently used to 
 denote the depravity of the human heart-:7-*-'The" carnal 
 mind is enmity against God." As Mr. C^S object -is to 
 prove that Judaism was as wicked a thing as Gentilism, it 
 would seem that in the preceding quotation he understood 
 tlie words in this last sense, for if it had reference to any 
 thing spiritual and diWne, then Judaism could not have 
 been as bad as Gentilism; and indeed I have met with the 
 words '^carnal ordinances" so introduced and applied, bj 
 Baptist writers, that it appeared to me that they meant bj 
 them something wicked and depraved. But that the words 
 have reference to the various washings enjoined by the 
 Levitical law, and which signified the necessity of the 
 cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit, is evident from 
 the words immediately preceding. The design of the 
 apostle in the chapter was to shew that the Jewish ordinan- 
 ces v/ere superseded by those appointed by Christy and 
 alluding to those of them tliat consisted in the observation 
 of clean and unclean m.eats, and their different ablutions, 
 he says, "which stood only in meats aed diinks, anddi • 
 
120 
 
 verse washings^ and cariial ordinances imposed upon thein. 
 until the time of reformation." Some interpreters under- 
 stand by the ^ 'meats and drinks" in this verse, the meat 
 and drink offerings that accompanied the sacrifices? and by 
 the * '■diverse washings," the washine; of the sacrifices, anci 
 others, those enjoined on the priests and people; but in 
 whichever of those senses we understarm the apostle, those 
 ordinances were not wicked thiiigs ir. themselves, noF de- 
 siyied to lead to Vvickedners, but to lead to the blood of 
 the atonement for pardon, and to the spirit of grace for pu- 
 rification. And although they are said to have been "im- 
 posed on the Jews until the time of reforaiation," or until 
 the Messiah should come; and although they are called "a 
 yoke of bondage^" because they were numerous and ex- 
 pensive, yet, as they were appointed by infinite wisdom, 
 they were doubtless best suited to that age of the- woiid, 
 and to the character of the Jewish nation. 
 
 In regard to what the apostle says to the Gaiatians (5: 2.) 
 "Ifye be circumcised Christ shall pro^fit you nothing;^ it 
 is evident from thepreceduigand subsequent contexts, that 
 he alluded to the doctrine taught by the Judaizing teachers 
 and which some of the Gaiatians embraced, thatto be cii-eum- 
 cised, entitled the circum.cised person to salvation, as some 
 think in the present day that they shall be saved because they 
 have been baptized. Both opinions are founded on a dan- 
 gerous-ewor, and lead from Christ, and is a virtual renun- 
 ciation cf the merit of his blood. Circumciaion was ap- 
 pointed as a mean of induction for the males into thcJew- 
 ish church, and for obtaining the circumcision of the hearty 
 and baptism is nothing more, except that like circumcision 
 it is a seal of the baptized believers interest in tlie righte- 
 ousness of faith. These observations explain what the' 
 apostle meant when he says in the following verse, "he that 
 was circumcised was a debtor to do the whole law," mor- 
 al and cercinonial, or to keop it without failure in a single 
 instance, if he expected life by it, and which constrained 
 him to say in the next follovying verse, '^'Christ is become 
 of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justitied by the. 
 law; ye ?re fallen from grace." — Mr. C understands the 
 words "if ye be circumcised Clsrist shall pro-fit you nothv 
 ing," ris implj'ing that there was no profit whatever in cir- 
 cumcision, yea, he tells us in p. 14, that it is ''^repugnant 
 to Cfirhiiamty. " Kow this is setting the apostle in oppo- 
 sition tc ).ln\re!f, for he says in Eom, 5 : 1,2, th^t it was of 
 
ISO 
 
 ?nuch piolifc while tke Jevfish dispensation lasted. "What 
 advantage then hath the Jew, and what jirofd is there in 
 circumcision? Much every vjay^ but chiefjly because that 
 unto thein were committed ^}\q, oracles of God." Such is 
 the deleterious influence of Mr. C's system, that it has led 
 him flatly to contradict the apostle, and to represent Jeho- 
 vah as appointing an ordinance that in itself was "repug- 
 nant to ChrisiianitY. " I will add on this point that I have 
 all along said ilhat'.circumcision was a type of baptism, and 
 Mr. C. cannot point to the place where I have said "that 
 it was not a type of baptism." i have also said that bap- 
 tism has taken t'ne '^room of circumcision" in xho, cliurch 
 of God, and produced Col. 2: II, 12, as a proof, and he 
 has not dared to exatr/me that proof. 
 
 To Mr. G's other objections to Judaism- — the wickedness 
 of ih^ Jews in the davs of C'lrist — their crucifying; him, 
 and persecuting his follov/ers, and ihf^ corruptions intro- 
 duced into t'le Jewish svstem by the Ploarisees and Saddu- 
 cees, I shall just only observe; that wicked as the JeAvs 
 were, it should be renieinbered that they did not crucify 
 Christ as their ?vles^iah, but as an impostor, and that they 
 persecuted his follov/ers, as the followers of an impostor. 
 The Pharisees had also much corrupted the Jewish theo- 
 ^^gy ^J ^heir traditions, but not so far as to affect its fun- 
 damental principles; else Christ would not have said, as 
 he did, to his disciples, "the scribes and Pharisees sit in 
 Moses' seat, all ther€f^>i'c v/hatsoever they bid you observe, 
 that obsei'\^e and do, but do ye not after their works j for 
 they say and do not;" nor would he liave attended, us he 
 did, on the various ordinances of that dispensation. Mr. 
 C. seems very angry with me because I notico^l his say- 
 ing that "Judaism and Gentilism were both distinct from, 
 and essentially opposite to Christianity^" and because I 
 called this degradation of Judaism blasphemy. His sys- 
 tem does indeed necessarily lead to this; and I noticed it; 
 that he might see that it was unscriptural and dangerous, 
 and I expected that he would have recanted what he has 
 said on that point, or explained it so, as not to affect the pu- 
 rity of Jehovah the author of Judaism. He has given ua 
 his explanation, and instead of recanting what Iconsider 
 as blasphemy in terms, he tells us, p. 16, that "he will yet 
 be more blasphemous,^^ and as an evidence, he adds, that 
 Judaism "in its effects and practical bearings is more^ 
 averse from Christianity than sheer Gentilism^ But how 
 
131 
 
 much more blasphemous he can be I know not. unless he 
 denies the Old Testament to be the word of God: and in- 
 deed his present system in its legitimate consequencCv^ 
 leads to this, and I would not be surprised to hear one day 
 that that was the case. 
 
 Before I dismiss this point, it may not be amiss to ob- 
 serve, that although Mr. C. tells us in p. 14, that it is not 
 Judaism as "once instituted by the Creator," but as mixed 
 with Pharisaism and Sadduceism, and corrijpted with the 
 tradition of iha Elders, that he opposes and vilifies, yet 
 nothing is more untrue. They are words of mere finesse, 
 like those used in relation to tlie ancient fathers of the 
 church, and it would seem, designed for a similar pur- 
 pose. The corruptions introduced by the Pharisees and 
 Sadducees are mentioned particularly, and exposed by 
 Christ in his sermon on the mount and elsewhere; but you 
 will have observed, that Mr. C. does not mention, nor 
 refer to one of those corruption*, but directs his fulmina- 
 tions against Judaism "as once instituted by the Creator' 
 — against circumcision, which was not introduced by the 
 Pharisees or Sadducees, but appointed by Jehovah himself 
 in the time of Abraham, and against the various sacrifices 
 and v/ashings appointed by the same authority in the days 
 of Moses, and styled by Paul carnal ordinances, for the 
 reasons just now assigned. But wliy all this artifice, and 
 I m.ust add shameful, but thin veil of dec^tion? It w^as: 
 doubtless designed to answer a double purpose. If the 
 picture he has drawn would be found too strong for, or 
 displeasing to the public eye, then, he could retreat by say- 
 ing, that it was not pure Judaism, but the corruptions of it 
 he opposed^ and if the picture w^ouid be found to be not dis- 
 pleasing^ then, it would counteract the strong argument 
 for Pedobaptism drawn from the existence of a church of 
 God in the Jewish nation; but rather than admit this, Mr. 
 C. is willing that the Jev/s previous to the coming of Christ 
 should go down to eternal "death and wo," as it appears 
 he v/ishes his rea^ders to understand the words "ministra- 
 tion of death and condemnation." 
 
 That Mr. C. either believes, or aSects to believe, that 
 the Jewish dispensation and ordinances were not calcula- 
 ted for, nor designed as means for producing regeneration 
 and purity of heart is not only evident from the picture of 
 Judaism which he has drawn, but from his challenging me 
 in p. 15, "to produce one instance ofa Jew bemg ad tnitted 
 
into the Chpistian church from its first exhibition on tfio 
 day of Pentecost, without professing repentance or con- 
 v^rsion^'' to which he adds, '"that I cannot do it, and he is 
 sure I cannot." I have mentioned in the third letter the 
 eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia, and Lydia, who were ei- 
 ther Jews or proselytes to the Jewish religion; and who in 
 my apprehensioa were gracious persons, and were baptized 
 without any profession of repentance and conversion being 
 required of them, understanding those words in their ut- 
 most extent of meaning. Mr. G. has seen this, why did 
 he not shew that I was mistaken if he could.'' Bat that is 
 not his manner of conducting the controversy. His man- 
 ner you have seen is, to deal in general expressions, and to 
 call for proof on subjects already discussed and proved, 
 without attempting to shew the inva,lidity of the proof of- 
 fered. That there were a number of persons in the Jewish 
 churdi in the days of Christ, (perhaps x\\^ wickedest period 
 of the Jewisli history) and -w'ho v/ere regenerated in that 
 church, is evident not only from the particular mention 
 made of some of them, but from what John says in his Gos- 
 pel respecting Christ; 1: 11 — 13. '^He came to his own^ 
 and his own received him not. But to as many as receiv- 
 ed him, to them gave hepov/er to become the sons of God, 
 even to them that believe on his name; which loere born, 
 not of blood, nor of the will of the fiesh, nor of the v/ill of 
 man, hut of GcMP Here, the persons who received Christ, 
 are said to have been ^'•borji of God,'^ and born again un- 
 der that dispensation and its ordinances which Mr. C. tells 
 us, *'was more averse from Christianity than sheer Gentil- 
 ismP The discussion of this point brings to my recollec- 
 tion wliat he says in his book, p. 27, respecting Nathaniel— 
 •^•that he exercised a neif; faith, and had other discoveries, 
 which he never before possessed, previous to his becoming 
 a Christian." I suppose that by this neu) faith Mr. C. 
 means a justifying faith. Now, I had always thought that 
 this feith was the same with respect to its essence, opera- 
 tions, and object, in the pious Jew, and the pious Christian, 
 with this circumstantial and immaterial difference, that the 
 faith of the pious Jew was directed to a Redeemer who 
 was to come, but the faith of the pious Christian is directed 
 to him as already come. That Nathaniel had new discov- 
 eries is readily admitted, because he saw and conversed 
 with the^ Redeemer in the flesh, but that b.e had a new faith 
 '^nth respect to its nature and operations we deny-— If so, 
 
loo 
 
 >iheii he could not have beerx styled, as he was by Christ 
 himself, "an Israelite i/if/eei, in whom there was no guile.'* 
 — Mr. C. should never have talked about "quacks in the- 
 ology," 
 
 The Socratic metliod of asking questions is an ensnaring 
 way of conducting an argument. In the debate with Mr. 
 W. Mr. C. conducted his argument generally in this way, 
 and supposing that he has gained much advantage by it, 
 he has also asked me a number of questions in pages 17, 
 18, expecting no doubt, that I would be thereby ensnared. 
 1 miglit with the greatest propriety refuse to answer those 
 questions, as the subject matter of them has been discus- 
 sed in the first letter, and it was his province as a dispu- 
 ter and writer to have refuted that discussion if he could. 
 However to cutoff every pretension of avoiding any thing 
 that bears on the point at issue, I shall answer those ques- 
 tions, taking the liberty for the sake of brevity, of com- 
 pressing the longest of them, but retaining every thing that 
 is relevant^ and also the liberty of asking him in my turn 
 a few questions, not for the purpose of ensnaring him, but 
 that he may see the real state of the question betwixt us in 
 a clear point of light, and if it may be, convinced of his 
 error. 
 
 "Query 1. With what propriety could Mr. R. say that 
 ,the. whole promise of Joel's prophecy was fulfilled in the 
 miraculous gift of tongues conferred on the apostles — when 
 no such miraculous gift of tongues is mentioned in the 
 promise." 
 
 A. I have not said that th^ 'of f/^ of Joel's prophecy w^as 
 fulfilled in the gift of tongues,-^ That propliecy contain s 
 two distinct things — a prediction of pouring out* the spirit 
 on the Gentiles as well as the Jews, expressed in these 
 words, "and it shall come to pass afterwards that I will 
 pour out my spirit on allflesh^^^ and a particular promise 
 to the Jews which w^as to take place at the commencement 
 of the Gospel dispensation, expressed thus, "and your sons 
 and your daughters shall prophesy," and which was. fulfil- 
 led on the day of Pentecost when "cloven tongues like as 
 of fire sat on the followers of Jesus, and tliey were all filled 
 with the Holy Ghost j and began to speak with other tongues. 
 as,the Spirit gave them utterance. " Tliis was astonishing 
 13 
 
134 
 
 to the multitude who came together on the occasioiij but 
 Peter accounted for it bv saying, 'Hhis is that which was 
 spoken by the prophet Joel." Your objection that the 
 words ''the gift of tongues" are not mentioned by Joel is 
 of no avail. It was included in the word "prophesy," and 
 in this sense the word appears to be used in 1 Cor. 14: 31. 
 If it was not included, then, Peter did not say truth when 
 he said, "^/ii.9 is that which was spoken by the prophet Jo- 
 el." But we will meet with this «ubject again, under an- 
 other query, wh^re the absurdity of your explication and 
 application of this prophecy will appear in a glaring 
 light. , 
 
 ''Query 2. With what truth can Mr. R. in the same 
 page say that Peter urged this promise as an argument why 
 the Jews and their children should be baptized — when Pe- 
 ter says not one word directly or indirectly concerning the 
 baptism of their children." ' * 
 
 A. I have not said so at all — ^but my answer to yilif 
 next query will explain the matter. 
 
 "Query 3. Why should Mr. R. endeavour to prove 
 that although Peter cited Joel 2, he meant Gen. 17: 7. 
 
 A. I have not said so. Alluding to your explanation 
 and application of the words "//le promise^^ in Acts 2: 39, 
 as having reference only to the prophecj^ of Joel, I have 
 said "that whatever that promise was, it i% undeniable, that 
 Peter urged it as an argument why the Jews and their cMl- 
 dren should be ba|)tized;" and at the same time I offered 
 ► several reasons why he must have referred to Gen. 17: 7. 
 I produced Rom. 9: 8, and GaL 3: 29, as a proof of this. 
 This you have seen, and why did you not shew if you could, 
 that I misapplied these p^^sages. To this I now add, that 
 the words of Jehovah in i^^l}. V7: 7, and the words of Peter 
 in Acts 2: 3.9, when compared substantiate the position. 
 The words of Jehovah are, "I will be a God to thee, and to 
 thy seed after thee 5" and the words of Peter are, "The 
 promise is to you and to your children. " The difference 
 of the two passages is only verbal and immaterial, and the 
 argument for infant baptism deducible from them, I have 
 pointed out pretty fully in my first letter. Before I dis- 
 miss this query, 3rou mast excuse me for telling you, that 
 you have shrunk dishonourabiy from the examination of this 
 interesting passage, for instead of meeting my arguments, 
 and discussing them fairly, you have passedover them, and 
 diverted the minds of your readers from the point by bold- 
 
135 
 
 iy asserting that I have said, what I have not said — I re- 
 peat it, your friends must feel disappointed and mortified. 
 
 "Query 4. Why does ^Ir. R. represent the promise of 
 the Holy Spirit as exclusively referring to extraordinary 
 operations, whereas the pronnse of the Spirit as a Spirit of 
 illumination, of wisdom, of prophecy, of comfort, is that 
 )jroinise which distinguishes the ministration of the Spirit 
 from t!ie ministration of condemnatimi, in a; degree, and to 
 an extent unknown to the Jews and Patriarchs; more espe- 
 cially as Peter applies the promise in Joel to the promise 
 which Jesu> gave to his disciples, concerning the commu- 
 nication of his Spirit, as a convincer, and a comforter, after 
 his ascension into heaven.'^ 
 
 ^'. A. It is somewhat strange to meet with the Jews and 
 their religion, as possessing any thing good or spiritual, af- 
 ter the dpeadful anathemas you have lately poured out on 
 thein, and their "ministration of death and condemnation." 
 liiu passing this by; that part of the prophecy of Joel that 
 has reference to the Jews is confined to "prophesying, 
 dreaming dreams, and seeing visions," to which is addeil 
 "wonders in the heavens anuinthe earth, blood, and fire 
 and pillars of smoke; of the sun being turned into darkness, 
 and the moon into blood," which latter portended the des- 
 truction of the Jewish nation and polity : And I have shewn 
 in the fourth letter of this v/ork that the Anabaptists 
 in Germany, v/ith whom I have also shewn, you so closely 
 fraternize, both in political and theological principles, had 
 their dreams and visions before they attempted to overturn, 
 all government in church and state;but 1 4eny that dreams 
 and supposed visions are the medium through which the 
 Spirit of God, since the close of the canon ofdivine reye- 
 lation, communicates his illuminating, convincing, and 
 sanctifying influences. *'By the law (says one apostle) is 
 the knowledge of sin," "and sanctify them through thy 
 truth, thy word, is truth," is one of the petitions which 
 Christ put up to his Heavenly Father, for the sanctificatioii 
 of his people. 
 
 You confound, Sir, two distinct promises that has led 
 you into the dangerous system you have adopted, and blin- 
 ded your eyes against the clear, arid forcible argument for 
 infant baptism contained in Acts 2; 39. The promise of 
 the Holy Spirit as a convincer, sanctifier and comforter, was 
 given by Christ previous to liis death, (and not after his 
 ascension, as you assert;) and is coutained and detailed in 
 
156 
 
 the I6tb> and 17th. chapters of John; but by turning to 
 Acts 1: 4,-5, you will there find that the promise of the 
 Holy Ghost as foretold by Joel„ and given to the apostles 
 on the day of Pentecost, had refeiX'nce to the miraculous 
 gift of tongues, and was foretold by John Baptist as a bap- 
 tism "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire," as is particu; 
 larly mentioned by the inspired historian. I have 
 no doubt but that it was by a mistaken application of that 
 prophecy, that the German Anabaptists were led into all 
 the extravagancies and atrocities which they committed: 
 and it concerns you, Sir, seriously to inquire, if your ex- 
 position and application of that prophecy may not lead your 
 followers to the same atrocities. I will only farther ob- 
 serve that although the prophecy of Joel as it respected the 
 Jews was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost to the apostles 
 in the gift of tongues, yet I do not say that the general" 
 part of the prophecy was not fulfilled in part at that time, 
 or shortly after. That it was fulfilled to the guilty, multi- 
 tude who assembled on the occasion, so as to convince them 
 of sin is certain; for we are told that they were ''pricked 
 in their heartsj^' and also to. their conversion through bap- 
 tism as the mean, as is apparent from the 42d verse, but let 
 it be remembered that the gift of tongues expressed by 
 "prophesying". &c. was conferred on the disciples only, 
 and that Peter in the 16th verse, applied it to that circum- 
 stance, and that only, and that he did not, could not refer 
 to it in tlie 39th verse, as you say he did, I shall shortly 
 prove in answeiing the 6th query. 
 
 "Query 5. Why does Mr. R^ say that the Baptists 
 teach, "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
 Christ for the remission of sins, — for the promise is to you,, 
 but not to your children^ — when tliere is not one of them so 
 ignorant of scripture as to say that this promise meant 
 baptism, for baptism is a coinmand, not a promise." 
 
 A. I am not so ignorant as to say, nor did I say, that 
 the word "pron^ise" meant baptism; but I have said, and 
 I still say, that "the promise" which I have shewn refers 
 to Gen. 17: 7, is urged by Peter as an argument to induce 
 those Jews whonl he addressed to submit to that ordinance. 
 Their children are included in the promise, but you say 
 that although they are included in the promise thej were 
 not to be baptized. I drew my conclusion from the ex- 
 position which you and every otlier Baptist give to the 
 passage-— if it is falsely drawn shew it to me and I will re 
 
cant it. You should have done tliis, instead of covering 
 vour incoiiipetency with what you supposed to be a per- 
 plexing, but really is a silly question. 
 
 "Query 6. A\ hy does Mr. R. say that I explained 
 the words ''afar off" as relating to the remnant of the 
 Jews only; when my words which he misrepresents are p. 
 55, "forsaith Peter, the promise is to you, and to your 
 children-' — "all flesh" — "your sons and your daughters, 
 or your children. " Joel says 32d verse, "and in the rer?i- 
 naiit whom the Lord shall call" — Peter says, '-to them afar 
 off" — "even as many as the Lord shall call," '^'•whether 
 Jews or Gentiles." 
 
 A. Passing over the confused and clouded manner in 
 which j^ou state this query, I would observe; that you ap- 
 ply the prophecy of Joel to the words of Peter Acts 2: 39, 
 and you tell us in the 55th page of youi* book, that no two 
 passages "were ever more clearly identified," but when 
 examined and compared, never was a prophecy v/ith what 
 you call its fulfilment so unlike each other. The prophe- 
 cy, as I have observed, is introduced with a general inde- 
 finite promise of "'pouring out the Spirit on alljlesh.^^ This, 
 you apply to the particular promise to the Jews, "that their 
 sons and their daughters should prophesy. " Now, no ap- 
 plication can be more absurd than this, for the Jews and 
 their children arc not "«//^e5/j," or all mankind. Be- 
 sides, in your application you omit "the servants and the 
 hand -maidens" on v/ham the Spirit was also to be poured, 
 because as they v/ere not the children of the Jews, that part 
 of tlie prophecy could not possibly be applied to Peter's 
 words verse 39th — "the promise is to you, and to your 
 children." — The latter part of the prophecy in which you 
 say I have ^'inisrepresentecr^ jou, you have stated thus. 
 '•Jcel says 32d verse, and in the remnant whom the Lord 
 shall call" — Peter says "to them afar off, even as many as 
 ihe Lord shall call." I have shewn in my first letter that 
 the "remnant" means that part of the Jewish /fation who 
 believed in Christ, and that the "afar off" denoted the 
 Gentiles; I would now ask you, if you have not identified 
 the v/ords of Joel and Peter, or applied the words "afar 
 cff " to the ' 'remnant. " Perltaps you may say that in your 
 "vStrictures" ^'^ou have added the words "Jews and Gen- 
 tiles" to the words "afar off." But they are not in your 
 book Sir, and I am oniyvaccountabie for the application of 
 *13 
 
136 
 
 wkat I have quoted from your book.-^-\Vha is the misrep- 
 resenter now? I will only just add, that if you will look at 
 the prophecy of Joel again, you will find that the promise 
 to the ''remnant*' is not the promise of "pouring out the 
 Spirit'' upon them, but the promise of deliverance from 
 the dreadful judgments that were awaiting the Jews for 
 their not receiving Christ as tb.e Messiah, and.camiot there- 
 fore be applied, as you do, to Peter's words "for the prom- 
 ise "is to you and to your children.". 
 
 In page 18, jou ask me ''what is the difference betwixt 
 saying that the covenant of eiycumeision is the covenant 
 confirmed of God in relation to Christ and his church, and 
 affiiTuing that it is the covenant of giace" — you add, that 
 "my answer is Immhly looked forj" and you presume that 
 my ^'new grouncV^ is no better than Mr/W's old ground, 
 nay that it is the same ground cf "uncertainty and con- 
 jecture." % 
 
 A. It would seem that you calculate highly on my an- 
 swer to this question, from the manner in which it is asked; 
 and that there is some subtle, strong snare concealed in it, 
 but which is not pervious to my obtuse understanding* 
 But I shall answer it with the same promptness and can- 
 dour with which I have answered those already noticed. 
 My answer is this. The covenant of gi-ace sfeeures justi- 
 fication, sanctification, and eternal life to all who are in- 
 terested m\i', but the covenant of circumcision secured only 
 the ordinances of religion as the means of grace to the cir- 
 cumcised. And as I have shev/n in my first letter that the 
 church of God is one and indivisible, under the Patriarchal, 
 Jewish, and Christian dispensations of grace, and that bap- 
 tism has taken the place of circumcision under the present 
 dispensation, then, the same privileges are secured by that 
 covenant to the baptized. That this ^^new groimcP"^ as you 
 style it, is not aground of "uncertainty and conjecture," 
 ])ut founded upon, and agreeable to tne word of God, is 
 apparent from the following passages. It will be admitted 
 that a living faith, and a living faith only is what interests 
 in the blessings of the covenant of grace, for Christ him- 
 self who purchased these blessings has said "he that be- 
 lieveth, shall be saved? but he that believeth not shall be 
 damned." What now are the blessings secured by the 
 covenant of circumcision to those who are interested in it? 
 The apostle answers i]\e question Rom. 3:1,2, lately ad- 
 f'uced for another purpose. ^'Wbat advantage hath the 
 
159 
 
 Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision r Much etery 
 way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the 
 oracles of God." Here, the apostle tells us in plain terms, 
 that the c/iie/* advantage resulting from the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision to the Jews was; that the oracles of God were 
 thereby secured to them, and what they really imported 
 the same apostle tells us specifically in the 9th cliapter 4th 
 and 5th verses, and wliich I have particularly mentioned in 
 my first letter. And here I cannot but observe, that in this 
 same page voii have asserted, v/hat every person who has 
 read that letter knows to be untrue. You have asserted 
 that I have represented what is called the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, and the covenant of God in Christ, as one and 
 the same, "-on my own mithority.'^^ You know, Sir, as I 
 have already observed, that I produced Rom. 4: 17, and 
 -i^al. 3: 8, 17, as a proof that this is the fact. — Tliis was 
 apostolical, and noHmy *'own authority." You have as- 
 serted also that I have said that this covenant was '*made 
 430 years before the law, and confirmed only 400 years 
 before the law." Now, you and every other reader can- 
 not but know, that I have not said one word respecting ei- 
 ther the year it was made or confirmed. I have said that 
 it was first intimated in the 12th chapter of Genesis and 
 confirmed tMrty years afterwards, and Vv hat is more com- 
 mon amongst men, than for a covenant to be made at one 
 time, and confirmed or ratified at another: and yet you 
 make a loud outcry about my misrepresenting you, but 
 upon what ground the reader has seen. 
 
 And now Sir, as the examination of your strictures on 
 my first letter is closed, (for the stories'of James Ortho- 
 i^ox, and William Biblicus are a proof of nothing but of 
 a want of argument) and as the subject of the means of 
 grace, and of baptism as one of those means will presei*^ 
 itself in my examination of your **strictures" on what is 
 now the third letter; and as we have fallen into a kind of 
 '•tete a tete," or familiar conversation, permit me to ask 
 you in my turn, if you have conducted your "strictures" 
 thus far, either in style or manner, as the laws of the pub- 
 lie investigation of an important and interesting subject 
 demand, and the public had reason to expect. My views 
 on the subject of baptism difter from yours. I presented 
 those views to the public in as clear a manner as I could, 
 and tlie medium through which they were first presented 
 would admit, accompanied by those arguments from the 
 
140 
 
 tvoid of Goil which I tlien thought, and as I stiii thiiik. 
 supported those views. Have you taken up those argu- 
 ments one bj one, and endeavoured to point out their weak- 
 jiess or sophistj/f ? No — jou have not looked at them in this 
 way, but avskedl what you supposed were ensnaring ques- 
 tions on points ivhich I haxl spread broadly before you, and 
 the public^ but I trust that you have nov/ seen that your 
 snares are no stronger than a spider's web. Have you me! , 
 and attempted to overthrow my argument drawn from tiie 
 1 1th chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and the 2d chap- 
 ter of the epistle to the Ephesians, not only for the exis- 
 tence of a church of God in the Jewish nation, but for the 
 klentity of that and the Christian Church. . This, I need 
 not tell you is the pivot on which the whole controversy 
 turnsi and since you have overlooked that argument, am I 
 not warranted in saying, that I liave fuil^i established that 
 point? I. objected to what you deemed your strong argu- 
 ment against infiint baptism — "that in positive institutes 
 we are not authorized to reason what we should do, but 
 iuiplicitly to obey," and — "tiiat positive laws imply their 
 negatives:"' — I objected because it excluded every woman 
 however pious from the table of the Lord. Have you no- 
 ticed my objection and endeavoured to maintain your ar.- 
 ■gument.^ No — you have but once glanced at it in an indi- 
 rect manner in p. 19, when referring to household baptism, 
 but which I shall not now notice, as I have examined that 
 point in tlie second letter. Am I w}^ also warranted to 
 say that you have given up tliat strong irresistible argu- 
 ment as you once considered it, and that it is descended 
 into the tomb of Mr. Bootii, from v/hora you borrowed it, 
 without ackiwwledging the favour? This narrows consid- 
 erably the ground of eontroyersy betwixt us; and it impos- 
 sible that it may be narrov/ed still more, before 1 have iin- 
 l^lied my examination of your "Strictures." 1 shall 
 take my leave of you personally at present, reserving the 
 privilege of again addressing you directly, if I shall think 
 that^he most expeditious way of bringing the controVvirsy 
 to an issue. 
 
 Wep^ 
 
LETTER Yi. 
 
 THAT baptism is the appointed mean for the induc- 
 tion cf adult persons into the church, is a principle com- 
 mon to Baptists and Pedobaptists; but there is a diversity 
 of opinion with respect to the character of those who are 
 to be thus inducted.^ Some Baptists, amongst whom Mr. 
 C. is to be sometimes ranked, (for he is not uniform on 
 this point) contend^ that a living faith in Christ^ is indis- 
 pensably necessary. But how is this to be ascertained by 
 the officers of the church? — By its fruits. .But there ma.y 
 be, and often is, "a form of godliness" where "the power 
 thereof-' is wanttngj and if this faith was designed as the 
 only terms of admission, then the Head of the church would 
 have certainly given thein some infallible standard where- 
 by this might be ascertained 5 but he has not, and tiierefore,. 
 "a spotless church" is at the same time impracticable and 
 chimerical. Aware of this, others tell us that it is a pro- 
 fession of this faith that is oidy required. This also ex- 
 cludes the idea of a spotless church; for professions of faitli 
 in Christ too often turn out to be only mere professions, 
 both amongst Baptists and Pedobaptists. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe, that I consider a 
 profession of faith in Christ as the only Saviour of sinners, 
 accompanied with a sense of guilt, and a respect for, and 
 attendancfe on the preached Gospel, &c. as'the appointed 
 means cf grace, as entitling an adult to the ordinance of 
 baptism; and a profession of a hope that they have "passed 
 from death unto life," as entitling baptized persons to the 
 ordinance of the Supper; for every person who has read the 
 New Testament with care, must have observed a marked 
 distinction with respect to the two ordinances. They 
 cannot but have observed that the. apostles themselves 
 baptized persons of marked depravity on their acknowle- 
 ging their guilt, and that Jesus was the only Saviour of sin- 
 ners, without waiting to. see if this sense of guilt would 
 issue in a hopeful conversion. They must have also ob- 
 served with what caution the apostle Paul in the 11th 
 cha'pter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, and else- 
 where, guards the ordinance of the Supper against those 
 who are ignorant of its nature and design, and have not 
 
142 
 
 experienced that faith in Christ that purifies the heart, nor 
 felt that love (o God that in the very nature of things is ne- 
 cessary for a worthy participation of that feast of love. These- 
 obvious circumstances, cannot I think, be satisfactorily 
 accounted for on any other principle than that the church 
 was designed, not only for uie reception of Godly persona 
 tliat they may become more godly through the means ap- 
 pointed for that purpose, but as the usual birth-place of 
 those whom God designed to regenerate. It v/ili be re- 
 membered that 1 have examined and discussed this point 
 pretty fully in my third letter; and as the principle there 
 laid down and advocated, erases the very foundation of 
 the Baptist system, it was therefore to be expected that 
 Mr. C. would icxamine that principle with the greatest 
 minuteness. This, his fiiends and the public expected 
 from him; but you have seen, that so far is tliis from be- 
 ing the case, he has not noticed the prhicipal arguments 
 at all; and those he has noticed, some he dismisses in a 
 very summary way by saying that they are too absurd to 
 be noticed, and against others he has directed a few point- 
 less shafts of sometimes insipid, and sometimes unmean- 
 ing ridicule. His objections are scattered here and there 
 from the 25th to the 35th page, amidst much irrelevant 
 matter; I shall collect them however as well as I can, and 
 try their weight and force. 
 
 In the letter referred to I have said, that I consider cir- 
 cumcision and baptism as appointed means of conversion 
 for convinced adults, and who have a competent know- 
 ledge of the plan of redemption revealed in the Scriptures. 
 In page 25, Mr. C. calls upon me for a proof of this, and 
 ^'fearlessly affirms, that I cannot produce one instance 
 from the v/hole volume of inspiration of one persori being 
 converted by either circumcision or baptism." This I 
 confess is astonishing, as I have produced both ''precept 
 and precedent," one of which he tells us, is indispensably 
 necessary with respect to ''positive institutes." I produ- 
 ced Col. 2: 11, 12, as a proof that baptism cam.e in the 
 room of circumcision, and that they are both represented 
 in that passage, as means through which what is styled 
 ''the circumcision made without hands" is produced. I 
 produced also John 3: 5. "Except a man be born of water 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom* of 
 God." I produced farther, Acts 2: 38. "Be baptize*! 
 every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
 
143 
 
 receive the gift of the Holy Ghostj" to which I added the 
 woriZs of Ananias to Saul, "xA.rise, and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sinsj" and at the same time i offered rea- 
 sons why I considered those passages as teaching the doc- 
 trine that circumcision and baptism were designed as 
 means of regeneration and conversion. Mr. C. has seen 
 and read all this, and yet he calls upon me for proof. If 
 these passages, and others that might be produced were 
 not a proof of the position in his estimation, it was incum- 
 bent upon him to have shewn it, and that I either misun- 
 derstood, or gave them a false interpretation; and until he 
 does so, I must consider him as unable, and admitting that 
 the interpretation which I have given them is correct. 
 With respect to my being unable "to produce one instance 
 from ^11 the volume of inspiration of one person being con- 
 verted by either circumcision or baptism," I adduced the 
 three thousand who \\*ere baptized on the day of Pentecost, 
 the apostle Paul, and the jailor of the city of Philippi. I 
 did not mention these in general terms, but I assigned the 
 reasons why I think they establish the doctrine which I 
 have advocated in that letter. These reasons were also 
 spread broadly before him, why did he not shew their in- 
 validity if he could? On this he is also as silent as deaths 
 from which I am also wan-anted to draw the conclusion, 
 that he could not, but tries to veil his incompetency under 
 ihe following apostrophe, which every reader will see has 
 not the most distant resemblance nor relation to the point 
 <iiscussed, and which every intelligent reader will per- 
 ceive, is more respectful to Mahomet than to Christ. 
 ^* What ! should a person of a distempered mind in some 
 reverie assert that the name Jesus Christ was equivalent 
 to Mahomet y and denoted the same person, ought we to 
 attempt to disprove it!!" 
 
 As the preceding points involve in them the matter at 
 issue, I might here lawfully close my examination of his 
 strictures en that letter; but to cut off every cavil, I shall 
 examine some other objections though of an inferior note. 
 I have said that when a circumcised Jew, or a baptized 
 (xentile became the subjects of a living faith, that circum- 
 cision became to the one, and baptism to the other, a seal 
 of their interest in the righteousness of faith, as circumci- 
 sion was^o Abraham of old: Rom. 4: 11. In p. 26, Mr. 
 C. thinks this "shocking," and in the style of William Cob- 
 Ijet bids his readers «*mark it well." Why "shocking" — 
 
144 
 
 Becanse they were hot made the subjects of this faith while 
 tincircumcised, or unbaptized. I confess I cannot see 
 why that circumstance should alter the casej and it is by 
 the divine appointment alone, that circumcision, or baptism, 
 or any other ordinance is the external seal of an interest 
 in the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith; but I 
 can clearly see, that to admit that any are *'born again" in 
 the church of God, would not only shock, but overturn the 
 Baptist sj'stem. 
 
 In p. 2?, Mr. G. objects that I have said that some are 
 .moraHy convinced of the truth of Christianity, who are not 
 regenerated; He does not, as is very usual for him, assign 
 any reason for the objection. It is perhaps founded on the 
 words * 'morally convinced," as those v/ords are used by 
 some writers, to denote spiritual illumination. ^ I cUd not 
 use them in that sense, and on reflection I see that the 
 word ''rationally" would have been better, and not liable 
 to misrepresentation; and are theri> not thousands who are 
 rationally convinced of the truths of Christianity, and are 
 yet not regenerated? ' 
 
 In the next sentence he objects that it follows fi'om my 
 view of the subject, "that the unregenerate are comman- 
 tled by God to make use of certain means that they may 
 be regenerated, or those destitute of the Spirit, are to make 
 use of means without the Spirit, to obtain the Spirit." 
 
 Passing by the absurdity of a person praying for. that 
 which he already possesses, I had thought that the con- 
 demned doctrine is clearly, and expressly taught in Eze- 
 kiel 36: 25, 26, 27, connected with the 37th verse. 
 Whether the passage I am about to quote has been accom- 
 plished to the Jews, or is yet to be accomplislied; or wheth- 
 er Mr. C. will admit that the very first words of this pas- 
 sage are prophetical of the mode in which baptism was to 
 be administered when it should be appointed, as I think is 
 the case, alters not the main doctrine taught therein. — 
 ^'Then will I spjinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
 be clean — a clean heart also will I give you — and I will 
 put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my 
 statutes, and yo, shall keep my judgments, and do them.-r 
 Thus saith the Lord God; I will yet for this be inquired of 
 by the house of Israel to do it for them." It is scarcely 
 necessary to observe that we are taught in this passage, in 
 the clearest language, that "to obtain the Spirit," as Mr. 
 €. expresses it, we are to inquire at the Lord for this pur- 
 
145 
 
 ■pcjse — inquire at liim in the way he has Khuself' appointed. 
 i have also thought that Cliiist has taught the same doc- 
 trine in Mat. 6: So. '^Seek ye first the kingdom of God 
 and Ids righteousness; and all these things [temporal bles- 
 sings] shall be added unto you," I have farther thought 
 that Peter taught this doctrine to Simon Magus in Acts 8: 
 22. * ^Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray 
 God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be foi'given 
 thee. *' I have thought that the word "•repent" in this pas- 
 sage does not mean evangelical repentance; for the apostle 
 intimates that he might reperJ in the sense lie uses the 
 word, and "pray God," and urges him to do so, and yet it 
 is a •'perAftjOs," if the thought of his heart might be forgiven 
 him; but forgiveness is promised to evangelical repentance, 
 <ind that re^generating grace is communicated through pray- 
 er, or any other mean appointed for the purpose, depends 
 entirely on sovereign grace. I shall pass over at present 
 the doctrine implied in^Ir. C's objection, as we will meet 
 with, it ag'ain, in a more plain, bold, but not less danger- 
 ous forni. ". 
 
 In support oftiie piinciple that the church was design - 
 -ed to be the usual birth-place of the cliildren of grace, I 
 produced Isaiah 5: 1 — 4, and Luke 13: 6 — 9, where the 
 church is described by both Jehovah and his Son under the 
 ^legory of a vineyard, and the trees planted therein, are 
 represented as planted that they might bring forth fruit in 
 '^lue season, and condemned and threatened, because plan- 
 ted and tended, they did not bring forth fruit; to which I 
 added Psalm 87: 5, where it is said of Zion, or the Ciiurch, 
 *'that this and that man was born in her," and Gal. 4: 26, 
 where "Jerusalem," or the Church, is said to be. "the 
 mother of us all." 
 
 And v/hat now is Mr. C^s answer to these arguments." 
 He never once glances at the two last of these passages, 
 but tries to set aside the force of the two first, by compa- 
 ring the unregenerate sinner to a dead plant, in whicii ev- 
 ery principle of vegetable life is destroyed, whence he 
 draws tke conclusion that as dead plants though planted 
 and dug about and dunged, cannot by such means be 
 brought to live again; so Baptists kno^vv that no means can 
 bring a sinner dead in trespasses and sins to spiritual life; 
 after which he tries to ridicule myself for visiting the fam- 
 iiies of mv congregations, whicii, he compares to "digging 
 14 
 
146 
 
 about, '^ and for catechising the young which he compares 
 to '-'dunging," and then tells me more than once, ''that 
 he understands that not anj of them have bj these means 
 been brought to life." 
 
 That any of their hearers have "passed from ficath un- 
 to life," cannot be known with absolute certainty by any 
 pastor of a congregation. A strong hope however may be 
 entertained by their professing godliness, and their walking 
 ansvv^erably to their profession; and this hope w^e liave of a 
 considerable number baptized by us| and if it is ridiculous 
 to visit the fam.ilies of my congregations for religious con- 
 ference, and to catechise the young persons amongst them, 
 I am only sorry that I am not more ridiculous in Mr. C's 
 eyes than it seems I am on that account. But to return 
 from this digression to the point immediately in hand. Is 
 Mr. Cs comparison of an .unregenerate sinner to a dead 
 tree or plant, just, and scriptural? There is no principle 
 whatever in a dead tree that can be acted upon, by digging 
 about and dunging it; but this is not the case Avith the un- 
 regenerate sinner. Tliough the powers of the soul in the 
 understanding, will, and affections are by sin turned away 
 from God and things divine as the supreme good; yet they 
 are capable of being acted upon, and directed aright by au 
 adequate agent. The Spirit of God is that agent,* and in 
 regenerating the sinner, he acts upon the physical powers 
 of his soul by means suited to his nature as a rational cfi-ea- 
 ture. "By the law (says one apostle) is the knowledge of 
 sin;" "Being born again (says another,) not of corruptible 
 seed, but of incorruptible, bi/ the word of God which liv- 
 etli and abideth forever," and that baptism is one of the 
 means through which what is styled "the incorruptible 
 seed" is conveyed, I have already sliewn, and that the au- 
 thor of regeneration is capable of doing so, v/iil be admitted 
 by all who believe him to be a divine person. Indeed, it 
 requires the same pov/er to implant it in the heart of an 
 adult person whose physical powers are in action, as in the 
 heart of an infant; and we might say greater, because in 
 the adult there is a strong active bias to sin, and or^position 
 to holiness; but still let it be recollected that if any, adultv^ 
 or infants are regenerated, it is entirely oi sovereign and 
 omnipotent grace. 
 
 A^ Mr. Cs comparison of an unregenerate sinner to n 
 dead tree, goes to excuse the sinner for his sinfulness, and 
 which he does in the plainest terms in p. 197 of his book* 
 
147- 
 
 and \vhich he has neither retracted nor explained; and as 
 this consequentij renders the use of all means unnecessary, 
 it is therefore not surprising to hear him say in p. 31, of his 
 Strictures, ''that to enjoin, the forms-of religion," "such as 
 prayer, praise,'- &c. on the unregenerate is "an error of 
 the most pernicious tendency to true godliness"— is "full 
 of deadly poison," and "a relic of Popery, ";j~ and which 
 constrained liini to "pray for a second Lnthet- to lash the 
 Popery of false Protestants, and to expose the legerdeniaia 
 of interested Priests." 
 
 As this, with the preceding sentence, is the only apos- 
 trophe to the ''interested priests" which 1 have observed in 
 his Strictures, it may be excused ; but it is somewhat strange 
 to hear him praying for a second Luther, as the first Lu- 
 ther was not only a Pedobaptist, and waged a long war 
 witii his brethren the Anabaptists of Germany in the IGth 
 century, but also in his writings enjoined it on sinners to 
 attend on the means of grace, tliat they might obtain grace. 
 But we have a greater authority than Luther on this point. 
 Besides the passages already adduced from the word of 
 God, we add the fallowing. "Seek ye the Lord while he 
 inay be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the 
 zvicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man liis 
 thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord and lie will have 
 mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly 
 pardon:" Isaiah 55: 6, 7. Who now are the pereons who 
 in these verses are enjoined to seek the Lord wiiile he may 
 be found, and to forsake their evil ways and unriijhteous 
 thoughts? "The wicked and the unrighteous;" and wlio 
 are characterized in a foregoing verse, as "spending their 
 money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that 
 which satisfieth not." In the 148tli Psalm, the Psalmist- 
 calls upon "the kings of the earth, and all people; prlnceSy 
 and all judges of the earth; both young men, and maidens; 
 old men and children," without specifying dieir character 
 as pious, or not pious, to praise the Lord because of the 
 excellency of his c'laracter. We are told in Mat. 21: 9, 
 tiiat when Christ made his public entry into Jerusalem, 
 ^'the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cri- 
 ed, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is iie that 
 eometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest." 
 Vv^e are also told that when he entered into the temple, 
 thfr children cried, and said, "Hosanna to the Son of Da- 
 vid " And who v.ere those muiiitudes and ttieu- children"^' 
 
148 
 
 ~™Those Jcv.'s wlioin Mr. C. ^classes with tlier Gentiles^ 
 And was Christ displeased with tlieir Hosannas, and did 
 he forbid them as acts^-"fall of deadly poisonj"" and *-perni- 
 cious to the interests of true godliness?'^ No — the chief 
 priests v/ere displeased, but Jesus said, "have ye never 
 read, out of the mcuths of babes thou hast perfected praise." 
 The conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing circum- 
 stances and fact-s is, I think, this; — that it is not a thing 
 *'fuil of deadly poison" and "pernicious to the interests of 
 true godliHess,°'^for sinners to praise God with all the sol- 
 iemnitj they are capable of, for sending a Redeemer into 
 the world, and to ]jray for an interest in the redeaiptiiva 
 purchased by his blood; and to tell them they are not to do 
 so, is in my opinion rank Antinomianism, and is a doctrine 
 *'full of deadly poison,-' and pernicious to the souls of men. 
 That none can be interested m the "great salvation" v/ith- 
 out faith is certain,* but this "faith cometh by hearing, and 
 hearing by the ^^ovd of God;" from wliicli i draw another 
 conclusion, that it is their duty to attend upon the preach- 
 ing of the Gospel, and other appointed means, and that 
 this should be eiiJ4>kied upon them by parents and minis- 
 ters. Hov/ Mr. G. acts in this respect I do not knov/.j 
 but consistently with his principles, he should teii sinners 
 that it is an act ''full of deadly poison,'" to read the word, 
 or hear it preached, or to pray with the publican of old,. 
 "God be merciful to me a sinner." 
 
 . . The matter of an act may be good,; or such as the divine 
 law requires, while the principle that can render it truly 
 acceptable to the lawgiver is wanting. But are we not to 
 do that act, nor perform the required duty until we are 
 sure that v.e are possessed of the proper principle; and is 
 that the way in which we are to expect that principle.^ No 
 — It is our duty to abstain from all manner of e%'il,. and to 
 be conformed to tlie requisitions of the law as far as pos- 
 sible, looking at the same time to God through Christ for 
 the renewing influences of his Spirit, that we may do all his 
 vv^ili with cheerfulness and delight. As well might Mr. 
 C. say, that the husbandman should not plough nor sow, 
 that he may procure bread for himself and family, because 
 God can create and rain down manna from heaven, as he 
 did to the Israelites in tlie wil.dcrness; as that a sinner v/ho 
 has access to the means of grace should not attend on those 
 means, that he may become gracious, until he believes tha't 
 that is his character. There is indeed no necessary con- 
 
149 
 
 :ffexioii betwixt ploughing, and sowing, and reaping; that 
 is, it depends entirely on the divine blessing, on God's giv- 
 ing "the former, and latter rain;" but there is sach a con- 
 nexion bj divine appointment as encourages his hope, and 
 stimulates .to industry. So it is with the sinner. His 
 reading, and hearing, and prajing, do not deserve the en- 
 liglitening and quickening energies ^f the Holj Spirit, nor • 
 has God bound liimself by promise to answer their prayers, 
 as he has bound himself to ansv/er the prayer of faith; stiil, 
 it is through the means of his own appointment that the 
 enriching blessing is to be expected, and is usually obtain- 
 ed; for ''of his own will begat he us, with the word of 
 ^ri^^/i," saith tlie apostle James; "and the publican who 
 would not lift up his eyes to heaven, but smote his breast, 
 saying, God be merciful to me a sinner," "went down to 
 his house justified rather than the Pharisee," who in fact 
 did not, or would not pray at all. 
 
 But as Mr. C. in this page makes a severe attack on Con- 
 stantine the first Christian Emperor of Rome, for enjoining 
 on his army a form of prayer at stated ti mes, he may say that 
 it is praying, praising, and attending on the preaching of the 
 Gospel, when enjoined by civil authority that he condemns. 
 We areas much opposed to such injunctions as he is: but if 
 that was his meaning, what relevancy or bearing has it on the 
 subject v/e are investiga.ting, as the magistracy of our country 
 have no such pov^'^er, and we hope they never shall, as such 
 things have been found rather injurious, than advantageous 
 to the Christian religion; and we w^ould have thought that 
 that was his meaning had he not charged it upon me as an 
 error, that I have sa.id, '-that God has commanded the un- 
 regenerate to make use of certain means tliat they may be 
 regenerated." But you may be ready to ask, vArxt indu- 
 ces him to cry down the use of means in the strong manner 
 he has done? It is the legitimate offspring of his system, 
 for to admit that sinners are regenerated througli the use 
 of means, is a strong argument why they should be intro- 
 duced into the church, which I have shewn is the ustial 
 birth-place of the children of grace, and this he saw erased 
 the very foundation of the Baptist system. 
 
 As a proof that the visible church was designed to em- 
 brace not only those who are born again, but otiiers that 
 tiiey may be regeneratsdHhere; I produced in my fot let- 
 ter Mat. 13: 4r,, where,, the church under the appellation 
 
150 
 
 cf "the kingdom of VieaVen,'' is ccrripared to a '-net cii^Jt 
 iiV(.- nt beii, \^iiich gathered of eveij kinci," ^^''good and 
 Utr.^^ I produced aiso Mat. £8: 1, 2, Vvhere the same 
 IviiiCtiom of heaven, 'jr the church, is compared "-to ten 
 vii^ms, five of which were wise, and live foolish." Mr. 
 C . i as not coutiovertfcd, but hy his silence admitted, that 
 tie af plication of those passages to the church is just and 
 collect, l^cr the purpose of ascertaining the true mean- 
 ing cf the Greek words ^-hiigiois and /legiasamenois^'^ 
 liunsiated ^'-icinis,'^ and cften applied to the members of 
 the churcl., m the New Testament, 1 produced the author- 
 ity of Dr. Campbell who m his dissertations referred to 
 more than once, has proved by a number of examples, that 
 thwse words in the beptuagmt, v/iien apphed to human 
 persons, do not demjte moral purity, but onty that they 
 were set apart for some special purpose — that aithougb 
 those words are frequently used m tiieNew Testament to 
 denote moral purity, yet, whenever they are applied to the 
 members of the Christian churches, they should be under- 
 stood as impoiting. nothing more, than that such persons 
 \\ ere by baptism ^'devoted or consecrated to the service of 
 G.d.' 
 
 Against this, Mr. C. produces the authority* cf Dr, 
 Owen, who he says "teaches, that the apostles always ad* 
 dressed the churches as real, not as projessed saints, for it 
 vouldhave been a violation of Christian charity, to have 
 tliought otherwise j" to which he adds the authority of Mr* 
 V, alker of I'nnity College, Dublin, who in his letters to 
 Alexander Knox, Esq. says that those words with their 
 corresp'onding words in Hebrew, ''mean in the sacred dia- 
 lect, that all believers in Christ are perfectly sanctified, the 
 moment they believe the Gospel." 
 
 \\ hether this be true, or the reverse, it has nothing to do 
 ^^ith the point in hand, and it required no great degree of 
 penetration to see that it did not. The point is; did the 
 apostle Paul for instance, mean that all the members of 
 those churches whom he addressed under the appellation 
 of ''saints," were all "rec/ saints," or born again of the 
 Spirit of God.^ Mr. C. says yes, on the authority of Dr. 
 Cwen as he says, for he has not referred to the book, nor 
 page. If that was the apostle-s meaning, then he must 
 have allowed, and believed that the incestuous person 
 mentioned mbishrst epistle to the Corinthians, and those 
 l^ uo couiitenanced ium m his uenatuial incest, were real^ 
 
arid not professed sairits;'' even v/nile tliey continued iti- 
 sensible of the atrocity of tlie crimej and he must have be-^ 
 iieved, that the chur Clips of Galatia, ay ho, he sajs chapter 
 r»d, were so ''bewitched^''^. as to renounce the doctrine of 
 f.aivation hj grace, and to look iov salvation by the works 
 of the law, were '''real saints" also. And it is worthy of 
 particular notice, that although the apostle addresses the 
 Corintbia.iis as ^'saints:" j^i in his epistle to tke Epheai- 
 ans and.Colossians, Jic adds to the Vord « 'saints,*' and 
 ^ifaithfid,^- or hclieving ^^br&tlirmf^ which is a proof that 
 lie did not believe all the members of those churches to be 
 ^'Tcal saints^" for if he did, tlien, tlie distinction was a 
 mere tautoiogy, and altogether superfluous. * But this is 
 not all. In Isis epistle to the Galatians, he on-iits even the 
 word "saints," and simply says— '^To the.churches of Gal- 
 atia." And why this more r-iarked distinction again? 
 Doubtless, from this cause: that although he had reason to 
 fear that there were few true believers in the church at Co- 
 rinth at the time he v/rote his first epistle to them,* yet he 
 bad reason to fear for the reasons assigned, that there were 
 still fewer in the churches .of Galatia^ notvvithslanding 
 which headdresses them both as churches, and churclies 
 loo of J^sus Christ. It is true that he omits the v^ord 
 *'saints" in his epistles to the churches of the Thessaloni- 
 ans, but he speaks of them in the very beginning of both 
 epistles, as that he had reason to believe that tiiey were 
 generally '-'■real saints," which is not the case inhis'epistle 
 TO the clmrcheB of Galatia. Perhaps it may be said, that 
 the apostle did not know their hearts, and might be mista* 
 ken, as there is often grace in the heart, wiiere there is 
 much defection in faith and in practice. Well— it will 
 be admitted that Crist knows the true state of all church- 
 es, and the hearts of all the members. Through his ser- 
 vant John he wrote and directed a particular epistle to the 
 seven churches of Asia. And what is the character w hich 
 this Searcher of hearts gives us of some of those churches.^ 
 \V ith the exception of ^-a few names," the church of Sar- 
 dis "had a name to live while yet they were dead." The 
 state of the church of Laodicea was still more deplorable. 
 They- said that they were "rich, arid increased in goods, 
 and liad need of nothing," while he tells them that they 
 were "wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind and 
 naked 5" and yet he addresses and styles them as ciuirches 
 as well as those whom he commends— auo die r proof that 
 
15:2 
 
 tlie cliurcli was designed to embrace others besides thosar 
 who were "rea/ saints." 
 
 It would seem that Mr. C. was sensible that the author- 
 ities he has produced, were inadequate to set aside the ju- 
 dicious criticism of Dr. Campbell: and therefore he adds 
 one of his own. which he tells us settles, tlie point. It is 
 il lis— that the phraseology "m Christ,'^ denotes a vital 
 union to hjm^but the apostle addresses the Corinthians as 
 ^^hegiasamcaois en Chrvjto,''^ or '•'sandijiedln Christ,^^ mid 
 i]\Q Phiiippians as ^^hagiois en Christo,'*^ "or '^saints in 
 Christ:' 
 
 Without referring again to the character which the apos- 
 tle himself gives of the church of Corinth in his first epis- 
 tle, I v/ouid reply; that it is admitted that the words "in 
 Christ," mean a vital union to him, bat not always. One 
 text to the point is equal to tv/enty, or an hundred. In 
 John 15: 1, 2, Christ styles himself "the true vine, and his 
 Father the husbandman;" and then adds, "every branch 
 in me 4;hat beareth not fruit he taketh arway; and every 
 branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth, that it may bring 
 fortli more fruit. " Here, tli.e unfruitful branch is express- 
 ly said to be "in Christ,*' as v/ell as i^W?. fruitful branch | 
 and the question now is. hov/ was it "in Christ," or united 
 to him. .The apostle Paul answers the question; "as many 
 of you as have "been baptized into Christ, have put on 
 Christ" — "and as many as have been baptized into Jesus 
 Christ, have been baptized into his death" — that is, they 
 are thereby brought under obligations to live to his glory, 
 and to look for salvation by the merit of his "obedience 
 unto death." This must be his meaning; for Mr. C. him- 
 self vvdll not contend that all who have been baptized even 
 by immersion were true believers; nor will he say that 
 baptism forms a vital union between the baptized unbeliev- 
 er, and Christ. 
 
 From these observation? I tliink it will be admitted that 
 the opinion of Dr. Campbell, that when the apostles addres- 
 sed the Christian churches ihej liad not allusion exclusive- 
 ly to their moral purity, but to the circumstance of their 
 being "devoted, or consecrated to the service of God by 
 their baptism," is correct^ and that they are styled "saiiits," 
 or holy, in the sense that t!ie Jewish nation are styled so, 
 because they were consecrated or set apart to the service 
 of the God of Israel by the ordinance of circumcision. 
 From the whole this appears to me to be the true state of 
 
(he case. The \isible church was erected, is, and wiii 
 be preserved in the world to the end of time, as the place 
 where those whom God designed to save through Christ are 
 usually *^*born again,'' or "born of God." Those who are 
 thus born again are styled in the Scriptures ^'the children 
 of God*' and * 'branches in Christ that bear fruit," with 
 other appropriate appellatives. But as these cannot be 
 distinguished with absolute certainty by men from tliose 
 who ha.ve "the form of godliness, but arc destitute of the 
 power thereof^" both, for the reasons assigned are addres- 
 sed by the apostles by the general appellation of "saints," 
 — of "the church,"— and ''the church of God" "which 
 he hath bought with his own blood," because it cost Christ 
 who is God, the shedding of his blood, to prepare the way 
 whereby even this medium of redemption might be erected 
 in this our world, and especi?Jly whereby jus tiii cation and 
 cternM life might be conferred on those who truly believe 
 in his name. 
 
 Having now finished the examination of the strictures 
 on my third letter, I shall take the liberty of a little direct 
 conversation with Mr. C. himself. And now Sir, yourself 
 being jvfdge, has not what you call my "new ground," and 
 *'new discovery, "produced confusion in the Baptist camp, 
 and disanned you of your former boasted artillery? Is not 
 your having recourse to a pithless and toothless irony, and 
 a bombastical, and sometimes unintelligible apostrophising^ 
 instead of argument against this new ground, a proof that 
 this is the case| and v/ereyounot aware, that every intel- 
 ligent reader v/ould consider it in that point of light.f^ If 
 this "new ground," and "new discovery" is as absurd as 
 you say it is, the refutation of it by argument would have 
 been the easier, and your former artillery would not have 
 been, as it is now, useless; but if it is scriptural, asT be- 
 lieve it is, then, you cannot but see, that one day (tousO: 
 one of your own expressions) it will "tumble your system 
 to the ground." At any rate, is not the ground of con- 
 troversy narrowed still more by this new discovery as you 
 style it .^ In proof of the position assumed in. the beginning 
 of that letter, that baptism was designed as a mean of ad- 
 mission into the church, for awakened inquiring and pray- 
 ing adults who had a competent knowledge of the funda-^ 
 mental doctrines of the Gospel, as well as for the admis- 
 sion of true believers; I examined all the baptisms that are 
 recorded in the New Testament with any degree of detail^, 
 
154 
 
 and shewed, or endeavoured to shew, that there is no evi- 
 dence that a profession of a living fiiith, and evangelical 
 repentance was required of tlie persons baptized, and who 
 appear to have been unrep;enerace. This was not wonder- 
 ing! nor apostrophising! nor dealing in general and in- 
 definite terms, as you have done in your reply, but coming 
 to the point at once; and in this wa}', and this alone can 
 any disputed point be satisfactorily settled. Did you ex- 
 amine those cases also, and endeavour to point out the in- 
 conclusiveness of my arguments? No vSir — ^you have cau- 
 tiously aTioided them, and referred to one or tv/o of them 
 only in general and indistinct terms. Am I not warran- 
 ted then to conclude that you could not overturn those ar- 
 guments; for if you could, your zeal. for the system yoiHK 
 have adopted, and your own character as a disputer and 
 •writer imperiously demanded this from you. I would al- 
 so ask you, if that obloquy, and I must add that blasphemy 
 at least in terms, which the dt fence of your system com- 
 pelled you to pour on the Jewish dispensation, and the Jew- 
 ish theology and ordinances which Christ himself attended 
 upon, is not an evidence that there is something "rotten" 
 — I inust repeat it, — "^rotten to the very core" in t^iat sys • 
 tern that requires such a defence.'* I v/ould hope that you 
 ■would not deliberately blaspheme the character, and doings 
 of the Most High God, and that what you have writt^n^ 
 was written under the deleterious influence of an unscrip- 
 tural system, and the desperate defLMice of a cause v/hich 
 you felt was sinking under your feet; and that you will ob- 
 tain pardon through that blood that was typitied by those 
 very sacrifices which you so much undervalue and despise. 
 I would farther ask you; is n')t your doctrine respecting 
 the means of grace, calculated to hardeti the sinner in hi& 
 sinfulness, and to tell him that he is notblameable, although 
 he aiay neglect all the means appointed for his illuminatioa 
 and conversion.'* Hov/ contrary it is to the tenor of the 
 Old and New Testament, I think I have clearly shewn. 
 You were also led to this by your system: Should it not 
 induce you to examine it more carefully than you have 
 hitherto done? You appear to bj?, ignorant of the obvious 
 distinction between the natural and moral ability and ina- 
 bility of man. Was I to direct you for information on that 
 sul)ject, to any Pedobaptist writer, I suppose you would 
 spurn at the idea of bein<2; instructed by the *^interested 
 priests.*^ Vveli, i will take the liberty of directing you 
 
155 
 
 to a Baptist writer — the modest and acute Fuller, or to his 
 book entitled "The Gospel worthy of all acceptation." 
 But I will direct you to a grea,ter — to Christ, who com- 
 plains of sinners thus, '■'and ye will not come unto me that 
 you naight have life;" the ground of which blame he ex- . 
 presses in these words, "they have eyes but they see not, 
 and ears but they hear not, and understandings but they 
 perceive not. " And \ v/ouid here finally ask you; are not 
 the stories which you have published in your strictures res- 
 pecting some Pedobaptist preachers in the State ©f Ohio 
 truly ridiculous, unworthy of the press, and degrading to 
 any man who publishes such miserable stutF? Admitting 
 them to be true, they are no argument for the Baptist, nor 
 .^et against the Pedobaptist system. But I am persuaded 
 ^that was it worth while to inquire after them they would 
 be found to be false — as false as what you have asserted iji 
 p. SO, that not one of those I have baptized have given any 
 evidence of "'haviiig passed from death unto life." My 
 ovvn hearers would not, could not say so; nor cafi I think 
 that any individual of the Baptist churcli who are amongst 
 us and around us would tell you what hundreds know not 
 to be true; and if true, what had it to do with the question 
 under consideration? If your system cannot be supported 
 but by such means, it is time "to cast it to the moles, and 
 to theb'ats.-' I may pcrha^ps avail myself of the opportu 
 nity of addressing you again. 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 AS Mr. C, affirms *Hhat immersion is the onli/ bap-' 
 lism," and as I have called in question in my fourtli letter 
 the truth of this position, which involves in it the sweep- 
 ing consequence of unchurching all the churches in the 
 world,- the Baptist church excepted; it was therefore to be 
 expected that he would put forth all his strength, and sup- 
 port this position bv arguments strong and clear. The 
 substance of all he has said on this point, so very interes- 
 ting in itself, may be reduced to the following items, as 
 you may see by reading from the 36th to the 43d page of' 
 his strictures — That his friends and followers *'can per- 
 fectly decide from the Nev/ Testament, that the Eunuch 
 was baptized by immersion, because it is said tliat *''He and 
 Philip went both down into the water, and came up out of 
 the ivater^'' — that baptizo signifies to immerse, and nothing 
 else, for if it does not. tiien the inspired w'riters "have 
 used ambiguous or equivocal words that have no decided 
 meaning;" whereas Paul says, "w« use great plainness of 
 speeclr' — that I have not produced, nor cannot produce 
 any instance from "authors sacred or profane" where the 
 word is used "to signify to pour or sprinkle;*' after which 
 he closes the whole with a detailed list of Pedobaptist and 
 Baptist vvriters who use the word to signify to immerse, 
 whence he concludes *'that 1 am condemncdyhy ihy own 
 haders and friends, and his opponents themselves being 
 judges." p. 43. 
 
 It is unnecessary to say any thing more respecting the 
 baptism of the Eunuch, than I have said in the fourth let- 
 ter. If the words ''they went down both into the water, 
 both Philip and the Eunuch" signify immersion, as Mr. C. 
 says they do, and as he tells us Baptists understand these 
 words,, then, as I have already remarked in that letter, 
 Philip must have been immersed as well as the Eunuch — 
 the baptizer,' as well as the baptized. Instead of appeal- 
 ing to iS\^ prejudices and prepossessions of his friends, Mr. 
 C. should have shewn if he could, that such a consequence 
 does not follow from those words, as he and they under- 
 stand tliem. 
 
 Witli respect to the affirmation tliat baptizo must signi- 
 
157 
 
 fy "to immerse*' and nothing else, otherwise tlie apostle 
 could not say that he used "great plainness of speech," it 
 is truly silly; and is a proof, either that he is embarked m 
 an indefensible cause, or that he is unacquainted with the 
 language of the sacred Oracles. I have had occasion to ob- 
 serve more than once, what every intelligent and reflecting 
 reader must liave observed; that from the poverty of words 
 in every language, and in the Greek language copious as 
 it is, the same word is used in different acceptations, and 
 sometimes in meanings diametrically opposite to each oth- 
 er. I have shewn in the foregoing letters that the Greek 
 words translated faith^ repentance, sancfificafion and sal- 
 vation are used in the sacred Oracles in different mean- 
 ings, or that in some places, they are used in a more, or 
 less extended sense than in others; and Mr. C. might as 
 well say, that the inspired penmen did not use *'great 
 plainness of speech" when they used those words, as when 
 they used the words hapiizma and haptizo. The fact and 
 truth is, that the v/riters of the New Testament used these 
 words in the sense in which they had been used in the 
 Septuagint, whence they are borrowed, leaving it to the 
 reader, as every writer must do, to determine from the 
 nature of the subject they discussed, and from other cir- 
 cumstances in which of all the received meanings, they 
 were to understand the words they used. 
 
 But Mr. C. tells me p. 39, that I have not produced, 
 and cannot produce an instance from either "the New Tes- 
 tament," nor yet from "classical writers," where the words 
 bapto and bcfptizo are used to signify "to pour, or sprinkle." 
 
 Every person vv^ho has read the fourth letter must be aa- 
 tonished at the first of these assertions, and which I will 
 notice in the proper place. Classical authority I did not 
 produce, as I then thought, and still think, "tliat if a doc- 
 trine is to be ascertained by the meaning of the vv'ord that 
 conveys it, it must be by the meaning which the inspired 
 penmen attach to it, and not that of heathen writers." 
 However, as Mr. C. demands it, and as it may possibly 
 be the means of rescuing him from his present error; antl 
 at any rate must silence him on this point, I will give him 
 classical authority. I expect that he will admit, that Ho- 
 mer is good classical authority, and in the poem of the 
 battle of the frogs and mice, he says of one of the wounded 
 frogs, '^ebapteto de aimati limne pSrphureo^^ — *''the lake was 
 15 
 
15S 
 
 hesprinkkd, or besmeared with his purple blood. '* Wheth- 
 er Homer v/as the author of that poem, or not, is a matter 
 of no consequence in the present inquiry. It is admitted 
 to be very ancient, and in the above quotation bapto the 
 very root of bapiizo^ must mean to sprinkle, or besmearj 
 for Mr. C. daring as he is in his positions and assumptions, 
 will not pretend to say that the lake was immersed in the 
 blood of a frog. Mr. Sydenham quotes an oracle as giving 
 the following directions. ''■Asko baptize; dunai de toi on 
 ihemis estP'' — '-Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful 
 to immerse, or plunge him wlioUy in water." It is scarcely 
 necessary to obsen'e that baptize in this passage is used in 
 opposition to immerse or plunge^ and therefore cannot 
 mean, the same thing. Other instances of bapto and bap- 
 tizo being used by very ancient Greek writers, to signify 
 to sprinkle or besmear^ are in readiness should Mr. C. ever 
 call for them in a proper manner. Those I have now pro- 
 duced, with others of a similar import, have been frequent- 
 ly produced by Pedobaptist writers, and should have set- 
 tled the question with respect to classical authority, and 
 prevented the bold and confident assertion that no such aur 
 thority can be produced. 
 
 But to return to Mr. C's extraordinary assertion that I 
 have not produced one instance from the New Testament, 
 where '^baptizo^^ is used to signify "to pour, or sprinkle," 
 Has he forgotten that I have examined all the baptisms in 
 the New Testament that are recorded with any degree of 
 detail, and that the result of that examination was; that in 
 every instance, the circumstances connected with them, 
 combine in declaring, that the ordinance must have been 
 administered by affusion, and not by immersion. This 
 brought the controversy at once, '-to the law, and to the 
 testimony;" and where I am persuaded, it must, and will 
 be brought when it is finally settled. Has Mr. C. exami- 
 ned those passages also, and endeavoured to shew that my 
 conclusions were deduced from false premises; and that all 
 those baptisms must have been administered by immersion? 
 His own character as a writer, tlie expectation of his 
 friends, and the defence of his system imperiously deman- 
 ded this also from bim;but I need not tell you, that he has 
 not even glanced at one of them, the baptism of the Eu- 
 nuch excepted, and what a poor and feeble reply he has 
 made to my observations on that interesting baptism, you, 
 ^nd other readers have seen. 
 
159 
 
 I might reasonably rest the question here, until Mr. C 
 shall shew, that the conclusions I liave drawn from those 
 baptisms are incorrect. But I will do more. I will now 
 prci^enthim with a few more passages from the New Tes- 
 tament, wherein baptisma must necessarily mean "a pour- 
 ing out,"' or *»sprinkling," and hapiizo "to pour out," or 
 -sprinkle. " _ The first wiiich I shall adduce is Heb. 9 : 10, 
 already considered for another purpose. "Which stood 
 only in meats and drinks, and divers ivashmgs (baptismom) 
 iind carnal ordinances hnposed on them until the time of 
 reformation. " Here, the washings or baptisms prescribed 
 by the Levitical ritual are referred toj and it is scarcely 
 necessary to observe, that although some of these washings 
 required the immersion of tlie whole body, yet others of 
 them prescribed only the spnnhUng of water on the per- 
 sons to be washed, whether priests or people. And it is 
 worthy of particular notice, that in the 13th verse the apos- 
 tle expressly mentions the mode of washing by sprinklings 
 as one of those divers washings or baptisms. '*For if the 
 blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the 
 flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ (v/hich is 
 elsewhere styled "the blood of spj'inJding,^^) who through 
 the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
 purg;eyour conscience from dead works to serve the living- 
 God." 
 
 In 1 Cor. 10: 2, it is said of the Israelites, "that they 
 v/ere all baptized febaptizcmto) unto Moses, in the cloud, 
 and in the sea." Whatever the baptism unto Moses meant^ 
 here v/as a baptism however, without immersion. There 
 was indeed immersion on the occasion, but it was of the 
 Egyptians, for we are told that the children of Israel 
 '* walked on drf/ land in tlie midst of tlie sea, and the wat- 
 ers v/ere as a Vv^all unto them, on their light hand, and on 
 their left;" their baptism tlien, must have been by the 
 sprinkling of Avater upon them from the cloud, or from the 
 spray of the sea. I have indeed heard it alleged that this 
 was a baptism by immersion, as the cloud was above them 
 and the waters of the sea on each side. But this like many 
 other fanciful theories and interpretations, has a very ma- 
 terial defect. Immersion signifies a being literally over- 
 whelmed in, and wetted with water, but the Israelites 
 walked vn dry landj nor is it said that they were unmerstd 
 in the cloud, nor could it be so, as the cloud was above 
 
160 
 
 them. 1 will only add, that whatever i}i?d baptism meant;, 
 or was intended to prefigure, the little children and infants 
 were baptized as well as the men andVomen. 
 
 There is another passage, 1 Peter 3: 21, already addu- 
 ced, in wliich baptism, and Christian baptism too, is men- 
 tioned, but which cannot mean the application of water by 
 immersion, but by some other mode. '-Ei^ht souls (says 
 the apostle) were saved by tvater.^^ "The like figure 
 whereunto even baptism, (bapiisrna) doth also now save 
 us." In this passage the apostle evidently drav/s the 
 comparison, betwixt the temporal salvation of Noah and 
 his family hy water in the ark (probably a type of the 
 church) and baptismal water, as a mean of spiritual salva- 
 tion. Now, hov/ were Noah and his family saved by ivat- 
 er. Was it by being immersed in it? No — that was tlie 
 case with the antediluvians who despised the church of God 
 in the family of Noah; but by being borne up by it; and 
 during the time they were in the ark they were doubtles.^ 
 sprinkled like the Israelites in the Red 8ea, by the spray 
 of the mighty ocean tumbling and breaking around them. 
 This, as it respects the mode of applying v/ater in baptism, 
 must be the apostle's point of comparison, and to apply it 
 to immersion is contrary to truth, and to fact; or to under- 
 stand the word baptism in this passage as meaning immer- 
 sion destroys the comparison altogether; for it was the an- 
 tediluvians' who were immersed, as were the Egyptians in 
 the Red Sea. 
 
 I shall mention another passage, Luke 12: 50, wherein 
 baptism is mentioned, but where there can be no allusion 
 to immersion. '^1 have a baptism (baptisma) to be bapti- 
 zed with, and how am I straitened until it be accomplish- 
 ed." By the baptism in this place, some commentators 
 understand the tears and blood which Christ shed during 
 the time of his scourging and crucifixion; and others those 
 vials of divine wrath that were poured out upon him when 
 suffering for guilty men. But understand this baptism as 
 having reference to either of these circ^rmstances, or to 
 both, the most fruitful imagination cannot conceiveof any 
 thing like immersion; for Christ was not, could not, be im- 
 mersed in his own tears and blood, and was only sprink- 
 led or besmeared by them; and the vials of divine v.rath 
 are represented in the Scriptures, as being "poured out,*' 
 bui no where is it said, that any were immersed in those: 
 vials. See Jeremiali 10: 25. Revelations 16: 1. 
 
161 
 
 i shall only adduce another passage* 1 Cor. 12: IS, in 
 which the word "baptized-' cannot mean "immersed,",, 
 but the allusioft must be to pouring out, or sprinkling. 
 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized (ebaptisthemen) in- 
 to one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, or whether 
 we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into 
 one Spirit. " That by the "one body" in this passage, the 
 apostle meant true believei*s who are elsewhere styled "the 
 body of Christ;" and that by the "one Spirit" he meant the 
 Holy Spirit, will not I think be controverted. But he 
 says, that true believers are all baptized into this "One 
 Body," by this "One Spirit." How? — By his regenera- 
 ting influences— "unless a rnan be born of water, and of the 
 Spirit^ he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " And 
 how are believers said to be regenerated by the Spirit's in- 
 fluences? Is it by being immersed in those influences? So 
 it would be, according to Mr. C; for he tells us that bap- 
 tizo signifies to immerse, and nothing else, and should 
 liave been always so translated. But is there such a phra- 
 seology as being immersed in the Spirit's influences? — No, 
 —r-The phraseology is, "I will pour out my Spirit;" and 
 this in the passage is styled "being baptized by the one 
 Spirit into one body." I have alluded to this very consid- 
 eration in my fourth letter, as an argument for baptism by 
 affusion and not by immersion. In p. 43, Mr. C. replies 
 by telling me, "that a child mightputit to silence by ask- 
 ing me, "if baptism signify sprinkling, how could a per- 
 son be said to be sprinkled into the Holy Spirit?" It may 
 suffice to say, that there is no such phraseology in Scrip- 
 ture as persons being immersed iiito the Spirit, or his in- 
 fluences, m- sprinkled into the Spirit, or his influences. 
 The phraseology is, "to sprinkle ivith, or upon.^^ "I. will 
 sprinkle clean water iiponjou, and ye shall -be clean — and 
 I will put my Spirit within you;" and how the Spirit is 
 put within us, Jehovah tells us in another place — "I will 
 pour water upon hiin tha^ is thirsty and floods upon the dry 
 ground; I will pour out my Spirit upon thi/ seed, and my 
 blessing upon thy offsprings and they shall spring up as 
 among the grass, and as willows by i}:^^ water courses." 
 To prevent misrepresentations, it may be necessary to ob- 
 serve here, that I have not adduced the foregoing passages 
 as a proof that Christian baptism is to be administered by 
 affusion. That, I have already done in the fourth letter^ 
 •*I5 
 
162- 
 
 and the last of these passages- when duly considered Is also 
 fall to the point. I have adduced tliem only that the rea- 
 der may see that notwithstanding Mr. C's repeated and 
 confident assertions, that bapthma and haptizo always sig- 
 nify "immersion," and to ''immerse-' in the Nev/ Testa- 
 ment, yet I trust, I have shewn that nothing is more con- 
 trary to truth and to fact. 
 
 h\ the fourth letter I produced the authority of Schleus- 
 jsER confessedly one of the ablest Lexicogi^aphers of ancient 
 or modern times, as t^a}ing; that although baptizo is used 
 v/ith some frequency in Greek authors to signify 'Ito im- 
 merse and dye, to dip into water, yet in this sense it is 
 never used in the Greek Testamentl!'^ Mr. C. is very an- 
 gry D.t this, as was to be e:spected, and in p. 59, demands 
 his autiwri ty for saying so. It n^ight suffice to say that it; 
 is not to be expected that in a Lexicon every place where 
 the word is used in the New Testament; Vv^ouldbe partic- 
 ularly mentioned, and the reasons assignefl for its proper 
 or necessary meaning in that place. This, however has 
 been done by Dr. Rice of Richmond in the first number of 
 liis Pamphleteer, which we recommend to the perusal of 
 all who wish for information on that subject, and to none 
 more than to Mr. C. and his fnend PhiTalethes — it may do 
 them good. The words "baptism^' and "baptize," as he 
 tells us in the close of his pamphlet, occur ninety times m, 
 the New Testament. "Of these sixty five are wholly in^ 
 determinate; sixteen on the whole fevour the m.ode by 
 sprinkling or affusion; two or three of these make it mor- 
 ally certain that the ordinance w as thus administered; and. 
 of the remaining nine passages, not one of them, nor ail to- 
 gether, liowever they may have been relied on, prove that 
 bapti'sni was administered by immersion." The late Mr» 
 J. P. Campbell as I have already obsei-ved in the fourth 
 letter has examined all tlie places where these words occur 
 in the Septuagint, and proved I think incontrovertibly, that 
 their primary meaning in that translation is, "to smear, 
 to tinge, to wet with some liquid;" and that to immerse is 
 only a secondary meaning: this, we also recommend to the. 
 perusal of Mr. C. and hfs friend. Mr. C. has said more 
 than once that the Pedobaptist clergy in general, and my- 
 self in particular have "taken away tne key of knowledge" 
 en tins important subject, and in p. 39, he requests me to 
 tell him where he may find it. I cheerfully comply with 
 his reque^^t; and I now tell him, that it is not to be found in 
 
i63 
 the writiiio-S' of either Booth, or the Socmian Robiksg?- 
 
 but in tliose passages of the New Testament that speak ct 
 baptism as an ordinance of the Christian dispensation^ and 
 
 aright, I have no doubt of his soon changing^ his present 
 opinions. Near twenty years ago my own mind was agi- 
 tated respecting this subject, and I was once not far from 
 embracing the same opinions; but by studying those pas- 
 sages in the original Language, and reflecting as closely as 
 I could on the subject, I was led to embrace those which 1 
 now advocate. 1 placed this key before him in my fourth 
 letter, but either, he did not see it, or found that it would- 
 not suit the lock constructed by BoaTH and Robinsox, 
 and therefore the cabinet is still to him unopened. If he 
 ^^-ould bear it, I v/ould advise him to make anotlier triak 
 it might be profitable to him; and certainly more honoura- 
 ble, than to be publishing indiscriminate abuse on tlie Pe- 
 dobaptist clergy, as ^-interes led priests,-' * 'who have taken 
 awav the key of knowledge from the people. " 
 
 As for the detailed list of Pedobaptist writers vrhich 
 Mr. C. has given us, in pp. 40 — 43, from Booth's. "Pe- 
 DOBAPTisM ExAMiKED,*' and who^ he says acknowledge 
 that hapihma signifies immersion, and baptizo to immerse^ 
 it is nothing whatever to the point at issue— it is mere so- 
 phistry, and as I will shew, something worse than sopliistry:- 
 If I was worthy to be ranked with such respectable company^ 
 I should have no objections that he would add my name to 
 the list, for I liave no m here said that baptizo signines to 
 sprinkle onlv, nor is there any thmgin the preceding let- 
 ters whence" such an inference can be legitimately drawn. 
 That those words are used by Greek writers to signify to 
 wash by immersion is acknowledged by Pedobaptist wri= 
 ters, but they contend that the Greek writers use it to sig- 
 nify to wash by other means,* and for this tliey have the 
 authority of the best Lexicograpliers and critics, both an- 
 cient and modern. Besides those already adduced, Schre- 
 velius defines those words thus— "iopfisw^, baptitma, bap- 
 iY^m''-J'-bfmtismt)s^ JoHg, washing— 5«/)x2;:ro., baptizo, to 
 baptize, mergo, to plunge, lava, to wash;" and Stockius, 
 one of Mr. C's own authorities, and to whom i have had late- 
 ly access, gives hvo, to wash, tivgo, to tinge, as the first, 
 
164 
 
 and immergo, to immersev as the secondary meaning of 
 haptizo. Amongst the Pedobaptist aiithorities adduced by 
 Mr. C. we see the name of Dr. Owen, who, he says, in 
 his posthumous works p. 581, defines the word thus, "to 
 dip, to iiyQ, to wash, to cleanse." Now, this is just what 
 Pedobaptists say, that altliough it is used by Greeic writers 
 to Signify to wash by immersion, yet it is used also to signify 
 to wash by other means: and according!}'' Dr. Owen in his 
 exposition of Hcb. 9: 10, tells us, that '^baptism is any kind 
 of washing by dipping or sprinkling," It may not be 
 amiss however to observe he^e, that .there is an omission 
 or rather suppression of the Doctor's words as quoted by 
 Mr. C. whether by him or Mr. Booth, from.whom he bor- 
 rowed it, I do not know, nor is it material. Mr. C. quotes 
 Dr. Owen as saying, "that no honest man who under- 
 stands the Greek tongue can deny the word to signify to 
 dipj'" whereas the Doctor's words are, "no honest man 
 who understands the Greek tongue can deny the word ta 
 signify to wash as well as to dip." And not only is this 
 the case, but tlie same great critic and erudite scholar 
 says in the same place, that Hesychius, Julius Pollux,- 
 Phavorinus and Eustachius, critics of high reputation, ren- 
 der the word "to wash" — that Scapula and Stephanas 
 render it by lavo or abhio, which Latin words signify to 
 wash alsoj and that Suidas renders it by madefacio, lavo^ 
 abluo,purgo, raundo, all of which signify to wash by other 
 means than by immersion 5 and I know of no other means 
 than by pouring or sprinkling water on whatever is to be 
 washed. We also see amongst Mr. C's Pedobaptist autho- 
 rities the names of Calvin, Beza, Mastricht, and Leigh, 
 who he says acknowledge in their writings that baptizo 
 signifies to dip. This is not denied, but they also say that 
 it signifies to sprinkle. " Thus Calvin in his Institutes 
 vol. 3, p. 343, ed. N. Haven, says, '^whether the person 
 baptized be wholly immersed", and whether thrice or once, 
 or whether v/ater be only poured or sprinkled upon him is 
 of no importance." Beza as quoted in Reed's Apology, 
 says, "Tiiey are rightly baptized who are baptized by 
 sprinkling.*^ Mastricht as quoted by the satne. Says, 
 '•Baptism signifies ^washing, either by sprinkling or dip- 
 ping." To the same purpose is his qubtati^n from Leigh; 
 "Baptism is such a* kind of washing as is bv plunging; and 
 yet it is taken more largely for any kind of washing, even 
 where there is no dij^ping citalh^^ 
 
165 
 
 Such, are some of the Pedobaptist authorities which Mr; 
 C. has produced, for t^\e purpose of proving that bapiizo sig-- 
 nifies to dip, and nothing else. This must be his design, for 
 SiTij acknowledgement from them that would not amount to 
 this could be of no service to him in the present contro^ersj. 
 If the limits assigned to this letter would admit, and if we had 
 access to all the other authorities he has brought forv/ard, 
 the result we are persuaded would be the same. Indeed, 
 the very consideration that they v/ere Pedobaptists proves, 
 that their opinion with respect to the meaning of the word 
 baptizo was the same as Br. Owen's, Calvin's, Beza's^ 
 Mastricht's, and Leigh's^ unless we believe that they were^ 
 the very worst of men, who practised in divine things con- 
 trary to their belief—but that v/as not their charactere 
 The list which Mr. C. has given us has the air of exten- 
 sive reading, and great research, and with some will give 
 him the character of a very learned man. But if my re- 
 collection serves me right, it is transcribed if not altoge- 
 ther, yet pretty generally, fi'om Mr. Booth's "Pedqbap- 
 TisM Examined," but he has not Mr. Booth's candouri 
 for Mr. Booth as quoted by Mr. Reed in his apology p. 
 110, "desired his reader to observe that no inconsiderable 
 part of these learned authors, have asserted, that the 
 v\^ord baptism signifies pouring or sprinkling as well as 
 immersion. " Then, my opponent Mr. Booth being judge, 
 I am not '^condemned by my own leaders and friends," 
 as Mr. C. says I ami but in the m.eantime, where is Mr. 
 C's candour as a v>^riter, and honesty in quoting other 
 men's writings.^ 
 
 Some of my readers may now be ready to ask; why does 
 Mr. C. contend as tenaciously as he does, that baptizo 
 signifies to dip, and to dip only; and why does he resort to 
 means not the most honorable for the support of that posi- 
 tion.^ The quantity of water applied to the body in that 
 ordinance cannot of itself have any efficacy on the person 
 baptized, as the efficacy depends entirely on sovereign 
 grace. The ordinance of the Supper is styled ^'deipnon., 
 a word that signifies a full meal, and ''a great supper," 
 Luke 14: I63 and Baptists themselves do xjot contend, 
 that in celebrating that ordinance, the communicant should 
 eat a full meal; and admit, that vv'here there is a believing 
 and contrite state of heart, the communicants "shew forth 
 the Lord's death," and hold communion with Christ and 
 one another; although they eat only a small piece of bread,. 
 
and drink but a small quantity of wine.— -Why it may he 
 risked all this; and how is this strange and inconsistent con- 
 duct to be accounted for? In this way — If the word in Greek 
 writers is used to signify to Vv'ash by other means than by 
 dippiag, as I have shewn from the highest authority ancient 
 and modeniois the case; and if it is used in the New Testa- 
 inent to signify washing by pouring or sprinkling, as I have 
 also shewn is the fact: then, the Baptist system as it res- 
 pects this point, '-''tumbles to the p;roundy^ and Mr. C's po- 
 sition that "^immersion is the only baptism," is not only un- 
 S€riptural, but comes under the character of what tlie apostle 
 Phil. 3: 2, styles "the concision," or a position that instead 
 of uniting, lias a tendency to cuf, and rend the church, and 
 of which he cautions us to beware. — '^Beware of the conci- 
 sion: For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the 
 Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in 
 the iiesh." It is true, that the caution was given with 
 respect to the Judaizing teachers who enjoined circumci- 
 sion as w^eli as baptism on the Gentile converts; but it is 
 applicable to all who teach and enjoin systems that tend 
 to ct(t and rend ''the Body of Christ," or his church. It 
 may not be amiss here to observe, that there are two other 
 Greek words duno, and dupto, from the latter of which 
 comes our English word '''dip,^^ and which are used to sig- 
 nify to immerse and immerse only, and it cannot but have 
 struck every reflecting person who is acciuaintcd with the 
 Greek tongue, that if baptism was to be administered by 
 immersion, and by immersion only; and if immersion was 
 necessary to constitute the validity of baptism; then, Christ 
 who appointed this ordinance would have certainly used 
 one or both of these v/ortls, and not a word that signifies to 
 wash by both dipping, or pouring or sprinkling water on the 
 thing or person to be washed. If it is said that ^Hluno'^ is 
 used sometimes to signify "to drown," or ''to sink to the 
 bottom like a stone," this is however not the case vvith 
 "<:/?//>fo;" it simply signifies "to dip," and to dip only. 
 Tliese observations she-w the silliness of one of Mr. C's ar- 
 guments in p. 37, for administering baptism by im.mersion; 
 that as the Greek words 'h'cdno^^ and ranlizo signify to 
 sprinkle or asperse, and bapfo or bcmtizo, to dip, plunge, 
 or immerse; nov/ as in English v^'e never use "to dip," to 
 signify the same as "to sprinkle," so never -does rcnno in 
 Greek signify bapto, nor hapto, rm?20." It is enough t6 
 say to this- ludicrous argument^ partly in prose^ and partly 
 
167- 
 
 Hi vei'se, that it is- founded on what logicians call, ^^petitio 
 priiicipii,^^ or begging the question. It takes for granted 
 that bapto and baptizo signify to dip, and to dip onlyi but 
 I have shewn from both sa<:red and profane writers that 
 that is not the case. 
 
 Before I close the examination of Mr. C"s strictures on 
 this point, it may be necessary to observe that when the 
 heathen Greek writers used baplisma to denote washing 
 by immersion, they meant a literal washing from contracted 
 filth, but when it is used in the New Testament to denote 
 the initiating ordinance int<5 the Christian church, it is used 
 figuuftiively, to denote the removal of guilt and moral pol- 
 lution by the blood and Spirit of Christ, the former of which 
 is styled "the blood of sprinkling*' and the latter '>a pour- 
 ing out," or sprinkling clean water upon us that we might 
 be cleans and this accounts for its being used not in its 
 .primary, but secondary sense, that it might be a fit emblem 
 of the all -important things to which it directs the attention 
 of the person baptized. I have sometimes thought that an 
 inattention to this circumstance is what has led Mr. C. 
 and other Baptist v/riters to contend so tenaciously as they 
 do, for baplism, by immersion. Because the primary mean- 
 ing of the word is washing by immersion in some Greek 
 writings, they have tlience drawn the conclusion that it 
 should be so understood v/hen denoting the initiating or- 
 dinance into the churcli, without reflecting that it is not 
 used in a literal but figurative sense. But as I have alrea- 
 dy observed, the point in dispute must be finally settled by 
 the meaning which the inspired penmen have affixed to it; 
 and what that meaning is, I have endeavoured to ascertain 
 by an examination of the baptisms recorded in the New 
 Testament. • M r. C . may now, if he pleases, bring forward 
 all tiie instances he can collect from Greek writers who 
 use the word baptizo to denote to wash by immersion, and 
 all tlie other instances which Mr, Booth has collected from 
 Pedobaptist writers of every denomination who have said 
 the same thing: provided he vv^ill not suppress or omit their 
 words as he has done those of Dr. Owen 5 and when he has 
 done this, Presbyterian Pedobaptists will say to him as 
 Chillingv^orth once said to the Roman Catholic writers^ 
 respecting the Bible. ''Tlie Bible, tlie bible^ (said that 
 great man) is the religion of Protestants:" — So say we, 
 The New Testament, the New Testam^ent, is the creed of 
 
168 
 
 Fresbyterian Pedobaptists, both v/ith respect to the sub- 
 jects, and mode of administering the ordinance of baptism. 
 That the Nev/ Testamsnt'when examined in the original- 
 language, speaks of baptism as administered bj affusion, 
 I trust, I have proved in the fourth letter. And indeed, 
 this was to be expected from the greater spirituality, sim- 
 plicity, an-d mildness of the Christian dispensation of grace* 
 Although I admit that baptism administered by immersion 
 is valid, as the mode of applying the water is only a cir- 
 cumstance, and enters not into the essence of the ordi- 
 nance, yet I may confidently say, that it is not suited like 
 affusion to all climates, to all ages, and to {jersons'under 
 all possible circumstances. Baptism administered by im- 
 mersion, in the mildest climate, would be attended with 
 immediate death, to persons labouring under some diseas- 
 es^ and reduced to great debility of body. But it can be 
 administered by affusion or sprinkling, with the greatest 
 safety to sucli, in the coldest climate, and in the coldest 
 season of the year — under the Arctic or Antarctic circles, 
 as well as under the Equator. I shall select as an exam- 
 ple the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. When Ananias was 
 sent by the Lord Jesus, for the jiurpose of baptizing him, 
 and that he might receive his sight, Saul had neither eat, 
 nor drank for the three preceding days. Now, would it 
 have been safe, to have led hiii^i away under those circum- 
 stances, to a river, and immerse him in cold water, or is 
 there the most distant hint that that was the case? On the 
 contrary, we are told, that after he received his sight, 
 Ananias said unto him "•anastas baptised,,''^ which literally 
 means, '^standing up, be haptized;^^ and this, as already ob- 
 served is an instance of a baptism, that could not be ad- 
 ministered by immersion, for v/e are expressly told that he 
 was '-^standing,'''' at the time the ordinance was administer- 
 ed unto him. It may not be amiss to observe, that the 
 translation v.hich I have given to the participle "«/i«.s7«s," 
 is not forced, for the purpose of supporting a particular 
 point, for the same word is translated in the same manner 
 in Ac^s 1: 15. ''•Anastas Petros,^^ '*Peter stood up," or 
 **Peter standinj: up," and in chapter 5: 34, it is also said, 
 ^'ancfsfas de ih^Pharisaios,'^ — Then there stood up a cer- 
 tain Pharisee, &c. 
 
 I shall close this letter by just farther observing, that in 
 Acts 15:10, Peter styles circumcision "a yoke of bondage," 
 which neither the Jews of that day, "nor their fathers were 
 
169 
 
 able to bear;" and it was doubtless a part of that ''haad- 
 writing of ordinances," which Paul speaking in the name 
 of the Jewish nation says, **was against us, which was con- 
 rary to us,*' but which he tells tliem, Clu-ist "took out*of 
 tiie way, hailing it to his cross:" Col. 2: 14. But why was 
 t'ircumcision such a *'yoke of bondage" to the Jews.'^ 
 Doubtless, because the administration of it^ was attended 
 with pain 5 but every person must see, that as '*a yoke" 
 there is no comparison betwixt the administration of .that 
 ordinance, and baptism administered by immersion in nor- 
 thern climates, to persons labouring under dangerous mal- 
 adies^- for painful as circumcision was, it was not attended 
 with danger to the life of the subject; but not so with bap- 
 tism administered by immersion under the circumstances 
 which I have mentioned. Let it not be said, that we are 
 to expect the divine protection in the discharge of incum- 
 bent duty, although life may be endangered or lost, in the 
 disclmrge of that duty. The question is; are we to suppose 
 that Christ v*'ho came into the .world, not to abridge the 
 privileges of his church, by casting out those h^. had once 
 planted therein, but to enlarge those privileges: and not to 
 add to, but to take away those burdens which he had im- 
 posed upon her, for v.ise reasons, for a certain time, would 
 appoint an ordinance binding '*on all nations," the atten- 
 dance on which in many cases, would require the miracu- 
 lous interposition of his providence for the preservation of 
 life, when tJie end to be answered tliereby, could be obtain- 
 ed ^vithout that miraculous interposition. I shall only add, 
 that I do not offer the preceding observations as a positive 
 proof that baptism is to be administered by allusion or 
 sprinkling. That is to be ascertained by the New Testa- 
 ment, and to that I have appealed, and do appeal; but they 
 are certainly entitled to serious consideration, as they go 
 to shew, that to administer that ordinance by affusion is 
 agreeable to the established order of nature and fitness of 
 things, but to administer it by immersion, would in many 
 instances, be contrary to that order and fitness. From 
 the whole, you will now judge, whether ' 'immersion is the 
 only baptism," and thatbaptisni administered by affusion 
 is null, and void; and consequently, that there never was, 
 nor is, a church of God in the world, but the Baptist church. 
 We will inquire into the origin of that church in the next 
 letter. 
 
 16 
 
LETTER VllL 
 
 TO wipe oflf, as he tells us, '-Hhe base calumny^^ vv^icK 
 I have cast upon the Baptist denomination, Mr. C. from 
 page 45, to 57, attempts to prove that the Baptist church 
 existed in the days of the apostles, and that there has been 
 a regular unbroken chain of Bapti'st churches from that 
 time to the present day. 
 
 How, any man who has the least regard for his cliaracter, 
 and who has read the fourth letter, could say, that I have 
 calumniated the Baptist denomination, is, 1 confess, what 
 I cannot account for. I have said in that letter that *^it 
 was with reluctance that I have introduced the German 
 Anabaptists at all into the Review — ''that it was not with 
 a design of casting reflections on the present Baptist church: 
 for although I think them mistaken on the subject of bap- 
 tism with respect to the infiints of church members, and 
 the mode of administering that ordinance, yet I feel happy 
 in saying, that they have evinced for upwards of a century 
 past, that thej^ have renounced the anarckical principles 
 of their predecessors, and that they are as firm supporters 
 of lawful civil government, as any other religious denomi- 
 nation. '^ Nor have I calumniated the Anabaptists of Ger- 
 many, nor introduced them wantonly, or unnecessarily in- 
 to the ''Review." Mr. C. had affirmed in the appendix 
 to his book, that "infant sprinkling" as he scoffingly calls 
 infant baptism, "has uniformly inspired a persecuting 
 spirit. " This heavy and serious charge I have examined, 
 by an inquiry into the doctiines held by Presbyterian Pe- 
 dobaptists on that pointy and shewed, I trust, tha{ their 
 principles instead of inspiring that hateful and wicked spir- 
 it, lead to benevolence, and to the cultivation of all the so- 
 cial virtues. If my reasoning was wrong, Mr. C. should 
 have pointed it out; but instead of this, he makes a most 
 furious attack on the characters of Calvin, and of John 
 Knox, the Scotch reform'er, because they were Pedobap- 
 tists; and because as he says, they behaved intolerantly in 
 some instances, to Socinians and Papists — resumes the 
 subject in p. 60, and then finishes his Strictures v, ith a 
 detailed list of the sufferings of the Baptists, or rather of tiie 
 anarchical Anabaptists under the kings of England. 
 
in 
 
 1 have no disposition, nor am I under any necessity of 
 defending any intolerant acts of Calvin^ or of Knox, or of 
 the kings of England. Mr. C. has not proved, nor can 
 any man prove, as far as actions are connected with the 
 principles whence they flow, that the principles of Pedo- 
 baptism as held by Presbyterian Pedobaptists lead to per- 
 secution. If Calvin acted intolerantly to the Socinian 
 Servetus (and that is justly disputed,) and if Knox did 
 not disapprove of the murder of the blood-thirsty and per- 
 secuting Cardinal Beaton, (but he had no agency in it) it 
 is to be imputed to the ignorance of the age in which they 
 lived, respecting tVie- rights of man, and the rights of con- 
 science, together with their recent sufferings from Papal 
 Romei and not to the circumstance oftheir being Pedobap- 
 tists. Whatever their spots and failings were in this res- 
 pect, it is to their zeal and intrepidity that the present gen- 
 eration are indebted- for the civil and religious liberty, 
 which they so.richly enjoy. I am persuaded however that 
 Mr. C. would not have introduced Calvin and Knox into 
 his "Strictures," had I not introduced the German An- 
 abaptists into the Reviev,-. But as I have already said, 
 I did not introduce them wantonly, nor unnecessarily. 
 Principles are the sources of actions. I traced their ac- 
 tions up to their principles, and shewed at the same time, 
 that the political and theological principles avowed and 
 published by Mr. C. in his book and in his essays against 
 moral societies, and the laws of Pennsylvania against vice 
 and immorality, are the same that were avowed and prac- 
 tised upon by that turbulent and disorganizing people.— 
 '''It was to point out to Mr. C. the dangerous tendency of 
 those principles — to induce him to review hh pi^esent creed; 
 and to induce those vv'ho read his book to reflect before they 
 adopted those principles. *' It was this that induced me to 
 intimluce the German Anabaptists, and to mention their 
 conduct as the result of their principles. He has made no 
 recantation, nor given any explanation respecting those 
 principles, but by ^vay of retaliation poured indiscriminate 
 abuse (m Pedobaptists as persecutors, without shewing that 
 their principles lead to, beget, and foster that malignant 
 spirit. I am sorry for his own sake that I have failed in 
 my benevolent intentions. Since*then tliis is the case, I 
 will only say, what his friend Philalethes has said to 
 myself more than once, wb<;lher justly or.unjustly the pub- 
 He vvill judges and with the variation of substituting Penn- 
 
172 
 
 sjl vania for Israel — »'To your tents. Pennsylvanians!'^ 
 —-what have you to do with this man whose principles if 
 imbibed, lead to anarchy, licentiousness and blood,- and 
 who in his writings has given the fullest evidence, that he- 
 hates the Pedobaptist clergy w-ith i'ne most cordial hatred. 
 li is v/ell for them that his power extends no farther thaa- 
 defamation; for every reflecting person who has read his 
 Book and "Strictures," must have seen, that the spirit 
 manifested in both, if indulged, and an opportunity ofiered, 
 would push him on to persecute them farther; shall I say 
 —even unto death. I had thought, or hoped otherwise 
 when I wrote the fourth letter, but he has compelled me 
 to change my opinion. 
 
 Having made these necessary preliminary observations, 
 I will now examine Mr. C's testimony for the existence of 
 a Baptist church in the apostolic age, and from that tiaie 
 to the present day. But before we enter upon this, it will 
 be necessary to state the question fairly, and to shew with 
 precision wherein the Baptist and Pedobaptist church 
 agree, and wherein they differ; fur I still believe that there 
 is a church of God amongst the Pedobaptists. I would 
 therefore observe that it is a principle agreed upon betwixt 
 iBaptists and Pedobaptists, that when adult persons wiio 
 have not been baptized, profess faith in Christ, they ought 
 to be baptized on that professioni This is a principle com- 
 mon to both, and on this principle both parties act. This 
 observation is the riiore necessary, because I am persuaded, 
 that many serious and vv ell -meaning Baptists liave impo- 
 sed upon themselves by supposing that all those passages 
 in the New Testament whiei) speak of adult persons being 
 baptized on a profession of faith in Christ, are so many 
 proofs for the- Baptist, and sornany arguments against tha 
 Pedobaptist system and Church. Peter Edwards mentions 
 a Baptist minister who for many years had imposed upon 
 himself in this manner; and I am sometimes inclined to 
 think that this may be the case with xtlr. C. But let it be 
 recollected that the difference betwixt the two parties is 
 this — that while Pedobaptists agree with Baptists, that un- 
 baptized persons professing faith in Christ ought to be bap- 
 tized, they contend that the minor offspring of such should 
 also be baptized; and that pouring water on the subject is 
 a scriptural, if not thfeonly scriptural mode of administer- 
 ing that ordinance: but Baptists say, that the- baptism of 
 such infants is a nullity; and not only so, but that the bap- 
 
173 
 
 tism of adults if not administered bf iminsrsion is a nullity 
 also. * There are a few sects amongst the Baptists who do 
 not go so far; but according to Mr. C's creed "iniiiiersion 
 is tlie only baptism " It is also necessary to observe far- 
 ther, that for the purpose of shewing Mr. C. the absurdity 
 of this tenet, I observed to iiiui in the fourth letter that it 
 was incumbent upon him to prove unequivocally, or by 
 * 'positive precept or precedent," that the apostles baptized 
 by immersion and by immersion only; and to trace a suc- 
 cession of Baptist churches from their time to the present 
 day; "and that there must not be a broken link in the 
 chain; for as not only infant baptism, but the baptism of 
 adults ifnot by immersion, is according to his New Cate- 
 chism a nullity; then, as persons baptized in either of these 
 ways ''are still in an unbaptized state, they have conse- 
 quently no right to administer the ordinances of the Chris- 
 tian dispensation to others. This, Mr. C. has undertaken 
 to do, and let us now attend to, and examine the testimony. 
 
 ''''First Century, Anno Domini 33, we read in a well 
 attested history of a large Baptist church which was form- 
 ed on a grand model by the immediate agency of the Holy 
 Spirit. On the day of Pentecost 3000 souls were illumi- 
 ned, led to repentance, and added to tke ckUrch.'^ 
 
 '-Added to the church^^ — What church?— -The' Jewish 
 church certainly; for there was no other church in the world; 
 and this, according to Mr. C's own acknowledgment, is a 
 proof that tlie Christian was '*added to,'' or ingrafted into 
 the Jewish ciiurch. But passing this by; the baptizing of 
 these 3000 is just what Pedobaptists wouldhave done, had 
 such an extraordinary circumstance taken place amongst 
 liiem, and what their Missionaries amongst the Jews and 
 Gentiles do every day, whenever any profess faith in Christ, 
 and request to be baptized. The church at Jer usal em then, 
 has not as yet one single feature of being a Baptist church. 
 To prove it a Baptist church, Mr. C. should have proved; 
 1st, that those three thousand Jews v/ere baptized by im- 
 mersion; and 2dly, that although their male children had 
 previous to this, been admitted into the church of God by 
 circumcision, and the female children by sacrifice, that 
 they were no longer entitled to that privilege. In the 
 fourth letter, I have assigned reasons why it is apparent to 
 myself, that they must have been baptized by affusion; and 
 Mr. C». should h.ave shewn the invalidity of those reason?, 
 *16 
 
before he couM claim the church at Jerusaleni as a Baptist 
 Church. I have also argued from tlie words '^t he promise 
 Is toyoK^ and to your children,^^ that Peter urged arid en- 
 joined the baptism of their children on that occasion, as v/eii' 
 as of themselves. Mr. C. should have also shev/n that my 
 inference from these words was wron^. But this he has 
 cautiously avoided: and until he does so; I must, and do 
 claim the church at Jerusalem, as a Pedobaptist church in 
 the fullest sense of the word.. ' ^ 
 
 ' Mr. C's next testimony is as follows. — "The secoijd 
 church that v»as planted was at Samaria— Philip went 
 down into Samaria and preached Christ unto them. And 
 the people with one accord gave heed unto tlie things which 
 Philip spa'ke. Wlien (not before) they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom.of God, and 
 the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized 6of/^ jnen- 
 and women.*' <^'The second church planted (5ft earth was 
 also composed of men and v/omen who professed faith be- 
 fore baptism; consequently a Baptist church." 
 
 The Samaritans were a mongrel people, partly Jews, anci 
 partly Gentiles. What Philip did on that occasion Pedo- 
 baptists have done, and would do in simiUr eireimistancesv 
 Mr. C's inference therefore that thie church at Samaria wan 
 a BaptiM church is what logicians call '^« ?ion scquitury'' 
 or a syllogism in which tlie conclusion does not legitimately 
 flow from the premises: for all tliatlie has told us concern- 
 ing this church is as applicable to a Pedobaptist, as to a 
 Baptist church. It may not be amiss however to obseive, 
 that the conduct of Philip in planting the church at Sa:^i- 
 ARiA was calculated to destroy that ^^spiritual^'^ and 
 *^spotIess'' church for whicli Mr. C. and his brethren the 
 German Anabaptists contend. Simon Magus was one of 
 the persons baptized on that occasion, and it will not be 
 contended that he v/as a spiritual man at the time he was- 
 baptized. But the German Ana.baptists had the advan- 
 tage of Philip; inasmuch as they laid claim to the gift of 
 discerning the spirits ofothers, or of ascertaining the spir- 
 itual state of their fellow men. I do not know that Mr. 
 C. lays claim to this gift, but, sure I am, that if he is not 
 possessed of it, he can never build up that spotless church 
 for which he contends. 
 
 Mr. C's third testimony is the church of Cesarea. "It 
 is (he says) a church interesting to us, inasmuch as it was^ 
 a Gentile church, or a Gentile people composed it.'^ 
 
173 
 
 "This cliui'ch (iic adds) was evidently a Baptist diurch." 
 "While Pet-er spake these Avords, the Hoiv Ghost /e// on 
 all them that heard the word.-— Then said Peter, can anj 
 man forbid water that these shonkl not be baptized a.Sr 
 well as. we, and he commanded them to be baptized in 
 the name of the- Lord.*' 
 
 This, is just what a Pedobaptist missionary to the hea- 
 then' would do, provided it was now the will of God to 
 bestow on those to whom he preached, the gift of tongues,, 
 as was the ca&e with those vAio were assembled on that 
 occasion in the house of Cornelius; as that would be a 
 sufficient evidence that God designed such p^-isons for 
 some useful purpose in his church. And admitting that 
 the Kolj Ghost was then poured out upon them iii his 
 sanctifying influences, it alters not the case. It proves 
 only, that true believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, have 
 a right to the ordinance of baptism; but this, as already 
 observed, is a principle common to Baptists and Pedobap- 
 tists. 
 
 But besid'es this; the words, "can any man forbid wa- 
 ter," to myself clearly imply, that the water with which 
 they were baptized, was brought into the liouse or apart- 
 ment \\here they were. And as I have shewn in the 4th 
 letter, that the manner of applying water in baptism is 
 emblematical of the manner of the Spirit's operations on 
 the heart, and which is admitted by ^*Ir. C. then, the words 
 ^Hhe Holy Ghost fell on them that heard the word," clearly 
 import that the water /«7, or v.'as poured out on" those who 
 were baptized on that occasion. And to this I would add, 
 that in the 2d letter I have offered reasons which to vaj~ 
 self are conclusive, that the children (Oikos) of Cornelius 
 were baptized in consequence of his faith. The church of 
 Cesarea then, has the aspect of a Pedobaptist, and not of a 
 Baptist church. 
 
 Mr. C. also claims the churcheis at Prilippi, at Corixth,. 
 at Rome, at Colosse, at Ephesus,. and the churches of 
 Galatia as Baptist churches, because he says it may be 
 said of all of them, "as v/as said of the Corinthians, \dz. 
 many of the Corintliians hearing, believed, and were bap- 
 tized." 
 
 This, as has been observed is no proof that they were ' 
 Baptist churches.. But there is something -said of the 
 church at Philippi, and the church at Corinth, which Mr. 
 C. should have noticed, but which he has carefully passed 
 
17G 
 
 overf and v/hich v/hen exaimned, positively proves that they 
 ■were Pedobaptist, and not Baptist churclies. Lydia, and 
 the jailor are the first members of the church atPhilippi or: 
 record, but it is positively said that their "/wi^se.i^" or fam- 
 ilies were baptized at the same time with themselves; and 
 what the inspired penman niiist have meant by their hou- 
 ses I have shewn in the second letter. There is indeed 
 nothing said of the manner in which Lydia and her house 
 were baprized, but with respect to the jailor and his house 
 all the circumstances combine in proving that they were 
 baptized by alYusion, and not by immersion. Mr. C. has 
 seen all c» is, and if the inference I have drawn was WTong 
 v.'hy did he not point it oiit.-* 
 
 With respect to the church at Coiinth, Paul tells us 1 
 epistle 1: 16, that he '^baptized the lioicse of Stephanas, 
 and iu tiie 7th chapter he tells us, "that the unbelieving 
 liiisband is sanctified by the w^ife, and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctilied by the husband ^ else (says he) were their 
 children, unclean, but now ar^ they holy;"' and that in the 
 word "Ao/^,'' he refers to the baptism of their children, I 
 trust I have clearly shewn in the second letter also. This 
 settles the point at once; and the very first link in the 
 chain of Baptist churches from the days of tlie apostles to 
 the present time, is unhappily for C. wanting. And not 
 only is this the case, but there is full and clear evidence that 
 the first churches at Jerusalem — at Caesarea — at Philippi, 
 and at Corintli were founded on tlie Pedobaptist plan of 
 baptizingthe Aoi«se.5, or children of those, who themselves 
 were baptized on a profession of faith in Christ. And as 
 there was doubtless a tiniformity a.moiigst the apostles in 
 this respect, the legitimate conclusion is, that the other 
 churches were founded on the saine plan, or "grand model" 
 as Mr. C. expresses it. 
 
 We miglit here close our examination of Mr. C's 
 "Strictures," for it is of no moment, when, or where, the 
 Baptist system and clmrch first appeared, since it is no 
 where to be found in tlie sacred records. But as he has 
 brougiit forward human testimony in support of iiis hypothe- 
 sis, that the Baptist churcli existed in this and the following 
 centuries, we will examine this testimony for a few centu- 
 ries, that he may not say, that we shunned tlje inquiry; 
 and that if we cannot find the Baptist church, we may 
 perhaps in the way, find the matrix whence it sprung in 
 process of time. 
 
The human tcstiinonj of this century are, ''The Magde- 
 burgenses, ClemoRS.— Ignatius, and D. Balthazar Lidius.'' 
 As For the writers of the Magdeburgh Hi&torj, their testi- 
 mony, or rather their opinion, "tr.'at infants were.not bap- 
 tized in this century, and that baptism was administered 
 by dipping," it cannot be of any weight in this inquiry, 
 even as human testimony; because they lived some centu- 
 ries after -the apostolic age, and at a time when the church 
 was considerably corrupted. The same may be said of 
 Balthazar Lidius. He lived still later, and his testimo- 
 ny, "that the people afterwards called Waldenses prac- 
 tised believer's baptism in this century," is nothing to the 
 purpose; but v/e will meet with the " Waldenses" hereaf- 
 ter. Who Clemoxs v/as I do not know. Perhaps Mr* 
 C. means Clemens usually styled Romanus, and by some 
 thought to be the Clement, whose name the apostle Paul 
 says "was written in the book of life." Admitting this to 
 be the case; his testimony "that the right subjects of bap^ 
 tism are such as have passed through examirtation, and re^ 
 ceived instruction," does not prove that the children ot 
 church members v/ere not baptized, and that baptism is to 
 be administered by immersion, and by immersion only. 
 The testimony of Ignatius vvhoitis said lived in the apos- 
 tolic age, — "that baptism ought to be accompanied with 
 faith, love, and patience after preaching," is erjually indefi- 
 nite. Tlie whole world at that time was composed of Jews 
 and Gentiles, and Clemens and Ignatius are evidently 
 speaking what was, or ought to have been, the character of 
 those Jews and Gentiles v/ho believed in Christ, previous 
 to their being admitted into the Christian church by bap- 
 tism. Such is the testimony divine and human vyhich Mr. 
 C. has adduced to prove, that the infants of church mem- 
 bers were not baptized in this century; that baptism was 
 administered by immersion, and by immersion only, and 
 that "immersion is the only baptis'm;" for let it.be'recol- 
 lected, that it is this that (listinguishes the Baptist from 
 i]\e Pedobaptist church; and that to baptize Jews or Gen- 
 tiles on a profession of faith in Christ, is a principle and 
 practice common, to both. I think I may say that he has 
 not produced even a shadow of proof; and that his own tes- 
 timony from tiie Nev/ Testament proves that.the church 
 iu the first century was formed on the Pedobaptist plan.* 
 
 *Tlie scripture history from the death of Christ, to the writing- 
 of the last of raiil's epistles embraces a period of upv/ards of tliiity 
 
ITS 
 
 Secori'l^Cen'imi. The only testiTnonj which Mr. C 
 produces in proof of a Baptist Church in this century is ars 
 extract from the 2d apok)gj of Justin Martyr to the Uo- 
 man Emperor An^toxinus Pius. There is nothing in thi>; 
 extract as given by Mr. C. that bears on the point, but the 
 first sentence. It is this— "I will declare unto you how 
 we offer up ourselves unto God, after that we ai*e received 
 through Christ: those among us who are instructed in the 
 faith are brought to the water, then they are baptized therdn 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 ^ I do not object to this extract because it contains any 
 thing unfavourable to the Pedobaptist system, for you will 
 have observed that it alludes only to those adult persons 
 who were baptized, and I will shortly prove from this same 
 Father that infants were baptized m his day, which was 
 near the very a*ge of the Apostles: but I object to it, as not 
 only garbled, but unfairly translated. The original is to 
 b« found in J, P. Campbell's book p. 101, where it is also 
 translated, and which I will also shortly produce for ano- 
 ther purpose, and the reader will then see, that instead of 
 the words ''baptized iherehi,^^ v^hlch were designed to con- 
 vey the idea that immersion was the mode, the original 
 words are — en to hiidati tote Joittron poiouniaij^'' which lit- 
 erally signify "they are then made clean in or wilh watery" 
 and it. will be recollected that I have shewn that the words^ 
 *'-en kudaiP' in Mark 1 : 8, and elsewhere, necessarily sig- 
 nifies "with water," and is so rendered by our translators, 
 partial as I have shewn they were to dipping. 
 
 Nov/, that this father v^^ho lived within tarty years of the 
 apostolic age, teaches that infants were baptized in his 
 day, is apparent from the following quotation, the original 
 of which is to be found in J. P. Campbell's book p. 98. 
 *' Several persons among us sixty or seventy years old, and 
 
 We are told in that liistory of a number of Jews' and Gentiles be- 
 ing- baptised on a profession of faith in Christ; but there is not a 
 sing-le record, nor even a hint of the children of such when arrived 
 to adult ag-e being baptised on their own personal profession of 
 faith. 1 know of no way of accounting- for this, but that they were 
 baptized in infanc}'; for it is not to be supposed, that none of them 
 when arrived to mature age, v\^ould embrace the religion of their 
 fathers. To. a considerate and unprejjidiced mind, this circum- 
 stance v^ill go far in deciding the question in regard to infant 
 baptisra= 
 
179 
 
 0^ both sexes who were discipled {^'ematheleuthesan'^'') or 
 made disciples to Christ in their childhood, do remain un- 
 corrupted. *' It is worthy of particular notice that this fa- 
 ther uses the very word which our Lord uses in Mat. 2:8: 
 19, v/hen he said, '-Go, disciple {*^matheteutate^'' all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 tSon, and of the Holy Ghost j" and is a proof that he con- 
 sidered this pa£-v?:e as including infrnts as well as adults. 
 But the principal object which I had in view in bringing for- 
 ward the quotation from this father is this — t'lal; as th ^ life of 
 man is now confined to ""three' score and ten years," with a 
 fewejiceptions^ then, the ^cffrfjjoeriwis mentioned by this 
 father must have been baptized not only in their infa'ncy, 
 bat in the very age of the apostles. Mr. C. indeed in p. 
 105 of his book objects to this testimony for the baptism of 
 infants, by saying, that the Greek words "-ek paidio?i'^^ 
 translated ''childhood^'^ may signify persons often or twelve 
 years of age, *'and that persons of this age have been ad- 
 mitted to baptism by both ancient and modern Baptists." 
 It may suffice to silence this flimsy objection by observing, 
 that in Luke 18: 15, the same persons who are styled 
 ^^brephe^^ irifants, are in the next verse styled '•'pidtlia^^^ 
 or '^little children." This same father as quoted and 
 translated by J. P. Campbell says in the sgime page, 'nve 
 who by him have had access to God, have not received 
 this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision, 
 which Enoch and those like him have observed; and we 
 have received it by baptism^ by -the mercy of God because 
 we were sinners; and it is enjoined *to all persons to receive 
 it the same wajj'"^ — ''We are circumcised by baptism v/ith 
 Christ's circumcision." You will have observed that this 
 father considered circumcision and baptism as importing 
 the same thing, and intended for the same purpose, or far 
 conveying the spiritual 'circumcision, and that it v.as en- 
 joined to all persons infants and adults., to receive it by 
 baptism. Mr. C. objects in p. 106, by saying, that this 
 father's opinion "that it is enjoined upon all persons to re- 
 ceive the import of circumcision in baptism, is his own^ 
 and that infants are not capable of hearkening to, and obey - 
 ing tlie injunction*." I have shewn however that the apos- 
 tle Paul in Col. 2:11,12, was of the same opinion with this 
 father, and taught the same doctrine. And admitting that 
 the opinion ^\^s wrong, it would be nothing to the nurposej 
 i(x the question is, what was the practice of the ciiurch in 
 
180 
 
 his day v,lth respect to baptism, and his words in this, 
 and the former quotation clearly prove, that it was the 
 riglit of infants as well as adults? It may not be amiss to 
 observe far: her, that in tlie above quotation Mr. C. has 
 substituted ^he word "?i;j07i" for "^o," and this laid the 
 foundation for the iatt^^r part of the objection, '*that infimts 
 are not capable of h&arkening to, and obeying the injunc- 
 tion." The vvordin the original is "pjoA/Zo," and exactly 
 corresponds with our English word "permit,'^ and the last 
 clause of the quotation should I think be thus translated 
 — ^*lt is permitted, or allowed to all persons to receive it 
 [spiritual circumcision] in the same wayj namely by bap- 
 tism.'^ Tliis not only solves the objection, but is another 
 instance of the manner -in which Mr. C. treats the words 
 of liis opponents, when those words militate against his 
 system. 
 
 Irexaeus who wrote about sixtj'-seven years after Christ, 
 and was then an agecfman, says concerning Christ, "that he 
 came to save all persons who are regenerated unto God, in- 
 fants, little ones, youths, and elderly persons." That by 
 regeneration he meant baptism, is evident from the follow- 
 ing quotation from Justin Martyr, already alluded to, res- 
 pecting believing Jews and Gentiles. '*Then they are 
 brouglit by us to some place where thiere is water; and 
 they arc regenerated according to the rite of regeneration 
 by which wie ourselves were rcgoierated; for they are 
 washed with ivafer (or made clean by water) in the name 
 of the I'ather and Lord of all things, and of our SavioUr 
 Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." This fix'es the 
 ^meaning of the word ''''regenerated'^ as used by the Fa- 
 thers in such a connexion. The phrase was probably ta- 
 ken fi-om John 3: 5, or from Titus 3: 5, where ''the wash- 
 ing of regenerati(m" is distinguished from "the renewing 
 of^the Holy Ghost," and by which the most eminent di- 
 vines and commentators understa!id ba*ptism; and this is 
 another proof that baptism was designed as a mean of re- 
 generation. 
 
 But to this Mr. C. objects in the same page by saying, 
 that as Pedobaptists understand the word '''•regeneraf.elP 
 as used by those fathers, it will follow', that all baptized 
 persons shall be saved; f()r Irenaeus says, "that Christ 
 came to save all persons by himself; all 1 say who are re- 
 generated (or baptized) unto God, iafants, little ones, 
 youths, and elderly persons." The expression however 
 
LSI 
 
 is tlie very same that Peter iisos in the following passage^ 
 ^•the like figure whereunto baptism doth also now saveusy^ 
 and understanding the passage as I do, that baptism was 
 designed as a mean of regeneration, the passage is clear, 
 and tlie objection dissipated in a moment. And here I 
 cannot but observe, tliat according to the Baptist system, 
 and indeed the system of some Pedobaptists, baptism is 
 stripped of all efficiency as a divine ordinance, and cut 
 down to a mere symbol. I know not a Pedobaptist or 
 Baptist v/riter, P^ir. C. excepted, but acknowledge, that 
 prayer, reading the \\'ord, and the preaching of the Gospel, 
 were designed as means of grace for the unregenerate, and 
 that these with the ordinance of. the supper were designed 
 as means for conferring farther supplies of grace on the re- 
 generated; and why baptism sliould not be a mean of grace 
 also, is what I do not understand, and for which I have 
 never heard any reason assigned. I have more than once 
 observed, that the words ^'be baptized for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," to 
 myself clearly convey the idea, that amongst other purpo- 
 ses baptism v/as designed as a mean of regeneration. — It 
 may be worth Vvhiie to those Vv'hc think otherwise to exam- 
 ine the point seriously and closely. 
 
 But Mr. C. has another objection to the testimony of 
 those fathers for infant baptism, — that they held a number 
 of fanciful theories and wild conjectures, and so wild, "as 
 to render tlieir testimony of no worth on any doctrinal 
 point that is not clearly revealed in the Nev/ Testament." 
 As we will m.eet with this objection again, it may be enough 
 to say at present, that we do not refer to them as standards 
 of orthodoxy, but as witnesses for facts, the baptism of in- 
 fants in their day. To this may be added that as "it is 
 not a good rule that will not work every way," why then 
 did Mr. C. according to this observation of his own, pro- 
 duce Justin Martyii as a proof for the existence of a 
 Baptist cliurch in the second century. This v/as arguing 
 ao-ainsthis own "i7«i«;" and not only so, but that father 
 ^yith Ids cotemporary Irenaeus, unfortunately for the Bap- 
 tist system, unequivocally declare^ ''that infants, little 
 ones, youths and elderly persons" were baptized in their 
 day; and consequently that in the second century, the 
 church held and practised as Pedobaptists do in the pres- 
 ent day. — We have not met with even the shj^dow of the 
 -Baptist church as yet. IT 
 
Third Century. In support of his affirmation that the 
 Baptist church existed in this. century, Mr. C. only tells 
 us that Mr. Baxter in his book entitled *sSaints Rest/' 
 1 ed. part 1, chp^p. 8. sect. 8, acknowledges that Tertul- 
 LiAN, Origen, and Cyprian who lived in this century do 
 affirm that in the primitive times none were baptized^hut 
 such as engaged to obey him." (God.) 
 
 I have not the first edition of Mr. Baxter's book, and 
 cannot therefore positively say that v.hat Mr. C. says is 
 not true; but this I will novt^ prove; that Tertullian, Ori- 
 GEN, and Cyprian, say the very reverse; and if Mr. Bax- 
 ter has said what Mr. C. represents him as saying, he 
 must have had referenc-e to- adult persons who were baptiz- 
 ed; but this, let it be remembered is nothing to the point 
 in hand, and belongs not to the present question. That 
 Mr. Baxter must have had such reference is connrmed by 
 the consideration that he was a warm Ped;ibaptist, If any 
 person should doubt it, the torrent of abuse which Mr. C. 
 pours upon him through Mr. Booth in the 5th No. of the 
 Appendix to his book will convince him of the contrary. 
 
 In the debate Mr. W. read from J. P. Campbell's book 
 a large extract from Tertullian's works as a proof that 
 infant baptism was the prevalent doctrine and practice of 
 the church in his day. I have not room for the whole of 
 the extract in this letter; the following may answer every 
 purpose at present: — '^Therefore the delay of baptism is 
 the more expedient, as it respects the condition and dispo- 
 sition, as well as tlie age of every person to be baptized; 
 and this holds more especially in reference to little ones^ for 
 what occasion is there except in cases of urgent necessity, 
 that the sponsors be brought into danger, who are alike lia- 
 ble through death to fail in accomplishing their promises; 
 and to be deceived by the evolution of some evil disposi- 
 tion" — "Why does this innocent age, Itasten to the remis- 
 sion of sins, i. e. to baptism." 
 
 In p. 108, of his book, Mr. C. admits (for it cannot pos- 
 sibly be denied) that Tertullian speaks of the baptism of 
 infants in the above extract, but objects to his testimony, 
 because as he says in p. 109, "Ae appears like one opposing 
 an error of recent date''' — because he speaks of spimsors for 
 infants — because he mentions a number of frivolous and 
 superstitious practices that accompanied baptism in his day 
 — and because he held and taught a number of extravagant 
 opinions. 
 
183 
 
 It is not true that Tertullian speaks against infant 
 baptism as an innos^ation: nor could he do so, for I Have 
 proved that it was the prevalent doctrine and practice of 
 the church in the two preceding centuries; and althotagh 
 Mr. C. in page 117, ^'•ch-allcno^ss all Chnstendom^^ on this 
 very point, i here ''challenge" him or any other man to 
 produce any passage from any_ of Tertuilian's works in 
 which he speaks of infant baptism as an innovation in his 
 day. I know all that Historian Robinson has said about 
 ihe tatin word ^'parvziU,'' and which Mr. C. alludes to ia 
 p. 1 17, and am prepared to meet it. Tertullian did in- 
 cieed advise agamst infant baptism, and also against the 
 baptism cf unmarried persons, because he thought that sins 
 committed after baptism, if not altogether, were next to 
 unpardonable. But v/ith the singularity of the opinion we 
 have nothing to do in the present inquiry, and his advising 
 rgainst it, i's a proof that it did exist in his day; for men 
 do not advise against that which has no existence. Besides, 
 if according to Mr. C's reasoning the cirjcumstance of IrU 
 advising against it, is a proof that it was "an innovation of 
 recent date," then the same reasoning will prove that no 
 unmarried persons were baptized previous to his day, for 
 he advises against the baptism of such, for the -same singu- 
 lar reason. Nor is i^ae obj ection of sponsors for infants be- 
 ing admitted in his day o"f any more^v/eight, whether they 
 were admitted in the case oi" orphan children, as is most 
 probable, or of children whose parents were living; the very 
 circumstance is a proof that infants were then baptized, 
 and that is all that concerns lis in the present iiwestigation. 
 ■—The frivolous and superstitious ceremonies mentioned 
 by Mr. C. in p. Ill, and which form another part of his 
 objection, are as follows.— ^'Renouncing the devil, and all 
 his pomps, and ministers — a being plunged in the water 
 three times^ — tasting of milk and honey — bathing them- 
 selves every day of the vrhole week — not to fast on Sundays 
 —to pray iinto^Tod kneeling — oilering yearly oblations in 
 honour of the martyi^s — not to suiTer any part of the mne 
 and consecrated bread to fall to the ground — and to sign 
 Ihemselves with the sign of the cross." Now, how any 
 •aan could infer the introduction of infant baptism from 
 those superstitions observances, is really surprising. Are 
 fiiich things the actions of infants, or are they in any wise 
 connected ^\ith infants, or infant baptism? Who but Mr. 
 C. would ever dream of ascribing 4he introduction of infant 
 
184 
 
 briptism to such a dissimilar aiidiiiadeqiiato causey as there 
 is in the nature of things, and must be. a sinitJaritj between 
 cause and effect. That Tertullian held and taught a 
 number of wild and extravagant opimons, and which Mr. 
 C. details from p. 109. to p. 115, is readily admitted ^ but 
 that this disqualifies him ibr beiug a competent witness for 
 iacts, and for facts that happened everj day under his own 
 eye, is denied. I agree with Mr. C. \hat those opinions 
 tended to corrupt the clwir'ch, already considerably tainted^ 
 but that they introduced infant baptism is altogether gra- 
 tuitous. I have shewn that it v/as practised in the church 
 m the tv/o first centuries, and as I have already observed, 
 Tertuliian's advising against it, is of itself a proof that i't 
 was practised in his day. As he was a very learned, elo- 
 quent, and popular writer, his advising against it, for tivi 
 singular reason already mentioned, induced some in pro- 
 cess of time to cast infants entirely out of the church, where 
 I have shewn, they had been planted by t\\Q apostles^ and 
 here I think Mr. €. might find the matrix whence the Bap- 
 tist sj^stem in relation to infants naturally and legitimately 
 sprung. I have farther shev;n in a Note in the 4th letter, 
 that this same father, taught also that there was a regerx- 
 erating influence or efficacy in baptismal water. This, as 
 wTvS to be expected, introduced baptism by immersion, as 
 those who em.braced this opinion, would naturally conclude, 
 that to apj)ly water to only a part of the body could produce 
 only a partial, but to immerse the v/liole body in v/ater 
 w ould produce a total, or entire regeneration. This opin- 
 ion prevailed, and firmly maintained its ground in the dark 
 ages of Popery, nor was it generally expelled lintilthe re- 
 vival of literature at the auspicious era of the heformatiox. 
 It still prevails to a great degree in the Greek Church, 
 which it is well knov/n, is still immersed in much intellec- 
 tual and moral darkness; and not as Mr. C. asserts, to 
 their' knowledge of the Greek word hctpiizo; for fevv' of them 
 are acquainted with ancient Greek literature: and it is 
 scarcely necessary to observe that modern Greek is in ma- 
 ny instances, very unlike that vv^liich was written bj ancient 
 Greek authors. From t'le v/hole of this testimony, eveiy 
 intelligent and reflecting person who has read the extracts 
 from Tertuliian's writings Vvhich were read in the debate^ 
 and also tliose brought forward by Mr. C. in his book, will 
 see, that it is not true that Tertullian spoke against iti- 
 fant bapti?m as an "in;ie>-v:ation" in the church, but only: 
 
advised against it for the reasons men tianedj and that no 
 man has ever ascribed effects to such dissimilar and inade- 
 C[uate causes as Mr, C has done. Such a reader will also 
 judge, whether thexauses which I have assi^-ned for casting 
 infants out of the ciiur'ch, and for introducing baptism by 
 immersion, are such, as were adecpate to, and calculated 
 to produce that e fleet. 
 
 To Silence, and if possible to put to shame the assertion, 
 that infant baptism v/as introduce^ into the church in this 
 ceni;ury, I will suhjoin the testimony of Origen, one of 
 the most learned men of the age, who flourished from 215, 
 to 252, and who was well acquainted with the state and 
 practice of the church in this, and the preceding centuries. 
 An extract or two from his works read at the same time by 
 Mr. W,. -is all we can admit at present. — ''Besidesall this, 
 l&L it be considered, what is ih^ reason that whereas the 
 baptism of the church is given for t\\e remission of sins, 
 infants also are by tke usage of the church baptized.''^'-" 
 ""Having occasion given by this place, I v/ill mention a 
 iiiatier v/hich excites frequent inquiry among the brethren. 
 Lijuats are baptized for the remission of sins. ' Of what 
 sins, or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason 
 of baptism be alie;?;ed in their case, unless it be in confor- 
 mity to the sense just now expressed, iiamely"^ that none 
 is free from poiiution, though his life be uvx the. length of 
 one daj^ upon the earthy and it is Ur that reason, because 
 by the sacrament of baptism, the pollutions of our birth 
 are taken away." Perhaps My. C. may say to me, as he 
 did to Mr. W. as Origen held baptism to be a purgative 
 from ail previous sin, >*wiiy then do you not hold and teach 
 infant baptism in the same -light?" It is facts, and not 
 opinions that we are now inquiring after, and here is ano- 
 ther indubitable fact that infants were baptized and uni- 
 versally baptized in the third century. And yet I must 
 confess that I have been rather sjirprlsed at tins last objec- 
 tion, as I have for some consid'crable time strongly sus- 
 pected that the Baptisi clergy are generally infected with 
 the opiiiioiis of Ter.tullian and Origen, that baptism by 
 immersion is a purgative from all previous guilt and sin* 
 1 have seen what tiiey have called, and may have been, a 
 revival of religion amongst them, and heard of others; and 
 from a.11 I have seen and heard^ the cry, and the burden of 
 
 " *17 • - 
 
16b 
 
 the preaching on tho&e occasions ^vas^—\V tiler, water, — 
 To Jordan, to Jordan. * 
 
 * Mr. C. has connrnied my suspiclGns. that the Baptist clerg'y 
 g-enei'ally, consider baptism by immersion as a purgation from al! 
 previous sin. In the debate with Mr. Macalla, he teils us, "that 
 to every believer baptism is a formal and personal remission or 
 purgation of sins" — "and so sig-nificant, and so expressive a pledge 
 on the part of Christ, that when the baptised believer rises' out oi 
 the water, is born of water, and enters the world a second time, lie 
 enters it as umncent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel." p. 135 — 7. 
 
 If this is indeed the case, then baptism by immersion is worth 
 contend-ing- for; and the docti-ine taught in the above quotations, 
 accounts for that zeal and industry which Mr. C. and his follower-^ 
 have manifested in propagating their system, lie does indeed 
 say in p. 137, "that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us 
 from all our sins" — but then "the water of baptism washes away 
 our sins." "When I read these passages, I understood him as saying, 
 in the first of them, that baptism is "a pledge," "a formal proof 
 and token," that the guilt of the immersed behever is removed by 
 the blood of Christ; and that in the latter he had reference to the 
 spirit's influences, in cleansing^ his heart so, through that ordi- 
 nance, as to make him **as innocent, as clean, as unspotted as an 
 angel." But he soon undeoeived me, and told me, that this migh- 
 ry change, is by the divine appointment, effected by baptismal 
 water alone; and indeed there is not the least reference to the 
 spirit's agcficy in all he has said on the point, in the pages quoted. 
 •'The believer (he says) never has his sins formally washed awa} y 
 until he is baptized. The water has no efficacy but what God's 
 appointment gives it, and he h;is made it sufficient for this pur- 
 pose." The proof adduced in support of the preceding positions 
 are, Peter's words — "be baptized for^the remission of sins" — "and 
 baptism doth also now save us:" The words of Ananias to Saul — 
 "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.-" And the words, 
 of Paul to Titus — "the washing of reg'cneration." 
 
 Whatever aspect tlie three first of these passages has, in sup- 
 porting his positions, it is strange to find him pressing the last of 
 them into his service; unless that he believes that regeneration is 
 conveyed through the washing of baptism; but that would over- 
 turn his system. I need scarcely observe, that I understand the 
 foregoing passages as teaching, that baptism was appointed as one 
 of the means through which the regenerating influences of tlie 
 spirit, and that faith which apprehends the blood of Christ '-fcr 
 the remission of sins," is often conveyed. If this is not tlieir 
 meaning, I cannot afHx any determinate idea to theni; especially 
 to the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost; "and ye shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost;" and the words of Paul to Titus,, 
 "the washing" of regeneration;" for you wdll have observed, that 
 regeneration is mentioned as the consequence of "washing,'^ and 
 "tiie gift of the Holy Ghost" was to be confeired on the Jews on 
 their submitting to be baptized in the name of Jesus. 
 
it is scarce!}^ ncces'^arj to add to thii,. the testlifcoRy of 
 Oyprian, vrlio ilourished also in this century. A single 
 .jx tract from a decree made by him and sixty-six other 
 bishops at Carthage in 252, and sent to one Fidus, is all 
 Ave can admit,- and may be saiiicient for ou r purpose. '^V/e 
 read your letter dear broth^r^— But witii respect to the 
 case of infants which as you have stated, should not be 
 6c^/*2:e^ within the second and third day aftei- their bh-thi 
 and as to what you ahso soggest, that the rule of the ancient 
 circumcision is to be observed, reqniring that none are to 
 be baptized and sanctiiied before the eighth daj after na- 
 tivity,* it hatli appeared far otherwise to us all m council^ 
 for as to what you conceived should be done in this atf?it%, 
 not a single person thought v.'ith you, but we all gavi; it : s 
 our opinion, that the mercy and grace of God should I j 
 denied to none of the human kind. *' 
 
 I will now only say; that never was a fact better establish - 
 ed than that infant baptism was tiie prevalent practice of Un 
 church in the third century; and that never v.as a more 
 hold and shameless inference drawn from any premise?. 
 than Mr. C in p. 121, has drawn from the foregoing doc- 
 uments, that infant baptism v/as first decreed by tiiis cOun - 
 oil of Carthftge. A bare inspection of the decree shews, 
 that the question before the council was not, '*^shall infants 
 be baptized,-' but shall they be baptized before the eightii 
 day after their nativity; and the unanimous opinion of the 
 council was, that they should be baptized as soon as it was 
 convenient and practicable. 
 
 Fourth Century. . As a proof of a Baptist church in this 
 century, Mr. C. tells us that Jerome, who lived in tliis 
 century taiig-ht that T?erscns must be "instructed before 
 
 T shall only flivther observe, that Mr. C. admits chat the **unspat- 
 ted" and ang-elic immersed believer may ag-ain fall into sin; b\it 
 how sin ag-ain enters his "clean," and ang-elic heart, he has not 
 told us, and when this is the case, how it is again "washed away." 
 He is requested to tell us this in his next publication; and how it 
 comes to pass that this is tlic case with all of them of whom we 
 have any knowledg-e; for as far as my acquaintance with them ex- 
 tends, they are no 'purer than their unbaptised Pedobaptist neig-h- 
 bours. He is also requested to tell us, why he now advocates the 
 doctrine, "that baptism is a purg-ation of all sins," and for holding- 
 which, he so strongly condemned the ancient fathers, in his de- 
 bate with Mr. Walker. The solution of these theolog-ical prob- 
 lems will, no doubt, be anxiously looked for by the publick, and 
 "by none laore so, than by the writer of this note. 
 
188 
 
 they are baptized^ for it cannot be thai the b^dy should re- 
 ceivs the ordinance of bapcism, before the soul has re- 
 csiTed vm true faidi. " He adduces Epiph anius bishop of 
 Cyprus to the same purport: and that the council of Lao - 
 dicea of Neocsesarea ordained, ''that who-ioever were to 
 be bapti2.ed, should give ia their naaies, and after due ex- 
 amination be baptized." But as I iiave frt^uentiy observ- 
 ed this is nothing to the purpose. The regulations or- 
 dained by that council evidently refer to adult unbaptizcd 
 persons: and that it v/as of such, that Jerome spoke is e- 
 qually evident. But this is not all, Herd in his apology 
 p. 277, quotes Jerome as saying, "If infants be not baptiz- 
 ed, the sin of omit tins; their baptism is laid to their parent's 
 charge. " 
 
 Ambrose v/hoalso lived in the latter end of this centu- 
 ry, and as quoted by J.. P. Canipoell p. 105, speaking of 
 the Pelagian iieresy which began then to appear says, that 
 this hypothesis vt^ould infer ^'evacicatio baplismatis parvH' 
 loTuni.,^^ or the nullity of infant baptism." To this I will 
 only add the testimony of Augustine who also flourished 
 in this century, and which v/as also read in 1l\\q debate by 
 Mr. W. "And as the thief who by necessity went witli- 
 out baptism, was saved, because by his piety he had it spir- 
 .itualiy: so where baptism is had, though t!\\(i party by ne- 
 cessity go v/ithout that (fiuth) whicli the thief had, yet he is 
 saved. Which the whoh body of the church holds as de- 
 livered to ihem in the case of little infanta baptized, who 
 certainly cannot yet believe with tlie heart unto righteous- 
 ness. -' I need scarcely observe, that this is proof positive, 
 not only for the baptism of infants in this century, but tliat 
 it was the practice of the body of the crhurch. The objec- 
 tion w^hich Mr. C. brings against tins testimony in p. 116 
 of his book is disgraceful to any man. He represents Au- 
 gustine as saying that '-the whole body of the church re- 
 ceived infant baptism ''from the council of Carthage." 
 Tliere are no such words in any of the extracts made trom 
 him, nor yet in any of his writings. On the contrary both 
 Augustine and Jerome, as quoted by J. P. Campbell in p. 
 80, say, Blessed Cyprian declared not that no body, but 
 that 710 sold was to be lost, and with a number of his fellow 
 bishops decreed, thai an infant might with propriety he bab- 
 tized immediaieiy after the Jnrth; not thereby forrnmg some 
 new canon, but observing the viost firmly established faith 
 of the c/?.urc/;,~Tliis was read in Mr. C's hearing: at the 
 
debate. Ke olijeets also that Aiigastine held, with Tor- 
 tullian, Origen, and Cvpriaii, that baptism was a purgativf^' 
 "from sin. .Be it so^ but what has that to do ^vitli the prct - 
 ent question? for let me again repeat it, that ic ii? not ophv- 
 ions, but the fact of the baptism of infants that we are in- 
 qiiiring after. Should a Baptist a hundred years hence af- 
 firm, that there were Baptists,, and a Baptist church in the 
 United States' of America in the year 18^2, and produce 
 Mr. C's book as a proofs and should a Pedobaptist reply, 
 that testimony is not to be regarded, for the author of that 
 book has advanced opinions that would ^ ^dishonour the low- 
 est grade of Christians amongst iisj" he has said — ^ 'that a 
 man-is no more blamable for not being a Christian, than 
 for notbelng seven feet high3°'-— ''that Judaism was worse 
 than sheer Gentilism,-' — and that it is a thing ''full of 
 deadly poison-' for the unregenerate to pray unto G^od, or 
 to praise liim for the mercies they have received from his- 
 hand. — The Pedobaptist v/ould reason then, just a,s Mr. 
 C reasons in the present case; for the existence of a Bap- 
 tist church in the present day is no more incompatible w-ith 
 his holding, and publishing the foregoing opinions, wild, 
 and wicked and extravagant as they are, than the existence 
 of a Pedobaptist church in the four first centuries is in- 
 c:;pmpatible vv'ith the most extravagant opinions wdiich some 
 of the Fathers held, and published during that period. I 
 tliink, you vnVi say, that never was there a logician more 
 unhappy in the premises v^'hence he has drawn many ofhi.s 
 conclusions, 'nan is Mr. C. 
 
 Bat in addi ion to the testimony of Epiphanius and- 
 Xerome for the existence of a Baptist church m this cen- 
 tury, Mr. C. tells us in page 51 of his Strictures, that a 
 ^ast number df ihe children of believers were baptised in 
 this century; amongst whom he mentions Basil the great, 
 the son of a Christian Bishop, Gregory the son of Grego- 
 ry, Bishop of'Nazianser, CoNSTAI^TlNE the great, the son 
 of Helena a zealous Christian, Austin the son of the 
 :r;racious Monica, and Theobosius the emperor of Rome. 
 That this was the case I am not disposed to dispute,, but 
 before these instances could be of any advantage to Ms 
 system and argument, he should have previously proved, 
 that the parents of these children had been Christians at 
 the time these children were bora, and V/lule they v/ere 
 Tittle children; for let it be remembered that although the 
 I'hristian reli2:ioii had made considerable nrofrress at tin's 
 
period, yet a vast n-jsmber were still in a state of Geiitil- 
 isra. I admit also that i infant baptism began to be dispu- 
 ted by a few at tins time, but not to the extent claimed by 
 Mr. C. I adinit farther that baptism by immersion was 
 pretty prevalent and increased every day, as the writings 
 of Tertuliian and Origen were spread, and their opinions 
 imbibed 5 but I have proved by undoubted testir.iony that 
 infant baptism was the prevalent practice of the church. 
 
 I deem it i^nnecessary to pursue this inquiry any far- 
 ther, as the testimony which Mr. C. adduces for tlie ex- 
 istence of, a Baptist church in the following centuries', is 
 the same which he has adduced for that purpose for the 
 foregoing centuries, and which I have frequently observed 
 has not the least bearing on the point at issuej as it is a 
 principle common to both Baptists and Pedobaptls'ts, that 
 unbaptized adults should profess faith in Christ before they 
 can be baptized. Besides, after this century the church 
 became more and more con-upted, until the once simple 
 and chaste spouse of Clidst became decked with all the 
 trappings of a loathsome liarlot, nor was she stripped of 
 Ihem, until Luther, Calvin, and Johnt Knox, on whom 
 Mr. C. has pous-ed such a torrent of abuse, arose, and un- 
 veiled her aoominations at the era of the reformation. I 
 v/ould however just observe tliat in the 
 
 Fifth Cenfiiri/i we have undoubted evidence that infant 
 baptism was generally practised in the church, although 
 immersion with all its worthy concomitants already men- 
 tioned, had in a great dsp;ree'usurped the place of the sim- 
 ple and unassuming mode of al^'usion. Besides the testimo- 
 ny of Augustine, who tlourished in the beginning of Oils 
 century, Pela-gius tlie founder of the heresy kno7/a by 
 his name, in his creed which he addressed to Ljnocent 
 bishop of Ro-ne, avov/s tli«e following articles— '-We hold 
 one baptism w'lich we say ought to be administered v/ith 
 the same sacramental W^yr'ds to Infanfs, as it is to elder per- 
 sons." To this he addfi, "men slander me as if 1 denied 
 the sacrament of baptism to ^in/ants, or did promise the 
 kingdom of heaven to some persons without the redemption 
 of Christ, which is a thingtha 1 1 never heard, ??09?20^ even any 
 wicked heretic scy." In 412, his co^heresiarch Ce;.esti- 
 us stood his trial before the council cf Carthage, and 
 amongst other things he said, ''as for infants I always 
 said, that they stood in need of baptism, and that they 
 
i9i 
 
 ought to be baptized-' — ^^and infants are to be baptized, 
 according to the rule of ike iiniverscd church.^'' 
 
 Thus have I shewn tiiat infant baptism was practised 
 not onlj^ by the apostles, but bj the prinntive fathers down 
 to the sixth centiirv, with the exception of a few indivi- 
 duals at farthest, who liad been led by the w^ritings of 
 Tertuliian and Origeii to disuse it, and to substitute im- 
 mersion in the place of aSasion. Mr. C. who attempts 
 contrary to the very data which he lays down, to prove 
 that it was introduced in the third century, attempts in p. 
 IS^ of his book, to account for the stronghold which it 
 still maintained in the churcirvbysayingj *^that it is not at 
 all a marvellous thing that Pel agius and others in the 4th 
 (5th) century should say they never heard that baptism 
 was denied to infants,'' because the art of printing w-as not 
 then known, and knowledge was connned to a fev/ manu- 
 scripts." But Mr. C. did not recollect, or did not choose 
 to recollect, thatPeb-'v? tho^iiL:h a native of Britain, was 
 a great traveller— -th;. ' ilkd t'lroiigii France, Italy, 
 
 Africa and Asia, or ;. , ^^ ,:art3 of the latter countries 
 where the Christian religicn was rec3ived,^ and was con- 
 sequently well acquainted jwith the practice of the church 
 in all those countries, as it respected the baptism of in- 
 fants. And here let me again observe, that the present 
 inquiry is not, what did Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertul- 
 iian, Origen, Jerorrxe, Augustine, Celestius, and Pelagius, 
 believe and teach, but Vi hat do they tell us respecting this 
 point, from their own knowledge and practice. Let not 
 the reader suifer his mind to be diverted frjrn tliis point, 
 for that, and that alone, is the point at issue at present 
 betwixt "Mr. C. ?.ncl myself. 
 
 As this letter has swelled far beyond my design and 
 expectation, I sh.all conclude this inquiry v/ith'an extract 
 from Dr. Wall's history of infant baptism, w-ho, although 
 partial to dipping, concludes his history thus:— -"Las dy, 
 for the first four hundred years there appears only one 
 man, Tertullian, who advises the delay of infant baptisra 
 in ,some cases, and one Gtregory who did perhaps prac- 
 tice such delay in the case of his own children j but no so- 
 defy of m.en so thinking, or so practising, or any one man 
 saying that it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the 
 next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man 
 to be found, w ho either spoke for, or practised such delay, 
 but all the contrary. And wiien a.bout the year 1130, one 
 
192 
 
 5e>:'c amon^o; the Walbenses or ALBicExsr^r. declared 
 against the baptism ef infants as being incapa^e of salva- 
 tion, tiie main body of that people rejected their opinion, 
 and thev of them that held that opinion, quickly dwindled 
 a.\va.j and disappeared, there being no more persons hold- 
 ing that tenet, until the rising of the German Anaba^'TISTs 
 in the year 1522.'' 
 
 Sudi is the result of the researches of the man who made 
 t.iie study of the history of the Clw'istian church the main 
 business of his life; and respecting ^vhose history, Mr. 
 Whistox a learned Baptist tells his friends, "that Dr. 
 Wall's history of infant baptism, aa to facts, appeared to 
 him most accurately done, and might be depended upon by 
 the Baptists themselves:'^ and such you will have perceiv- 
 ed are the progenitors of our modern Baptists, one of their 
 cv;n learned friends beiiifr judge. You will liave also per- 
 ceived, tliat the assertions of Mr. C. in various places of his 
 '•Strictures, " tliat the V/aldenses were Baptists, arc 
 without any solid foundation, and that the authorities he 
 lias quDted^ for the support of those assertions, are either 
 spurious, and if not spurious, were ignorant men tainted 
 \vith the heresies of the day in which they lived. " 
 
 *Thcre lias not been an error, or innovation of any magnitude 
 introduced into tlie churcli, but have been transmitted to us by 
 ecclesiastical historians. Ihcy have been also careful to mention 
 pjjticularly, tlie person, or persons from whom these errors orin- 
 novatior.s sprung-^ the tiniC they appeared, and the interest which 
 they excited at the time. If infant baptism is not of apostolicai 
 authority, it must certainly have excited great interest in the church 
 at the tune it was introduced, and must have been strenuously op- 
 posed by all the lovers of evanp;elical tmth and punty. And not 
 only must this have been the case, but they wouhl have distinctly 
 mentioned the time when this great innovation appeared, the per- 
 sons by v/liora it wa:; introduced, the interest wliich it excited, and 
 the effects which it produced on tiie church. But there is notli- 
 ing of all this in any of the records of the church. Augcstixk 
 Vvdio flourished and wrote in the 4th century, mentions 88 differ- 
 ent sects that had been, or were tlien in the church. He mentions 
 also the different tenets of those sects; but not one wordof Pedo- 
 baptists, or those who introduced the baptism of infants. On the 
 contrary, as I have shev.'u, lie expressly declares that it was'of 
 apostolical authority. The sing-le circumstance of tlie silence of 
 all antiquity on the point, would of itself be one of the stroTigest 
 presumptive arguments that it v/as of apostolical institution, had 
 there not been a single record on the subject. But I have shewn,, 
 that we have record upon record, and of such a clear and une- 
 quivocal character, as nmst Ithinl 
 enquirei* aff^-r the truth in the ca=e. 
 
193 
 
 1 shall close my observations on Mr. C's Strictures by 
 again taking the liberty of holding a little familiar conver- 
 sation with him, perhaps for the last time. And now sir, 
 after reading tiiis and the preceding letter, are you not 
 convinced that you are unacquainted with the subject on 
 vvhich you have so boldly disputed, and as boldly written? 
 What else could have induced you to assert so often as 
 you have done, that baptizo is used by Greek writers to 
 signify to wasli by immersion, and by immersion only— 
 that Pedobaptist writers understand it in this sense, and 
 this sense only; and above all, that it is never used in the 
 New Testament in any other sense? .You must have a 
 very bad opinion of all Pedobaptists when you assert indi- 
 rectly, as you do, that they practice contrary to their fall 
 conviction^ and settled belief on this point. And what 
 else than ignorance of the subject could induce you to 
 suppose for a moment, that even ten thousand quotations 
 from the ancient fathers, or any other vrriters, respecting 
 the character and qualifications of those adult Jews or 
 Gentiles whom they admitted to baptism, or who were bap- 
 tized, was a proof of the existence of a Baptist church in 
 , their day, or even the shadow of an argument against the 
 baptism of infants, or against the Pedobaptist system? You 
 cannot but now see, that the task I have set you of proving 
 •*by positive preceptor precedent," that the apostles bap- 
 tized by immersion, and by immersion only; and of tra- 
 cing an unbroken chain of Baptist churches from their 
 time to the present day, is so far from being finished, that 
 it is not even begun; and tliat your position in your new 
 Catechism, *'*that immersion is the only baptism," is un- 
 scriptural and indefensible. It is v/hatno man can prove, 
 for 1 have proved the reverse, and by your own testimony. 
 
 That you will reply to this examination of your Stric- 
 hcres is not improbable, for you have given the public the 
 fullest evidence that you are seized v/ith what a Roman 
 satyrist styles '^cacoethes scribendi,^^ and which I have 
 •somewhere seen not improperly rendered, '-//le ifch of 
 scribbling. "^^ I shall conclude this address to you, by 
 •again observing, that should I answer, it will be on the 
 following conditions, and on the following conditions 
 only. 1st, that you take up, an<d discuss, one by one, 
 the arguments contained in my first letter, for the exist- 
 ence of a church of God — a church in the fullest sen?*. 
 18 * ' 
 
194 
 
 of the word, both under the Patriarchal, and Abrahamic 
 dispensations of grace; and that the Christian church was 
 ingrafted into the latter, as deduced from the 11th chap- 
 ter of the epistle to the Rdmans, and 2d chapter of the epis- 
 tle to the Ephesians. This was tracing the subject to its 
 first principles; but you know that you have shunned this 
 point— you have not once referred to it, except by a ti'ifling 
 objection deduced from my words disingenuously separa- 
 ted from each other, and tlien distorted from their obvious 
 meaning. 2dly; that you discuss in the same manner, and 
 refute if you can, my arguments for infant baptism, dedu- 
 ced from Acts 2: 38, 39, in that letter, and from Mat. 28: 
 19. 1 Cor. 7: 14; and especially from the family baptisms 
 recorded in the New Testament, as exhibited in^the 2d let- 
 ter. The latter of these arguments you have not indeed 
 seen until now, but the former you have seen, and instead 
 of meeting, and discussing it fairly, you have tried to di- 
 vert the minds of your readers from it, by asking a few im- 
 material, and in some instances irrelevant questions. I 
 think I may say, that I have not shunned any thing like 
 argument in your Book and Strictures that pertained to 
 the subject in dispute; but met, and answered them as I 
 could, and as I thought they deserved. 3dly, that you ex-' 
 amine in the same manner also, the arguments in the 3d 
 letter, respecting the qualifications required from those 
 persons who were baptized by the apostles themselves. 
 You are conscious that the view which I have given of that 
 pai't of the subject strikes at the very vitals of your system, 
 and yet you shunned this also, by referring to it in a very 
 indeterminate manner. It cannot Sir, satisfy an inquisi- 
 tive public to say, as you have sai-d, that it'is too absurd 
 for your notice, for it will occur to every reader, that the 
 absurder it is, the easier will be tbe refutation, and the 
 more signal your triumph, and the more complete my de- 
 feat. 4thiy, that you examine also in detail the baptisms 
 recorded in the New Testament, and shew that they must 
 have been administered by immersion, and by immersion 
 only; and refute, if you can, the reasons which I have of- 
 fered in the 4th letter, wliy I tliink they were administered 
 by afiusion, together with v/hat I have added on that point 
 in the 7th letter. The foregoing conditions are neither 
 unfair, nor unreasonal^e, and what i have a right to claim 
 from you as tlie assailant in this controversy; from tliehigh 
 ground you have assumed; and above all, in defence of your 
 
195 
 
 system. Volumes of general and desultory observ'lfiotis 
 can never profit the reader, nor bring the controversy to an 
 issue, and still much less, treating the sacred and impor- 
 tant subject v\ itk an air of ridicule. And here Sir, permit 
 me to observe to you, that you should. forever abandon this 
 last mode of writing; for whatever you call your '-GExiua" 
 is, every reader of taste and discernment must have seen, 
 that it does not possess a single particle of the '•'sal atti^ 
 cum, " or the true attic satire. I w ill not disgrace my page 
 by writing the true name, of what you have mistaken for 
 t) <at delicate, pungent, pleasing, and when properly appli- 
 ed, useful style of writing. In the event of your com- 
 plying with the preceding conditions, I here ag'ain pledge 
 myself, that if I cannot answer you, I will publicly ac- 
 knowledge my error, and thank you for directing me into^ 
 the path of truth. But if you refuse these reasonable con- 
 ditions, an intelligent and unprejudiced public will cer- 
 taiiuy excuse me, for not taking the least notice of what 
 you may publish on this subject — I w'ill not carry on a 
 war of words. Your friend Philalethes now claims my 
 attention, and as he has in some places of his letter to you, 
 addressed me directly, I shall address him directly also^ 
 as the most expeditious way of bringing this letter to a 
 :los-ec ^' 
 
TO FHEEiAlgBTHBS. 
 
 WHO you are Sir. I do not know with absolute cer- 
 taintv, nor is it material 5 but there is intrinsic evidence in 
 jour letter that you have been habituated to the peculiar 
 dialect of tlie Scotch theoldp;y — that you live at no great 
 distance, and have been hovering round my congregations^ 
 and picking up on hearsay, scraps of my sermons, and 
 >vhich you unblii shingly publish to the world as credible 
 facts — and that you are very angry with me — as angry, as 
 1 have seen a doating father, when a beloved and hopeful 
 son, happened to be discomfited and exposed. But pas- 
 sing this by: I would observe that my address to you vvill 
 be short, as there is scarcely any thing in your letter, but 
 what Mr. C. has urged either in his book or in his "Stric- 
 tures;*' and what I have said in reply to hirn on those dif- 
 ferent points, you are to consider as addressed to your- 
 self individually. There are hov/ever a fev/ things in your 
 letter respecting 'Hhe review,-' which he has not noticed, 
 and on these you will permit me to make a few observations.. 
 You complain in p. 66, that I kave used, ''harsh, ill- 
 natured, contemptuous, and reproachful language." I 
 think not Sir, (unless calling opinions by trieir true names, 
 is reproach) and I also think, tliat for reasons which you 
 very well know, you would not be allowed to be a dispas- 
 sionate judge. I have indeed, used language somewhat 
 strong, and v/fiich I thought iha occasion demanded, when, 
 Mr. C. advanced positions, in defence cf his system, 
 which degraded the Old Testament scriptures, and are 
 ^^reproachfiiP^ to Jehovah as the author of Judaism: and 
 v.hen he represented the Pedobaptist clergy without ex- 
 ception as venal and corrupt, and for sinister purposes, 
 'Haking away the key of knowledge from the laity," and 
 in which you have joined him by saying (p. 70,) that they 
 admit into the church, "those only who pay stipends;" 
 but I think that I have not used a word that is either inde- 
 corous, or scurrilous. If I have, I will not justifv it, and 
 so far I have injured myself, and not Mr. C : and be that 
 as it may. such a charge comes with a very bad <>;race fi-om 
 you, and your jnenci. 
 
i9r 
 
 You complairi also, that the "review" was not an au= 
 swer to Mr. C's book^ — that I was afraid that it should 
 be seen, and therefore "huddled it up in a miscellaneous 
 periodical publication. " That complaint is now removed, 
 and the present publication embraces every thing that I 
 consider relevant to the question in his book; but v/hether 
 my answer is to the point, is another question; — but of that 
 the unprejudiced public will judge. 
 
 In p. 67, you affirm that I have not produced any proof 
 that a Redeemer of the seed of iVbraham, and a church, and 
 her ordinances, were secured by the covenant of circum- 
 cision; and in the following page, "that from the beginning 
 of the 15th chapter of Genesis, to the end of Deuteronomy, 
 tliere is not a promise of regeneration, and eternal life, 
 made to the covenanted seed of Abraham as such. " I 
 have assigned reasons in tlie first letter, why I consider 
 what is called "tVie covenant of God in Christ," and "the 
 covenant of circumcision," to be one and the same cove- 
 nant. If you could have done so, it behooved you, or 
 Mr. C. to have shewn that I was mistaken; but you have 
 both avoided this. I quoted the words in that covenant, 
 "In thee shall all nations be blessed" as expressly applied 
 to Christ, in Gal. 3: 16 — "And to thy seed which is 
 Christ;" notwithstanding which, you assert that that cov- 
 enant only secured, "that nations and kings should pro- 
 ceed from Abraham. " Now, vSir, besides being contradic- 
 tory to the exposition given to the words by the apostle, 
 is not your exposition false in fact.^ Have all nations and 
 all kings descended from Abraham? but this according to 
 your exposition, must have been the case, or the promise 
 was false; for the promise is, — "In thee shall all nations 
 be blessed," and expressed in Gen. 12: 3, "In thee shall 
 all families of the earth be blessed." Nor is it true that 
 this promise did not belong to that covenant, as you boldly 
 assert in the same page, for the apostle in the same chap- 
 ter, and 17th verse, styles it "the covenant confirmed of 
 God in Christ," or as it respected Christ. I would also 
 ask you, whether it is a temporal or spiritual blessing that 
 is promised to the "covenanted seed of x\braham as such," 
 in Deut. 30: 6 — "And the Lord thy God will circumcise 
 thine heart, and the heart of thine seed, to love the Lord 
 thy God with all thy hearty and with all thy soul, that thou 
 mayest live. " The very phraseology used in this promise 
 *18 ' 
 
198 ^ 
 
 IS a proof that the blessirxg conferred on tl)e Jews was it. 
 consequence of their ocing within the pale of the covenant 
 of circumcision; for surely the word '^circiwidse,^^ \vhich 
 according to your system conveys the idea of temporal bles- 
 sings onij, would not have been used to denote such a 
 blessing, as to dispose them ''to love the Lord their God, 
 with all their heart, and with ail their soul, if spiritual 
 blessings had not been intended. And not only is tiiis the 
 case, but the word also cle?a-lj imports-, that circumcision 
 was designed as a mean througli which tliis blessing w^as 
 conveyed to those, whom Jehovah designed thus highly to 
 distinguish. In p. TT, of his book, your friend Mr. C. 
 denies that the phrase '*^o circumcise''' the heart can in the 
 utmost latitude of interpretation imply all the blessings of 
 the nev/ covenant^" and that this promise could not be 
 given to the Jews as the covenanted seed of Abraham, 
 ♦^because it related to events then future, from the daysol 
 Mcses." I shall only say, that if that promise does not im- 
 ply in it all the blessings of tlie new covenant, then there is 
 no promise in all the book of God that does so. Love to 
 God when supreme holds the first rank amongst '*the 
 fruits of the Spirit," Gal. 5: 22; and that faith with which, 
 i^alvation or eternal life is connected by .the promise of 
 Christ himself, is said *'to work by love^^^ *'and to purify 
 the heai-t.-' Mr. C's objection that the promise now un- 
 der consideration "related to events, then future," like 
 many others of his objections, and positions, is truly silly; 
 for is not the accomplishment of a promise, necessarily 
 future to the promise itself? 
 
 In p. 69 you' assert, that if baptizo does not signify to 
 immerse, "then the grand use of language as a medium of 
 communication betv/ixt heaven and earrh is nvade void, 
 arid the faith and obedience of the worshipper is rendered 
 impossible." This objection is founded on the assumption, 
 and principle, that as immersion is the primary idea affix- 
 ed to the verb baptizo^ by heathen writers, itis therefore 
 to be so understood wherever it occurs in the sacred wri- 
 tings. I have shewn that the words faith^ repentance, 
 salvation, &c. are used sometimes in their primary, and 
 sometimes in their secondary sense in the scriptures; and 
 is ''the communication betwixt heaven and earthy thereby 
 made void: and is tiie faith and obedience of the v/orship- 
 per, thereby rendered impossible?" Apply your rule. Sir, 
 made and provided for the word baptizo, to those and many 
 
i99 
 
 Other worcis. of always understanding them in their prima = 
 ry sense wherever they occurs and then saj, if ^•the faith 
 -and obedipnce of the worshipper would not^ereby be 
 rendered impossible," and if your rule woifl'd not reduce 
 the Bible to a mass of unintelligible jargon. 
 
 Your criticism on the words, ^=v>f such,*' in Luke 18: 16, 
 is of no use to your system^ for it is undeniable that Christ 
 liad reference to the very children he held in his armsj and 
 no phraseology is more frequent in common language tor 
 denote persons, or personality^ and a single exception can- 
 not set aside a general rule. 
 
 Your story, '-that I have,, not very long since, openly 
 declared from the pulpit, that according to the meaning 
 the Baptists affix to Acts 8: 39, I could not tell whether 
 Philip baptized the eunuch, or the eunuch him," is unwor- 
 thy of any man who has a respect for his character as a 
 writer^ and shews that you cannot defend your system by 
 fair and honourable argument No preacher can recollect 
 all he has said in the pulpit, but I am persuaded, that I 
 have never used the identical words which you have pub- 
 lished as mine. But I have said, that as Baptists under- 
 stand the words, 'Hhei/ went down into the water^'^ as sig- 
 nifying immersion; it will follow, that Philip v/as immersed 
 as well as the eunuch, for it is said, *^*that they wentdoiim 
 into the water, both Philip, and the eunuch." I have said 
 so in the fourth letter, when examining that baptism. Both 
 you and Mr. C. have seen this, and instead of shewing that 
 my inference was wrong, both of you pass it by, and as 
 an answer you unbiushingly publish to the world a« a 
 credible fact, Vvhat you have heard from some person or 
 other. Was not this one reason why you have not given 
 the public, and myself your name: and I would novv^ ask 
 you, if that cause is not desperate, and if it is worth defen- 
 ding, when its advocates must resort to such shameful 
 means to support it? 
 
 In page 70, you object to my saying, "that the passo- 
 ver was not only commemorative of the deliverance of the 
 children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, but of a far 
 greater deliverance, the deliverance of guilty sinners, by 
 the sacrifice of the Son of God. " — I need not tell you. Sir, 
 that you have disingenuously garbled the passage which 
 you have quoted from the first. letter, and the apparent in- 
 accuracy of expression would have disappeared had you 
 stated the whole. But admitting an inaccuracy in the 
 
^00 
 
 expression, I contend that there is none in the sentiinentf 
 for Chria*: is styled "the Lamb slain from the foundation 
 of the v/oii^',' In the passage you have quoted, I produ- 
 ced 1 Cor. 5: 7, "eTen Chrht our pas sover is sacrificed 
 for us," as a proof that the passover was typical of the ordi- 
 nance of the supper, and that t'lo latter has taken the 
 place of the former in the churchy and I observed in the 
 fourth letter, '-that the intelligent adult saw in the ordi- 
 nance of the passover the deliverance of guilty men, by 
 the sacrifice of the Son of God." Both you, and Mr. C. 
 have seen this^ why did you not shew, if you could, that 
 my interpretation was wrong? But you have both avoided 
 ihisj and you have contented yourself with a meagre cri- 
 ticism, on what you supposed to be an inaccurate expres- 
 sion. You must allow me to tell you, that you were both 
 afraid to touch that point, and to examine that passage. 
 
 I shall pass over your charges in this and the following 
 page J as they contain nothing but empty declamation 
 against creeds, and confessions, and the venality and cor- 
 ruption of the Pedobaptist clergy; with this single obser- 
 vation — that you have your creed, and confession, and the 
 present question is concerning baptism, and not, what 
 creeds and confessions are agreeable, or contrary to the 
 word of God. 
 
 In my tlurd letter I produced the lith chapter of the 
 epistle to the Romans, as a proof that a church of God ex- 
 isted in the Jewish nation. I observed that according to 
 my view of that cliapter, the apostle compares the cove- 
 nant of circumcision, on v.'hich that church was founded, 
 to a good olive-tree: — Abraham, v/ith whom that covenant 
 v/as first made, to its "roo/" — the Jews to its ^'■b ranches ^^^ 
 and the provisions of that covenant to its ''•fatness^^ — that 
 the Jews, v/itli the exception of a remnant, were broken off 
 from that good olive-tree, by their rejecting Christ, and 
 that the Gentiles by believing in him were grafted in, in 
 their stead, and nov/ partake of its "root and fatness." 
 
 Instead of meeting and discussing this argument in a 
 fair and becoming manner, you try to turn it into ridicule, 
 by telling ns, "that you have heard of a change of dispen- 
 sations, but not of one dispensation being grafted into an- 
 other," "and that no person ever heard of a man being 
 called the root of a covenant. " If there is any thing ridi- 
 culous in the metaphors of that allegory, the apostle Paul 
 must answer for it, for it is undeniable that he speaks of 
 
201 
 
 he Jewish nation, and it is undeniable that they elescend- 
 ed from Abraham. This your friend Mr. C. admits^ but 
 I have shewn that his interpretation of that allegory is not 
 only absurd, but self-contradictory. • Why did you not 
 either attempt to defend your friend^s interpretation, or 
 give us one of your ov/n, not liable to such objections. 
 You have avoided this and you try to diveit the minds of 
 jour friends and the public tVom the interpretation I have 
 given, by directing a few pointless shafts of insipid ridicule 
 against it. And pray, Sir, what is there ridiculous or im- 
 proper in a man's being styled the root of a covenant? 
 You v/ill admit, I expect, that the covenant, usually sty- 
 led the covenant of works, v»as not made with Adam him- 
 self only, but as the root of his posterity; and although I 
 do not recollect that he is styled the root of that covenant 
 in the scriptures, yet there is scarcely a systematic divine, 
 who has not used the metaphor in relation to Adam. In 
 John 15: 1, Christ calls himself "the true vine,'' and 
 <'his father the husbandman.-' If the inspired .penmen 
 had not used these expressions, I suppose you would 
 have denied that they referred to Christ and his Fa- 
 ther, because they were in your opinion improper me- 
 taphors. In Rom. 4: 11, Abraham is styled ^-the father 
 of all them that believe^" and I v;ould now ask you, 
 is not this metaphorical language, according to your 
 ideas of what constitutes a proper metaphor, as ridiculous 
 as the one against which you have objected; and do not 
 forget, Sir, that the metaphor is not mine, nor the tree 
 MINE, but the apostle Paul's. With respect to your ob- 
 jection, that one dispensation cannot be ingrafted into 
 another, I will only observe, that it will be admitted, that 
 the Jews when converted to the Christian faith, will form 
 a partj and a very distinguished part of the Christian 
 church, or Christian dispensation of grace. Now, Sir, 
 read the 23d and 24th verses of this llth chapter, and 
 blush for your ignorance of the subject on Vvhich you have 
 w ritten, and what is more, for your ignorance of the sa- 
 cred Scriptures, for there is intrinsic evidence in your let- 
 ter, that you are a preacher. -Speaking of the restoration 
 of that people, the apostle says; "and they also if they 
 abide not still in unbelief, shall be ^ruffed in: for God is 
 able to grcfffli'nem in again." And then addressing the 
 Gentile converts, he adds; "For If thou wert cut out of 
 the olive-tree wliich i- wild by nature and wert graffkcJ 
 
£02 
 
 contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more 
 shall these, which be the natural brariches, be graffed into 
 their own olive-tree.*^ And nov/,. Sir, is it possible for 
 language to teach more clearly and fully, than the preced- 
 ing verses do, that the Christian church or dispensation of 
 grace, is ingrafted into the Jewish cliurch or dispensation. 
 As this is the pivot on wliich the whole controversy turns, 
 I expected that Mr. C. or some of his friends would have 
 examined this point carefidly and minutely. But he has 
 prudently for himself, overlooked it altogether in his 
 "strictures:*' and the poor, and pithless manner in which 
 you, on whom it seems he devolved the task, have dis- 
 charged it, is another proof that the system which you 
 have adopted, is unscriptural, and indefensible. 
 
 Your comparison in p. 74 betwixt the Romish and Pro- 
 testant Pedobaptist clergy, is only another proof that there 
 is that in your system, that generates, and fosters the hate- 
 ful spirit of persecution; for that spirit manifests itself as 
 unequivocally in slanderous expressions, and in publishing 
 slanderous stories, as in imprisonment, conSscation of pro- 
 perty, or uepi'i'vatioii of life. Your predecessors in Ger- 
 many, in the l6th century, gave full evidence of this; and 
 if their followers have not ran into the same extremes, it 
 is because a gracious Providence has deprived them of an 
 opportunity. I am not alluding to the Baptist church in 
 general, but to those of them only, who have imbibed your, 
 and Mr. C's political, and theological principles. 
 
 In the same page, you tell us, that the Westminster di- 
 vines are inconsistent with themselves; or that the 28th 
 chapter of their Confession of Faith, and 91st, 92d and 
 94th answers in the Shorter, and i65th and iGrth answers 
 in the Larger Catechism, are inconsistent with infant bap- 
 tism, or as you tv/ice scoSingly call it ''^infant sprinkling.'^ 
 Why.^ — Because they say that the thing signiiied by bap 
 tism, the washing of regeneration, is applied to believers. 
 Admitted — and what then? — Does it follow, that the sign 
 is not to be applied, until the person is possessed of the 
 thing signified; more especially if the sign was appointed 
 as-a mean through which the thing signified is conveyed. 
 This I have shewn in the third letter is the fact. You and 
 Mr. C. have read that letter, and instead of meeting and 
 investigating the doctrine exhibited and defended therein, 
 you have contented yourselves, by endeavoring to pour a 
 little unmeaning ridicule upon it. That, it seemsj suits 
 
20-3 
 
 you both much better, than sober, and seriona investiga- 
 tion. I will just add, that vou represent those divines as 
 saying what they have not said, and from which you draw 
 atf inference diametrically opposite to the doctrine of infant 
 baptism which they have avowed in the most clear and 
 express terms- They say that in baptism, "Christ, and 
 the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, 
 and applied to believers i^^ but yon represent thein as say- 
 in<v, that tliose benefits are applied "o/i^/ to believers." 
 This you say excludes infants from baptism as they are 
 not capable of believing. It would so, if they had said so; 
 but it is you, Sir, and not they who have said so. Are 
 you not ashamed of this? Ai^d what am I, or others to think 
 of those men, and their system, that requires such disinge- 
 nuous, yea dishonest means for its support? 
 
 You conclude the argumentative part of your letter, by 
 appealing "to the common sense, and unbiassed reason of 
 mankind, if sprinkling a few^ drops of water on the face, 
 can in any sense be called a washing;" "and if it can be 
 said of such, as in 1 Cor. 6: 11,— "But ye are washed." 
 I answer No — -if you consider, with Tertulliax, with 
 whom I have shewn your system began, that tliere is a pu- 
 rif^dng efficacy in baptismal water itself: and as your ob- 
 jection to have any force imports, and as the mighty stress 
 which Baptists generally place on baptism by immersion 
 imports also. But as that may not be your opinion, I would 
 farther observe, that I agree with you, tliat the apostle re- 
 fers to the ordinance of baptism in the passage you have 
 quoted; because the word ''washecV^ is prefixed t^, and 
 distinguished from the v/ord '''sa?ictifiecP' — "but ye are 
 washed, but ye are. sanctified;"-^because the water in 
 ■baptism signifies, and points out, the necessity of moral 
 purity; — and because, as I think I have proved, it is one 
 of the means by which the Almighty Spirit produces that 
 important w^ork. — But, Sir, that an application of water to 
 a part of the body only, is a fit, and scriptural emblem of 
 the Spirit's agency in producing that importa,nt work, is at- 
 tested, as I have already shewn, not only by the prophets 
 and apostles, but by Christ himself. In^he ISth chapter 
 of John, we are told that Christ shortly before his passion, 
 poured water into a basin, and began to wash his disciples 
 leet, for the purpose of teaching them and us, that we are 
 not to decline the meanest office,, when it can benefit a fel- 
 low Christian, ^¥hen he came to Peter for the purpose of 
 
204 
 
 washing his feet, Peter refused the kind o&ce, doubtless^ 
 from the consideration that such an oiiice was unbefitting 
 •the Son of God, to such an unworthy person as he was, and 
 said; — * 'Lord thou shalt never wash my feet. " To remove 
 his scruples, Christ informed him, that besides the impor- 
 tant lesson Avhich he taught by washing his disciple's feet, 
 the action itself was emblematic of the necessity of the 
 washing of sanctification,. and said, ''if I wash thee not, 
 thou hast no part with me." These words 'themselvefc, 
 and Peter's reply shew, that he understood the meaning of 
 the emblematic action; and being at that time of your opin- 
 ion at present, that a total, must be better, than a partial 
 application of water to the body, he exclaimed, "Lord not 
 my feet only, but my hands and my head." *'But Jesus 
 said unto him, he that is washed, needeth not, save to wash 
 his feet, but is clean every whit." Now, as your friend, 
 and ally Mr. C. has admitted in p. 141, of his book (for it 
 cannot be denied) that the water in baptism is emblemati- 
 cal of the Spirit's agency on the human heart; then, wheth- 
 er you consider the action of Christ's wasliing the disciple's 
 feet, as what is to be imitated by his followers or not, you 
 cannot but see, that Cln-ist liimself has positively declared, 
 iiiat the application of water to a part of the body only, is 
 a fitter emblem of his Spirit's purifying influences, than 
 immersing the whole body in that element; because, as I 
 have repeatedly shewn, those influences, are said, "to be 
 sprinkled upon," and "poured out" upon us, but we are nev- 
 er saiii tobe immersed in those iufluenccs. You are not how- 
 ever to understand me as adducing that transaction as a 
 pcoofthatbaptismistobe administered by affusion or sprin- 
 kling the water on the subject. That, I think, I have proved 
 from other passages of the divine records, but which you and 
 Mr. C . have prudently passed over. I have adduced it only, 
 as another instance, tliat a partial application of water, is a 
 more appropriate emblem of the Spirit's purifying influen- 
 ces, than to apply the water to the whole body by immersion; 
 and as Christ himself has declared that it is so, when the 
 water is only applied to the feet, I do not know of any 
 reason why it should not be so, when applied to the head 
 or face. But this is not all. As you consider the word 
 ^^washecP^ in 1 Cor. 6: 11, as having reference to the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, and in which you are supported by the 
 best commcn-tators; then ]tt me observe to you further, that 
 the Greek v/crd used by the fspostle in that passage, is in 
 
perfect accordanci> v.itli the docttiue v/luch Christ has 
 taught in the passage which I have adduced. It is not 
 hapli'ZQ^ Sir, on which you and other Baptists place so 
 much stress, but hno.^ which signiiies to wasli by any 
 means; and this is another proof, that immersion is not 
 necessary to constitute a valid baptism. I am persuaded 
 that you were not aware of this circumstance, or you would 
 not have adduced that passage to prove "that immersion 
 is \}{\Qi only baptism;" and I am sure that Mr. C. will not 
 thank you for meddling with it at all. 
 
 I have now finished my examination of your letter, and 
 as tliis may be the last opportunity which I may have of 
 addressing you directly, permit me. to ask you, if you are 
 not now convinced, that jour present creed is unscriptural, 
 and indefensible.'^ I say your present creed, for there is to 
 me, intrinsic evidence in your letter, that you have not 
 always h^ld it. It sits awkwardly upon you; and if it 
 v/ould not offend you too much, 1 w^ould say, that you do 
 not understand it. But particularly, let me ask you 
 Vvhence you have imbibed that rancorous, and persecuting 
 spirit, v/hich bursts out in almost every page of your letter, 
 against the Pedobaptist clergy. — -Is it the fruit of your 
 present creed? — Is it not then time to renounce it, for you 
 cannot but be conscious, that it is as opposite to the spiiit 
 of the Gospel, as darkness is to light; as "the wisdom of 
 this world" is to that which "is pure, and peaceable, and 
 gentle, and easy to be entreated.-' I do not speak thus, 
 on account of that ridicule which you have attempted to 
 pour out on myself individually; for I neither feel, nor have 
 felt it, nor has it, nor can it injure me in any manner what- 
 ever: but I speak thus, because lam sorry to see such tal 
 ents, and attainments, as you are possessed of, and vrhicli 
 under a proper direction might have been useful to the 
 church, perverted by a system which you do not under-" 
 stand; for it is not the Baptist system as purged by the 
 laborious, and humble Menxo, which you and Mr. C. have 
 embraced, but as retaining much of the impurities, politi- 
 cal and theological, of the impure, and ferocious Anabap- 
 tists of the 1 6th century. It maybe wortli your while to 
 think seiiously of this; and may the Spirit of truth, and of 
 love, guide you, and myself, into the paths of truth, and of 
 righteousness. SAMUEL RALSTON. 
 
 Mmgo-Creek, Washiyigton'} 
 Cmmfu,Fa.Jlpn(lS23. S 
 19 
 
LETTER IX. ^ 
 
 I SUPPOSE that it is scarcely necessary to observe, 
 that Mr. C. has lately published the substance of a second 
 debate on baptism between himself and a Mr. Macalla, at 
 that time of Kentucky, and now of Philadelphia. To this 
 debate he has appended "animadversions^ on the pre- 
 ceding letters; and as it seems, that in the course of the 
 debate Mn M. read extracts from those letters, Mr. C. 
 informs his readers, *>that there is not a single topic of 
 argument advanced by me that is not to be found in that 
 volume. " His ' 'animadversions" are cdnfined to 5 pages, 
 and with the exception of a single attempt at argument 
 which shall be noticed in the proper place, they are taken 
 up with low wit not worth noticing, and the usual charge 
 of misrepresentation. Surely, there never w^as a man more 
 unfortunate in this respect, than is my opponent. In p. 
 419 he says that Mr. Fikdley's letter annexed to Mr. 
 Walker- s account of the debate at Mount-Pleasant, "is 
 one continued epistle of defamation and misrepresenta- 
 tion." In p. 4i8 he tells us, that Mr, W's book, with 
 respect "to vulgarity of abuse, the maliciousness of the 
 insinuations, the manifest disregard to truth, the unfoun- 
 ded assertions, &:c. stands preeminently distinguished - 
 amongst the ephemeral productions of the day." And 
 not only is this the case, but he tells us in the 14th No. of 
 his "Christian Baptist," thatMr. GREVTRAKEa Baptis^t 
 minister, who has lately addressed fire or six letters to him 
 on the wildness of his principles, and the extravagance of 
 his followers, has published "falseliood, and calumny — • 
 "and deliberately written down falsehood against him." 
 As for myself he says in p. 405, "that I am destitute ct 
 moral rectitude;" and besides the great number of misrep- 
 resentations in the first series of my letters, 8 of which he 
 has only specified, I have in the last series misrepresented 
 him in no less than 117 instances; and that of all the first 
 host of misrepresentations I have succeeded in clearing 
 myself of one only by a mistake of the printer.* 
 
 •Mr. C's firmest friends. and admirers cannot but b^ ashamed of 
 tV.is. For was it not Mr. C. himself, and not the prij^t'Cr, who rr. 
 
20f 
 
 >^ow, I do protest against Mr. C. being my judge in 
 iliis ca^. My answers to those alledged misrepresenta- 
 tions are b^pre the piiblick, and to them I appeal. With 
 respect to the .*<?cond formidable host of 117, but wliichhe 
 has not specified, Tp*-^ only excepted, and it is to be suppo- 
 sed that they are the sit^jngest he could muster, I appeal 
 also to thAi same tribunal. Wherever I have combatted 
 llis opinions, I ha.ve quoted his words, and the public k have 
 decided, and will decide, whether or no, the doctrines op- 
 |>osed are contained in those v/ords. 
 
 As to the last specified misrepresentations, he says that 
 there are three falsehoods in the second sentence, of the 
 first paragraph of the 5th letter. These falsehoods, it 
 seems, are contained in the fo/lowing v/ords — * 'After much 
 threatening, and a lapse and labour of 12 months, Mr. C, 
 has at length published stsictures on three of the forego- 
 ing letters, and called to his aid another writer with the 
 signature of Fhilalethes: and he asks, "where was this 
 threatening, this labour of 12 months, and where the proof 
 of cpJIing to his aid another y/riter." 
 
 Now, one vv'ould think that a recollection of the Gascon- 
 ading style, and bullying and threatening tone of his 
 Christian Baptist, and Strictures, would have preven- 
 ted him from preferring the first of these charges. The 
 fact that it was upwards of 12 months after the appearance 
 of the 1st, 3d, and 4th letters in the Presbyterian Maga- 
 zine before his 'sStrictures" on them appeared, dissipates 
 the second^ and the fact that he published the letter gf 
 Philalethes dissipates the third of those formidable char- 
 ges of falsehood and misrepresentation. 
 
 As an answer to the fourth charge, "that I represent him 
 as saying, that I have apostrophised as much in my letters 
 'jis he has done in his book," but which he denies having 
 
 ferred to the page In his own book. Bvit is it so, that he refers to 
 p. 158 of the second Edition of his debate with Mr. W. to the 
 covenanthfctween God and Abraham, recorded in the 15th chapter 
 of Genesis. He does so — but not as an answer to what I have said 
 in the first letter respecting that covenant. I referred to that cov- 
 enant, as what, and what alone Secured the land of Canaan to 
 Abraham, and his seed; but IVIr. C. refers to it in that page inre- 
 g'ard to a piece of chronology only. He cannot but have known 
 ihis; and I would now ask the readel", and Mr. C*s friends, what 
 v/e are to think of the man who attempts to palm such a gross 
 misrepresentation on the pubhck^ and at the expense of the ve^' 
 Mcitv of another. 
 
Lib 
 
 aaid, the reader is referred to the 5d, and 4tli pages c^^^^> 
 STRICTURES, and especiallj to the sentence begim^^^g thus 
 •—"Having given a few of Mr. R's apostrophe^, and j-ra- 
 tuitous declamations/' With respect to tae last charge^ 
 of my saying, "that Mr. C. represents -Jie as misrepresen- 
 ting him in no less than 8 ditierepi instances, ^yhereas he 
 has said that they were only a few of many;" I would just 
 reply that he specified only the 8, and I could not reply to 
 what I did not know. It is true that he says, that there 
 were many more— wiiy then did he not produce them; and 
 it may be of use to him to be tcld, if he does not know it 
 already, that his bare assertion as a vvriter, will go but a 
 short way v/itli the publick at present. 
 
 And here I would observe again, that I am sensible that 
 these charges and replications must be uninteresting if not 
 unpleasant to the reader; and some may say, that the above 
 charges vvcre notvrorthy of notice, as they have no bearing 
 on the question at issue, even admitting that tliey wert. 
 well founded. To this I will only say, 'that I would not 
 have noticed them at all as they respected myself, was I not 
 aw^are, that Mr. C. and his friends would say, that 1 pas- 
 sed over objections, and in which I was personally concer- 
 ned, because I could not answer them; and that this would 
 be trumpeted abroad as a triumph on his part in this dis- 
 cussion. And it may not be amiss to remark farther, that 
 in the fifth letter, and elsewhere, I have charged him witii 
 a number of gross and palpable misrepresentations, and 
 shewn that some of his alledgcd misrepresentations were 
 misrepresentations of myself; notwitlistanding which, he 
 has passed them by v/ithout any notice, or even an attempt 
 to explain them; and they are now fixed down upon liim as 
 so many stains on his character as a writer, and will re- 
 main so until they are removed either by explanation, or a 
 candid acknowledgement. Some of them may possibly 
 admit of an explanation, but of others it is impossible, they 
 are so glaring, and so palpable.. 
 
 Perhaps some of my readers may be ready to ask, how 
 are we to account for this conduct in Mr. C. in-ieprosent ■ 
 ing ail his opponents, Baptists not excepted, sometimes 
 as weak and puerile, and at other times as destitute of moral 
 rectitude. It has a tendency to enlist his readers in Hi's 
 favour as a much injured and misrepresented man: to pre- 
 possess them against his opponents; and in iwy own opinion- 
 was designed to cover the weakness of his arguments* 
 
£0^ 
 
 it may be farther asked, why does Mr. C. bring forward 
 again, and again, the same arguments which have been re- 
 futed, at least replied to, without shewing the invalidity of 
 the reply. I confess I do not know, unless that he calculated 
 that his friends would not read the answers of his opponents; 
 and that the bold and confident manner in wliich he reiter- 
 ates those arguments, would convey the idea, that they are 
 unanswered , and unanswerable. I have noticed several in- 
 stances of this in the preceding letters, and other instances 
 may occur before I have finished my observations on his 
 objections in the debate w^th Mr. M. If this is hot an 
 honourable, and honest, it is at least a compendious way 
 of answering an opponent. 
 
 Having made these observations, and which T deemed 
 necessary for the reasons assigned, I shall now examine 
 the objections which Mr. C. made in the debate with Mr. 
 M. to the doctrines laid dow^n, and defended in the pre- 
 ceding letters. It is not my design to review that debate 
 any farther than I am personally concerned, and as may be 
 necessary to the reader's understanding the objections 
 made against myself in particular. After an introductory 
 speech on both sides, Mr. C. may be said to open the de- 
 bate in p. .58, by reading Mat. 28: 19— Acts 2: 41—8: 12, 
 36, &c. as containing what he calls "the law of baptism:" 
 or the qualifications of those who are reported in those 
 passages to have been baptized. Now, every reader of 
 discernment cannot but see, that the foregoing and simi- 
 lar passages have nothing whatever to do with the point 
 then to be investigated. They refer to adults only; or 
 they tell us, that a profession of faith in Christ is required 
 of aduit persons before they can be baptized. But as I 
 have observed in the beginning of the preceding letter, 
 Pedobaptists have no difference with Baptists on that point, 
 and to refer to the "law of baptism" as it respects adults, 
 as an argument against the baptism of infants, discovers, 
 either, an unpardonable ignorance in a disputer and writer 
 on the subject, or an attempt to impose on the ignorant by 
 a shameless sophistry. 
 
 It has also been observed in the first letter, that the ar- 
 gument brought against the baptism of infants because they 
 are not capable of believing, is not only a shameless, but 
 a wicked piece of sophistry. It involves in it that they 
 
 cannot be saved; hence then, instead of wasting time on 
 ■tkese miserable sophisms, Mr- M. proceeded to prove, th?*^ 
 *19 
 
210 
 
 tliere was a church of God-*-a church in the fullest setise 
 of the word in the Jewish nation, and that what areusiiall}'- 
 called the Jewish church, and the Christian church, are 
 ONE, and the same, diflering indeed in external rites, but 
 the same in substance, and in essence. Kever have I seen 
 a point more fully and mere satisfactorily ]->roved, and by 
 a greater variety of arguments, even according to Mr. C'-s 
 own account of the debate. Mr. M. shewed from various 
 passages in the Old and New Testament, that Jews and 
 Christiansj "had the same religion — ^are called by the same 
 inspired name — and have the same immutable covenant.*' 
 Having established this important point; lie then shewed 
 that infants were admitted into the church of God by the 
 ordinance of circumcision under the Jev/ish economy, and 
 as their right to that privilege has not been revoked, that 
 they ought to be baptized, as it is admitted on both sides 
 that baptism is the mean of induction into the church un- 
 der the present economy of grace. Never were premises 
 more clearly and solidly laid; and never was a conclusion 
 ijtiore obvious, and triumphant. 
 
 And here it may not be unnecessary to remark, that Pe- 
 dobaptists are not usupaly aw^^re of tlieir strength of argu- 
 ment on this point. It is enough for them to prove that 
 there was a church of God in the Jewish nation, and that 
 Infants were introduced into that church, and it belongs to 
 those who say that they were cast out to prove the fact. 
 The ''onus probandi^''^ or the burden of proof belongs to 
 the Baptists, and it is a burden which they feel is pressing 
 them to the dust. The great solicitude which Mr. C. ex- 
 pressed, and the art v/h^ich it is manifest he used to divert 
 Mr. M. from this point; and when he could not succeed, 
 the w eakness and the absurdity of the objections which he 
 brought against the argument, is a proof of the justness of 
 tlie foregoing observations. My present design will not 
 admit of reviewing ail those objections, I shall therefore 
 notice two or three of them only, and on which he has pla- 
 ced the greatest dependence. 
 
 His first objection to the argument for the identity of the 
 Jewish and Christian churchy is deduced from the inter- 
 pretation which Daniel gave of the kiirgdom of Christ wdiich 
 iinder the symbol of *'a little stone cut out without hands," 
 should destroy "the Image composed of gold, of silver, of 
 brass, and of iron mixed with cl^y,*^ which Nebuchadnezzar 
 saw in the visions of the night, — "And in those days^'^ 
 
'211 
 
 3im the pfophet, "shall the God of heaven set up a king-v 
 dom that shall never be destroyed—but it shall break in 
 pieces, and consnnie all those kmgdomsj and it shall stand 
 foreverj-' Dan. £: 44. The kingdoms alluded to v/ere 
 the fou^ great Monarchies—The Chaldean, the Fersiaii, 
 the Grecian, and the liomaii: paid the reader may nrr-; be 
 ready to ask, hov/ does Mr. C. prove from this propheci 
 and its interpretation, that the Jewish and Christian chui-cii 
 are not one, and the same. In this v/ay, in p. 97, he 
 foists in what he calls '°'the sacerdotal kingdom" of the 
 Jews, ari^ongst those kingdoms; and as they were all to be 
 destroyed by "the little stone," he drav/s the conclusion 
 that the Jewish and Christian church cannot be the sanie. 
 because the Jewish church, or ' 'sacerdotal kingdom" v/as 
 destroyed with those kingdoms. 
 
 It requires no great degree of discernment to see, that 
 this objection is founded on an assumption, and a blending 
 of things v/hich %vere distinct in themselves. It assumes 
 as fact, that the kingdoms of Israel, and of Judah, were a 
 part of the four great monarchies. Their being under theii' 
 temporary influence and domination, at different times, is 
 not a proof that that was the casei the great difference in 
 their several religions forbade such a coalition. But ad- 
 mitting that they were, the objection confounds the eccle- 
 siastical with the civil polity of the Jews, than wliich no 
 two things were more distinct. Their kings were not their 
 priests, nor were they suffered by their laws to assume the- 
 priestly ojTice; but it would seem by the words, ''*tlie sa- 
 cerdotal kingdom," and "the kingdom of Priests," which 
 Mr. C. uses in the page referred to, that he considers the 
 civil government of the Jev.-^s, to have been altogether ec- 
 clesiastical. But who does not knov.', that they had a civil 
 government distinct from the ecclesiastical; and might not 
 the one be destroyed, without the destruction of the other. 
 Now, tliis was actually the case: for although the Jewish 
 state underwent different changes, at different times, from 
 the four great Monarchies, yet their ecclesiastical polity^ 
 or church existed until the coming of the Messiah. And 
 not only was tliis the case, but before the kingdom of Ju- 
 dah was finally destroyed by the Roman empire, we have 
 the testimony of an apostle, that what was called the 
 Christian, was ^'ingrafted" iiito the Jewish church. I 
 shall only fartb.er observe, that notwithstanding the pom- 
 posity with which this objection is brought forward, and 
 
^1'2 
 
 uot withstanding the great dependence wKich Mr. C. ptaces 
 upon it, for when he resumed it in p.^ 195, "he requested 
 his hearers to watch him closely," yet when examined, it 
 is found to be based on factitious principles. 
 
 Another objection to the identity of the Jewish and 
 Christian church is deduced in page 155, from the circum- 
 stance that the one was typical of the other: but similarity 
 does not constitute identity. It does not w'ith regard to 
 individuals, considered as such, but it is otherwise with 
 regard to those individuals who constitute the church. Wo 
 do not pretend to explain the nature of that identity; bivt 
 that there is a oneness constituted by baptism as a profes- 
 sion cf Christianity in opposition to Paganism, Mahome- 
 tanism, and Judaism, is apparent from various expressions 
 in PauPs epistles. In Gal. 3: 27, he says, "As many as 
 have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: There 
 is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, 
 there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus.-' That there is a oneness of a more important na- 
 ture and character constituted by the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost in true believers, is^ also apparent fi'om 1 Cor. 11: 
 13 — "-For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
 whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or 
 free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit.*' 
 And not only is this the case in the present dispensation, 
 it was also -the case in all the preceding dispensations oi 
 grace. Thus in Song 6: 9, the bridegroom of the church 
 says, ''My dove, my undeal-ed is but one;-' and in the 
 following: verse, the same woman, or the church is repre- 
 sented, "as looking forth as the morning" in the patriar- 
 chal age; '"fair as the moon" under the Mosaic economy; 
 * 'clear as the sun" in the present dispensation and day; and 
 "terrible as an army with banners," in her ndllenial coa- 
 quests and g'ory. 
 
 From the foregoing observations you w ill have perceiv- 
 ed, that another objection in the same page is scarcely 
 worthy of notice, ft is this — ''To say that the Jews and 
 Christian religion because substantially the same, are one 
 and the sam.e, is as absurd as to say, that because a house, a; 
 table, and a chair are substantially the same, therefore a 
 table, a chair, and a house are one and the same." 
 
 I presume that by "the Jews and Christian religion" in 
 this objection he meant the ordinances of the two dispen,-^ 
 3ati(wis, But who has ever said that they were gxe and 
 
£13 
 
 the same, in the sense implied in his simile. Pedobaptist^^ 
 sjav, that althougli there is a diiference in the external 
 form, theyhau, and have the same aspect, object, and de- 
 sign. They directed the worshipper to the same objep^ of 
 worship, and were designed to lead him to tiie same -^lamb 
 of God v/ho taketh av, ay the sins of tlie world. " ^ut does 
 tlus difference inr regard to external rites destroy the iden- 
 tity of the cliui'ch— that is the qi^e^tion. I have lately 
 shewn that the church is compared to a woman in the 
 scriptures: and h.e might as vv-ell say, that the ciixiimstance 
 of a woman's putting on a dress this day, somewhat dif- 
 ferent in form, or even in the materials of wliich it is com- 
 posed, from that which she wore yesterday, destroys her 
 identity: or to use his own simile, does the circum.stance 
 of a piece of wood being made into a house, a cliair, cr a. 
 table, destroy the identity of tlie v.ood. 
 
 it will be recollected, tliat in the first letter, -JIcat.. 1 1 ; 
 lo — 24, was adduced as a proof of the identity of the Jew- 
 ish and the Christian church, or that the latter was ingraf- 
 ted into the former — ^that in the close of the last letter I 
 called upon Mr. C. to overturn that argument if he could, 
 and to defend if he conld, the espositioii which he gave of 
 that passage, and which I have pronounced, and still do 
 pronounce, to be absurd and ridiculous. In p. 148—9, 
 Tvir. M. adduced the same passage for the same purpose^ 
 or that the apcstle^s declaration that the Gentiles were in- 
 grafted into what he styles "the good Olive tree, ^' is a proof 
 that the Jewish and Christian church are the same in sub- 
 stance, although differing in external rites. Mr. C*s 
 friends and the publick, did certainly expect that he v/ould 
 defend his exposition of that passage, or at least make the 
 attempt, and shew that the exposition of it given by Mr. M. 
 and myself was wrong. And is not this the case? No- 
 all the ansvver given to my call and argument is— " that 
 the scope and meaning of that paragrapli (passage, I sup- 
 pose he meant) so often attended to, and whicii is so fully 
 exam.ined in Ids debate "with Mr- Walker, pages £7" — 30, 
 beginning witli the iGih verse of Rom, xi. is well given by 
 Maokmght i'n his paraphrase of t\\Q first clause of this 
 ■verse,"— -'*for if the iirst Jevvish believers have been ac- 
 cepted of God, the whole nation will be so when they be- 
 lievej" p. i 53. Now, this is only an exposition of the words 
 in tiie l^th verse — ^•'■For if tlie first ftuit be holy, the lump 
 is ?lsO''^oly:'' and admitting it to be correct, what has-it 
 
214 
 
 i 
 
 to do with what the apostle says in the folbwing verses, of 
 *^the wild Olive tree," or the Gentiles, being grafted into 
 '•Hhe good Oli^e tree," or the Jewish chureh. This was 
 th^ point to be investigated, and to this bis attention was 
 particularly called; but he passes it by with telling us^. 
 *'that oa the stage he read and commented on the whole 
 passage m Mackmght's translation, but that it was too 
 tedious for insertion .then, but he would give us the sub- 
 stance at another time. " But that time is not yet come. 
 It is not I believe in the remainder of his book; for I looked 
 diligently for it, bat I looked in vain. What will his 
 friends and admirers now say of their champion who has 
 *^*deiied all Christendom." The truth is, the passage re- 
 ferred to, of itself proves beyond all controversy the one- 
 ness of the Jewish and Christian church — Mr, C. saw it, 
 and was afraid to meddle with it again. 
 
 It will be farther recollected, that Eph. 2: 12 — 22, was 
 also adduced as a proof of the identity of the Jewish and 
 the Christian church. It appears from p. 239, that Mr. M» 
 also adduced this passage for the same purpose. In p. 
 243, Mr. C. objects by saying, that the word ^'•twain'^^ in 
 this passage ("for to make in himself [Christ] of twain, one 
 new man, so making peace") ''cannot be understood ofa 
 Jewish church, and a Gentile church, as there was no Gen- 
 tile church, and therefore must mean Jewish people, and 
 Gentile people." It docs so; but not Jews and Gentiles 
 as such, but Jewish believers, and Gentile believers in Je- 
 sus as the Messiah. Nor does the phrase '*one new man, " ' 
 in the same passage, mean ''anew body, anew association 
 never existing bii^re," as Mr. C. says it does. The words, 
 -^'so making peace, ^' which immediately follow, tell us, that 
 it alludes to the circumstance of what is called in the 15ia- 
 verse, "the law of commandments contained in ordinan- 
 ces," or the ceremonial law to which the Jews were strong'- 
 ly attached, and the Gentiles opposed, being taken away 
 by the death of Christ, wliereby a way was opened up for 
 reconciling those discordant parties, and for admitting the 
 Gentiles into the church in as full a manner as the Jews; 
 or as the apostle expresses it in Rom. 11 : 17, "for ingraft- 
 ing the Gentiles into the good Olive tree," th^t they migK^ 
 * 'partake of its root and fatness." 
 
 When Mr. M. had triumphantly proved the *<1 entity of 
 the Jewish and Christian church, and the conseqt«ent right 
 cf the children of baptiz;ed parents to the ordinanceof bap- 
 
215 
 
 tismi he proceededio other sources of proof whieh he styles 
 ^^probable,^^ and ^'posifive.^^ The probable proof he de- 
 duces from proselyte Baptism among the Jews, and the 
 positive, from what we are told on the subject in the New 
 Testament. As I am not concerned in the first species 
 of proof, I shall pass it over with the observation, that I 
 think he has clearly established the Tact; and proceed i» 
 consider Mr. C's objections to the second ground of proof, 
 and in which he, and myself come more immediately into 
 contact I and in which we have additional specimens of the 
 manner in which he treats Iiis opponents, and we think, 
 for the purposes already mentioned. 
 
 It seems that in the course of the debate, Mr. M. addu- 
 ced the observations which I have made in the second let- 
 ter, respecting the Greek words Oikos, and Oikia, when 
 used figuratively, to denote the inhabitants of a hoiise, or 
 dwelling place. — ^That OiJws is used both in the Septua- 
 gint, and the Greek Testament, to denote children sepa^ 
 rately from their parents, and sometimes little children 
 exclusively—- That as the Oikos or family of Lydia, of 
 Cornelius, of the Jailor, and of Stephanas, are said to have 
 been baptized, that it follows, that infants were baptized, 
 or the inspired penman has used a Vv ord calculated to de- 
 ceive both Jews and Greeks^. 
 
 To tills Mr, C'. replies by saying in pages 278, and 283, 
 "that it is a refuge of l^es" — "the mere fabrication of an 
 overweening imagination" — and "designed to lead captive 
 the ignorant and unwary admirers of the patented priest- 
 hood.^^ Ai-er this ebullition of not unusual, and indiscrim- 
 inate abuse of tlie Pedobaptist clergy; and I tiiink you vv^ill 
 say, notunworthy of the meanest scribbler, in the highest 
 garret in Billingsgate, he tries to lessen the force of tlie ar- 
 gument by an ostentatious display of quotations from the 
 Septuagmt, and Greek Testament, but vv^hich every dis- 
 cerning reader will have perceived^ have not the least bear- 
 ing, nor effect on the argument. In the first place he has 
 adduced a f-.nv passages from the New Testament, where 
 those words are used interchangeably, to denote a house or 
 dwelling place^ And wliatnow is this to the point.^ I have 
 said so in the beginning of the letter. Secondly, he has 
 detailed a few instances from the New Testament, where 
 Oikia is used to denote a whole family, children, and ser- 
 vants, I have also admitted that this might be the case? 
 but I have proved positive' j from Fhil. 4 : 22, and more than 
 
516 
 
 probably from Acta 16: 32, and 1. Cor. 15: 16, that it is 
 used to denote the servants exclusively. Thirdly, he has 
 adduced, and detailed a few instances from the Septua- 
 o-int, where Oikosisxuftd to denote the servants of a fam- 
 ilyj but let it be recollected, and particularly noticed, not a 
 single instance from the New Testament where it is so 
 used. It v/as to this circumstance that I had reference 
 when I said, 'nhat the distinction betwixt oikos and oiJda. 
 is accurately observed in the New testament.*' On this 
 I founded my argument? and I have accordingly shev/n, 
 that in all the accounts which we have of family bap 
 tisms, it was the aikos and not the oikia^ who weie bap- 
 tized. This is the pivot on which the controversy as 
 it regards this argument turns; and until Mr. G. or 
 ■iome of his aids vvill shew, that oiJda is used to de- 
 note infants exclusively, and that the oikia were bapti- 
 zed., all his objections vanish like smoke, notwithstanding 
 all the pomposity witli which they are brought forward, 
 and tiie low scurrility with which they are mixed, and the 
 above argument for infant baptism remains solid and un- 
 touched, it is a galling argument, an<l tlierefore every 
 mean has been resorted to, to lessen its forces but hov/ in- 
 effectual all his quotations are for that purpose, iho. dis- 
 cerning reader has seen. Indeed, I am persuaded that 
 Mr. C. was conscious, thatl^'s objections were irrelevant, 
 and why he brought them forward I cannot conjecture- 
 unless that he calculated, that the force of tlie argument 
 migiit be lessened or obscured to the urJ earned reader, by 
 such a pompous aiid detailed display of passages from the 
 septaagint and the Greek testament, where the -words oi- 
 hj3 an'i oikia are mentioned. "^Vithout any boastirig, I 
 liow say, that the above prjument is unanswered, and I 
 believe'unanswerable, and is a positive proof of tiie bap- 
 tism of the infants of baptized parents. 
 
 The objection in page 28^2, that I represent Paul and 
 Silas as preaching to ttie jailer and his servants, but not 
 to his v.ife and children, is scarcely vrorthy of notice. Wc 
 are not told that he had a wife -it (he time, and to support 
 his objection Mr. C. should liave proved that he had. But 
 we are told that he had children, and that they were bap- 
 tized; and tiie very circumstance of its being said, i\vdi 
 Paul and Silas preached to the oikia. and not to the oikos, 
 is a strong presumptive proof that his cliildren were not 
 capable of hearing 'Hbe word'- $30 as to proiit by it, T*^ 
 
217 
 
 ]}fove3 that ihej were infants^— but more on this point ini 
 niediatelv. 
 
 In pages 283—5, we have another specimen of the man- 
 mv in which Mr. C. treats his opponents, and we believe 
 for the purposes already mentioned. I have obsarved in 
 the second letter, that Paul and Silas did not require of the 
 Jailor's children "to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,*' 
 because the verb '^believe'^ in the Slst verse is in the sin- 
 gular number, and in the second person^ and because it is 
 .said in the 34th verse, that the Jailor only believed; from 
 v/hichi drew the conclusion that the Jailor's house could 
 not have been baptized on account of their ovrn faith, but 
 on account of tiie faith of their parent. It appears that in 
 the debate Mr. M. made the same remark, and drev/ the 
 same conclusion; and as an answer to us both, Mr. C. ex- 
 claims in his usual style — * 'Admirable grammarians!'- — 
 and afterv.ards tells us, "that he is almost ashamed to re- 
 fute such boyisms as appear in these criticisms; and that 
 he has corrected school boys for blunders less egregious.''.' 
 Afcer having thus disposed of us both as a couple of igno- 
 rant and assuming blockheads, he tells us in answer, that 
 there is an ellipsis in the Slst verse, and that according 
 to this figure it should read thus — "Believe thou and thou 
 shalt be saved, and let thy House believe and the}/ shall be 
 saved. " 
 
 It may perhaps be necessary for tiie sake of the unlearned 
 reader to observe, that ellipsis is a fiojure in rhetorick 
 by which a word is left out in a sentence for the sake of 
 conciseness, but it should never be used at tiie expense of 
 perspicuity, nor of the concords-of grammar. Nov/, I must 
 tell tills admirable gramm'h.rian and rhetorician, that al- 
 though there is an ellipsis in this verse, it is of the v/ord 
 "s«i;eJ," and not of the word "Se/zcL-e." This is evident 
 from the very structure of the sentence itself. Salvation 
 was promised to the Jailor on his believing, and salvation 
 was promised to his House — "thou shaltbe saved and thy 
 House:" but not one word, nor is there the slightest hint 
 respecting their believing. We are not even told that they 
 were \}VQ6ent at the time that Paul and Silas addressed 
 their father, nor v/ere they addressed; the salvation there- 
 fore promised to tiiem was in consequence of the faith of 
 ^'leir parent, and as observed in tiie second letter, can 
 
 ^an nothing more than the means of salvation, of which 
 9.0 
 
218 
 
 v/e have sliewn baptism is one, and which we are told vvas 
 conferred upon them that very night. — '*And he was bap- 
 tized, and all his straightway." Besides, had Paul and 
 Silas called upon the Jailor's family to believe, they would 
 have said pisteusate, "believe ye,'' and not pisteuson, "be- 
 lieve thou;" and had the inspired historian intended to in- 
 form us, that the Jailor's family believed on that occasion, 
 he would have said in the 34th verse peplsteuhotes, "they 
 having believed," and not peplsteukoos,, "having himself 
 believed. " Every reader of good common sense, although 
 not acquainted with the figures and rules of rhetorick, will 
 see the justness of tfie preceding observations, and I am 
 not afraid to say, that every literary readet will pronounce 
 them just and correct. 
 
 Mr. C. has indeed adduced John 4: 53, Acts 18:8, and 
 11:14, as parallel passages, where he says a similar ellipsis 
 is used. There is an ellipsis of the word "believe" in the 
 two first of these passages, bat every grammarian knows 
 that they are constructed differently from the passage now 
 under consideration. In John 4: 53, where it is said, 
 "that the ruler believed and all his house," there is a-n 
 ELLIPSIS of the word "believed," and may be read, "the 
 ruler believed, and his /iowse believed," because the verb 
 "believed" (espisteusen) is in the third person, and so are 
 its nominatives ruler, and housej but as already obser- 
 ved, the verb pisteuson in the passage we have exarnined 
 is in the second person singular. The preceding observa- 
 tions are applicable to Acts 18: 8 — '.'And Crispus believed 
 with all his house." Acts 11: 14 — "Who will tell thee 
 words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved," 
 is indeed a parallel passage wil^i Acts 16: 31, and teaches 
 the very same doctrine, n.nd supports the interpretation 
 which I have given to that passage. Salvation was prom • 
 ised to the fiousE of Cornelius, as well as to himself in 
 consequence of "the words" wliich Peter should tell him, 
 not them. Now, as observed in the second letter, no words 
 however good, told to Cornelius, and believed by him, 
 could .confer either spiritual or eternal salvation on Iiis 
 house; the salvation promised to them must therefore 
 mean the means of salvation. Did Mr. C. possess those 
 talents, that information, and critical acumen, which he 
 does not scruple in p. 347, to tell us he possesses, he 
 would never have adduced this passage in support of his 
 system, and an objection against mine. His vv'eakest ad- 
 
219 
 
 Inirers cannot but see, that it militates strongly against 
 liiin; and when considered, and carried out in all its be:* • 
 ings, completely overthrows the Baptist system in regard 
 to infants. 
 
 And now I think T may say, that the baptism of the Jai- 
 lor's family establishes beyond all peradventure, the bap- 
 tism of a MOUSE on account of the faith of the |)arent. The 
 more it is examined, the fuller and clearer is the proof. 
 It is, us the criticks would say, the ciiux, or cross of the 
 iiaiitiat system I it' is therefore not to be wondered at, that 
 r.very art which ingenuity or sophistry could devise have 
 been put in requisition to fessen its force and evidence, and 
 when this will not avail, of bold assertion and misrepresent 
 lation. An instance of this occurs in p. 292, where Mr. 
 C. adduces the com-mon translation of the S4th verse— 
 '•^Believing in God with all his hoiise,^^ as a proof that the 
 Jailor's family believed as well as himself: notwithstanding 
 he has been repeatedly told, and if he knows any thing ol 
 (h.e Greek language must know, that i]\Q participle ^^c/?2£ - 
 tcukoos is in the singular number} and is predicated of the 
 Jailor, and not of his family. 
 
 With respect to Lydia and her house, Mr. C. says in 
 p. 265, — "that it is probable she was an unmarried woman, 
 a travelling^ merchant — that it is probable that the brethren 
 mentioned in the 4Cth verse were niem.bers of her family, 
 servants, or relations in licr employ— that to evade the 
 force of this consideration Mr, Ralston supposes that the 
 brethren in this house were Timothy and Luke — and that 
 after Paul and Silas were released from prison, they went 
 to comfort and console them before their departure; but 
 this is absurd, for Paul did not leave Timothy nor Luke 
 behind him in Philippi." 
 
 Now, the greatest part of the above quotation is improb- 
 able conjecture, and some of it glaringly untrue. Wheth- 
 er Lydia was a married or unmarried woman at the tim^e 
 Paul and Silas met v/ith her at Philippi, I do not know, 
 nor does Mr. C. know; but I positively know that she had 
 a family (Otkos) and that they were baptized, and there is 
 not the least hint that they were believers. Nor does Mr« 
 C know that she was a travelling m.erchant; for might not 
 "a dealer in purple" remove froni Thyatira to Philippi, and 
 for the purpose of residing there, as a place more suitable 
 for vending her merchandize. Nor is it true that I have 
 only supposed ihdit Timothy and Luke abode in her house 
 
2£0 
 
 during the imprisonment of Paul and Silas^ I have poti- 
 Tlvelj proTed it: nor have I said that Paul left Tiniothj 
 and Luke behind him at Philippi. The reader is reques- 
 ted to review v, hat I have said on these last points in the 
 second letter, and then let him say, if Mr. C. should have 
 ever mentioned the word misrepresentation. 
 
 All that Mr. C. has objected to v;hat I have said respec- 
 ting the family «f Cornelius has been already noticed: and 
 his objections to my remarks on the baptismofthQ house 
 of Stephanas is scarcely worthy of notic*e. It has been ob- 
 served that when Paul speaks of that house in 1. Cor. 1. 
 16, as a family which he had baptized, he uses the word 
 Oikos, but when he speaks in chap. 15:16 of that house as 
 * -addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints,'* he 
 uses the word Gilda, and v.hich I have shewn is used by 
 this sam.e apostle to denote the servants of Csisar the Ro- 
 man emperor. To this Mr. C. objects in p. £91, that it 
 could not be the servants, but the children of Stephanas, 
 who are praised for ' 'addicting themselves to the ministry 
 of the saints" as that would be "'at their master's expense.'' 
 
 I shall leave this objection with this single remark, that 
 the character given of Stephanas himself is a proof, that the 
 attention paid by his servants to the saints, was with his 
 consent, and most probably by his orders j and only farther 
 trjscrvs on this point, that it has been objected, that if 
 family baptism had been a common occurrence in the days 
 of the apostles, we vrouldhave been furnished vrith a fuller 
 account on this point than is upon record. 
 
 That it was a common occurrence in the church of Co- 
 rinth, is implied in the words which immediately follow 
 the account given us of the baptism of the house of Ste- 
 phanas — "And I baptized (says the apostle) the household 
 (Oikon) of Stephanas, besides, I know not whether I bap- 
 tized any cthcr.'^^ These words, as already observed, 
 ♦dearly imply, that other families had been baptized a.t 
 Corinth, although not by the apostle. And-'the reason 
 why he had not baptized any other house, he\ tells us in 
 the preceding and subsequent contexts — "Lest it should 
 be said that he baptized in his own name," or as the head 
 of a party^ "and that Christ had not sent him to baptize," 
 or to addict himself principally to the administration of that 
 ordinance, ' 'but to preach the Gospel ."- 
 
 Mr. C. however asserts in p. £92, '-that we have no 
 account that any other fr.inilies v/ere baptized bv the ciVJir- 
 
;22i 
 
 lies than those mentioned; for PauPs words that he did 
 not know whether he had baptized anj other at Corinth, 
 means individuals^ a.s the Greek, Latin, and English New 
 Testaments declare." 
 
 The Latin and English New Testaments are but trans- 
 lations, and in many instances defective translations; the 
 point therefore must be determined by the Greek Testa- 
 ment, as every disputed point ought to be, and as has been 
 our practice throughout tlie Vv^hole of this controversy. 
 Now, we fearlessly affirm, that the Greek Testament 
 ' 'declares" the very reverse of Mr. C's assertion. The 
 vv'ords translated "any other," are ^Hina allon,^^ both ad- 
 jectives, and have for their substantive oikon, house, with 
 which they agree in gender, number, and case. They are 
 aH of the masculine gender, singuLar number, and accu- 
 sative case, but * 'individuals" are plural. This, we think, 
 settles that point — Does Mr. C. understand Greek; or is 
 he not a conceited, boasting sciolist.^ 
 
 You will recollect that in the conclusion of the last letter, 
 I called upon Mr. C. to discuss and refute, if he could, 
 the arguments for infant baptism which I have deduced 
 from Acts 2: 38, 39, "for the promise is to you, and to your 
 children," and from Mat. £8: 19; and from 1. Cor. 7: 14, 
 • In regard to the first of these passages, he tells us in his 
 ''animadversions," p. 407, that Mr. M. did not introduce 
 it into the debate, and he presumes, that it was "because 
 he sav/ that it would not bear a struggle. " If that was the 
 case, it v/oukl then be the easier conquest for himself; and 
 the reader would expect that h& would so dispose of it as 
 never to be brought forward again as a proof of Pedobaptism . 
 I have observed in the first letter that the promise in this 
 passage evidently refers to Gen. 17: 7, v.'here Jehovah 
 promises to be "a God to Abraham, and to his seed" con- 
 stituted members of the church, under that dispensation, 
 by the ordinance of circumcision — and as both adults and 
 infants became members of the church by that ordinance-— 
 and as the dispensation was then changed, that Peter en- 
 joined baptism on both parents and children as the mean 
 of initiation under the present dispensation, in his "stric- 
 tures" Mr. C. proposed 6 queries on this very point, and 
 demanded my answer; expecting that I could not ansxver 
 "them without relinquishing the position that "theIprom- 
 ise" had reference to Gen. 17: 7, and admitting that it re- 
 ■ . *20 
 
222 
 
 lerred to the propliecy of Joel. Although not mider the 
 necessity, by the laws of fair argumentation, of answering 
 those queries, you v/ill remember that 1 have answered 
 them distinctly, and shewed, I trust, that to refer ''the 
 promise'' in Acts 2: 38, to JoePs prophecy, involved in 
 it a number of the greatest absurdities. And what now 
 is his answer to all this? — Will his friends believe it— The 
 simple and reiterated assertion, that "the promise" refers 
 to Joel's prophecy; and as I have said, "that it does not 
 mean baptism; it avails nothing to my scheme to prove that 
 it means any thing else." What! — Does it avail nothing 
 to my scheme, that Peter urged baptism on the Jews and 
 their children, from the promise of God that he v/ould be 
 "a God to them, and to their seed after them." But the 
 children there spoken of, says Mr. C. *'were not necessa- 
 rily infants; for all the Jews w^ere the children of Abra- 
 ham, although 100 years old." I have shewn the absurdity 
 of this interpretation in the first letter, to which the read- 
 er is referred. And admitting that the word ''children" 
 means what he says it does, it affects not my argument in 
 the smallest degree; for according to his own definition of 
 it, it includes the infant as vv ell as the adult, and this is 
 enough for the Pedobaptist argument. That his argument 
 might have any force, Mr. C. should have tried to prove., 
 that the word in this passage means adults, and adults 
 only, and that none of the^ 3000 whom Peter addressed 
 had infant children. Let the reader now say, if he has 
 ever met with a feebler, yea sillier reply than Mr. C. has 
 oftered to what I have said on this passage in the fir&t and 
 fifth letters, and which he says, "could not bear a struggle." 
 
 Mat. 28: 19— "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost," was brought up in the debate, pp. 81 — 113 — 15. 
 
 In examining that passage in the second letter, I have 
 offered reasons why I consider infants, as well as adults 
 included in Christ's commission to his apostles. And what 
 now has Mr. C. offered against those reasons? As is not 
 unusual, the bare assertion that infants were not included 
 in the above commission. He also repeats what he had 
 said in /the debate with Mr. W. "that?« etJme^ the nations, 
 being neuter is not the antecedent to etufoits which is mas- 
 culine, and which is the accusative governed by matheteu- 
 sate. Its antecedent is mathefas in the verb matheieusatey' 
 Vat no attempt to rem.ove the absurdity which I have shewa 
 
attends this iiilerpretatLori; nor yet to try bis critical 
 ucumen on a siniilaT passage which I produced from the 
 Septuagint. He tries indeed to support his reiterated as- 
 iiertionsby referring to one of his own rules in regard to 
 positive institutes — ^'that positive laws imply their ncga- 
 tivesj" but we will pass this over at present, as we intend 
 shortly to examine "the positive precept and precedent" 
 for female comnmnion wliich he tells us he has lately found 
 cut. I shall only farther observe here, that in examining 
 the above passage I have also offered reasons why I think 
 that infant's as well as adults are included in the w^ord 
 ^^disciples'\m Acts 15: 10— "and why tempt ye God to 
 put a yoke [circumcision] on the neck of the disciples, 
 which neither our fathers, nor w^e w^ere able to bear." And 
 what does my opponent offer against those reasons? Not 
 one word, although he says that in the debate, he offered 
 '^40 rest the whole controversy on the proof of that posi- 
 tion," p. 124. Well then, the controversy is at an end in 
 regard to himself, until he sets aside those reasons. 
 
 1. Cor. 7: 14^^"The unbelieving husband is sanctified 
 by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
 husband, else were your children imclean^ but now are they 
 hoh/^^' was also referred to in the debate, p. 82. 
 
 The reader will recollect that I have also examined this 
 passage in the second letter, and proved, I trust, that it 
 cannot refer to any thing but to that federal lioliness which 
 resulted to the child of a Jew from the circumstance that 
 the parent was circumcised, in consequence of which the 
 child was entitled to be brought also into the church of 
 God by circumcision — and that according to the apostle's 
 reasoning the same holiness is transferred to the infants of 
 a baptized parent or parents, under the {jresent dispensa- 
 tion; in consequence of which they are entitled to ba in- 
 troduced into the same church by the ordinance of baptism. 
 And wdth what now do^ Mr. C. meet and ansv/er the 
 foregoing argument. With this on] y— "that tire holiness 
 there spoken of belongs ti> those children until they die, 
 notwithstanding they should be unbelievers, and incapable of 
 baptism all their lives,^^ Surely, his warmest friends and ad- 
 mirers expected something more than this, and the publick 
 expected at least, that he would tell us definitely what he 
 meant by this "holiness," for he admits that it is a holiness, 
 that can tousist with a state of unbelief. I can conceive of 
 
224 
 
 no other reasou for the omission, than that he still Ijoids the 
 definition which he gave of it in his <] ebate with Mr. W. p. 62, 
 and on which I have rJready remarked—- that it means legit- 
 imacy of birth, or that the children of married parents are le- 
 gitimate so long as the parents cohabit, but should they sep- 
 arate from ePcch other, that circumstance renders the chil- 
 dren illegitimate. Unhappy children of quarrelsome pa- 
 j-ents !~but I have not a word more to say on this point. Those 
 who can embrace Mr. C's interpretation of this passao;e, are 
 prepared to believe any thing however v/eak, wild aiid ex- 
 travagant. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe, that when Baptist 
 wnters are driven by the strongest arguments and clearest 
 reasoning, from the difierent positions v.'hich they assume, 
 they take refuge under the following syllogism — Baptism 
 is a -positive institute, '^and in . positive institutes we 
 are not to reason^'^^ "and positive laws imply their neg- 
 atives;" but there is no positive precept or precedent for 
 baptizing infants: therefore they ought not be baptized. 
 When asked where the positive precept or precedent for 
 admitting wonyen to the Lord's table is, tliey know not 
 what \q sa3% and the most unlettered of their readers see 
 the nakedness of their argument; for it cannot but occur to 
 them that the above argument is a'sophism, or not a woman 
 however pious ought to be admitted to the Lord's supper, 
 as there is neither positive precept nor precedent for ad- 
 mitting them. Mr. Booth endeavoured to rescue the Bap- 
 tist system and church from- this perplexing difficulty by 
 telling us that in 1. Cor. 11: 28, the Greek word anthro- 
 pos often signifies the male and the female — "But let a 
 man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and 
 drink x)f that cup." Every person who has read Peter 
 Edwards' answer to Mr. Booth, cannot but remember with 
 v/hat poirited but just irony he has exposed the positive 
 precept of the transatlantic chaiijpion of the Baptists. In 
 a note in p. STT, Mr. C. tells us with no small degree of 
 exultation, "that upon a close examination of the scrip- 
 tures," he has found out a positive precept for female com- 
 munion, and iri the very chapter v/here the great Booth 
 had foundered and failed in a most pitiable manner. And 
 as he says, that Mason, Walker, Armstrong and myself, 
 "have laid great stress" on the want of a positive precept 
 01' precedent for female communion, "he trusts that if hny 
 
objection can be made lie will now hear it, or r.ever after 
 hear of that miserable excuse for infant sprinkling. " Tke 
 positive precept is contained in tlie foil ovving quotation. 
 
 ^•That the v.crd aneer man occurs 14 times in the firs^t 
 '•15 verses, and the v/ord gune woman occurs 16 times in 
 *'the same number. After speaking cf the man and the 
 ''"voman as both membei-s of the church, and after having 
 -'pointed out their peculiar duties in some respects, the 
 * 'apostle uses the \vGrd tUw 16 of both genders p-eferring 
 '^•to both cmeer and gime^ and then uses the. pronouns ?/'S and 
 ''^you addressing both genders. As the pronoun stands f^r 
 •-the nouu, so you represents both man and woman its aate- 
 "cedent. As often says the apostle, as ye who? Doubt- 
 '♦less the antecedent; for the pronoun stands for i]\Q noun. 
 ''as ail grammarians teach—as often as ye men and wo- 
 "men of whom I have been speaking, eat this bread and 
 "'•drink this cup (in the margin) shew ye (men and women) 
 *'forth the Lord's death till he come. Here then is a pos- 
 "itive command, men and women shew fjrth the Lord's 
 "death till he corne.*' 
 
 Such reader is Mr. C's positive precept for female com- 
 munion. I have no doubt 'but that you are ready to say- 
 Does not his reasonings %\\Qh as it is, in this quotation, de- 
 stroy his ov;n rule which he so often inculcates, and on 
 ^vhich he has placed so much reliance — That in positive 
 precepts we are not to reason. He has guarded against 
 this by telling you, that if you will sa,y, there is reasoning 
 or ''inference*' in the foregoing quotation it will be at the 
 risk G-f your "common sense;-' and if you are possessed af 
 "common erudition," it will be "an insult to your intel- 
 lect." You may say, this is anev/ species of argumentj 
 ])ut novelties of even an extraordinary kind, are not un- 
 common in Mr. C's writings. 
 
 "What Mason, Armstrong, and Yv'alker, may say or do 
 in this case I do notknov/jbutas respects myself, notvv-ith- 
 standing llie danger to my "common sense," and to what- 
 ever "erudition" I may possess, I would beg leave to say 
 that I have {wo or th re e^ objections to this "positive pre- 
 re}>t." and which I think are not unworth}!" of the atten- 
 lion cf Mr. C's friends and admirers. I would therefore 
 observe, that the apostle evidently discusses three distinct 
 -ubjects in tbat chapter, and to apply the reasonings on 
 one of these subjects, to tlie odiers, is contrary to all tlie 
 ■lies cf sound criticism, and correct interpreiation— It if. 
 
S26 
 
 sophistry of the most glaring kind. His first object v^ia. 
 to correct what was considered indecorous in those dayy 
 ' — women praying or prophesying in pubiick with unveiled 
 faces, and which takes uptiie first 15 verses; and to these 
 verses, and the subject contained in them, the word gtnic 
 is evidently confined. 
 
 His second object was to reprove the Corinthiims on ac- 
 count of their contentions, and this embraces tlie iGth, 
 1 r(h, 1 8th, and i9th verses. ' 'But if any man (Us) seems 
 to be contentious, v/e have no such custom, neither the 
 churches of God." The Greek word tis in this verse, 
 translated "any man," is indeed of both genders as Mr. 
 C. has observed, and so is the word pkiloneikos, ''conten- 
 tious," when used in the attic dialect, and yet there is nvO 
 proof that it is so used in this place; but the adjectives hoi 
 dokimoi. "approved," and phanerci, "manifest," in the 
 IGth, and which have reference to tis in the 16th verse, 
 are both of the masculine gender, and determine the gen- 
 der of iis» Where now is Mr. C's gi-me v.hich he found so 
 often in the first 15 verses? She has disappeared, nor is she 
 to be found again to the end of the chapter. And indeed 
 the circumstance that contentions in ehurch and state are 
 usually agitated and managed by the men, and not by the 
 women, might have convinced any man, that by Us in the 
 16th verse, the apostle had reference to the man and not 
 to tlie vroman, and it is accordingly so translated. 
 
 But what comes more immediately to the point, the 
 apostle's third object was to correct the abuses which had 
 crept into the church in eating the ordinance of the supper, 
 and to point out its true character and design. And who 
 nov/ were the persons guilty of those abuses? Was it the 
 men or the wom.en, or both? A bare inspection of the 
 original text tells us, that it was the men, while there ia 
 not the most remote allusion to the women. — '-For in eat- 
 ing, every one (hekastos) ta.keth before other his own sup- 
 per, and on^ (hos) is hungry, and another (hos) is drun- 
 ken;" all of which words are in the masculine, and not one 
 of them in the fem.inine gender. 
 
 And yet this is not all. Admitting that the apostle 
 from the 16th verse had used a word or words that kept 
 up the idea of both genders, whereas the reverse is the 
 fact; the verb ''kataggeUele'^ in the '28th verse, and on 
 which the whole stress for a positive precept lies, is a word 
 of doubtful disputation in regard to its meaning in thi> 
 
^%7 
 
 ^..ace; and oiiglit not therefore to have been adduced as a 
 proof of a positive precept. Our translators have rendered 
 it, ''•ye do shew forth," and Mr. C. "do je shew forth. ^• 
 It will admit of either of these translations^ but as I have 
 observed in the third letter, where a w^ord, or words are 
 produced as a proof of a positive precept, "they ought to 
 be so clear, and so distinctly defined, as to admit of no 
 other meaning , and like axioms to involve their own evi- 
 dence. *' 
 
 "Now for the, express precedent,*- as Mr. C. expresses 
 itj It is to be found, he says, in Acts 2: 42 — "x\nd they 
 continued stedfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellovv- 
 -ship, and in breaking of bread,*' or as he translates it, "in 
 breaking the loaf.'' 
 
 The first question which now presents itself is, what are 
 we to understand by the words "breaking of bread?-' 
 Some commentators do ijideed understand by them, the 
 eating of the Lord's, supper: but others think that they have 
 reference only to v»'hat is said in the foilovv^ing verses, of 
 the primitive Christians ''having all things in common |" 
 and of their '■^breaking bread from house to house, and 
 eating their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." 
 The words then v/hich are again adduced as a proof of a 
 positive precedent far female communion, are also words 
 of a doubtful meaning ia that place, and preclude the very 
 id-ea of an express precedent. 
 
 We might stop here; but it may not be amiss to examine 
 this new express precedent a little farther. The next 
 question is; who are the persons who are said to have been 
 thus employed? The 3008 mentioned in the preceding 
 verse, and who are said to have been baptized, — *'*Tiien ihey 
 that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same 
 day .here were added mito them about 30G0 souls. And 
 they continued stedfastly in the apostle^s doctrine and fel- 
 lowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. " And 
 does not Mr. C. say so too? Yes — But he tel^s us^ that to 
 those 3000 we must annex the persons mentioned so far- 
 away as the 14th verse of the first chapter, and the first 
 verse ©f this chapter, and instead of SUGG make up the 
 number of 3120. But v.'hy this? Because women are men- 
 tioned among the 120; and women, get them where he 
 Avould, were indispensibly necessary, for making out the 
 express precedent for female communion; and you must 
 moreover believe him th.at there is neither reasonino-, nor 
 
inference in the way he makes it cut. i will only farther &aj, 
 that it is very unlike the express precedent for the baptism 
 of females in Acts 8: 12— "And they were baptized, both 
 men and womeni" and i think that the intelligent reader 
 will saj, tliat Mr C's new express precept and precedent 
 for female communion arSthe most extraordinary that have 
 been published in the last 50 years — They exceed even 
 Mr. Booth's. 
 
 I. will only add, tliat it is not true that Pedobaptists call 
 for an express precept or precedent for female communion, 
 "as an excuse fur infant sprinkling," as he still scoSngly 
 stiles infant baptism; but to shew Baptists themselves the 
 sophistry of requiring positive precepts or precedents for 
 administering positive institutes. As has been already ob- 
 served, if the riglit of pious women to the ordinance of the 
 supper, and the right of tlie infants of baptized parents to 
 the ordinance of baptism., can be proved by clear inferences 
 from scripture premises, it is as valid, and wdl be as sat- 
 isfactory to every intelligent and unprejudiced person, as 
 if it had been said in so many words — that believing wo- 
 men arc to be admitted to the table of the Lord — and the 
 infants of baptized parents are to be baptized. In the de- 
 bate with Mr. W. Mr. C. himself when called upon to 
 prove the first, proved it clearly by inference, and by in- 
 ference only; and I think, tliat I Wave as clearly proved 
 the latter, if 1 have not produced positive precept and pre- 
 cedent. I shall conclude this letter by advising Mr. C. 
 to send his argument against infiint baptism deduced from 
 the want of a positive precept or precedent, over to some 
 friend in England, to be deposited in the tomb of Mr. 
 Booth with whom I think it originated; as it is found to be 
 of no more use on this than om the other side of the Atlantic; 
 and to be not only a miserable but a wicked sophism; ex- 
 cluding every female however pious, from the table of the 
 Lord. As for the second argument, that inf mts are not to 
 be baptized, because they are not capable of believing, he 
 may as well send it with the first, for it is also a wicked 
 sophism; as according to it no infant can be saved. On 
 those two v/retched sophisms hang'-i the whole Bapti^ttsys- 
 tem in regard to infants; for as has been frequently observ- 
 ed, the baptizing an adult believer, is a principle and 
 practice rommon to Baptists and Pedobaptists, 
 
LETTER X. 
 
 ALL %vho have read the debate between Mr. C. and 
 Mr. M. cannot but have observed, that it was conducted in 
 an extraordinary manner on the part of Mr. C. He tells 
 us ill p. 161 that he entered upon the mode of baptism, be- 
 fore Mr. M. had finished his argument for the identity of 
 the Jewish and Christian churches as they are usually cal- 
 led. This conduct of Mr. C. will doubtless be attributed 
 to difterent causes, by different persons. Some may sup- 
 pose that his fondness for baptism by immersion, which he 
 says in p. 134 is "a purgation of all sins," led him to this 
 haste. My own opinion is, that he saw the strength and 
 unassailable character of Mr. M's argument, and dreaded 
 the clear and irresistible concliisicnfrom it, for infant bap- 
 tism^ and therefore endeavoured by evetyart he could de- 
 vise to divert him from Iris argument. But Mr. M. was 
 not to be diverted, until he brouglit out the triumphant 
 conclusion, to the dismay of Mr. -C. aiid I have no doubt 
 to the dismay of every Baptist v/ho vas present on the 
 occasion. ■ 
 
 But let Mr. C's reasons for this haste be what they niayi 
 he makes his debut by telling us in p. 182 — 6, how m.any 
 different words the Greeks used to denote the application 
 of water to a person or thing — how often the words 
 "sprinkle, pour, v/asli, dip, plunge," are used, in the New 
 Testament — and that bapto and h.aptizo are never render- 
 ed by the English translators by ^'* sprinkle'^ or "•pour,'^' 
 No\A^, this is admitted, '.and we have already assigned the 
 reasons why those words are not so translated.. We have 
 observed that the translators wQre strongly inclined to the 
 Baptist system, and as a proof adduced several instances 
 where they have translated in favour of inimersion to the 
 manifest violation of the rules of universal g;ranimar, and 
 where the preceding and subsequent contexts evidently re- 
 quire a different translation. . But the question is not, 
 how these words are translated, but in what sense they are 
 used in the sacred oracles. In p. 165—7, Mr. C. reprodu- 
 ces the authority of Dr. Campbell, to v/hich he adds Dr. 
 MoKni^ht, and Simon the Jesuit, as a proof that thosft 
 9A. 
 
£30 
 
 Words signify to im mer se, and to immerse only. We are not 
 disposed to pay much respect to the sophistries of the Jesu- 
 its; nor does our cause need such aid; and we will meet with 
 Ur. McKnight hereafter. With respect to Dr. Campbell, it 
 has been shewn that he was mistaken on this point, and 
 Dan. 4: S3 was produced as a proof, where it is said in 
 the Septuagint, that Nebuchadnezzar's body was ''•ivet''^ 
 (ebaphe) v/ith the dew of heaven, and that this must h?«Ye 
 been by the dew being poured out upon him. 
 
 To this Mr. C. replies in p. 303, ''that this wETKCGlnusJ: 
 be understood figuratively — ^^that Pedobaptists must admit 
 it on their own principles! for they do not suppose that 
 they should administer baptism in the manner in which 
 that impious monarch was baptized— and. that Nebuchad- 
 nezzar slept on the dewy grass, and v,as overwhelmed with 
 it as a person in a river." 
 
 I do not know of any principle of Pedobaptisni which 
 requires of those Vvho hold it to understand this weting 
 figuratively; and I am persuaded that Mr. C. cannot pro- 
 duce aPedobaptist writer v.ho says that a spiiitual mean- 
 ing was couched under it. Nor do Pedobaptists refer to it 
 as containing directions how they are to administer bap- 
 tism; but for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of 
 the verb bapto. And admitting to Mr. C, that Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was overwhelmed with dew as he lay on the grass, 
 this dew must have been poured out upon him, and this is 
 all that their argument requires; but the mode of baptism 
 for vrhich he contends is a being plunged in water; and 
 however copious the dew was in that country, this was not 
 the case with that unliappy monarch. Besides, had that 
 monarch been overwhelmed vdtkdewas a Baptist is over- 
 whelmed jn a river, he could not have lived during the 
 night, without a miracle. When Mr. C. writes his third 
 book on baptism, he is requested to remove these difficul- 
 ties, or to admit that bafto is used in that passage to signify 
 ^•to pour out,*' or "to sprinkle." 
 
 To the foregoing instance I would add, that there is an- 
 other passage, Lev; 14: 15, 16, where bapto is used, but 
 where it cannot mean, nor could be designed to mean, ''to 
 immerse^" or '"to overwhelm." — "And the priest shall 
 take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his 
 own left hand; and the priest shall dip (bapsei) his right 
 finger in the oil that is in his left liand, and shall sprinkl- 
 of the oil seven times before the Lord. " 
 
It is scarcelj necessary to observe, tltac the priest's ri'ght 
 iin^er could. not be overwhelmed with the oil which the 
 palm of his left hand could contain: but it could be smeared, 
 or weted by it. Tiie words which immediately follow 
 bapsei are an additional proof that it 'is not used in that 
 place to signify to plunge or to immerse. Had that been 
 the case, it would have been '*bapsei els to elaion,'^ he 
 3hali dip it into the oil, but it is ^^bapsci apo tou elaiou,'^ 
 which can have no other meaning than that he shall stain or 
 wet it with the oil. In p. S£9 Mr. C. adduces this very 
 passage as an instance where bopto is used to signify to dip^ 
 but he took care to withhold the v/ords "orpo tou elaiou," 
 CVS that Vvouid have discovered his ignorance or sophistry 
 even to a school bo}-, A man of his literary pretensions 
 should have known that the preposition apo never means 
 info — ^but VtC will meet v/ith this preposition again. Exod, 
 V2: 22, is another instance wK^ere bapto is manifestly used 
 to signify to wet, or to^smear. 
 
 And not only is this verb used in the above sense in tlie 
 Septuagint, it 'is also so used in Rev. 19: 13, where the 
 Son of God is represented as vrearing a vesture, ''*bebam- 
 mmoii aimati,^^ sprinkled, or stained v.ith blood. Every 
 Greek scholar knows that this is the true translation; for if 
 the inspired penman had intended to convey the idea tliat 
 his vesture was dipped in blood, he vrnuld have written be- 
 bammenon cis to aima. Lev. 14: 51 is so rendered by the 
 Septuagint — in regarti to the cleansing of a leprous house. 
 - — ''And the Priest shall take the living bird, and the cedar 
 Vvood, and t}i2. scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall (bapsei) 
 dip them, cis to aima, in, or i.ntoihQ blood of the bird that 
 was killed overtlie running water." Besides, should we 
 understand the participle belammenon in Rev. 19: 13, as 
 alluding to the blood which trie .Saviour shed upon the 
 cross, as some commentators do, or to the blood of his en- 
 emies shed in a stat^ of hostility against him, as is the more 
 probable opinion cf others^ in neither of these cases can 
 the allusion be admitted that the blocd was collected in a 
 vessel and his vesture dipped in it; but in either of them, 
 or in both, it is easy to admit that his vesture vras stained 
 or sprinkled v/ith blood. 
 
 But this is not all; for strange as it may appear, Mr. C. 
 acknov/ledges in p. 165, that the Hebrew word tebel, which 
 aiisv.ers to the' Greek word bapto is translated bv the 
 
Sepiiiagint moluno, \v]\ic\\ signiiies to dye, or to stain. '^■ 
 This is the word which they use in Gen. 37: 31, respecting 
 Joseph's coat of many colours. Our translators in their 
 zeal f&r promoting baptism by dipping, have translated the 
 passage thus— ''And they took Joseph's coat, and killed 
 a Idd of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood. " But 
 every person will perceive that the coat could not have been 
 dipped in the blood of a kid killed in the open fields, and 
 the blood probably spilled on the grassy bufit could be> and 
 Yvas stained by it, 'Besides, had the coat been dipped in, 
 and covered all over v/ith blood, Jacob could not have cer • 
 tainly known it to have been the coat of his son 5 for be re- 
 cognized it because of its many colours. And yet notwith- 
 standing the foregoing acknowledgement, and i\iQ instan- 
 ces v>'hick have been produced to the contrary, it is not 
 improbable that Mr. C. may again assert that bapto is nev- 
 er used in the sacred oracles to signify to pour out, or to 
 sprinkle. It is true that cheo is often used to signify the 
 former, and raino the latter; but who does not knov/, that 
 in every l-.nguage different words are used to express the 
 same idea; and not only so, but that tlie same word is some- 
 times used in- different acceptations. This consideration, 
 and tliis well known fact obviates ail his ai'guments on this 
 point in p. 329, and elsewhere. 
 
 To the reiterated assertions in his "strictures," that 
 I could not produce any instance from the Nev*' Testament 
 where baptizo v/ith its conjugates is used to signify to 
 pour out, or to sprinkle, it will be recollected that in tlie 
 7th letter, I produced in the first place Heb. 9: 10— "whicli 
 stood only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, 
 (baptismous) and carnal ordinances, imposed on thera un- 
 til the time of reformation." It was observed that the 
 diverse washings, or baptisms in that passage, had refer- 
 ence to the different purifications enjoined by the Levitical 
 litual — that some of these consisted in sprinkling water 
 on the person or thing to be puritled, and some of them, in 
 dipping the person or thing in water — and that in the ISth 
 verse the apostle m.entions "l:];e sprinkling the unclean 
 with the ashes of a heifer," with what is called ia the 19th 
 
 *In his notes on Hark 7: 4, Dr. Campbell says, ''that the Hebrew 
 TBBEx perfectly corresponds to the Greek bapto and baptizo, 
 which are synonimous, and is chnvys rendered by one or the other 
 of them in the Septuagint. "j Vie* abf.ve is a proof that he v.ss 
 mistaken with respect to the scriptural meaning' of those words/" 
 
etiap. of Lev. "the water of separation," as one of those 
 baptisms. 
 
 To this Mr. C. replies in a note in p. 295, *'tbat I have 
 defeated mjself," bj admitting tliat some of these piirifi* 
 cations required the immersion of the priests or people 
 when ceremonially unclean— and that in the 13th verse 
 the apostle has changed his subject, and speaks of ''^sprink- 
 /in 0-5 as. contradistinguished from immersions." 
 
 On examining more minutely the directions given for 
 the purification of the priests and people, I find that I have 
 admitted too much v;hen I said that some of tliese purifi- 
 cations required the immersion of themselves in water. I 
 was led into the mistake by an impression on my mind at 
 the time, that in those places where it is enjoined that they 
 should "bathe themselves in water," the verb bapto was 
 used by the Septuagint. But on examining those places 
 1 find that it is not used in a solitary instance, but the verb 
 louo which signifies to wash in general, without any ref- 
 erence to the mode of wasliing. Bapto is indeed used 
 when cerem.onially unclean household untensils, and other 
 things were to be cleansed, and also in the directions giv- 
 en for preparing some of the purifying material; but I do 
 not know that a single instance can be prod need, v/here it 
 is used to denote v/ ashing as a religious rite, for the pur- 
 pose of cleansing the ceremonially unclean. On the con- 
 trary, in the cleansing of the leper, the cleansing material 
 was to be sprinkled or poured on the person to be cleansed. 
 Tiiis also was the case v/ith \^'hat was called the v/ater of 
 separation — It v/as to be sprinkled on the person to be 
 cleansed, as is apparent from the 19th chapter o/Numbers. 
 How I have defeated mj'self by the above inadvertent ad- 
 mission; or how it aiFects the point at issue either one way 
 or another, is what I cannot see. The question was, is 
 baptizo aUvays used in the Greek Testament to signify to 
 immerse, and to immerse only. I have proved, and I think 
 beyond all contradiction, that bapto, the root oi baptizo, 
 baptismos, and baptisma, is used to signify to pour cut to 
 wet, as well as to dip, and pouring is only a profuse sprink- 
 ling. It will not be said that derivatives are used in\a 
 less extended sense than the words from which they are 
 derived . On the contrary their meaning is often extended, 
 iiud hence there is nothing to forbid the conclusion thai 
 ^''0 *^?pri!iklinp;" mentioned in the 15th verfc is one of thf^- 
 
'•washings*^ mentioned in the lOth Terse. Tiiis coiiclu- 
 8ion is strengthened bj the circumstance that the cerenw- 
 nial] J unclean are not said to be dipped in, but sprinkled 
 with water in order to their cleansing, and is in my view, 
 a strong presumptive argument that baptizo which is not 
 only derived from bapio, but is moreover a diminutive, is 
 never used to signify to immerse vv hen denoting the initia- 
 ting ordinance into the Christian church. Besides, the 
 assertion that the Apostle in the 13th verse speaks of the 
 dilferent sprinklings imposed on the Jews is not only gra- 
 luitous, but contradicted by the very expression which he 
 emploj/s. It is not ''sprinklings," as Mr. C. writes it^ 
 but "sprinkling," or sprinkling as one of the diverse bap- 
 tisms which he had already mentioned. To which may 
 be added, that the word ''diverse," or various {dlaphorois) 
 is of itself a proof that he had reference to various modes, 
 of Avashing. Washing by immersion is one and the same 
 mode of washing; but as the Jews washed by sometimes 
 immersing the thing to be washed in water, and sometimes 
 by pouring water upon it, hence then the expression "di- 
 verse" or various baptisms. / 
 
 .1. Cor. 10: 2, was also adduced as a baptism which mast 
 have beenJiy affusion or sprinkling, and not by immersion. 
 "And they were all baptized (ebaptisanto) unto Moses, 
 in the cloud, and in the sea." — It was observed on tiiis 
 passage, that as it is said, that the Israelites "walked on 
 dry land," they could not have been immersed; and that 
 whatever that baptism meant, or was designed to prefigure, 
 the little children and infants were baptized as well as the 
 Tfien and women. 
 
 Mr. C. has prudently for his system passed over the last 
 observation, without the least notice; and in p. 302 tells us, 
 "that the Israelites were baptized in tlie cloud and sea 
 taken together" — "that the cloud above, and the water on 
 each side completely overv/helmed them" — "and yet he 
 ihinks that not one drop of water fell on them" — and the 
 mere circumstance of their being surrounded with water, 
 and covered with a cloud is called their baptism. " ' 
 
 /rhis is indeed a new idea, and a new theory of baptism-, 
 Auhough the inspired penman expressly says that they were 
 baptized; and although Mr. C. strenuously contends that 
 hay/tizo signifies to immerse in water, yet lie will notadtiiit 
 that a single drop of v/ater w^as sprinkled on the Israelites, 
 \Xrom the cloud, or from the se^i. Well then, if there can 
 
oe "a baptism v.-iuiout cue drop of water touching the suij- 
 iects, pi'ovided they are surrounded with it j ir>ight it not be 
 tidmiiiisteied bv enclosing tnem in large casks, and' im- 
 liicTsing the casks in w^ater. It would be an excellent ex- 
 pedient for preserving health and life in cald climates, and 
 m iAie coldest season of the year, and would obviate a very, 
 serious and perplexing objection to the Baptist systein. 
 li^d this suggestion proceeded from Mr. C. in the first 
 place; or should he now recmninend it, I have no doubt but 
 that some of his admirers would adopt, it^ for they have 
 svrallov.-ed dogmas and adopted practices from hiiii, not 
 moi'e wild nor extravagant. But enough of this nev/ theo- 
 ry of baptism, without one drop of water toyehing the sub- 
 ject. It cannot be ansv.'ered gravely; v/e will therefore 
 dismiss it, with this observation, that the above passage 
 not only evinces the propriety of baptizing little children 
 and infants as v/eii as men and women, but tells us, that 
 sprinkling is a proper mode of applying the v/ater to the 
 subject. 
 
 1 Pet. 3: £1, was also adduced as another in.^^ance 
 where baptism, and christian baptism too is mentioned, but 
 where there could not be any allusion to immersion as the 
 mode — "Eight souls were saved by water; the like figure 
 v/hereunto even baptism (baptisma) doth also now save 
 us." It vv^as observed, that in this passage the apostle 
 <ira.ws the comparison between the temporal salvation of 
 Noah and his House by v/ater. and baptismal v/ater as a 
 mea.n of spiritual salvation— and that there could not be 
 any allusion to baptism by immersion in that extraordinary 
 preservation, for it was the lawless antediluvians v/ho were 
 immersed, while Noah and hisfainily were doubtless sprin- 
 kled by the spray of the boundless ocean tumbling and 
 i)reakiug around them. Instead of attempting a direct reply 
 to this, Mr. C. in p. 274 refers me to the notes of Dr. 
 BP Knight on the passage, "as a solid refutation,*' with the 
 remark that the Dr. was a Pedobaptist. Although those 
 notes are rather too long for our intended brevity, we will 
 however give them entire as quoted by Mr. C. that the 
 reader may seethe supposed analogy betw^een Noah in the 
 ark, and a Baptist buried in the water. I 
 
 "1. As by building the ark and entering into it, Noah 
 sliewed a strong faith in the promise of God, concerning 
 his preservation by the very water which v/as-to destroy 
 the antediluvians for their sins, so, by giving ourselves to 
 
x56 
 
 be burle.I in the Water by baptism we shew a like faith in 
 God's promise, though we die and B.vQbiirisd, he will raise 
 us ffOLn death the punish ir^ent of sin, by raising us from 
 the dead at the last daj." — Now, who does not see, that 
 iiistead of an analogy in this note bstweeh Noah m the ark, 
 and a Baptist buried in the water, the reverse is the fact. 
 Koah was savsd by bein^ above the water, tho'igh doubt- 
 less sprinkled by it; but accordins; to the Baptist system 
 the believer is saved by being buried in it. — If such a mode 
 of speech was admissiljle, it is such an analogy as is between 
 above and beneath. 
 
 '°2. As the prcserdngNoah alive during the nine months' 
 be was in the floods is an emblem of the preservation of 
 the souls of believers alive v/hile in the state of the dead, 
 so, the preserving believers alive, while buried in the water 
 of baptism, is a prefiguration of the same event." — Now, 
 it is not true that Noah was '*in the flood" during nine 
 months. He was above it, and had he been "in the flood'^ 
 during nine days, or nine minutes, there would have been 
 an analogy between him and a Baptist in the water, but as 
 he was above it, the compaiison is ridiculous. 
 
 "3. As the waters of the deluge destroyed the wicked 
 antediluvians,: but preserved Noah by hearing up Vhq ark 
 in which he v/as shut up, till the v/aters vv'ere assuaged, 
 and he went out of it to live a^ain on trie earth, so, bapiism 
 may he said to' destroy the wicked, and to save the righteous^. 
 as it prefigures both of those events, the death of the sin- 
 ner it prefigures by burying the baptized person in water; 
 and the salvation of the righteous, by raising the baptized 
 person out of the water to live a new life."— I confess I 
 know not what to make of this. In the passage under 
 examination the apostle speaks of baptism as a saving ordi- 
 nance, or as I understand it, a mean of spiritual salvation^, 
 but Dr. McKnight as a destroying ordinance to all who 
 are not true believers. Surely Mr. C. must have been 
 pinched indeed when he produced the self-contradictory 
 analogies of this Pseudo-Pedobaptist as a proof tliat baptis- 
 Qna in this passage must mean' iminersion. 
 
 In the preceding page Mr. C. produces i^int comment of 
 this same Dr. on Rom. 6: 3—5, and Col. 2: 12, as a proof 
 that baptism is to be administered by immersion. The 
 comment is to the saine import as the notes we have exam- 
 ined — That as it is said in both passages, that believers 
 are buried with Christ, in or by baptism, there is an allu 
 
257 
 
 sion to the mode which must be immsrsion, as ioiUiersion 
 is a burymg a person in utiter. In order to ascertain the 
 truth or faisity of this comment, and which is the commen* 
 of every Baptist v/riter, we will brief! j examine Rom. 6: 
 3 — 5, because it is more full and explicit than Col. 2:.12| 
 and Jiecaiise the observations which will be made on the 
 one,, will be applicable to the other. 
 
 InRoiifi.6: S, 4, the apostle says, "Know ye not that so 
 many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ y/ere bap- 
 tized into his deaths therefore we are burled v/ith hins' d^/ 
 baptism into deaths that like as Christ was. raised up frora 
 the dead by the glory of the father, so w& also shoul(i walk 
 in newness of life. ^' 
 
 Let it be here I'ecoUected, that the believer is said to be 
 connected wiih, or united to Christ % baptism, in his life, 
 in his death, and in his burial — *'bafmzed into Christ — 
 baptized into his death—buried witK him by baptism."^ 
 Now, as has bccrifrequenOy cbserTcd by Pedobaptist wri- 
 ters, if there is an allusion to the mode' of baptism m one 
 of these expressions, there mnst be an allusion to it in the 
 ot'ners: or the mode of baptism must resembje Christ's 
 life, death, and burial; but that would prove too much for 
 even Mr. C. Besides* baptism is no where styled a burial. 
 The expression is' « 'buried with him (Christ) by baptism," 
 and the vv-ords which immediately follow tell iis, that the 
 apostle had allusion to a death to' sin, and a resurrection to 
 spiritual life, and that baptisra is cnie of the means through 
 which that, and the otlier blessings which accompany it are 
 often con ve3!'ed—*^%uried with him by baptism.*^ 
 
 But this is not all. In the 5thy%v fsjUowing verse the 
 apostle adds| ^'for if we have been planted together in the 
 likeness of his death, we shall be also in tlie likeness of his 
 resurrection. - ' The reader v/ill have observed, that there 
 is a direct allusion to" the death ii'Cbn*t i-i the word like- 
 ness in this verse, which word i- ii^-i uoed l:i the preceding 
 verses; and that the believerb' connection- with Christ by 
 baptisiij, is expressed by the metaplior ''planted." Tiiese 
 circumstances a> ■ ' ' ^particular notice; for as the 
 acut'e and f^ic^. ,. . .'llwardsobserve-s; since the 
 
 Baplists alledgc that there is an allusion "to the mode of 
 baptisi^i in the expression '^buried with Christ," some may- 
 con' nndwith greater plausibility tn^i plant ing is the mode, 
 l>ccaiise the word ^'fiksncos^^ is in the 5th, and not in the 
 
:^b6 
 
 4 th %'ersej and sliould a contest arise, '^'^he ci early SBes tlia*. 
 victor J wi)l crown the planters. " 
 
 Since then it is iriily absurd to consider the above pas: 
 sage, as having any cilliision ^vhatevcr to the mode of act- 
 ministering baptisin, the reader may be ready to ask, wha.t 
 t)ien is the doctrine taught therein. This v.'e think — That 
 besides being the initiatory ordinance into the church, bap- 
 tism was also designedtobeanieanof ,^race, and is more- 
 over a sign of the blessina^s purchased by the life, death, 
 burial, and resurrection of* Christ— Tiiat^vheil the bapti- 
 zed person has obtained the t'ling taught by the sign, the 
 renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, it is also an exter- 
 nal seal of his, or her interest in those blessings— It teach- 
 es farther that such are under the strongest obligation?^ to 
 live a life of holiness. The word 'rpLAXTE^"' teaches the 
 first of these important lessons. Tt is evidently borrowed 
 from Isai. 5: 1 — 4, and Luke 15: 6 — 9, in both of which 
 passages the church is lield out under the alle$>;ory of a 
 vineyard, and the trees planted therein, as planted'that they 
 lulglit bring forth fruit. The expressions — '-baptized into 
 CMirist — baptized into his death— and buried with him by 
 bnptiam,'* teach the second; and tlie words that they 
 ♦•should walk in newness of life, •' teach the third of these 
 i rri por tant i essons. 
 
 Luke 12: 50, was also adduced as an instance where 
 the word "baptism" cannot mean immcrtron — "I have a 
 h-a]>ti3n» (bapf'isma) to ber baptized with, an;l liow am I 
 St? ai^-^Dcd un<il it be accomplished.-' It was observed t'uat 
 \]\K- Saviour in those words aUud^v] to ids feuff^rings — that 
 if the n'dusion was to the tears and blood vvhich he shed on 
 the occasion, it favours (he idea of sprinkliuf^, and not of 
 im'-iersion — and if to the wrath of the F.^.ti\er which he 
 suffered in the stead of gaiety meti, this v/rarh is always 
 represented as poured out; Jer. 10: 25. Rev. 15: 1. 
 
 To this Mr. C. makes no direct reply, and says only in 
 p. "^rO, that Dr. Campbell translates (he passage thus— 
 '•i have an immersion to under;To.r*and that Dr. McKnight 
 uanslates 1. Cor. 15; 29, "v/hat shall v.edowho arc bap- 
 tized for the dead, if the dead'rlse not" thus — -**what shall 
 v;e do Vvho are immersed in sufferings for the hope of the 
 resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not. '^ 
 
 The s]>ecimen which we have had of Dr. McKniglit's ana- 
 logical tai^.nts, is not calculated to inspire much confidence 
 in his philological acumen and skill. We s/i^-// therefore 
 
2S9 
 
 pass him by with this observation; that the translation 
 which he has given to 1. Cor. 15: 29, is very ditfe rent 
 from the interpretation wliich Mr. C. has given us of it in 
 p. 209 of his debate with Mr. W. and overturns his sup- 
 posed strong argiinient for immersion, deduced from that 
 passage. 
 
 That Dr. Campbell was possessed of extensive philologi- 
 cal knowledge, and that this knovv'ledge was generally, 
 correct, is readily admitted. But we have shewn, from 
 more than one instance that he was mistaken in regard to 
 tlie fill I meaning of baplo^ bapiizo. and haptisma. That the 
 last of these words is used figuratively in Luke 12: 50, and 
 that it has reference to the sutferings of Christ is certain. 
 But the question is, whether there is an allusion in those 
 sufferings to inmiersion, or pouring out, or sprinkling: or in 
 otlier w ords, is Christ represented in the passage as im- 
 mersed in his tears and blood, or sprinkled with them; or 
 are the vials of his father's wrath represented in the scrip- 
 tures as poured out on him, or he immersed in them. This 
 is the question, and every thing else is foreign, and design- 
 ed to divert the mind of the reader from the point in hand, 
 I need scarcely repeat it, that Jesus could not be immersed 
 in his own tears and blood; and to the passa^-es adduced 
 which represent the wrath of God as poured out, others 
 could be added. Then, as Christ in the passage alludes to 
 his suSerings, we conclude that in the v/ord ''^bapiistna,^^ 
 there is an allusion to sprinkling, or pouring out, and not 
 to immersion— Let Mr. C. nov»' shew the reverse if he can. 
 
 1 Cor. 1-2: 13, v/as adduced as another instance where 
 the w^ord "baptized'' is used to signify to pour cut, or to 
 sprinkle: "For by one spirit are we all baptized (ebaptis- 
 Ihem.en) into one body, whether vi-e be Jews or Gentiles, 
 or whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to 
 drink into one spirit." It was observed, that by the "one 
 body" in this passage true believers are meant, who are 
 elsewhere stiled ''The Body of CHPasT"— -That true be- 
 lievers aie said to be baptized into tliis body by "the one 
 spirit" — -and as the spirit's influences are said to be poured 
 out, or sprinkled upon; the word "baptized" must there- 
 fore have an allusion to pouring out or sprinkling, and not 
 to immersion. 
 
 To this Mr. C. replies i|i p. 356, that the apostle had 
 reference ir. this passage "to miraculous, and not to the 
 ordinar}^ iniiuences of the spirit*" Be it so, these iriira- 
 
-^40 
 
 culous influences are said in JoePs prophecy to be "pouretl 
 Gilt,-' a-nd proves all that I desired Co prove. I would how- 
 ever fartlier remark, that when Mr. C. said that the apos- 
 tle had reference in the passage under consideration to the 
 extraordinary influences of the spiiit, he said the truth, but" 
 not the v.'hole truth. That The apostle had reference also 
 to the ordinary iniiuences of the spirit is evident (i'oin the 
 preceding context. ' 'To one (says he) is given by the spir- 
 it the v;ord of icisdom; to another the v/ord of knowledge; 
 to ancther/ai7A hj the same spirit:*' as well as "the gifts 
 of healing — the v/orking -of miracles — prophecy — discern- 
 ing of spirits — diverse tongues — and the interpretation of 
 tongues." Now, the giving of both of these is called abeing 
 "baptized into one body by the one spirit j*' and as has 
 been already observed, these, and all other illuminating 
 and sanctifying iniiuences are said to be poured out, or 
 sprinkled upon the subjects- — "I v/ill sprinkle clean water 
 upon you and ye shall be clean 5 I will put my spirit w^ithin 
 you' ^— "and I v/ill pour out my spirit upon your seed, and 
 my blessing upon your oif-pring.^' 
 
 It would seem that Mr. C. was conscious of the weak- 
 ness of his objection, and that the foregoing passages, and 
 others of a similar im}x>rt miglit be arrayed against him, and 
 therefore he says in p. S03, "that neither the descending, 
 nor pouring out, nor coming upon of the spirit on the Jews 
 on the day of Pentecost, or on the Gentiles in the house of 
 Cornelius, are called their baptism, or the baptism of the 
 spirit, but their being put under its infiu-ences." Now, it 
 is not said of the Jews on the day of Pentecost, nor of the 
 Gentiles who were in the house of Cornelius, that they 
 were put under {}".& spirit's influences 5 and farther, there 
 is no such phraseology in all the word of God. It is said 
 of the fvirmer that the spirit's influences were, ^^sheddown'^' 
 upon them; and that they v/ere "fdled with the Holy Ghost;" 
 and of the latter it is said, "that the Holy Ghost/e//on ail 
 them that heard the word. " 
 
 And as if he forsavr this reply, and as a last resort, he says 
 in p. 343, "that christian baptism was not at all emblemat- 
 ical of the spirit's operations, but refers to the forgiveness 
 of sins, and v/as administered for that purpose." — That it 
 has reference to the forgiveness of sins, and was, and is to 
 be administered for that purpose is admitted, but not "as a 
 purgation of sins," as be impiously afBrmsi but as a mean 
 through which those influences of the spirit which regener- 
 
241 
 
 ate the soul, and work that faith v/hich apprehends the 
 blood of Christ for pardon, are often conveyed. This is 
 evident from what Peter sa.id on the day of Pentecost — 
 ''Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
 for the remission of sins, MiA f<i shall receive th$ gift of 
 the Holy Ghost." This, in tlie passage which we are ex- 
 amining is styled a being "baptized by one spirit;-' and I 
 knew of no consistent interpretation which can be given 
 to the expression but this — that as in baptism the water is 
 poured out on the body, so, the spirit's influences are pour- 
 ed out on those baptized persons whom God designed to 
 regenerate, in consequence of which they become members 
 of the mystical body of Christ. 
 
 And yet it may not be amiss to observe here, that in the 
 debate with Mr. V/. Mr. C. acknowledges more than 
 once, that baptism is emblematical of the spirit's influen- 
 ces. In p. 136, [9A. Edit.) he says, "I deny that baptism 
 has a reference to the blood of sprinkling, but that it de- 
 notes the Vv'ashing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost" — '"and when baptism is spoken of in relation 
 to the influences of the Holy vSpirit, it denotes the over- 
 whebning influences of tliat Almighty agent, in conse 
 qiience of which all the fiiculties of the mind are imbued by 
 it.-' But why deny it in the debate with Mr. Macalla. I 
 know not, unless that he saw that to admit it, the word 
 "baptized" in the above passage, unequivocally proved 
 thr.t the water is to be poured out on the body, as signifi- 
 cative of the spirit's influences when poured out on the 
 ^oul. He felt the baptist system to be perishing in his 
 hands, and to keep it alive as long as possible, and to sup- 
 port the spirits of his friends and followers, he was com- 
 pelled to contradict himself in the most palpable manner, 
 and to contradict a position which we have shewn is re- 
 vealed in the clearest manner in the word of God. 
 
 But desperate as we ha,ve shewn the Baptist cause is in 
 the hands of Mr. C. our remarks on his remaining argu- 
 ments v^'ill exhibit it in a still more desperate situation, ^r 
 rather in. its la-st gasp. It appears from p. 309, chat Mp* 
 M. commenced his remarks on the Greek prepositions en, 
 ris, -EK, and apo, which are connected with haptisma^ hap- 
 tlzo^ and other words and things in the old and new tes- 
 tament. He shewed from Parkhurst, one of Mr. C's 
 
 "Ti authorities, and also by a considerable detail from J. 
 <29 
 
242, 
 
 V. GampbelPs book in answer to Mr. Jories, that en in a 
 number of places in the Septuagint and Greek testament, 
 njeans, and cannot but mean, at, near, with, by, ainong, 
 ivhereas, because, &c. as well as in. To which I would 
 add, that Buck in his Theological Dictionary, observes on 
 the word baptism, "that ex in more llian one hundred 
 times in the new testament is rendered af, and in one hun- 
 dred and fifty others it is translated icith.^^ Mr. M. has 
 also shewn from the same authorities, that eis is used in" 
 Bo less than eighteen dift'erent meanings; and in p. SI 8 
 that Parkhurst has given seven different meanings for 
 EK, and fifteen for apo. And what now is Mr. C's answer 
 to all this? An assertion in p. 313^ repeated in p. 323, on 
 the authority of Horne 1'ooke, that prepositions have but 
 one meaning, or that all the different meanings ascribed . 
 to them, may be resolved into what he says is their pri- 
 mary meaning; after which we have a pedantic display of 
 the number of times en is translated in^ eis into, ek out 
 of, and APO out of, and from, in the Septuagint and the 
 the Greek testament. 
 
 Tooke's theory of prepositions regards those of the En- 
 glish and not of the Greek lanouage. It is indeed an in- 
 genious theory; but it is tkouglit by many to be more in- 
 genious than solid, in a number of instances. And ad- 
 mitting it to be correct, before it could be of any service 
 to him, Mr. C. should have shewn, that tlie origin of the 
 Greek prepositions v»as the same as that vviiicli his autlior 
 has ascribed to those of the English language."^ This he 
 
 *In his **DJVERsi03fs orPmi-ET," IIonxE Tooxr. says, that the 
 prepositions of the English kngiiag-e are corrup'.ed verbs or nouns 
 of the several languages of which it is composed, and that the}' 
 still retain the meaning of the words from v^-hich tliey are derived, 
 lie has indeed succeeded in tracing some of them to their origin, 
 and shewn -sthe similarity in sound and spelling to the words 
 whence they are sprung; but in my opinion, lie' has failed with 
 respect to others. As for the prepositions in, out, on, off, anclfff, 
 he confesses that he cannot oficr any thing that is satisfactory to 
 him.self. He says indeed that in may be derived from the Gothic 
 Anglo-Sa!ton word that signifies **the inv/ard part of the body; 
 and out from a word that originally slg'nifies the skin;" but he 
 does not positively say that this is tlie case. As for o», off, and ai, 
 he candidly confesses that he is unable to trace their origin to 
 iany noun or ^'erb whatever. As Mr. C. has transferred Tookl's 
 theory of the English to' the Greek prepositions, it is now incum* 
 bent upon him to produce the verbs or nouns from which ek, r,}s» 
 BK. and APO are sprung', and to shew that tbev still ret^n tVie 
 
-;13 not even attempted, but grataitoiisly tranaferroti'' his 
 author's theorj of the one to the other, and therefore the 
 theory tliat Greek prepositions have but one meaning is to 
 be considered *as his own. Now, that you may see the 
 absurdity of this nev/ theory which he has assumed for the 
 purpose of propping up the Baptist system which he felt 
 was sinking under his feet, I will place before you a fe\v 
 instaiices out of many in the Greek Testament where the 
 above prepositions are used, but which he says may be all 
 resolved into their primary meaning. But before I do 
 tliis it will be necessary to remind you, that according to 
 Mr. C's theory in is the primary meaning of t.s, in^j of 
 Kis, oui of of EK, ^Ti(V out of and fro?n of apo. And 1st 
 of ex; Mat. 3: 11, *'He shall baptize you ?jcith (en) the 
 Holy Ghost, and zi'i'A fire — New theory; "He shall im- 
 merse you in the Holy Gnost, and in fire." Mat. 12: 27; 
 "If I % (en) Bekebui) cast out deviis — New theory: "If i 
 in Belzebiib cast out de\iis." Ileb. 12: 2; '*And is set 
 down af (ex) the right hand of the throne of God — ^Nev/ 
 theory; "Is set down i/i the right hand of the throne of 
 God.*' 2dly of Eis; John 2: 2; "And both Jesus was cal- 
 led and his disciples to (eis) the marriage— New theory; 
 ^*were called into tl^ marriage." John 11: 52; "She fell 
 down G* (eis) Jesus" feet" — ^I>ew theory: "jhe felk down 
 into Jesus' feet." Mat 15: 24; "I am not sent hut unto 
 (eis) the lost sheep of the house of Israel'^ — ^Nev/ theory; 
 "Sent into the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Sdly cf 
 j^tt; Jrtim il- fifi; ^^From (es) that time many of his disciples 
 went back. "—New theory; ^-Out q/'ibst time many of his 
 disciples went back. " Acts 2: 34: "The Lord said unto 
 my Lord sit thou at (ek) my rif^ht hand" — New theory; 
 "Sit o^.'f o/'my nghthaVxd." ''4thly of apo; Mat. 18: 8; "If 
 thy hand or thy foat oft'end thee cut them o3'and cast them 
 
 meaning^ of those verbs or nouns; and that this meaning- is but 
 otie, and the meaning which he ascribes to thera severally.- And 
 no^ only is this incumbent upon iiim in defence of hb very last 
 argument for immersion, but he must p^ ove that the Evangehsts, 
 and the Jews, and the Greeks in genera], were so skilled in ety- 
 mology as to know that ex signified in, r.is hifo, ek ovi of, and 
 APO out qfand/ro/^j, and nothing else. "Hie labor, hoc opus est," 
 •—It will be a very acceptable present to the Baptist church, pro- 
 vided he succeeds. He may style his disquisitions on this point, 
 "The Div^ERsiONs of B aFFALo ;" for I do not sec any reason why 
 America may not have her ^^Dlver.v.ons of JBuffcdoi^ as well as 
 England IicT ''Bi versions of Fur lei/," 
 
M4 
 
 'w . ' 
 
 froni (Apo) thee"— New aieorvj "cast them out 0/ ttiee,''' 
 
 and that too after they had been cut. off. Mat. 7: 15% 
 
 * 'Beware of (avo) false prophets" — -New theory 5 ''Beware 
 
 0?/^ 0/* false prophets." • - 
 
 From the foregoing examples and others which might be 
 adduced, you will see not only the absurdity of this new 
 theory in regard to the above prepositions, but the misera- 
 ble sophistry which Mr. C. exhibits in p.. 327, where be 
 «ays, "that if en does not certainly denote ir), Adam nev- 
 er was in Eden — that if ek dees not signify out of. Eve 
 was not taken cirl o/'arib, taken out of Adam — that if eis 
 doe? not most certainly and definitely denote iiito^ breath 
 cf life never entered mfo the nostrils of Adam — and that 
 if EK and apo did not bring Noah and his house out of and 
 from the ark, there tliey remain until this day. " En does 
 indeed signify in^ eis info, ek out of and APo/rcr;i in 
 those places and many more, but I have shewn how absurd 
 and ridiculous it would be to attach this meaning to them 
 in every place where they occur in the Septuadnt and the 
 Greek Testament. Ycu must have also seen the absurdity 
 and silliness of the objection in p 515, that to translate 
 EN by «/, 7iear, nl^h; eis by /c, unto; and ek and afo by 
 from^ would in m.any instances lead to Arianism., Socinian- 
 ism, and other eiTors and absurdities. It v.'ould so, but; 
 who but Mr. C. ever thought of giving them but one mean- 
 ing, the absurdity of v.hich i have just now shewn. 
 
 But you may be now ready to ask, is there any rule for 
 ascertaining the meaning of these prepositions wjien tlie!^ 
 occur in tl^e ccrlEturesi i^.oA if any, Tsliat is it? None, but 
 what. arises from the context^ or frcin the design cf the 
 speaker or writer, and the character and circumstances of 
 the persons addressed. This, Mr. C. mentions in p. 323 
 as the rule laid down by Mr. Harris the Etymologist, and 
 it is the rule of common sense; but instead of adopting it, 
 he has recourse to the above absurd theory, and wh.y he has 
 recourse to it is easy to see — Something was to be done to 
 prop up the totterino; fabric of the Baptist system. 
 
 It will be remembered that in the 4th letter I have exam- 
 ined all the baptisms recorded in the New Testament, and 
 shewed, that the circumstances attending them convey 
 the idea that they were administered by p.tfusion and not 
 by immersion. "^The baptism of the Jews by John w'a^ 
 first examined, as being the frst in the order of time. 
 ' Among other arguments that John poured the water on tho. 
 
£45 
 
 riubjects it was ob52rved, that according to the account oi 
 Josephus their own historian, there must have been four or 
 five millions of inhabitants in Judea at that time^ — that ad- 
 niitting there was only one million of them baptized by 
 John, (although the sacred text conveys the idea that the 
 greatest number of them were baptized by him) it was 
 asked if it was possible for him to baptize by immersion 
 one miilioa, or near one million, in the space of two 
 years, the longest time assigned to his ministry by the 
 best .chronologists-— ''but that it v»^a3 practicable by affu- 
 sion, and on the supposition that a number of them stood 
 before him in ranks, and that he poured the water upon 
 them from his hand, or from some suitable vessel/' 
 
 Mr. C's reply to this is truly astonising; especially as it 
 comes from a man who is constantly calling out misrepre- 
 sentation, misrepresentation. In a note in p. 320, he says 
 — '^To this most absurd hypothesis of a wholesale bap- 
 tism, or a baptism of crowds in a mass by means of some 
 suitable squirt or vessel which might extend to fifty or a 
 liundred at one discharge, we know not what to say. It 
 appears to be an act of degradation to notice such, puerili- 
 ties— O Pedobaptism hov/ art thou fallen!!*' 
 
 Novv' reader, whether Baptist, or Pedobaptist, I ap- 
 peal to you, if I have said or insinuatecUany thing about 
 *Yf squirt'^ that might extend to fifty or an hundred at once^ 
 or if there was any thing ludicrous in representing the 
 Baptist as pouring the- water from his hand, or from some 
 suitable vessel on the ranks of the Jews as he passed along 
 those ranks. I will only say, that the system must be ''fal- 
 len" indeed, where its champion who has defied all Chris- 
 tendom, must resort to such bare-faced and impudent 
 falsehoods to support it. 
 
 The second instance of baptism was that of the 3000 Jews 
 on the daj of Pentecost, and in the city of Jerusalem. It 
 was observed in the 3d letter, that from the time Peter end- 
 ed his sermon, there were only 7 or 8 hours of the Jewish 
 day remaining; and that there was not time for the twelve 
 to take a profession of faith from 3000 persons, so as to ob- 
 tain a satisfactory hope that they v/ere true believers, ac- 
 cording to the practice of the Baptist church, and to bap- 
 tize them the same day by immersion. It was also asked 
 ^vhere the water v/as to be had for that purpose, as there 
 was no river near the city, and the brook Keiroa was very 
 
246 
 
 small, and destitute of water a great part of the year— Arid 
 that it is not to be supposed tiiat tiie chief priests would 
 admit them into the temple to use the molten seajbut that 
 they could have been baptized in the place where they had 
 met, and without confusion, and with a fev,^ quarts of water, 
 if done by affusion. 
 
 To this Mr. C. replies in p. £55— '^That there are well 
 attested facts of 60 persons being immersed in SO minutes.^ 
 or in that proportion, ^\ hen the baptizer simpiy immersed 
 those led into the pool or bath, or river to him-— that tlie 
 iwel7e would have baptized the 3000 in little more than 
 5 hours 5 and if there v/ere 60 or 70 baptizers the whole 
 number ^^ould have been baptized in little more than an 
 haur — and that we read of pools or baths of water in Jeru- 
 salem, for the purpose cf the citizens immersing them- 
 selves." 
 
 To this it may be sufficient to say, that those who please 
 may believe the first assertion — ^^credat Judoeais Apcila.** 
 The soipposition that tiiere were 60 or 70 baptizers, is aj- 
 together groundless, as none but the twelve %vere then 
 commissioned to baptize. As already observed, Mr. C\ 
 has made no allowance of time for hearing the experience^ 
 and receiving the profession of faith of the 2000 according 
 to the practice cf the Baptist church. He has not proved, 
 and we are sure cannot prove from the New Testament, 
 that the inhabitants of Jerusaieiu had th.en pools or batiis 
 of water for immersing themselves. And admitting that 
 they had, the 3000 on this hypothesis must have gone 
 with their baptizers to different parts of the city for the 
 purpose of being immersed j a city too, whose inhabitants 
 were then hcstde to Christ and his followers. Besides, it 
 is not to be supposed, that the 5000, many of whom were 
 strangers, brought a change of raiment with them, and de- 
 cency forbade their being baptized .in a state of nudity. 
 And to this I will only add, that there is not the least hint 
 that they v, ent from the place where they had assembled 
 until after their Baptism. The reader has now the prin- 
 cipal arguments on both sides in regard to this point, and 
 will decide for himself whether the 3000 were baptized by 
 immersion or attusion. 
 
 To what I have said on the baptism of the Eunuch (Acts 
 8: 38) Mr. C. replies in p. S4S, oy giving us a translation 
 of that interesting passage, anil vhich he says *'he is ready 
 lo defend against all objections.-' I iiave however a fev/ 
 
objeciioiis to this translatlori, and wtiich I request hirn to 
 yo'lve if he can. My principal objection respects ihe clause 
 ^^qjiii hxidor^^ m the S6Th verse, and vvliich he, renders "to 
 a certain waterj^' after wtiich he translates the S8th verse 
 ihUs— -"And they descended, or rvent down, not ejd to, 
 but eis into the v.ater, both Philip and the Eunuch, and lie 
 immersed hira^ and thev went up ek out of, and not uom 
 the water." 
 
 It may s'dflice to say. that the argument for immersion 
 deduced' from this translation is founded on an ignorance 
 of the Greek language, and a false assumption: neither of 
 which are unfrcqiient in Mr. C's writings. The preposi- 
 tion epi diS ScHREVELius observes in his Lexicon, v^'hen 
 governing a genitive case signifies m, to, above, before; 
 but v/Ken governing an accusative case, it signifies above, 
 against, ikrough, by. There may be instances v/here it 
 Signilies to before an accusative case, h\xt above is its usu- 
 al signification. Now the v/crds ii kiidor are in the accu- 
 sative case 5 the clause therefore literally means, ''tliey 
 came above a certain waterf' which is confirmed by the 
 circumstance that according to the narrative, both Philip 
 and the Eunucli were as yet in i}AQ chariot j* the water con- 
 sequently lay beneath them, v/hither the road lay on a 
 higher, or on the very ground where the water v/as. 
 
 !*lr.C. also assumes in his translation of this passage, 
 that Kis and ek, have only one meaning, and that baptizo 
 signilies to iimnerse, and to immerse only; but I trust that 
 1 have shewn -Cue absurdity of the one, and the falsity of 
 the other. The above Lexicographer gives to as the iirst, 
 and i?i and into as the second meaning of eisj and tliere- 
 fore the 38th verse may, and I arn persuaded ought to have 
 been translated thus— "And they went down to the water, 
 both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized, or poured 
 water upon him," and they came iiip front the water; for L 
 have shewn that ek signifies /ro??2, as well as out of. 
 
 And here it may not be unnecessary to observe, that 
 ■when Eis is used to signify to enter into a place, it is pre- 
 fixed to the verb that denotes the entrance, as well as to 
 the place entered into. Thus in Mat. 8: 5, where it is said 
 that Jesus entered into Capernaum, it is — eiselihe eis Ka~ 
 pernaum.''^ In chap. 12:4, where Christ speaks of Da- 
 vid entering into the house of God, it k—'^eiselthen eis ton 
 oikon theou,^^ In chap. 24: S8, where Christ also speaks 
 -of Noah entering into the ark, it h—^^eiselthe Noe, eis ton 
 
Mb 
 
 Klbboion,^^ The saine phraseology is used ia Luke 1; 40 
 — 7: 44— IT: '22, and various other places j but when eis 
 is used to signify merely motion to a])lace, it is seldom, if 
 ever prefixed to the verb, and this is the case in the pas- 
 sage we are nov/ examining. Mr. C. does indeed say, that 
 the prepositions kata, down, afid ana, v.p, prefixed to the 
 ^'iivbhaino in this passage, ''add very much to the ernpha- 
 gIs of the narrative, ^nd confivms the rendering of the 
 present translation as just and literal. But how they add 
 miy emphasis to the verb haino^ is I confess, what I can- 
 not see. Balno signifies simply to go, and katabcdno to 
 go dovv'D, and anabaino to go up, neither of which ideas 
 could have been expressed by haino itself; and it camiot 
 but occur to the weakest reader, that under the circum- 
 stances he was then in, the. Eunuch must go dov/n from 
 the chariot to the water, if he v/ould be baptized; and in 
 order to proceed on his journey lie must go up from the 
 water to the chariot. 
 
 But besides this, the diminutive adjective rt being pre- 
 fixed to hudor demands the translation which 1 have 
 given to the passage. Dr. Guyse in a note on the passage 
 observes, that Jerome, Sandys, and other travellers who 
 visited the place say, that this fi hudor is a, spring or 
 fountain which rises at the foot of a mountain in the tribe 
 of Judah or Eenjamin, v/hose waters arc sucked in by the 
 ground that produces them. Then, according to the re- 
 port oftliose travellers, the presumption is, that there was 
 not a sufficiency of water for baptizing the Eunuch by im- 
 mersion, but doubtless, enough to baptizehim by aifusion; 
 and this accounts for the diminutive expression ii hudor, 
 ''a certain water," oi" as it inav be translated ''some water." 
 And what now does Mr. C- offer against all these mutually 
 corroborating circumstances, that the Eunuch was bapti- 
 zed by aiTusion — A false translation, and a false assump- 
 tion — Let him now defend his translation if he can. 
 
 The baptism of Cornelius and his friends, and of Saul 
 of Tarsu s were next examineiL YV^ith regard to Cornelius 
 and his friends it was observed in the 8th letier, that the 
 words, "can any man Ibrbid Vv'ater that these should not 
 be baptized," to myself convey the idea, that the water 
 was brought into the house or apartment where they were, 
 and exclude the idea that they were immersed. In reply 
 Mr. C. interprets the passage thus — ''Can any Jew forbitl 
 water ta these Gentil cs ." I do not say that this interpret a 
 
tion is wrong as far ^s it goes; but I think that tlie idea 
 which I have mentioned, is also clearly implied. To this 
 I would add, i;hat there" is not the least hint orintimatiori, 
 of any "pool or ba^h"in the house vdiere they Vv^ere, suita- 
 ble for iraniersion^ or that they left the house for the pur- 
 pose of being baptized. The narrative is concise and rap- 
 id, clearly conveying the idea, tliat they v/ere immediately 
 baptized on their receiving the Holy Ghost. . " 
 
 With respect to the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, it was 
 ♦observed in the 4t'h letter that he was baptized in the house 
 of Judas, and immediately after he received his sight. In 
 the close cf the 7th letter it vva?. farther observed, that ilio, 
 Greek words ^^anastas haptisaP in Acts 22: 16, which are 
 translated "arise and be baptized^ literally mean, "stan- 
 ding up, be baptised." In chap. 9: 18, where we have 
 an account of this baptism, the words are ''•kai anasfas 
 ebaptistke^^^ which afe also translated, "and he arose and 
 was baptized^butwhich literally, mean, "and standing up, 
 he was baptized 5" from which the consequence was drawn, 
 tliat Saul was in a standing posture at the time th'e ordi- 
 nance was administered unto him. And here again I 
 would observe, that the translators seem to have been 
 aware, that to translate these passages 'literally would 
 have conveyed the idea, as .they do, that Saul was bapti- 
 zed by alFusion or sprinkling; and as if to keej) this idea 
 out of the view of the English reader they have translated 
 them so as to convey the idea of SauPs rising up from his 
 seat or conrh foi- the purpose of going to another place for 
 the purpose of being baptized | although in doing solhey 
 were obliged to use a supplementary and unnecessary and 
 in both passagesi nor have they marked them as supple- 
 mentary words. 
 
 It has been observed in the preceding letter, what I am 
 persuaded every reader of Mr. Cs v>^riting3 must liave ob- 
 served, that one feature of his character as a disputant is— 
 tiiat whenever his opponent lias advanced an argument 
 which he cannot ansvvcr, he treats him v/ilh the utmost 
 contempt, and his argument as a puerility not worthy of' 
 notice. We have noticed several' instances of this in the 
 preceding letters, and v/e have another in regard to the 
 passage now under examination. In p. 332, he treats the 
 tbregoing observations respecting the participle anastas, 
 "standing up," "as one of'those'Pedobaptist boyisms that 
 are not half' so feasible m the arsuments in favour of 
 
tranSubstaiitiatio::, .of purgatory, of S'jcinvauisinjof Aiiun 
 ism, of praying to the Virgiii Mary, of dbing penances by 
 ioiig faatings and pilgrimages.'' In p. 347, he resuj^cie*^ 
 t'le subject, anthnoJestly adds, "that a^erson v/ho has de- 
 voted his whole life to-study could gain very little applause 
 from a triumph gained over such criticism as h genrerally 
 detailed by Pedobaptis t critics. " '^ VvHiat honour (he asks) 
 could be gained by sucli a.n encounter with a gentleman, a 
 reputed iin.^Uist too, vvho like Mr. M. ansi Mr. Ealstou 
 could bring forward anasi'as in the case of Paul as a proof 
 that lie was sprinkled, ''he arose and v/as immersed. A 
 v.'crd used a tliousand times to denote the tirst eSbrt, or 
 tlie first stage of process to any object." 
 
 I am persuaded that liiere is not a reader learned or un- 
 learned, but must be disa;usted with this sh;iu\eiess self- 
 eulogy, so contrary to tlie advice of the v/ise man — '*Let 
 another praise thee, and not thy ovrn mouth " But pas- 
 sing this by, i vvouid observe, that it is admitted that the 
 participle anastas is sometimes used to denote a person- ;s 
 arising from his seat for the purpose of going to anoflier 
 place: but when it is so used, tl\^ design is mentioned. In 
 this sense it is used in Lulce 15: 18, where the prodigai 
 son says, '^nasfai jiorftasomm pros fo?i poJera mvu, which 
 literally means, "rising up I will go to my father?" and this 
 wall the 20th verse are all the places which I recollect 
 where it is so used in the New Testament. But that it is 
 used, and frequently used, to denote a person's arising for 
 the purpose of standing, and without any design of going 
 to another place at that lime, I shall now prove beyond all 
 centrndictiuu. And when I shall have proved this, I 
 shall have established the afxirmation that SauV was bap- 
 tized In a standing posture, unless it is proved that he 
 arose to go to another place for that purpose. But this 
 will not be attempted, for there is nothing intermediate 
 mentioned betwixt his receiving his sight, and his being 
 baptized. Hov/ deep this cuts into the Baptist system, 
 Mr. C is fully av/are, and therefore he endeavoured to di- 
 vert the mind of the reader from the poiri», as a "'boyhnv''^ 
 not worthy of the notice of a man .of such gigantic talents. 
 and literary reputation as he telis us he is — And now fur 
 t'le proof. 
 
 ^ III Mat. 26: 62, it is said of the Jewish High Priest &t 
 the trial of Jesus, "Kai anastas archlereus eipen" — liter- 
 ally, ^'\\\d the High Priest dtandlag^tp, ?aid." 'In Mark 
 
251 
 
 14: CO, it Li also said, ^•Kai anaslas archierc-uS eis to ii»- 
 80B'' — *^\nd the High Priest standing up in the midst.'* 
 To these I will add the passa^i^e:-: adduced in the 7th letteri, 
 for the purpose of presenting the proof in its full force.* In 
 Acts 1: 15, it is said of Peter on the daj of Pentecost j 
 '^'Anastas Fetrps en meso maihetGon ej/Jtvr'— litGrallr, 
 ^^Vctcr standing Kp in the midst of the disciples, gaid,'^ 
 In chap. 5: 34. it is also said of Gamaliel, ^^anastas da tis 
 en sunedrio Pharlsaios, onomati Gamaliel — eipen de pros 
 autor'n^' — literally, "'Then a certain Pharisee by name 
 Gamaliel, standing np in the council, said unto them.*' 
 These and other instances which might be produced une- 
 quivocal] j prove, that althGugh anastas is sometimes used 
 to denote a person's rising up from his seat to go to another 
 pUce, yet it is more frequently used to denote, a person's 
 rising up for the purpose of standing, and of standing only. 
 The High Priest, Peter, and Gamaliel stood up out of res- 
 pect to the assemblies which they severally addressed, and 
 ]jerhaps that they miglit be the better heard ^ and Saul out 
 of reverence of that Jesus who had graciously arrested him 
 iuhis mad career to eternal ruin, and also out of respect to 
 his ordinance that v.as then a.dministering untoliim — It is 
 scarcely necessary to observe, that this is the posture in 
 which adults receive the ordinance of baptism in the Pres- 
 byterian churdi, and that they have apostolical example 
 for their practice. I will only add, that I have no litera- 
 ture to boast of, nor have I ever "professed to be a linguist," 
 yet I here fearlessly defy Mr. C or any of his assistants 
 to set aside by any just rule of Biblical interpretation, the 
 ara;ument for the baptism of Saul of Tarsus by affusion, as 
 deduced from the participle anastas in Acts 9:18, and 22: 
 16. Ind eed the gasconading manner in which he has ti-eat- 
 od it, must have convinced every discerning reader, that 
 lie was conscious he could not overthrow^ it, notwithstan- 
 ding it pierced his. system to the very heatt. 
 
 I may now say that I have linished Mr. €h objections to 
 the doctrines laid dovrn and defended in the 8 first letters; 
 for in p. 352, he also ranks tlie observations made in the 4th 
 letter on tlie baptism of the Jailor, as amongst those ^.•boy- 
 hms Vvhichare not half so feasible as the arguments in fa- 
 vor of transubstantiation," &c. without assigning any ether 
 reason. His reasons for this summary mode of repl v I have 
 lately noticed, and the- discerning reader can easily per- 
 
ceive them. I shall therefore conclude this letter with a 
 ^ihort address to the baptized youth, especiall j those who 
 are more immediately under my pastoral inspection. 
 
 DeAK YoUXG FBIEIftS, 
 
 YOU have been fiequentl;/, and with propriety too, called 
 ^'the hope and the seed of the church." That you may be sucli, 
 you have been plawted by baptism in the "vineyard," or the church 
 of God. And to use the figurative, "but emphatic language of the 
 Head of the Church himself, you have been "dug around, and 
 dunged" by the word of God, and we would hope by the Spirit 
 of God, applying the word of instruction to your understandings 
 and consciences, that you might become "trees of righteousness, 
 the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified." Yes — ^that 
 God might be glorified by youracceptingof hissonas your Saviour, 
 and only Saviour; to be "washed in his blood" for the removal of 
 your guilt: to be "clothed upon with the white raiment of his 
 righteousness," that the shame of your moral nakedness may not 
 appear; to be sanctified by his spirit, and governed by his laws — 
 his laws, "that are hoh', just, good, and spiritual." Let me now 
 ask you, and ask your own hearts, if you have thus improved the 
 high and important privilege. If you have, tlien happy ai'e ye. 
 You may consider your baptism as Christ's CAtcrnal seal that you 
 are interested in "the rightef-usness of faith;" and his spirit has 
 witnessed, and will witness with your sp'rits, that you are the 
 children of God, *'and if children, then heirs of Gcd» and joint 
 heirs wit'ii Jesus Christ in glory." This is Christ's internal seal, 
 "and sealeth unto the day of redemption." Permit ^mc here to 
 exhort such to avail yourselves of your high and distinguished 
 privilege as children of God, by holding an uninterrupted inter- 
 course with youi- heavenly father by prayer in the name of Christ, 
 for alt that wisdon^ which you need to presence you from abound- 
 ing €rror, and to guide you in the ways of truth and of righteous- 
 ness; and for all that strength divine which you need every m.o- 
 ment to enable you to resist temptation to sin, and for crucifying 
 the flesh, with the affections and lusts. Thus, and thus only, 
 can you live, usefully and comfoi-tably, and die triumphantly. 
 
 But is it so, that there are some of you who are strangers to the 
 thing signified by "the washing with v.-atcr," — *^the renewing-*of 
 "^.^ Holy Ghost:" we must teil such that you? state is at the same 
 
time dangerous and deplorable. Tbere is no doubt but tliac uiObr^ 
 of 3'-ou who are careless and pray erless, "are without Christ, and 
 without hope, and without God in the world." Notwithstanding 
 that there is a relation betwixt you and Christ by your being bap - 
 tized in his nanie; remember, "that the branches in him which 
 bear not fruit, he taketh away." 
 
 Let me exhort you then, to reflect closely and seriously on youi* 
 imminent danger, and to submit to the sceptre of grace — "to seek 
 the Lord while he is to be found, and to call upon him while he 
 is near." *'Let the. wicked among you forsake their evil ways, 
 and the unrighteous their thoughts, and turn unto the Lord that 
 he may have mercy upon you, and to God that he may abundant- 
 ly pardon." Permit me to exhort you farther, to beware of that 
 theological system which is propagated with so much industry in 
 the present day, for the purpose of unhinging your faith in the 
 doctrine of baptism, and to lessen your confidence in your pastor::3 
 "as interested priests;" and to induce you to embrace a system 
 which disparages the blood -of Christ, by attributing as much efS- 
 cacy to an ordinance, as to that precious blood. — That tells you 
 "that baptism is a formal and personsd remission of sins"— a pur- 
 gation of sins — "and that the baptized believer arises out of the 
 water, as innocent, as clean, and unspotted as an angel" More 
 especially when you are told that the faith of tliis pardoned and 
 angelic believer amounts to nothing more "than believing the one 
 fact that Jesus is the Christ,^* or the Messiah', and which any un- 
 regenerate person may exercise. It is the more dangerous, that 
 it is a way ef salvation very palatable to the depraved human 
 heart, and pleasmg to the sinner who is sensible of ill-desert, and 
 exposure to the rig-hteous wrath of a holy and offende?d God. 
 
 Be not deceived, my young friends, "God is not mocked; nor 
 will he accept of immersion in water, as an atonement,- or any part 
 of an atonement for sin," or purgation of sins. Be not satisfied 
 with any other faith than that which shews you to yourselves as 
 guilty and defded sinners, and which looks unto, and apprehends 
 the blood of Chrlit as the only foundation of pardon, and v/hicjj, 
 ^'working by love, purifies the heart, and overcomes the world." 
 Cease not to cry unto God, for tlie temper of those who "are born 
 net of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of will of man, but of 
 God." This, and this alone, is the only sure evidence that your 
 faith is *-the fftith of Gcd's elect," The rsoison of the asn is nc: 
 
254 
 
 more dangerous, nor more fatal to the body, than the above sys- 
 tem is to the soul. Although there are hundreds, and I would 
 hope thousands of-Baptists, who abhor it as much as I do; yet 
 somehow, or other, ic appears to be connected with, and to spring- 
 from, the Baptist sj^stem.. It i^ perhaps, the result of the inordi- 
 nate stress which Baptists place on baptism by immersion. As 
 I hare shewn in the 8th letter, it made its first appearance in the 
 fourth century in the writings of TEETULi-iA>r, who although he 
 admitted the right of infants to baptism, yet advised against it, for 
 the reasons there mentioned. It appeared afterwards in all its de- 
 leterious and licentious colours at the aera of the reformation, and 
 now again it has made its appearance in the writings of Mr. Camp- 
 BELi. Beware of it then, and let your hope of purgation from sin, 
 rest on the almighty and omniscient spirit of Christ. 
 
 I have mentioned youi' confidence in your pastors; but I have no 
 great fears on that point. The unceasing torrent of abuse which 
 Mr. C. has poured out upon them as a body, is known to be slan- 
 der, and has counteracted, and will counteract itself. If I am not 
 much mistaken, his career is near an end, and if he has not alrea- 
 dy, he win soon write himself into complete disrepute: and as far 
 as his WTitings may go down to posterity, when read, they will be 
 read by the intelUgent, with disgust and contempt, and by the se- 
 rious, with abhorrence and execration, on account of then* impi- 
 ety and^antinomlan tendency. Whatever fears I have arise from 
 those doctrines which virtually set aside the blood and spirit of 
 Christ, because they are palatable to the depraved heart of man. 
 In a word, avoid them more than you would the pestilence; for 
 they lead down to eternal death and tvoe. And now may the Fa- 
 ther of lights, and the God of all grace, lead you in the paths of 
 truth and righteousness — may he lead you to Christ for pardon, 
 End to his Spirit for purification. 
 
 Yours affectionately in the Lord. 
 
 SAMUEL RALSTON. 
 
ADDRESSED 
 
 TO TH2 H'EV'. JOHH -WMJJKBH, 
 
 iN REPLY TO SOME STRICTURES MADE BY HIM IN HI^ 
 
 TREATISE ON BAPTISM, 
 
 03f THE 
 
LETTER i. 
 
 Kevebekd Sir. 
 
 I HAVE read llie letter which you addressed to me, 
 in your Treatise ox Baptism. In the beguming of that 
 letter you seem somewhat displeased*, because I have hinted 
 that I do not consider a publick stage, and a publick de- 
 bate, the most proper, and profitable mode of discussing 
 theological questions. I am still of the same opinion; and 
 the instances of tlie Reformers publickly disputing with 
 fheir opponents of the church of Rome, is not in my opin- 
 ion in point; because the press was then in its infancy, and 
 could not be resorted to, with the same facility as in the 
 present dsy, for the defence of truth and the refutation of 
 error; to which I would add, that the manners and feelings 
 of ihe present da^*, are dilTerent from those of the rougher, 
 and less polished age of the Reformation. But as neither 
 cf our opinions on this point, affects, .or can affect any doc- 
 trine or precept of our common religion, I shall pass it by, 
 and examine the objections which you have made to some 
 doctrines laid down, and advocated in my Reviev/ of your 
 publick debate with ISlr. Campbell on the subject of Bap- 
 tism. . 
 
 Your f.r&t objection related to. the covenant of circumci- 
 sion, recorded in the 17ih diapter of Genesis. 1 have said 
 in the first letter, that I do not confider that covenant to 
 be tlie covenant of grace; — "but an ecclesiastical covenant, 
 or a covenant whereby Jehovah was pleased to bind him- 
 self by the Shal of circumcision to .send a redeemer of the 
 seed of Abraliam into the world — to preserve in his family 
 .1 visible church as the medium of redemption, until that 
 redeemer should come — Arid jis his* infinite \\^sdom raw- 
 be at, to appoint from time to time, and to continue with 
 ■jhem such ordinances as would be the best medium of ac- 
 ceptable worship, and best calculated to interest them in 
 ihe merits cf the P-edeemer— and when this redeemer would 
 come, to ingraft the Gentile narions into the church, and 
 c-msequer.tly to,besto\v upon them those means equally 
 V Hh the Jews — in a viord.that it Vviis a covenant, or dis- 
 • ••'^ n -iaciously designed, and v/iscly calculated as a 
 
%57 
 
 inean to an end, for interesting them in the blessings of the 
 covenant of grace, consisting in justification and sanctiSca- 
 tion here, and eternal life hereafter. *' 
 
 To this you object, and in p. 24.8, "you declare that the 
 tovenant of circumcision was a dispensation of the coven- 
 ant of grace"— And in p. 251, you ask me, "what is an ec- 
 clesiastical covenant, but a covenant of the church? And 
 v/hat else is the covenant of grace." To this jou add, 
 "that two parties are necessary to form a covenant. In 
 this your ecclesiastical covenant, God must have been the , 
 one party, and the church the other. But v/e have no ac- 
 count of any other covenant in which God and the church 
 were parties, besides the covenant of grace." 
 
 That the objection and reply may be the more clearly 
 seen, it may be necessary to state distinctly what we are to 
 understand by the covenant of grace; as there is something 
 of a difterence of opinion amongst Calvinistic divines on 
 this important point. The opinion of the Westminster 
 divines on this point is thus slated in their ansv/er to the 
 Slst question of their larger catechism— -"The covenant of 
 grace was made with Christ the second Adam, and in him 
 with all the Elect as his seed." It is apparent from their 
 answer to the 30th, or preceding question, that when they 
 say, that this covenant was made with Christ, God in the 
 person of the Father was the other party. There are how- 
 ever some divines, who although they approve of the con- 
 fession of faith and catechisms of those divines, yet think 
 that this definition of that covenant is not suificiently ex- 
 tended ; and by the covenant of grace, they understand that 
 eternal compact which was entered into between the per- 
 sons of the Godhead, for the purpose of saving fallen man. — 
 That in that compact the person styled the Father, con- 
 sented and engaged to send the person styled the So^^, in- 
 to our guilty world as a redeemer, and to uphold him in his 
 arduous undertaking, and as a reward for his humiliation 
 and sufferings, ''to give liim the heathen for his inheritance, 
 and the uttermost part of the earth for his possession, "-r- 
 That the son on his part, consented to come into our world 
 for that gracious purpose; and that he might be qualllied to 
 redeem lost sinners, to take our nature into union with his 
 divine nature, and in our nature to fulfil and magnify the 
 law under v/hich we are, but wliich we have disiionored by 
 disobedience, and to bear its dreadful curse for the purpose 
 -23 
 
5j58 
 
 of satisfymg the ciairas of inexorable justice against us.~a 
 And thai the peraon styled the Spie-it^ and the Holy Spir- 
 it, engaged on his part to come into our woidd, in a manner 
 and sense that is peculiiirj for the important purpose of re- 
 newing the depraved nature of those v^^hom sovereign grace 
 designed to save, and thereby dispose and enable them to 
 believe in 'he Son as the only saviour of sinners, and to trust 
 in him "for v/isdom, and righteousness, nnd sanctiaea'tion, 
 and redemption. *' This, I confess, is that view of the sub- 
 ject vvhith pleases me best. But the diSerence bet'\v.ee';i 
 this, and the yiev/ iirst stated, is in nij opinion immaterial^ 
 as it is admitted bj those v. lio think that this covenant was 
 *'made with Christ, and in him' with'tke Elect as his 
 seed,^ that it is'the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit 
 alone, who does, and can apply the redemption purcliased 
 by Christ to those v^'^hom a sovereign God designed to save 
 — This virtually includes The Holy Spirit as a party in 
 this gracious covenant. 
 
 There are others again who hold something like two cov- 
 enants—A covenant of redemption and a covenant of 
 grace: the former madc^from eternity between the Father 
 a.nd the Son, and the latter between God and true believers 
 in time^ or as som.e e^^plain it, the latter is a branch of the 
 former. This, it would seem, is your view of the subject^ 
 v/ith this difference, that tlie covenant of grace v»'as made 
 between God and the church — "God one party, and the 
 church tb'e other. " As it is not necessary for my argument, 
 and v/culd be digressing from the point on hand, to enquire 
 if there is a covenant, of grace distinct from a covenant of 
 redemption. I will admit it for argument's sake, and now 
 state V. hat I think must be the consequence, if the coven- 
 ant of circumcision was the covenant of grace, and if this 
 coverxant was made wilh the church, as you ai^rm is the 
 case. The church is a collective Body, comprehending all 
 who have been circumcised, and all wKf» have been bap- 
 tized whether adults or infants; for it was circumcision of 
 ••Id which constituted, and baptism wiiich now constitutes 
 church-membership, and all ethers were, and are, "aliens 
 ffom tiie commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the 
 covenants of promise. '^ Isow Sir, as you contend that the 
 covenant of circumcision was the covenant of grace, ''and 
 that the blessings of that covenant are the property of the 
 church:'' does it not follow that all the circumcised from 
 Abraham to the commencement of the christian dispensa- 
 
£59 
 
 jii, and ali the. baptized from that to ilie present day. 
 were, and are, all justiiled. sanctified, and entitled to eter- 
 nal life; for ym will admit that these are blessings of the 
 co^venant of grace, whatever your views of tliat covenant 
 may be. • 1 confess that I cannot see any other consequen- 
 ces which can be drawn from the premises which yoii have 
 !:aa down. : 
 
 Should you say as you de, in p. £53, that in Col. 1 : 18> 
 ._.e apostle stj-les the chiirch the -'Body of Christ," it will 
 not relieve you from the foregoing consequences, as it is 
 plain from the context, tliat in tha.t passage the apostle is 
 speaKing of true believers, cr those who by a living faidi 
 are united to Christ as their Head, and who are sometimes 
 .stjded ''the invisible church 5" but the present enquiry res- 
 pects the visible church constituted such by the covenant 
 of circumcision. 
 
 In p. 248, you indeed adduce Gen: IT: 7 — ^'1 will es- 
 
 blisli'"my covenant between thee and me, and thy seed 
 .iter thee in their generations, for an everlasting coven- 
 ant," as a proof of the position that the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision was the covenant of grace. You adduce Psalm 
 89: S3, 36 — "Once have I sworn by my holiness, that 1 
 will not lie unto David: Hissced shall endare forever, 
 and his throne as ttie sun before me," as a parallel passage. 
 To which you add Gal. 3: 29 — "And if ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
 promise." 
 
 I expect that it is the word everlasting in the first of 
 these p^iSSages which you depend upon as the proof of your 
 position. That the word is used in the.sciiptures to de- 
 note unlimited duration is admitted s but it must be admit- 
 ted tliat it is also used to signify limited duration, or the 
 end of a dispensation. It is also used to signify to the 
 end of the worl^j and hence the expression, "the ever- 
 lasting hills." "That it is used in tiie Sth or following 
 'verse — "I v.iU give unto thee, and to thy seed after tiiee, 
 Ihe land of Canaan for an everlasting possession," in one 
 or perhaps both of these senses, will be admitted ^ and I 
 know of no reason why we should understand it as denot- 
 ing unlimited duration in tb^ one verse, and limited dura- 
 tion in the other. Indeed, the consequences which I have 
 shewn necessarily flow from the assumption that the cov- 
 enant of circumcision was the covenant of grace, will, I 
 hope convince you that we must understand the wordei'?:'" 
 
260 
 
 tailing as denoting limited duration in both verses. Per- 
 'iwips it liiay be said that baptized believers as members of 
 the visible church are within this covenant, and that the 
 eifscts of it as a mean of iiiteresting therii in the" covenant 
 of grace, will be everlasting to such. To this I have no ob- 
 Jectionj but to say that it is '^an everlasting covenant, so 
 as to secure final salvation to all v/ho are brought. bv bap- 
 tism within its pale, is neither truth, nor fact. 
 
 The passage, from the 89th Psalm has not the least refer- 
 ence to Abraham, nor to his seed, nor to the covenant of 
 circumcision. It is only a promise to Christ of whom Da- 
 vid v.- as an eminent tj'pe, tliat he shouldjiave a succession 
 of true believers in his church to the end of time, for so the 
 v/ords "for ever'^ in the passage must be necessarily un- 
 derstood. Gal. 3: 29, has indeed a reference to Abraham, 
 and perhaps to the covenant of circumcision; but it is the 
 spiritual seed of Abraham, or true believers in Christ 
 Vv iiich the apostle alludes to, and not to the collective body 
 of the Jews as once composing the visible church, as I 
 trust, I will hereaf^r make appear. 
 
 And here it may not be unnecessary to observe, that al- 
 though not by you, I have seen the "words, "Twill be a 
 God to thee, and to thy seed after thee," adduced as a 
 proof that the covenant of circumcision was the covenant of 
 p;race. To this it may be sufficient to say, that there is no- 
 thing in the import of the words but may be fairly accom- 
 modated to the circumstance of Jeliovah's preserving the 
 Jevrs as his visible church in the midst of surrounding ene- 
 mies, and continuing witii them the ordinances of Ins ovv'n 
 appointment, as i\\^ medium of acceptable worship, and 
 means of graces while ine, rest of mankind were covered 
 with tliick moral darkness. I will not say that those 
 words had not also a reference to Jehovah's distinguisliing 
 love to, and paternal care of the spirituafseed of Abraham j 
 but suiely they -cannot be understood is applied in this 
 sense to the v/icked and unbelieving part of Abraham's ' 
 posterity, although circumcised. 
 
 I have also seen Ileb. 8: 8-10, adduced as a proof of the 
 same position — "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord^ 
 when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Is- 
 rael, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the 
 covenant that I made wrth their fathers in the day vv'hen I 
 took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of E- 
 gypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I 
 
261 
 
 r(?garded tbem not sfiith the Lord. For this is the coven- 
 ant that I will make with the house of Israel in those days, 
 saith the Lordj I will put my laws in their mind and write 
 them in theirheartsj and I will be to them a God, and they 
 shall be to me a people." 
 
 It may be sufficient to say in answer to this argument, 
 that there is not the least allusion in this passage to the coy- 
 enant of circumcision, but to what is usually styled the 
 Siiiai covenant. It is not necessary for my argument to 
 enquire here into the character of that covenant; but it is 
 certain that it was distinct from the covenant of circumci- 
 sion, inasmuch as it was ratified by a different ^eal — 'Hhe 
 blood of sacrifices sprinkled on the altar and on the people r' 
 Exod. 24: 7, 8. It may however not be amiss to observe, 
 that the Greek word diatheke^ translated "covenant,*' also 
 signifies a testament, and an establishment, or as the 
 latter word imports, the mean through Vvhich Jehovah com- 
 municates his designs of grace to fallen men: and may not 
 have reference to a covenant or covenants strictl}'- consid- 
 ered, but to what is usually styled the Mosaic and christian 
 dispensations of grace. 'This interpretation is counten- 
 anced by the circum&tance and consideration that tiiere is 
 not an **o/f/," and a ''hieto^^ covenant of grace, the former 
 of which is said in the 7th verse, to be not '^faultless,^^ or 
 comparatively defective, and the latter in the ISth verse, 
 to h&ve "^ waxed old., and ready to vanish away^^^ but this 
 "was th^ case with the Mosaic dispensation. The whole 
 passage is a quotation from the Slst chapter of Jeremiah, 
 •and contains promises not yet fully accomplished. The 
 "new covenant," or estaelispiment has a special refer- 
 ence to the Jews under the present dispensation, and 
 promises an abundant out-pouring of the spirit's illuminat- 
 ing and purifying influences on tliat former people of God; 
 but is surely no proof that the covenant of circumcision 
 was tiie covenant of grace. But should it be contended 
 that diaihehe m this passage' means a covenant strictly tak- 
 en, and that the nev/ covenant means the covenant of 
 grace, it would not thence follow that the covenants of cir- 
 cumcision and grace are the same; for as already observed, 
 it is not the first of tiiese covenants, and the covenant of 
 grace, but that at Sinai which are alluded to, and contras- 
 ted in this passage. 
 
 As a part of {\\q argument, that the covenant of circum- 
 cision v.as not the covenant of grace, I have said in the 
 
262 
 
 letter referred to — ''that the moment a seal is affixed to a, 
 covenant, that moment the person on whose behalf the cov- 
 enant was made, becomes interested in all the privileges 
 therein contained — that it follows by inevitable conse- 
 quence, that if the covenant of circumcision was the cov- 
 enant of grace, every circumcised person, and if baptism 
 is come in the room of circumcision, every baptized person 
 must be saved.'' 
 
 In jour first reply to this argument, and in a subjoined 
 note, you tell me with something of an air of irony and 
 triumph, that you have involved me in "a difficulty, "or as 
 the logicians term it, placed me between the horns of a di- 
 lemma from which I cannot escape. And what is this 
 mighty diinculty, and fearful dilemma.^ — "That I will 
 consider the Lord's Supper to be a seal of the covenant of 
 graces" and that according to my argument ''*it follows by 
 inevitable consequence that every person a.dmitted into the 
 communion of the church must be saved." 
 
 In reply to this I would observe, that admitting that the 
 ordinance of the supper is a seal of the covenant of grace, 
 I think, that a consideration of the difference between bap- 
 tism and that ordinance, in regard to their nature and de- 
 sign, and the persons for whom they were severally institu- 
 ted, should have prevented you from drawing the conclu- 
 sion which yuu have drawn in the above quotation, and al- 
 ledged objection. Brtptism was appointed as a mean of 
 induction into the churchy and I think I have proved that 
 it was also appointed as a mean of regeneration. It has 
 taken the room of circumcision, and the moment a person 
 is baptized, that moment he is interested in all the privile- 
 ges of the covenant cf circumcision^ because the visible 
 church, to the end of time, is founded on that covenant. 
 And admitting that a living faith is required of adults in 
 order to their baptism, yet the v/ant of it does not render 
 their baptism null and void, nor deprive them of those 
 ]:.rivileges. There is not the least hint in all t\\Q word of 
 God that this is the case; and there are none, not even the 
 Baptists themselves v/ho hold that tliey should be rebapti- 
 zed when they give evidence that they are true believers. 
 But for whom now, and for what pui-pose, was the ordi- 
 nance of the supper appointed? There is no position in all 
 the Vvord of God more clear to myself than tliis — that it was 
 appohited for true believers only^and all others are exclu- 
 ded by express prohibition, 1. Cor. 11: 27 — 29 — ^and thav 
 
i:63 
 
 it was appointed as a medium through which tbe cidld of 
 God holds communion with his heavenly father — by faith 
 feeds on Christ 'Hhe bread of life^-' and I have nonobjec- 
 tions that jou saj, that it is to su^ch a person a seal of his 
 interest in the blessings of the covenant of grace consisting 
 in justification, sanctiflcation, and eternal life. But does 
 the unbelieving communicant hold communion with God 
 in that ordinance^ and is it to him or her a seal of their in- 
 terest in the blessings of the covenant of grace? The re- 
 verse is the melancholy fact; ^Hhej eat and drink judge- 
 ment to themselves." And why is this ordinance, not a 
 seal of the foregoing blessings, to such persons? Because 
 they are expressly prohibited j and because they are desti- 
 tute of that faith wiiich in the nature of things, and by the 
 divine requisition, are indispensibly necessary for * 'dis- 
 cerning the Lord's body," or the true character and de- 
 sign of that ordinance. But as a,lready observed, the case 
 of the baptized unbelieving adult is very different, even ad- 
 mitting that the same faith is required for admittance to 
 the ordinance of baptism, and the ordinance of the supper. 
 His want of this faith does not deprive him of the right of 
 church-membership, nor exclude him from the privileges of 
 the visible church, the ordinance of the supper excepted. 
 I trust that a due consideration of the foregoing remarks 
 will induce you to acknowledge that 1 have solved "the 
 difficulty, " and tliat your dilemma has not even the appear- 
 ance of a horn. 
 
 Your second reply to my ai-gument is — ' *that there is a dif- 
 ference between affixing a seal to a covenant, and dischar- 
 ging the duties of the same. In baptism and the Lord's 
 supper the seal is affixed, but by a life of conformity to the 
 law of God, we can alone discharge the duties of it. p. 250." 
 
 There is a difference between affixing the seal to a hu- 
 man- covenant, ''and discharging the duiies of the same." 
 And in all such covenants when equitable, the affixing the 
 seal is a voluntary act, and it is ahvays implied that the 
 parties have it in their power to discharge the duties re- 
 quired by the compact. But the covenant of circumcision 
 was of divine device, and tlie seal of it wa!s, by the express 
 command of God liimself impressed upon infants who on 
 account of their infancy were incapable of discharging any 
 duty whatever. This is also the case with respect to bap- 
 tism, the seal of that covenant under the present dispensa- 
 tion. It is also impressed upon them, although not capa- 
 
264 
 
 ble at ilie tkiie of discharging the duties resulting from the 
 pi'ivilege. With respect to the ordinance of the supj^er it 
 is otherwise. As has been lately observed the head of the 
 church strictly forbids any to take hold of that seal, un- 
 less they are possessed of that faith which will enable them 
 •'to discern the Lord's body," and to discharge the duties 
 incumbent upon such. 
 
 But besides this, you contend that the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision was a dispensation of the covenant of grace," 
 and that all the circumcised were, and all the baptized are 
 interested in the blessings of that covenant, the former by 
 tlteir circumcision, and the latter by their baptism. As 
 has been repeatedly observed, these blessings consist in. 
 justification, sanctification, and a title to eternal life. Now, 
 many of these justified and sanctified baptize<:l ones have 
 given, and do give undoubted evidence that they afe in 
 ''the gall of bitterness and in the band of iniquity," as did 
 Simon Ttlagus shortly after he had been baptized. Pray 
 Sii^, how was their justification forfeited^ and above all, 
 how did they loose the spirit of sanctification. An Armin - 
 ian may answer these questions by telling me that they 
 fell from grace; but how you who art a Calvinist will answer 
 them, I cannot divine. And yet as many of the baptized 
 never gave any evidence that they were "born again," au 
 Arminian who may have embraced your theory on this 
 point will be as much puzzled to answer tlie foregoing 
 questions in regard to such persons as you are. And to 
 this I would add; does not your theory respecting this 
 point, hold'out the unchangeable covenant of grace, as 
 changeable, and its ''sure mercies," as not sure. Baptists 
 see this, and accordingly direct their arrows against this 
 very vulnerable point; and I know not how they can be 
 intercepted, or turned aside according to your system. I 
 once thought on this point as you do at present; and it ^tas 
 the difficulty now stated, that first caursed me to doubt res- 
 pecting my former creed. To obtain light on the subject, 
 and that I m.ight be furnished with a shield wherewith to 
 defend myself against the arrov/s of the assailants, I read 
 every thing on the subject to which I had access, and at- 
 tended particularly to the arguments adduced to prove 
 tlicit the covenant of circumcision was the covenant of 
 grace. Although I was never satisfietl with the arguments 
 on that poinr, I wls less so wlien the writers attempted tp 
 account far tlie p."Jpablc fact, that many vvho were brought 
 
2()5 
 
 into tiie covenant of grace bj circumcision and baptism/ 
 were, or became the children of wrath, and the children of 
 the devil. To myself ail was darkness and confusion, and 
 sometimes '•confusion worse confounded^" and to be can- 
 did, I do not see, that you have shed a ray of light on the 
 dark and tangled path. Tliey set out with tke affirmation 
 that the covenant of circumcision was the covenant of 
 grace, and adduce the passages lately examined as a 
 proof of the position. And although all the promises of the 
 covenant of grace are absolute, yet to account for the in;- 
 deniable fact that many who they say were brotigiit into 
 that covenant by circumcision and baptism, were unbe- 
 'lievers, they either turn it into a conditional covenant, "br 
 fritter it down to a simple offer of salvation through Christ, 
 which I need not say, is the privilege of the merest heathen 
 v/ho hears the word, as well as of the circumcised, or bap- 
 tized. These were things which I could not understand, 
 nor reconcile with my views of the w^ell ordered covenant 
 of grace. But no sooner was I led to see that the covenant 
 of circumcision was not the covenant of grace; but a cove- 
 nant designed for securing a visible church and her ordi- 
 nances as means througli which sinners are interested in 
 tlie covenant of grace, than in my appi^hension the dark- 
 ness and confusion vanished, and I saw a most wise suita- 
 bleness in the one covenant, as a mean, for interesting in 
 the other. 
 
 I will only add on tliis point, that I am not to be under- 
 stood as combating in i\\e preceding observations the opin- 
 ion of those V\ho liold that God enters into a covenant of 
 grace with true believers in Christ as soon as tlicy believe. 
 Although i have not embraced that viev,- of the subject, jet 
 they who hold it admit, that tliis covenant is absolute, and 
 its, mercies sure. I am only combating the opinion of 
 those who say with you that this covenant whicii you say 
 was the same as the covenant of circumcisio'^ was, and is 
 made with the church collectively considered. As already 
 observed, it is a hypothetical, or conditional covenant; for 
 it is an undeniable fact, that many were admitted into the 
 covenant of circumcision who were in a state of unbelief at 
 the time tiiey were admitted, and it depended, and de- 
 pends on the circumstance of their believing afterwards, 
 whether they will be saved, or not. And should you em- 
 brace the system of those who hold that the covenant of 
 24 
 
£66 
 
 grace is made with believers only, I do not see that it woultl 
 alter the casej as it will not be said that all circumcised 
 and baptized persons were true believers; and I expect to 
 shew that Jehovah commanded those to be circumcised, of 
 whom it will not be said, that they were true believers at 
 the time they were circumcised. 
 
 I confess that your third reply in the same page, some- 
 what astonished me. Notwithstandingyou contend that the 
 covenant of circumcision was the covenant of grace; and 
 notwithstanding you acknowledge that justification, sane- 
 tiiication, a,nd eternal life, are the blessings of that cove- 
 nant, yet, in that reply you say — '-that the utmost that can 
 be^ inferred from the circumstance of a person being bapti- 
 ze'd, is, that they are under the laws of Christ'^ house — that 
 the simple truth f.ppears to be; that there is a visible rela- 
 tion subsisting between Christ and all the members of the 
 visible church, and that they are entitled to all the external 
 privileges of the church, so long as they conform to her 
 visible laws." 
 
 I must take an exception here. They arenot entitled to 
 the ordinance of the supper until they are possessed of a 
 living faith in Christ. The profession of it does indeed 
 entitle them to that privilege in the eye of the church, but 
 the head of the church looks for the thing itself. But pas- 
 sing this by; I would now appeal to yourself, if the prece- 
 ding quotation is not diametrically opposite to the doctrine 
 which you have all along contended for: and if it does not 
 virtually establish the doctrine for vvhich I am contending. 
 
 You repeat the same doctrine in the next paragraph. I 
 -liave s^.id "that an external relation to a covenant, if it has 
 any meaning at all, must mean to be out of a covenant.*' 
 For this you correct me and say, ''that to be externally 
 related to a covenant is to be an externp.l member of it.*' 
 To this I shall only say that I cannot form any idea of an 
 exieriial uieuiber of a covenant. We must I think, be ei- 
 ther interested in the covenant of grace, or out of it — I 
 know of no middle ground. If we are in it, or interested 
 in it, then, "we are washed, and sanctitied, and justified, 
 ia the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our 
 God;" and I cannot see how^ we can be in it, and not in- 
 terested in those blessings. But we can be interested — 
 really interested in the covenant of circumcision by the seal 
 being impressed upon us, and not interested in the cove- 
 
267 
 
 liiintpf grace. As already observed, the one was designed 
 as a mean to an end, for interesting us in the other. Those 
 interested in the one compose the visible; but those inter- 
 ested in the other, the invisible church. Many of the 
 members of the one "bear not fruit," and continuing fruit- 
 less will be finally "taken away;" but the members of the 
 other "bear fruit, and shall be purged, that they may bring 
 forth more fruit." ' In John 15:2, both of these parties are 
 said to be "in Christ;" because he was a party in both of 
 these covenants. In the one, he, as the head of the church 
 was one party, and Abraham as representing the visible 
 church was the other; an^t in the other covenant he was a 
 party with t^e Father and the Holy Spirit, and purchased 
 the blessings of that covenant for ail who believe in his 
 name. 
 
 And here I would beg leave to remark, that I have been 
 leu to think from this last reply, and from other expressions 
 in your letter, that you consider the ordinances of the 
 church as a part of the blessings of the covenant of grace 
 and that the circumcised and the baptized become interes 
 ted in these blessings by their circumcision and baptism 
 and no farther. If thia is your view of the subject, then 
 if the covenant of circumcision was inis. covenant of griice 
 that covenant contains no greater blessings; for an inspired 
 apostle expressly says in a passage whicn we shall shortly 
 examine more particularly, that *^the oracles of God" are 
 the chief advantage of the covenant of circumcision. 
 
 From the preceding observations you may see, that the 
 case in the next paragraph "of ten children who may have 
 an equal ri^ht in a will, jet five of them ,through profligacy 
 may never inherit any part of the estate," is not illustra- 
 tive of your system. Unbelievers, though baptized, are not 
 interested in the covenant of grace; nor did they "forsake 
 their own mercies," as you say they do, if by mercies you 
 mean the sure mercies of that covenant. They may, and 
 ahis! many of them do misimprove the privileges connec- 
 ted with tiie covenant of circumcision; but they could not 
 forsake that which they never possessed. The case of the 
 ten virgins (Mat. 25,) which you adduce for the same pur- 
 pose fails in a very material point — the five which were 
 *^foolish,^^ had no oil in their lamps. 
 
 You may also see, that the "novel theory" which you 
 mention in p. 253, as mine, is one of your own formation^' 
 
£68 
 
 I have not said, nor is it deducible from an j thing I have 
 said — '*that God the Father did through Christ as federal 
 head, enter iniotivo covenants with the church," the one as 
 a mean for interesting in tiie other. I have intimated that 
 I view the covenant of grace as a compact between the 
 persons of the Godhead for the purposes already mention- 
 ed; and I have said, and T still saj, that God entered into 
 a covenant with Abraham and his circumcised seed for the 
 purpose of interesting in tliat covenant. I will only add 
 en this point, that I must have expressed myself very ob- 
 scurely, or you must have read my pamphlet very super- 
 ficially, or you w^ould not have enlarged nie with the above 
 absurd theory or system. 
 
 Rom, 3: 2 — ''What advantage hath the Jew, or what 
 profit is there of circumcision? Much every w^ay ; but cMefly[ 
 because that unto them were committed the oracles of 
 God," was adduced in the first letter as another proof that 
 the covenant of circumcision was not the covenant of grace. 
 The argument from this passage is short, but clear, and I 
 think conclusive. It is almost an insult to the understan- 
 ding of the weakest reader to point it out. Neither you, 
 nor any other w^riter which I have seen, pretend to say that 
 the words "the oracles of God" mean justification, sanctl- 
 iication, and eternal life, the acknowledged blessings of the 
 covenant of grace. They import only, as I shall shortly 
 shew, the scriptures of that day, and the ordinances of re- 
 li^on revealed therein;, but the apostle sa.ys in the most 
 positive terms, that these are the chief advantage which 
 the Jews received from the covenant of circumcision — > 
 "cA'/^y, because that unto them were committed the ora- 
 cles of God." 
 
 And what now is your reply to this argument.^ — ''That 
 we are to consider the scriptures in no other sense, than 
 as a dispensation of the covenant of grace," p. 9.55* This 
 is confounding things indeed. The scriptures. Sir, re- 
 veal, or tell us of this covenant; but tliere is a manifest 
 difference between the thing revealed, and the medium of 
 revelation: nor will it be said that the covenant of grace is 
 revealed in every part of the scriptures, but in some par- 
 ticular places only. The very circumstance of your being 
 compelled to resort to such an assumption, whether you 
 designed it as an argument or objection, might have convin- 
 ■ed you that there was sometliijig wrong in your systeni* 
 
- 269 
 
 You also tell me in the same page, ''that 3011 consider the 
 scriptures lobe the written Testament of Christ sealed with 
 his blood as testator;" and then you ask me "if I will say, 
 that Christ as testator sealed two wills, the one an ecclesi- 
 astical will, and the other the testament of grace. " I pre- 
 sume that in this objection you have reference to Heb. 9': 
 15, IT; and in answer it may be sufficient to say, that if you 
 will again read that passage, and its context with care, you 
 will see that the apostle had no reference whatever to the 
 scriptures, but to the covenant of grace, which he repre- 
 sents as a TESTAMENT OT WILL, the blcsslngs of which he 
 says in the 14t]i verse, Christ purchased by his blood, and 
 as a dying father bequeathed them to the children of his 
 grace. I would hope that this consideration will convince 
 you that my argument from Rom. 3: 2, is unimpaired; and 
 I repeat it, that of itself it settles the point, unless you can 
 prove that the words "the oracles of God," mean justifica- 
 tion, sanctification, and eternal life. 
 
 But that they mean nothing more tiian what I have men- 
 tioned is apparent from Rom. 9:4, 5, where' the apostle 
 gives us a detailed account of the privileges of the Jews in 
 consequence of their being within the pale of t};e covenant 
 of circumcision. In the preceding verse he says, "I could 
 wish (or I did wish) myself accursed from Christ, for my 
 brethren my kinsmen according to the flesh; v/ho are Isra- 
 elites: to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and 
 the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service 
 of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of 
 whom concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, 
 God blessed for ever. Amen." I trust I need not tell you, 
 that by the adoption in this passage, we are not to under- 
 stand spiritual adoption, for this surely was not the privi- 
 lege of all the Jews; but national adoption as the visible 
 church of God.— That by the "covenants," we are not to 
 understand the covenants of redemption and of grace; for 
 all the Jews were not interested in those covenants, even 
 admitting the distinction to be scriptural; but the covenant 
 recorded in the 15th chapter of Genesis, whereby the land 
 of Canaan was secured to them as the descendants of Abra- 
 ''^ham, together with the covenant of circumcision, the de- 
 sign of which has been often mentioned, and the covenant 
 at Sinai, whereby Jehovah became their political sovereign. 
 —And that by "the promises" we are to understand the 
 *24 
 
proniUfcB aimexed to those covenants. The meaning of 
 the other expressions are obvious to the weakest capacity; 
 and convey the idea of ecde.siasticcd privileges only; and 
 all taken together, and viewed in connexion with Roai. 3: 
 2, prove I think, beyond all controversy, that the cove- 
 nant of circumcision v/as not the covenant of grace. 
 
 You conclude your objections by telling me in p. Q56, 
 that my theory on this point is, 1st, '^Thatthe covenant of 
 circumcision is an ecclesiastical covenant containing 
 no promises." Surely, Sir, I have not said so, and you 
 should have remembered that in the letter referred to, I 
 have adduced the last quoted passage as a proof of the re- 
 verse. 2d, '-That there are two covenants existing be- 
 tween God and man, the one containing the means, and 
 the other the end." To this I Aviil only say, that I do not 
 know that there can be any covenant between God and 
 sinful man where spiritual obedience is required; because 
 man has unfitted himself by disobedience for rendering- 
 such obedience. It seems that you tliink otherwise; I 
 w^ould be glad to see the proof. The 3d, *»That the ec- 
 clesiastical COVENANT has but one seal, and secured the 
 means of ^ace only," has, I think, been clearly proved in 
 the preceding observations — I do not know that it needed 
 a second. 
 
 I shall close this letter by observing, that inattention tx> 
 the circumstance, that Abraham is spoken of in- the scrip ■ 
 tuves as the father of a circumcised and of a spiritual seed, 
 is, I am persuaded, what has led you and others to adopt 
 a system of Pedobaptism which in my opinion is indefen- 
 sible. In consequence of his being circumcised, Abraham 
 became "tke root" of the visible church under that dis- 
 pensation; and it is apparent from the 17th chapter of Gen- 
 esis, that all his seed were entitled to church -membership 
 by the same ordinance. It is equally apparent from Paul's 
 Epistles to the Romans, and to the Galatians, that all true 
 believers whether Jews or Gentiles, were, and are entitled 
 to the blessings promised to "the righteousness of faiih," 
 as he was by believing; and hence he is held out to our 
 view by the apostles as the father of a natural and circum- 
 cised, and also of a spiritual or believing seed. By not at- 
 tending to this circumstance, and confounding these things, 
 you have put arms into the hands of the Baptists against 
 which you cannot defend yourselves, and furmshed them 
 
Vv'itli objectiorss which jou cannot answer. Idut liiis is not 
 all, nor the worst. To tell baptized persons as your sys- 
 tem doeSj that bj baptism they are interested in the cove- 
 nant of grace is calculated to convey a false and dangerous 
 hope, and to induce them to look fov nothing more in order 
 to salvation; for there are many of them who know and be- 
 lieve that justification, sanctifi cation, and eternal life are 
 secured by the promise' of God to all who are within the. 
 pale of that covenant. This it appears, was the inference 
 which the Jews drev/ from the circumstance of their being 
 the circumcised offspring of Abraham. '"We have Abra- 
 ham for our father," (said they) in consequence of which 
 they saw not the necessity, and neglected the duty "of re- 
 pentance toward God, and of faith toward our Lord Jesus 
 Christ," though urged upon them in the strongest manner 
 by the Baptist, and by Christ himself. It is true that you 
 acknowledge in p. 250, that the covenant of circumcisiori 
 entitled the circumcised, and consequently the bapti- 
 zed, to the means of grace only; but then you affirm in 
 the next page, that the covenant of circumcision was the 
 covenant of grace — "that in this covenant God was the 
 one party, and the church the other;" and in a preceding 
 page, "that there are no blessings of the covenant of 
 grace but may be considered as the property of th^ 
 church," notwithstanding it is composed of wise and fool- 
 ish virgins. It belongs to you, Sir, and not to me, to re- 
 concile, if you can, these jarring and opposing assertions* 
 Now, that Abraham sustained the relation of a father 
 of a natural and circumcised, and also of a spiritual seed; 
 andi that the circumcised seed as such, were not interest- 
 ed by their circumcision in the blessings of the covenant 
 of grace, is farther apparent from what Christ says in Mat. 
 8:11, 12, in reference to the day of judgment. "And 
 many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit 
 down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of 
 heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out." 
 Indeed, an attention to the above circumstance, is what 
 alone can enable us to understand the apostles correctly 
 when speaking of the Jews as the children of Abraham. 
 Thus for instance; in Acts 3: 25, which you adduce in p. 
 252, as a proof that the Jews were by circumcision brought 
 into the covenant of grace, Peter speaks of them only as 
 the circumcised ofifspring of Abraham. The character of 
 
£7-2 
 
 the persons at the time, and the occasisii on which he ad- 
 'Iressed them, are a /proof that he spoke of them only as 
 -uch. — ''Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the 
 covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto 
 Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth 
 be blessed." On the other hand, when Paul says. Gal. 
 3: 7, "They that are of faith, the same are the children of 
 Abraham?" and in verse 29, "If ye be Christ's, then are 
 ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise;" 
 \ve are to understand him as speaking of the spiritual seed 
 of Abraham' who are entitled to eternal life in consequence 
 •f their faith, and the infallible promise that "He that be« 
 Iieveth shall be saved." Submitting these remarks to your 
 consideration, I shall bid you adieu at present, v/ith a 
 promise of considering youi reinainins; objections if^ the 
 r:'^xt letter. 
 
LETTER il. 
 
 THE second point of. difference betweea us respects* 
 The qualifications which the scriptures require, to entitle 
 adult persons to the ordinance of baptism. I have said in 
 the third letter, 'Hhat I consider baptism as primarih^ de- 
 signed for introducing into the church, sinners who are 
 possessed of what is usually styled a speculative faith in 
 the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, ac- 
 companied with a sense of guilt, and of their need of a 
 saviour; and that it is one of the means through v/hich the 
 enlightening and renewing iniiuences of the Holy Spirit 
 are communicated to such." . 
 
 To this you say "you cannot subscribe" for the fjilovv- 
 ing reasons. — '^That the state of a person not possessing 
 saving faith is, that he is a child of v/rath — that the law of 
 God requires every sinner to accept the blessino-s revealed, 
 and offered in the Gospel — that a speculative laith cannot 
 answer the divine requisition, nor deliver from the punish- 
 ment due to unbelief — that it is disobedience to God, and 
 dis])leasing to him, and cannot therefore be a true requisite 
 entitling us to any ordinance — and that God in tlie scrip- 
 tures, requires no other kind of faith and repentance, tlian 
 a living faith and evangelical repentance," p. 257—9. 
 
 Was I disposed to divert the mind of the reader fi'om 
 the point at issue, I migiit here, like Mr. Campbell, cry 
 out — ' 'misrepresentation— misrepresentation;" and con- 
 jure up against you, as many alledged instances of misrep- 
 resentation, as he has conjured up against myself in his 
 tiTRicTUREs, and ANIMADVERSIONS. But as the candour, 
 and decency of expression manifested throughout your let- 
 ter, have convinced me that you had no such design, I have 
 imputed some of the objections in the preceding quotations 
 to misapprehension, or inattention, and not to any design 
 of mistating, or misrepresenting the question between -\in. 
 
 The question is not — docs a, speculative faith interest in 
 the blessings purchased by the death of Chrisij-or is it 
 productive of good works. I have said distinctly in that 
 letter and elsewhere, that it cannot; and that without a 
 living faith tliere canaot be any acceptable approach to the 
 
2r4 
 
 i able of the Lord. But the question is^ does a speculative 
 f^ith accompanied with a sense of guilt, and a sense of the 
 necessity of an interest in the merits of the divine redeem- 
 er in order to salvation, entitle an unbaptized adult to the 
 ordinance of baptism. You say that it cannot; nor to any 
 other divine ordinance. You will admit that the preach- 
 ing of the Gospel is a divine ordinance, or as it is styled 
 hj an apostle, '*a dispensation of God," and '*a dispensa- 
 tion of the grace of God;'' and that to hear it preached is at 
 the same tirne our duty and privilege. Now, is a living 
 faith, aiid evangelical repentance necessary prerequisites 
 to entitle sinners to hear the Gospel preached; and the 
 apostle tells us in 1. Cor. 1: IT, that the preaching of the 
 Gospel is an ordinance of f:ir greater importance in the 
 economy of grace than the ordinance of baptism. The 
 same apostle tells us, that a speculative faith is not even 
 necessary to entitle sinners to hear the Gospel preached; 
 for '*how (saith he) shall they believe on him of whom they 
 have not heard" — and faith, (whatever its character may 
 be,) ^'Cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." 
 Since then, an attendance on the preaching of the Gospel 
 is an ordinance of far greater importance in the economy 
 of grace thanfne ordinance of baptism; it may folio v/ that 
 a sneculative faith may entitle an adult to that ordinance; 
 gnd that it does, I think I have shewn, and I hope I will 
 still more clearly shew. 
 
 Nor is a speculative faith '^disobedience to God," and 
 * -displeasing to him." I am persuaded that on ccol reSec- 
 tion, you v/ill not say, that it is "disobedience to God, and 
 displeasing to him," to believe that lie is such, as he has 
 exhibited himself in bis own v/ord- — to believe that Jesus 
 Christ i« the onty saviour of sinners — that we are guilty/ 
 and morally pcUuted, and impotent dinners— and that 
 without an interest in the merit of his biood, and the re- 
 newing energies of his A]m!,g;hty spirit we must inevitably 
 perish. In ansv^^er to an objection stated in the close of 
 the letter already referred to, I liave shewn, I trust, that 
 God in his holy word, requires of us to believe all this, and 
 that not to believe it constilutes the awfid sin of ialidelity; 
 and that until we believe this we \yiU never see our need 
 of his son as a saviour, nor prize i^he red eun^tion purchased 
 l)y his blood. But God requires of us to believe more than 
 thisc lie requires of \xi to exercise that faith j '^ which re- 
 
Xi/0 
 
 ceives and rests upon Clirist for salvation, as he is oifered 
 to us in the Gospel |" and not to do so, is * 'disobedience to 
 God" indeed. Tiiis, I believe is what jou meant when 
 you said that a speculative faith is "disobedience to God, 
 and displeasing to himj" but it has nothing to do with the 
 present inquiry. The present inquiry is; is the faith sty- 
 led the faith of God's elect, a necessary qualification to 
 entitle an adult to the ordinance of baptism. You aiSrni 
 that it L' for the reasons examined, but how inadequate they 
 are to prove your position, you cannot but now see. 
 
 As an argument that Jehovah did not require a living- 
 faith as a prere<|uisite qualification for induction into his 
 church, it was observed in the same letter, ''that when he 
 saw fit that the church should assume a more visible and 
 compact form in the days of Abraham, he expressly com- 
 manded, that not only tliat distinguished Patriarch him- 
 self, with all his male seed, but that all born in his house, 
 or bought with his money from any stranger, should also be 
 introduced into the church by circumcision; and the Pedo- 
 -baptist reader was asked, if lie could believe that all thescj 
 with all tiieir countless offspring until the coming of the 
 Messiah, Vv'cre true believers.*' 
 
 To this you reply in p. 259 by saying, "that true holiness 
 which could have no existence without a saving faith, was 
 required in the very introduction of the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision;" and as a proof you adduce Gen. 17: 1, "walk 
 btfore m.e, and be thou perfect" — "that all the subjects of 
 that covenant were bound to do so; and that of this they 
 made a publick profession when they vrere circumcised." 
 
 That all ^^ ho enjoy the light of divine revelation are 
 thereby brought under obligations to exercise that faith in 
 Christ which issues in holiness; and that all the circuuici- 
 sed, and all the baptized are under the same obligations, 
 in an especial manner, is readily admitted. But this is 
 not the question; nor is the injunction on Abraham 'Ho walk 
 before God, and to be perfect," to the point; for he v/as a 
 true believer before he was circumcised. But the question 
 is, did Jehovah require a living faith of all whom he com- 
 manded to be circumcised. If so, then, all the male ser- 
 vants of Abraham, who amounted to the number of 318 j 
 together with all the adult males who passed over Jordra 
 with Joshua, amounting to upwards of 600,000, were all 
 ■true believers: for Jehovah expressly commanded the for- 
 
mev to be circinricised as well as Abrabaiii hiinselii lun 
 would he suifer the latter to enter the promised land until 
 they were circumcised in the canip at Gilgal; Josh. chap. 5. 
 
 1 have indeed seen it alledged, that in the 29th chapter 
 of Deuterononiy, they had, a year previous to th.is, entered 
 into a covenant Vvith Jehovah, and that this v/as a profes- 
 sion of true piety, or of a living faitli. It is enough to say, 
 that it was the Sinai covenant that is referred to in that 
 chapter, and whatever its character may have been,'it was 
 made not only with the adult males^ ''but with their 
 wives and little onesi witli the stranger or heathen man 
 that vvas in their camp, fiom the hewer of wood to the 
 drawer of watery" yea v.iih the children of the Jews that 
 were yet to came into existence; and cannot therefore be 
 adduced as a proof of the profession of individual personal 
 piety in the adult males in order to their being circumci- 
 sed. As observed in the preceding letter, it seems to 
 have been a national covenant, in v»hich Jehovah condes- 
 cended to be their civil governor, and to govern them by 
 the laws which he had revealed and which were best suited 
 to their character, and in whicli they engaged to obey those 
 laws, and to respect and attend upon the religious ordi- 
 nances w^hich he had appointed. Let it also be remem- 
 bered that the generation of Jews with whom the Sinai cov- 
 enant was first riiade had been circumcised previous to the 
 making of that covenant. 
 
 But net only must the male adult generaticn of Jew^s 
 wdiich passed over Jordan liave been all ti-ue believers, ac- 
 cording to your system; but as i expect you apply your 
 rule cf qualification for adults, to the fathers of families 
 amongst them; then, every father of a family from Abra- 
 ham to Christ must have Ijeen true believers also; for Je- 
 hovah as expressly commanded them to circumcise their 
 male infants, under the penalty, "that the uncircumcised 
 Kianchild yculd becutoft'from the people of God," or not 
 acknovdedged as members of his church." I am persuaded 
 that when you look closely at the above facts, jou cannot 
 believe, and will not say, that the foregoing countless mul- 
 titude were all true believers; but it must liavebeen so, if 
 your system is nglii.'—Credat Judsetis Apella. 
 
 It will not relieve your system from the above inadmis- 
 sible consequences to say, as you have said repeatedly in 
 your l>ook, that Jehovah required a profession af a living 
 
27f 
 
 faith from them, and that this profession entitled them to 
 circumcision I for is it not virtually saying, that although 
 He required this faith, he was yet satisfied with the pro- 
 fession of it. Ask yourself if this can comport with his 
 character as exhibited in his holy word; and let it be re- 
 membered that Jehovah expressly commanded the male 
 servants of Abraham, and the 600^000 Jews at Gilgal to be 
 circumcised, without any reference to their characters as 
 really pious, — The command to every father of a family to 
 circumcise his male infants was equally express. 
 
 As a proof that the church was designed to be the usual 
 birth place ^f the children of grace, I referred to Psalm 87; 
 5 — "And of Zion it shall be said, that this man, and that 
 man was born in her, and the Highest himself shall estab- 
 lish her." To which was added Gal. 4: 26, where "Jeru- 
 salem," or the church, "which is above, and is free/' is 
 said to be "the mother of us all. " 
 
 ' To this you reply by telling mc, that it is the opinion of 
 IvloLiEKus, with whom it seems you agree, that thedoctrine 
 taught in the first of these passages is — ^'that in a day of 
 the reviving of the ciiurch, converts of every nation and 
 tongue, will reckon it their true glory to become citizens 
 of Zion, and consider it as truly their native kingdom, as if 
 they had been born Jews, and had Abraham for their mitu- 
 ral father.*' Be it so; but does tliis exclude, or destroy 
 the primary and prominent idea in the passage, that they 
 were born in Zion, or the church. And that it is a spiri- 
 tual, and not a natural birth that is alluded to, is apparent 
 from a parallel passage in Isai. 66 : 7, where the prophet 
 s=peaking of a day of the reviving of the church says — "Who 
 hath seen such a thing? Gr who hath heard such a thing? 
 Shall the earth be made to bring fortii in one day? Or shall 
 a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she 
 brought forth children. " 
 
 You tell me also that the second passage, Gal. 4: 25, h 
 much of the sam.e impoit as Psalm 87: 5. It is indeed so 
 as I understand both passages, but surely not as you under- 
 stand them; or as importing only that it is an honor to be 
 enrolled amongst the citizens of Zion. It simply says, 
 that "Jerusalem," orthe church, "is the Mother of us all," 
 or the usual birthplace of the children of grace. And here 
 Sir, permit me to observe, tliat these two passages when 
 taken in connection, or even viewed separately, erase th" 
 25 
 
278 
 
 foundation of not only the Baptist system, but the founda- 
 tion of the system of those Pedobaptists who contend with 
 you that unbaptized adults must be "born again" in the 
 visible kingdom of darkness before they are planted in the 
 **^dneyard," or the church of God. You appear sensible 
 of their force, and to induce me to adopt that interpreta= 
 ti on which you have given them, to the exclusion of the one 
 which I have offered, you ask me in the same page, *'if I 
 would not consider the promise equally accomplished in 
 the admission of those regenerated before they are admit- 
 ted into the church, as I would of those converted, after 
 they become members. " I cannot Sir, admit any such in- 
 terpretation of those passages; for the promise implied in 
 them, is a promise of regeneration to those who are in Zion^ 
 and I know not that there is any promise of regeneration 
 to those who are not in Zion, or the church. I admit, and 
 I rejoice that it is the case, that many arej:'egenerated out 
 of the church. It displays at the sametime, the sovereign- 
 ty, and boundless extent of divine grace, and it might bs 
 worth while to enquire, if one reason why it is so, maj not 
 be, that the officers of the church keep out those whom its 
 head designed should be within her pale, and under her cul- 
 ture and controul. While on the one hand an indiscrimi- 
 nate admission is hurtful to the interests of religion; on tlie 
 other hand keeping oiit those wl\o ought to be admitted, is 
 adverse to the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom. 
 
 Rom. 11: 20, was adduced as another argument why a 
 living faith was not requireid as a prerequisite qualification 
 for admittance into the church. Addressing the Gentile 
 converts to Christianity, the apostle tells them in regard 
 to the Jews — '*Vv ell because of unbelief they were broken 
 off, and thou standest by faith; be not high-minded but 
 fear." From these words it was argued, that the faith, by 
 which the Jews once stood, was a speculative faith, or a 
 faith that could be and was lost, but that this is not the 
 case with the faith of God's elect; and that the Gentile 
 converts now stand by the same faith, by which the Jew 
 once stood. 
 
 To this you reply by telling me in p. 262, "that unbe- 
 lief is not the contrary of a speculative, but of a true faith, 
 but the Jews substituted unbelief for its contrary, and 
 therefore were broken oif from the church." 
 
That UKBELiEF is used as the contrary of a true faith is 
 admitted, as in 2 Cor. 6: 14 — "What concord hath Christ 
 with Belial, or he that believeth v/ith an infidel," or un- 
 ])eliever. But that it is also used as the ''contrary" of 
 a speculative faith is evident to myself from a consi'dera- 
 tion of the foUov, ing facts. We are told in the 14th chap- 
 ter of Exodus, that the generation of Jews which came out 
 of Egypt, ^ Relieved the Lord and his servant Moses," 
 as a typical Redeemer, when they saw the Red Sea divi- 
 ded by the rod of Moses, and they passed through on dry 
 land, wliile the Egyptians were immersed in a watery grave. 
 And yet this same generation were denied an entrance 
 into the promised land on account of their unbelief. — "They 
 could not enter in (says the apostle) because of unbelief.^'' 
 And vvhat now was the unbelief on account of which they 
 perished in the wilderness, and was the reverse of that belief 
 which they liad exercised on occasion of their deliverance 
 at the Red Sea? Their distrusting the promise and power 
 of Jehovah as a deliverer, in consequence of v/hich they re- 
 
 nounced his Vt'orship and service, and trusted in and wor- 
 
 say, that the belief, or faith v/hich is predicated of the 
 mass of the Israelites at the Red Sea, was ''a true faith." 
 itis true they repented of their base idolatry on that occa- 
 sion, in consequence of which they were spared as a na- 
 tion, and not cutoi? fi-om the covenant of circumxision; 
 but the most unbounded charity will not say, that 'at the 
 period alluded to, they were true believers, a few except- 
 ed; and let it be remembered that it is said of them at the 
 Red Sea, "that they believed the Lord, and his servant 
 Moses." 
 
 In addition to this I v/ould observe that the generation 
 which lived in the days of Christ were not prone to idol- 
 atry; for the captivity at Babylon had cured them as a na- 
 tion cf any inclination to that flagitious sin. On the con- 
 trary they firmly believed that Jehovah v/as the only 
 true God, and they externally worshiped him agreeably to 
 his ov/n institutions. They also believed that l.he scrip- 
 tures of the old testament were a revelation from heaven; 
 and they farther believed that their God would according 
 P) the prophecies, send them a Redeemer. But when that 
 
;^80 
 
 iledeemer came, for reasons which we shall shortly rneii - 
 lion, "they received him not," but crucified him as an 
 impostor, and persevered in that wicked opinion. This 
 sealed their doom as a nation, and a visible church, as 
 they virtually rejected Jehovah in rejecting his Son, and 
 they WTre cut off from the covenant of circumcision, and 
 perished in the most miserable manner by the Roman ar- 
 mies under Titus. I again appeal to you, sir, if you can 
 believe, that that generation, with the exception of the 
 * 'remnant," and thos^ who afterwards received Christ in 
 liisreal character, were true believers; and if the "unbe- 
 lief" on account of which they were "broken oif from the 
 good olive tree," must not be understood as the opposite 
 of that doctrinal faith, which, while they and their fathers 
 retained, entitled them to a standing in the visible church 
 of God: and farther, if it is not apparent from the forego- 
 ing considerations and facts, that that faith was the prere- 
 quisite qualification for admission into the cliurch. I hope 
 that I will not be understood as saying, that the Jews in 
 their several generations had no otiier kind of faith. There 
 were true believers amongst them in every age, and this 
 has been and will be the ca^ vv'herever the ordinances of 
 the true religion are administered; but the number of such 
 was comparatively small, and therefore their enjoying the 
 means of grace, until they rejected Jehovah in rejecting 
 his son, w as ov/ing to their believing the fundamental doc- 
 trines of the Jewish theology. 
 
 You object also to the intei-pretation which I have given 
 to the verb metanoesale in Acts 2: 38, as importing in my 
 opinion, a change of mind in the Jews in regard to the 
 character of Jesus of Nazareth; and you tell me, "that 
 according to the interpretation which I have given to the 
 word, it implies in it nothing more than they had been al- 
 ready convinced of by Peter's sermon;" as it is said in 
 Ihe S7th verse, "that when they heard this," or that Jesus 
 was the Messiah, '^they v. ere pricked in their hearts, and 
 ^^aidto Peter and t-o the rest of the apostles, men and bre- 
 ihren what shall w^e do." 
 
 The objection was not unexpected; but I trust that the 
 following remarks and considerations wall remove it. For 
 Uiis purpose 1 would observe, that although the Jews ex-^ 
 pected a king Messiah, yet in the day in which he appear- 
 ed, they had. (with a few exceptions) very unscriptural and 
 
281 
 
 unw.orthy ideas of his character, and of the kingdom which 
 he would set up amongst them. From a mistaken view, 
 and application of the prophecies concerning him as a king 
 and conqueror, they expected him as a temporal king and 
 a temporal conqueror, who would rescue them from the 
 Roman yoke, and advance their nation to the highest pitch of 
 temporal power and grandeur. Hence then we are told, 
 that on occasion of one of his stupendous miracles, they 
 attempted "to take him by force, and to make him a king," 
 And not only was this the opinion of the mass of the peo- 
 ple, but also of his own immediate disciples until other- 
 wise instructed; witness the saying of two of them on their 
 way to Emmaus — ''We trusted that it had been He who 
 would have redeemed Israel," Luke M: 21. 
 
 It is now apparent fi'om the foregoing observations and 
 facts, that Peter had, and must have had two great objects 
 in view when he addressed the Jews on the day of Pente- 
 cost. The first wa& to convince them that Jesus was the 
 Messiah, and the second to instruct them with regard to 
 the nature and character of the Messiah's kingdom. He 
 succeeded in the first by appealing to the mighty miracles 
 wrought by him, and the prophecies of David concerning 
 him in the Psalms. The idea of crucifying as an impostor 
 the person of whom they had conceived the most exalted 
 ideas, and from whom they expected such earthly power 
 and pre-eminence, ''pricked them to the heart, and they 
 said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men, and 
 brethren what shall v/e do. " Knov/ing at the time, that 
 such a saviour as they expected their Messiah would be, 
 could be of no avail to them and to others considered as sin- 
 ners, Peter embraced the fovourable opportunity of unde- 
 ceiving them on this very interesting point, and also of in- 
 stiucting them with regard to the kingdom which he wa,s 
 about to establish. Hence then he s,aid,^-metanoesate^ or 
 change your minds on this subject, and in regard to this 
 Jesus. He is a spiritual and not a temporal saviour; and 
 as ye would be saved by him from deserved wrath, and 
 from sin, then, "Be baptized every one of you in his name 
 for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost; for the promise is to you, and to 3'our 
 Giiiidren, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the 
 Ltord our God shall call." As it will be admitted, and 
 <r annot be denied, that the word is frequently used in the 
 
£82 
 
 above sense, tliis Ifniiik is its obvious meaning in that pas 
 sage, demanded alike by a consideration of the opinion 
 which the Jevvs entertained of their Messiah at that time, 
 and the objects which Peter reiist have had in view when 
 he addressed them on that interesting occasion. 
 
 I have seen it however lately affirmed by a writer in the 
 Pittsburg Recorder, "that the two objects which I sup- 
 pose Peter had in view are one and the same; for by per- 
 suading the Jews, that Jesus was the Messiah, he at once 
 overturned their preconceived opinions with respect to his 
 character. '' 
 
 I think I need scarcely observe, that fae two objects arc 
 perfectly distinct — as distinct as any two objects can be. 
 And if we are to judge of the opinion of the Jews on .hat 
 point, by that of the disciples, zhe circumstance of Jesus ' 
 arising from the dead, and that too by his own intrinsic 
 power, instead of "overturning" their expectations from 
 him as a temporal redeemer, it was ratlier calculated to 
 increase them; for w^e are told that in one of the interviev/s 
 which they had with him between his resurrection and as- 
 cension, the disciples asked him saying, ''Lord, wilt thou 
 at this time restore the kingdom to Israel." Perhaps it 
 may be said that at the time Peter addressed the Jews, Je- 
 sus had ascended into Heaven, and this circumstance was 
 calculated to dissipate their expectations from him as st 
 temporal saviour. It might have had that effect, had they 
 not known that Jehovah had acted for many years as the 
 temporal king and protector of their nation; this consider- 
 ation then would inspire the hope that Jesus who they w^ere 
 then convinced w^as the ?dessiah, and who as the Messiah 
 is frequently spoken of by the prophets as their king., 
 w^ould also become their temporal king and saviour, pro- 
 ■vided they could obtain forgiveness for crucifying him as 
 an impostor, and from this it would seem arose ' 'thepricking 
 in their hearts," and their S8,ying "men and brethren, 
 what shall we do." And to this I would add, that as an 
 evangelical repentance implies in it ''an apprehension of 
 the mercy of God in Christ;" and as the Jews at the time 
 Peter addressed them had no view of their Messiah but as- 
 a temporal saviour, it was therefore indispensibly necessa- 
 ry to undeceive them on this important point, before he 
 would hold out Jesus to their view as aSa^viourj-fromfhell, 
 and from sin. 
 
£83 
 
 i lie same writer, and wlio ur.dersltmds the verb meian- 
 t^esafe in the passage under examination, as lai porting an 
 evangel-icai repentance, asks by waj of objection to the 
 interpretation which I have given it,-— "If.it can be siipp6- 
 seel that the apostle would not inculcate the necessity of an. 
 evangelical repentance to a company of men penetrated 
 with a sense of guilt and danger, and crying ont with all ear- 
 nestness, v/hat shall M'e do." 
 
 It is readily admitted that they would, and it is not to 
 be supposed that they w^onld not. That they did so, is 
 evident from what we are told in the 40th verse— "that 
 with many other words did Peter testify and exhort, saying, 
 save yourselves from this untoward generation." And- 
 thereis no doubt but that in those "many words," he in- 
 culcated the necessit}^ of '^repentance t-oward God, and of 
 faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ: but who does not see 
 that in order to their thus repenting and believing, it was 
 previously necessary to convince them that • Jesus was a 
 spiritual, and not a temporal saviour. I have assigned 
 reasons why I believe that this was the apostle's object in 
 the 38th verse, and if not taught in that verse, I know not 
 that it was taught on that occasion, at least in such language 
 as the Jevv'S could have then understood. Perhaps it may 
 be thought that the foregoing doctrine was taught in the 
 v/ords— "having received of the father the promise of the 
 Holy Ghost" in^ the S3d, and in the words — "God hath 
 made that same Jesus v/hom ye have crucified, both Lord 
 and Christ," or Messiah in the 36th verse. But the atten- 
 tive reader will have perceived, that it is the miraculous in- 
 fluences of the Holy Ghost in the gift of tongues that are 
 alluded to in the former of these versesi and whatever we 
 with our superior lights may think we can see in the words 
 -'Lord and Christ" in the latter of these verses, it is not to 
 be supposed, that the Jews with their previous conceptions 
 of the Messiah as a temporal saviour only, could understand 
 them as importing that he was a spiritual saviour — In my 
 opinion the words are too indefinite to convey that idea. 
 Besides, a strict attention to the drift of the apostle's rea- 
 soning in his first address to the Jews, will, I think convince 
 the unprejudiced reader that the apostle's object in that 
 address was, to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah 
 — that he had arisen from the dead, and ascended into hea- 
 ven, and had received all pow^r and authority from the fa • 
 
• '284 
 
 tlier. On the other hand, the words in the' 58th verse—- 
 * ^Repent, or change your 7ninds, and be baptized in the 
 name of Jesu5 Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
 receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," and with which liis 
 second address begins, are so clear and definite, as could 
 not fail to convince them that Jesus was a spiritual saviour; 
 and that the words had this effect is evident from the cir- 
 cumstance of their immediately submitting to that ordi- 
 nance, that they might obtain the remission of sins, and the 
 renovating influences of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I shall only farther remark on this objection, that when I 
 ^vrote the third letter in this volume, for the Presbyterian 
 Magazine, I was under the necessity of baing as concise 
 as possible, and therefore omitted the observations now 
 made. I have been since sensible that my reasoning and 
 argument on the preceding point in that letter have suffer- 
 ed by the omissions and I expected that some person who 
 holds the system v/hich you and the writer alluded to ad- 
 vocate, would make the objections which you have made. I 
 trust that they are nov/ removed, and that the preceding 
 observations, and the objects which Peter must have had in 
 view when he addressed the Jews, together with what he 
 says in regard to the ordinance itself, have convinced you 
 both, that the verb inetanoesate is to be understood in that 
 passage in its primary meaning, or as only importing '-a 
 
 CHANGE OF MIND." 
 
 In connection with the preceding objection, you object 
 also to ''the construction" which I have given in the same 
 passage to the words — "Be baptized for the remission of 
 sins," as importing in my view, that Baptism was appoint- 
 ed as a mean through which the remission of sins, and the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost in his renewing and sanctifying in- 
 fluences are conveyed — '^Because as you tell us, a living 
 faith is held out in the scriptures, as the mean of interesting 
 U3 in the merits of the blood of Christ, which alone can re- 
 move the guilt of sin" — and that the faith and repentance 
 which I say entitle an adult to the ordinance of baptism^. 
 *'can be only badges of liypocrisy in regard to discipleship 
 to Christ." 
 
 Whenever a writer objects to the intei'pretation of any 
 passage of scripture given by another, it is always expected 
 that he will give what he thinks is the true interpretation. 
 When I read your objection I locked for this, but I Ipoked 
 
S85 
 
 in vain. The expressions, '^be baptized {ov the reniiasion 
 of sins," are not insulated expressions, or expressions that 
 occur but once in the sacred oracles. Peter uses a simi- 
 lar expression in one of his epistles where he says, "bap- 
 tism doth also now save us;" and Anannias when he said 
 lo Saul, "arise, and be baptized, and icash away thy sins.'- 
 I would now ask you, Sir, how you understand such ex- 
 pressions; and if you can attach any meaning to them con- 
 sistent with the established meaning of words, but that bap- 
 tism is a mean through which the Holy Ghost renews, tne. 
 heart of the sinner, and works that faith which disposes 
 him to receive Christ '^for wisdom, and righteousness, and 
 sanctification, and redemption." Had you recollected 
 that there is a figure of rhetorick styled Metonymy, which - 
 uses the adjunct for the subject, and the eSect for the 
 cause, you would not have \vritten the above objection. It 
 is obviously used in this, and the similar passages which i 
 Jia^'e adduced. Besides, the v/ords, "and ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost," point to a time that was fu- 
 ture; or that the gift v.as to be received after they were 
 baptized. 
 
 With respect to the objection, that a doctrinal faith," -and - 
 a s&nse of guilt, "can be only badges of hypocrisy^^in a- 
 disciple of Christ," the objection is founded on the mean- 
 ing which you attach to the word "disciple. " You under- 
 stand it as denoting a true believer only; hvit I consider it 
 as used to signify not only a true believer, but one who 
 professes a desire of learning in the school of Christ the 
 principles of his divine religion; and in this sense the word 
 is used in John 6: 66, and elsewhere. The twelve who 
 ■were called to attend on Christ's person and ministry, are 
 called disciples; and although tliere is evidence that Na- 
 thaniel was a good man — "an Israelite indeed in Vvhom 
 there was no guile," previous to his being called to the - 
 discipleship, there is no evidence that this Vv^as the charac- 
 ter of them all when they began to follow Christ; and that 
 Judas Iscariot was not a good man, is beyond all perad- 
 venture. Hypocrisy consists in a person's pretending to 
 be what he is not. "Now sir, may not a person, although 
 not a true believer, be sincerely desirous of learning in the 
 Gchool of Christ, or the church, how he may escape the 
 wrath to come, and the things that belong to his present 
 and future happiness. Were the Jews hypocritical, or in- 
 
286- 
 
 sincere, when Ihej said to Peter, and to (he rest ofthfc 
 apostles, «'men andbretliren v/hat shall we do?" Andv/as 
 the jailor insincere when he said to Paul and Silas — *SSirs> . 
 what must I do to be saved." And to this 1 would add. 
 that in jour reasonings on this point, you take it generallj 
 for granted, that no adults, but those who are true believ- 
 ers have a right to the ordinance of baptism; but that is 
 the point to be proved. I need not teli you, that logicians 
 call this mode of reasoning, ^^petitio principii,'^ or a beg- 
 ging the question. 
 
 The case of Simon Magus v^hich you select as a proof of 
 hypocrisy, because Peter said to him, '»! perceive that thy 
 heart is not right with God," is nothing v/hatever to the 
 point in hand. Admitting that Peter meant by those words 
 that he was a hypocrite, or that he did not believe what he 
 professed to believe; they prove that circumstance, but no- 
 thing more; but that your objection may have any force, 
 you must prove that ali who profess a faith in Christ, as the 
 only Saviour of sinners, and acknowledge that they are 
 guilty sinners, are-all hypocritical — ^all insincere. 
 
 And here I cannot but remark, tiiat I was somewhat 
 surprised when I saw the case of Simon Magus adduced 
 as an argument against ihe system which I advocate, as in 
 my view it supports it, and militates against that for which 
 you contend. As it respects adults, you contend that true 
 believers only have a right to.be baptized. A hope, that 
 a candidate for baptism, if a stranger, as Avas the case of 
 Simon Magus, is the subject of a living faith, cannot be 
 obtained by an officer of the church, but by a particular 
 and minute conversation with the candidate. - Now, if 
 Philip by whom Simon v/as baptized, entered into such a 
 conversation with him, is it to be supposed, that Philip 
 would have been so much mistaken, as it appears he was 
 on your system, respecting Simon's character as a true 
 believer. It would seem that Simon believed-^ and pro- 
 iessed a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and in the exis- 
 tence and agency of the Holy Ghost; but it seems that he 
 confined that agency to his m.iraculous, and not to his illu- 
 lainatingand renewing influences in the Economy of grace. 
 Hence then it was evident that he v/as, as Peter expressed 
 it, "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity; 
 and hence the advice, "to repent of his wickedness," in 
 >upposing that the spirit's iniiuences might be purchased, 
 
28r 
 
 ijy money, ^'arid to pray God, \i perhaps the thought of his 
 heart might be forgiven him." 
 
 You argue also that the Samaritans were true believers^ 
 or professed a living faith, because it is said '*that when 
 they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
 kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus, they were bap- 
 tized both men and Vvomen." Your argument lies in the 
 words— ^'believing the things concerning the kingdom of 
 God, and the name of Jesus," as importing that they be- 
 lieved in Jesus ^Ho the saving of the soul." Like Philip 
 you are a preacher of the gospel, and 1 trust that you 
 preach the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the 
 name of Jesus, and that your hearers believe iho^Q things 
 to be true. I would now ask you, if you consider and if 
 you believe from this circumstance, that all your hearers 
 are all true believers. A candid answer to the question 
 will show you the inconclusiveness of your reasoning, and 
 the consequent invalidity of your argument. To this I 
 would add, that it is not said, that the Samaritans "be- 
 lieved in Christ," words v/hich sometimes, but not always, 
 import a living faiths but that- "they believed Philip when" 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
 the name of Jesus. " -This case, in my viev/, also supports 
 that system of adult baptism which I advocate, and mili- 
 tates against that for which j-cu contend. 
 
 In p. 267, you say that the v/ords "If thou believest with 
 all thine heart" in Acts 8: 37? mean "a faith of the whole 
 soul;" and as a proof you adduce Luke 10: 27, wmv^ it is 
 said that we should "love the Lord our God with all our 
 hearts, and with all our souls, and with. all our strengthj, 
 and with all our minds;" whence you draw the conclusion 
 that no adults but those possessed of the above faith should 
 be admitted to baptism. 
 
 That the moral law requires, and justly requires^ that 
 we should love the Lord our God to "the full extent that 
 the powders of the human soul are capable of exercising that 
 aifection^ as the words /te^f/, mid^ sfrengih^ and 7nind im- 
 port, is beyond all controversy. But do true believers at- 
 tain to this perfect love in this life? It is the attainment 
 of the redeemed in heaven only, where faith is swallowed 
 ».]p in vision, and love by fruition. Nov/, as you say, that the 
 vv^ords "with all tiiiue heart," as they have jrcference to 
 :£aith in Acts 8: 57,'wean. the same thing as when predicate 
 
^88 
 
 fed of love in Luke 10: 27: it follows I tciink from your ar- 
 gument, that a perfect faitli, or a faith that excludes all 
 doubting, is requu'ed of adults in order to their being bap- 
 tized. This will prove too much, and consequently proves 
 nothing for your system. 
 
 But passing this byi the questbn is, what are we to un- 
 derstand by the words "with ail thine heart" in Acts 8: 37. 
 You-understand by them a living faith at least, from v/hich 
 you draw the conclusion that no adults, but those who are 
 true believers ought to be baptized. I have examined ail 
 the places where the words are used in the scriptures, and 
 it appears to myself, that most generally they denote sin- 
 cerity only; and sometimes a gracious" sincerity, and at 
 other times a sincerity that is not of a gracious character* 
 In this latter sense they are certainly used in Ezek. 36: 5, 
 and elsewhere. In the third letter 1 have offered reasons 
 which have not been, and which 1 think cannot be contro- 
 verted, why I believe the Eunuch to have been a gracious 
 man or a true believer, previous to his being baptized; and 
 I think I may safely assume that Philip viev/ed him as such. 
 Now, admitting that the above words import a living faitli 
 in Acts 8: 37, your argument when thrown into the form 
 of a syllogism v^ill stand thus — The Eunuch, a true belie vei' 
 requested to be baptized by Philip; but Phitip said unto him, 
 if thou believcsl; with all thine heart, or with a living faith, 
 thou may est; therefore unbelieving or unregenerate adults 
 are not to be baptized. You cannot but nov/ see, that this 
 syllogism which I think is fairly constructed from your 
 argument is contrary to all the rules of righi reasoning. 
 The conclusion is not to be found in the prem.ises; and the 
 woi ds of Philip as you understa.nd them, morever contain a 
 silliness of requisition not to be expected from him from 
 what he had seen and known of the Eunuch's character. 
 Was there such evidence that the Eunuch vvas an unregen- 
 erate person previous to his being baptized, as there is that 
 this was the character of Simon Magus; and Itad Philip 
 said, "if thou believest unto righteousness" — words which 
 import a living faitli, it would prove that a saving faith is 
 required of adults in order to their beir.g baptized. But 
 as the words "vvith all thy heart," are a common phrase- 
 ology, denoting sincerity, whether of a gracious, or not of 
 ii gracious character, then, as observed in the letter refer- 
 red to. I must consider Philip a? only requiiing a Hncerc 
 
289 
 
 belief tliat Jesus is the Son of God without reference to the 
 Eunuch's character as a true believer. I need scarcely ob- 
 serve, that thousands of unregenerate persons have believ- 
 ed, and do believe the foregoing, and other fundamental 
 doctrines of the christian religion^ a living faith is there- 
 fore not indispensibly necessary to eveaa sincei^e belief of 
 those doctrines. They believe them, because the evidence 
 for their truth, as laid' down in the scriptures, is so clear 
 and forcible, that they cannot withhold their assent; conse- 
 quently no legitimate argument can be drawn, that in those 
 words Pliilip meant a living faith, and that this faith is an 
 indispensible prerequisite to entitle an adult to the ordi- 
 nance of baptism. And admitting that Philip meant a 
 living faith in those words, what would it prove? — This 
 only, that true believers have a right to be baptized. Per- 
 haps in logical strictness, all that can be legitimately 
 drawn from the passage is, that a pious Jew, or any other 
 pious unbaptized person, must profess a belief that Jesus 
 is the Son of God, or the Messiah, before they can be bap- 
 tized. 
 
 The preceding observations are applicable to the baptism 
 of Lydia mentioned in the 16th chapter. The historical 
 record which we have of her, short as it is, affords the 
 strongest presumptive evidence that she was also a pious 
 person, previous to her being baptized; and to infer from 
 either of the above cases that unbelieving or unregenerate 
 adults are not to be baptized, is like arguing, that because 
 the scriptures require faith in adults in order to their bap- 
 tism; therefore infants are not to be baptized, because they 
 are not capable of believing. The fallacy of both argu- 
 ments liesm this. — In the one, an idea is attached to the 
 M^ord FAITH which does not belong to it, when mentioned 
 in connection with baptism; and in the other, it is taken for 
 granted, that none should be baptized or introduced into 
 the church who are not capable of believing. 
 
 Your last objection on this point is — "that my views of 
 baptism have a tendency to corrupt the church." And as a 
 proof of this you ask me, "what object can be gained by 
 planting dead trees in a gjirden — trees that possess no 
 living principle — you may water and dung about them, they 
 decay the more speedily: yet you allow the keepers of 
 Christ's vineyard to fill it with such vines — ^people hanng 
 dnly a dead faith." 
 26 
 
290 
 
 I confess that I was also surpiised at this objection, and 
 the argument adduced to support it. It is the very, same 
 which Mr. C. brought against me in his strictures, and 
 to which I have replied, and I trust answered in the 6th 
 letter, and which it is to be presumed you have read; and 
 yet you repeat the objection, without attempting to shew 
 that the answer is invalid. It was observed in that letter, 
 that although the powers of the human soul, are by sin 
 turned aside from TTod and things divine as the supreme 
 good, yet they are capable of being turned from the love 
 of sin, and of this world, to God, by an agent adequate to 
 the important work. — That the Spirit of God is that agent; 
 and as has been observed by some of the most eminent di- 
 vines, it is by applying the awful, but rigliteous penalty of 
 the moral law to the passion of fear, and that strong love 
 of happiness, and aversion to misery, which are so deeply 
 and indelibly ingrafted in our nature, that the almighty 
 and omniscient spirit convinces the sinner of sin, and in- 
 duces him to enquire '*v.hat he shall do to be saved." — - 
 That it is by directing the attention of the awakened sinner 
 to the character of the Hedeemer as developed in the scrip- 
 tures, and to the fitness and fulness of the redemption 
 purchased by his blood, that this same sinner is disposed 
 to receive and rest upon him as "the Lord his righteous- 
 ness, and his strength." — And that it is by directing his 
 attention to the love of God in giving his son '*to die, the 
 just for the unjust," that tiie same .almighty agent melts his 
 bard and unfeeling heart, and on the natural principle of 
 gratitude, ingrafts the divine principle of love to God, which 
 dispo«;es him to universal obedience. 
 
 And ncv/ Sir, yourself being judge, what analogy is there 
 between man, who altliough a sinner, yet possesses all the 
 physical powers of soul, necessary to constitute him a 
 moral agent, and a dead tree which is not possessed of any 
 living principle, and which 'Hhe more it is watered and 
 dunged, decays the move speedih\" The rain, and deu", 
 and sunshine of heaven cannot have any effect on such a 
 tree, 'because there is no living principle whatever that can 
 be acted upon. But this is not the case with man, sinner 
 as he is: for the dev/s and sunshine of heavenly grace can 
 make the morally barren powers of his soijl, ''to bud and 
 blossom as the rose," and to bring forth tlie fruit of faitli 
 and love divine, to the praise of the grace of God. If he 
 
291 
 
 was like your ''dead tree," he would not, could not, be an 
 accountable creature 5 and Christ must have blamed the 
 Jews unjustly when he said — '%nd ye will not come unto 
 me, that ye might have life." They possessed all the 
 physical powers of soul necessary for moral action; but they 
 directed those powers to unsuitable and unworthy objects, 
 und v/hich is indeed the case with every sinner. Ask 
 yourself if your ideas on this subject do not savour of ab- 
 surdity,* for as far as I do understand them, you consider 
 man as both physically and morally dead, in regard to mor- 
 al agency. And whatever 3'our ideas may be, ask your- 
 self farther, if they do not lead to the dreadful vortex of 
 antinomianism in which Mr. C. is so deeply plunged; for 
 according to my views of the subject, if man is not posses- 
 sed of physical powers of soul for moral action, he is not 
 accouiite.ble for his actions- — he is physically diiFerent from 
 his progenitor Adam. 
 
 II aving noticed, and I would hope satisfactorily answer- 
 ed the objections which you have brought against that sys- 
 tem of adult baptism which I have exhibited in the third let- 
 ter; permit me now to state a few of the difficulties which in, 
 my view attend the system for which you contend. You 
 think that it tends "to corrupt the church," to admit into 
 it, adults of the character which I have frequently men- 
 tioned. You are a Fedobaptist, and you have disputed 
 and written in favour of Pedobaptism. Now Sir, how is 
 it consistent with what you consider the purity of the 
 church, to admit into it infants, wlio have been '•'shapen 
 in iniquity, and conceived in sin," and whose hearts^ as 
 well as the hearts of unregenerated adults possess a prin- 
 ciple of '^enmity against God," and are consequently 
 children of wrath as well as those; and I need not tell 
 you that in the Fedobaptist churches generally, twenty, if 
 not double that number of infants are baptized, for one 
 adult. While I was of your opinion on tills point, I often 
 endeavoured to remove this difficulty, and as often failedj 
 and I Vv'ill tliank you, or any other person who holds your 
 system to remove it, for to myself it is insuperable, and v/as 
 one of the causes which led me to call in question your 
 present, ^nd my own former creed on this point. It will 
 not remove it to say, that infants are not in a capacity to 
 evince their enmity, for they do it as soon as they are ca- 
 pabk\ and that is very soon; or as it is expressed by the 
 
;iyi<i 
 
 Fgalmist — "they are estranged from the very wombj they 
 go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Besides, 
 if that principle in adults stands in the way of their being 
 admitted into the church, it must also stand in the way of 
 infants being admitted 5 for the circumstance of their not 
 being capable of exercising it, does not alter the character 
 of the principle itself. Nor will it solve this difficulty to 
 say, that it is the will and command of the head ol" the 
 church, that infants shall be planted therein by baptismf 
 for the difficulty or rather objection to your system has 
 not reference to his will or command, but to what you con- 
 sider the purity of the church, and the berieSts accruing 
 from baptism 5 for you tell me, "that it cannot be of any 
 use to plant dead trees- in a garden — trees that possess no 
 principle of life— -and that it is a speedy method to corrupt 
 the church." Nor yet will it remove the difficulty, to say,. 
 that it is in consequence of the faith of the parent that 
 the child is to be admitted into the churchy for the faith 
 of the parent cannot change the principle of "enmity a- 
 gainst God," in the child's heart, nor can the regenerated 
 parent convey regenerating grace to his child. 
 
 • But this is not the only difficulty which attends your 
 system. You will agree with me, that the essence and vali- 
 dity of baptism consists in a nt subject, and in water be- 
 ing applied to that subject, in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the lioly Ghost, by a lawful minister of 
 the gospel, and not in tlie quantity of water applied, as the 
 Baptists assert. Indeed from the whole of your objections 
 to the system which I advocate, I should suppose that 
 you consider the validity of baptism in regard to adults, 
 3s depending on the faith of the persons baptized; for you 
 repeatedly declare in p 265 : that it cannot be of any use 
 to any others. Nov/ Sir. according to my views of cor- 
 rect reasoning, it follows from your system, that the want 
 of a living faith in persons baptized, renders the ordinance 
 invalid to such persons; and that where there is evidence, 
 or even strong doubts that this is the case, such persons 
 ought to be rebaptized, but not until they have an assu- 
 rance that they are. possessed of the faith of God's elect. 
 And as I expect that you apply the same rule to parents 
 who have had their children baptized, as you do to bapti- 
 zed adults; it also follows I think from your system, 'that 
 
 those baptized in infancy ought to be rebaptized, unlessy 
 
£93 
 
 thjcy have a full assurance that their parents were true be- 
 lievers at the time they presented them to baptism; but as 
 I have said, not until they themselves are assured, or have 
 a strong ground of hope that they are the subjects of an 
 evangelical faith. 
 
 It will not remove these difficulties to say. that according 
 to the system which I have embraced, none but true be- 
 lievers, or those v^ho have a scriptural ground of hope that 
 they are such, ought to approach the table of the Lord. 
 They ought not, and I have shewn that all others are ex- 
 pressly prohibited . The faith, ( v/hatever its character may 
 be,) which the scriptures mention as a prerequisite for ad- 
 mission to the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's sup- 
 per, is certainly required by the head of the church, from 
 these to vv'hom these ordinances are administered; and as 
 already observed, to say that he accepts of the profession 
 of it in the stead of the thing itself, is highly injurious to 
 his character. But I have shev/n, that he expressly com- 
 manded multitudes to be circumcised without any refer- 
 ence to their character as the subjectsof a living faith, and 
 of whom none v/ill venture to say, that they were all truly 
 pious at the time. They all believed that Jehovah was the 
 only true God, and that the ordinances delivered to them 
 by Moses, were the only means of grace, and the only me- 
 dium of acceptable worship, inconsequence of which they 
 attended on tliose means. Upon this they were admitted 
 into the church by circumcision; and this I think should 
 settle the question, unless it can be shewn that there were 
 different terms of admission in regard to the state of the 
 heart under the diiYerent dispensations of grace. 
 
 Now, that a state of heart for admissioji to the ordinance 
 of the Passover, diiiyrent from that which entitled to the 
 ordinance cf circumcision, was required, and acted upon, 
 is apparent from various considerations, and from diiferent 
 places in the Old Testament, and especially from the pray= 
 er of the Good Ki?ig liezekiah recorded in 2 Chron. 30: 
 18,. 19. It appears froni the preceding verses, that at the 
 solemn passover which v/as observed after he came to the 
 throne, some of the people had net cleansed themselvet 
 according to the requisitions of the Levidcal ritual. "But 
 Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, "The Good Lord par- 
 don every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the 
 Lord God of his fathersj though he is not cleansed accord- 
 
;iig to the piiriiiGatioiiof ,the sanctiiarj.*' I trust tha; 
 there are none who uill saj, that the purification alhided 
 to in this passage had not reference to purity of heart. 
 To say that it had reference to the washing of their bodies 
 and garments only, would be a reilection on the character 
 of Jehovah as appointing observajices in his church that 
 had not reference to the removal of guilt and moral pollu- 
 tion by the blood an^l spirit of his son. And here let it be 
 remembered, that there is not tlie least reference to the 
 necessity of such purification when Abraham's adult male 
 household v/ere circumcised, nor yet when the 600,000 
 Jews were circumcised at Gilgal. 
 
 As connected v/ith the foregoing observations, I would 
 farther remark that according to my view of the subject, 
 the baptism of infants cannot be defended on your system; 
 or at least one of the strongest arguments for it must be a- 
 bandoned. You and others v,'ho diner from me on tins 
 point, admit that baptism has taken the place cf circumci- 
 sion as the initiating ordinance into the church of God; 
 but as just now observed, the adult male hous'^hold of A •• 
 iDrahaiTi, and the adult male generation of Jews born in the 
 wilderness, together with their male children, were all cirr 
 cu'mcised by the express command of God himself, without 
 apy profession of piety being required of them, either as 
 individuals, or as parents. When I look at these facts I 
 cannot see how you can defend your system, but by alledg- 
 ing that there were two distinct churches of God, the one 
 not requiring, a profession of a living faith for admittance, 
 and the other requiring that profession; or that the terms 
 of admission v/ere difierent under the Abrahamic, and the 
 christian dispensations of grace. The first of these allega- 
 tions would be contrary to what Christ himself under the 
 character of the bridegroom says in Song 6:9 — "My Dove, 
 ray undefiled is but one;" and the other to what the apos- 
 tle says in Horn. 11: 24. As more than once observed, 
 the Apostle in that chapter holds out the church founded 
 in the days of Abraham on the covenant of circumcision un- 
 der the metaphor of "a good Olive tree;" and that the Jew^'i, 
 the natural branches of that tree, 'Hvere broken off because 
 of unbelief." In the verse alluded to he tells us, that 
 when the Jews shall be brought to see, and acknowledge 
 that Jesus v.^as the Messiah, ''Hhey shall be grafted"-*-not 
 into another '^OVive tree," or church, but into that very 
 
^95 
 
 clmrcii from whicli they were broken off.— -^' And lliey it 
 they continue not still in unbelief, shall be grafted into 
 THEIR OWN OLIVE TREE. ^' Now, it 13 evltlent to myself 
 that this declaration, and tliis phraseology clearly imply 
 that the Jews when converted to the christian faith, shall 
 not only be grafted into the church of God, with their in- 
 fant offspring as formerly; but that they themselves will be 
 admitted on the same terms on which their fathers were 
 admitted under the Abrahamic dispensation of grace, li 
 not, then the church cannot be styled their ''own," but a 
 different "Olive tree," and the apostle has used language 
 calculated to deceive them-r- but tins is not to be admitted. 
 To this I will only add, that the intelligent part of the 
 Baptist church clearly see, that the qualificatioiis v/hicli 
 you and others contend are required of adults for admis- 
 sion into the church under the present dispensation are ve- 
 ry dilTerent from those Vv Inch it is evideiit from the facts al- 
 laded to, vvere required under the Abrahamic dispensation, 
 and they accordingly ply you with objections in regard to 
 your reasonings in favour of infant baptism from the one 
 dispensation to the other, which you cannot answer. Who- 
 . ever has read the writings produced from time to time on 
 the "Baptist Controversy," ca.nnot but have observed, that 
 the Pedobaptist writers vvho have adopted the system in 
 regard to adults, for which you contend, feel liftinpered 
 and puzzled whenever they approach that point. Reason- 
 ing as they do, and ought^ t'nat as infants and adults were 
 admitted into the church under th^e Abrahiitmic dispensa- 
 tion, they are botli entitled to that privilege under the pre- 
 sent dispensation, unless it is proved that their right ha> 
 been revoked. Eut conscious that the t«rms on vv'hich 
 adults were admitted under the one, are very different 
 from the terms wiiich they say are required for admission 
 under the other, they try to turn aside the arrov/s of their 
 assailants by saying, that their opponents must admit, 
 "that the Jews were in some seme members of the church 
 of God." The words, "In some sense members of the 
 church of God," are not only very vague: but they shev/ 
 the inconclusiveness of their reasonings in favor of infant 
 baptism^ from the one dispensation to the other, and I am 
 persuaded has made hundreds of Baptists; for the Jews 
 either v/erfe, or were not members of the church- — there is 
 B ) middle ground on wliich they could possibly stand. But 
 
•i96 
 
 a§ has heiin observed, the objections of Baptist writeh^ or* 
 this point, have no bearing on that viev/ of the church which 
 I have exhibited in thesi letters, and which if scriptural, 
 as I believe it is, erases the foundation of the Baptist sys- 
 tem. It would seem that Mr. Campbell was aware of this; 
 forliUhough I have called upon him in the close of the 8th 
 letter to examine this point in detail, and to overturn, if he 
 could, my reasonings upon it from the word of God, he 
 has nevertheless entirely overlooked it, notwithstanding 
 he says, that there is not a single topic advanced by me 
 that is not to be metv/ith in his debate with Mr. Macalla, 
 or in his animadversions on the eight first letters. His rea- 
 sons for overlooking it are best kno^vn to himself. Was 
 it that he saw that the arguments were stubborn, and that 
 a failure ruined his system.^ You have however thought 
 proper to attack those arguments; and v/hether you have 
 demolished them and defended your own system on this 
 point our readers will decide. To my own mind, there is 
 no v/ay whereby the foregoing difficulties vv^hich surround 
 your system can be removed, but by admitting that the 
 visible church was designed to be the usual birthplace of 
 the children of grace, whether infants or adults. ' 
 
 I shall close this letter with a few observations on John's 
 baptisiQ. I have said in tiie fourth letter, ''that admitting 
 it could be proved, incontrovertibly, that John's baptism 
 was administered by immersion, it would not thence follow 
 that christian baptism was to be administered in the same 
 manner, for John's baptism did not belong to the christian, 
 but to the Jewish dispensation of grace." 
 
 To this you object iirp, SrO by saying, that the Lord's 
 supper was instituted under the Jewish dispensation, or 
 before the death of Clirist, '-and therefore according to my 
 assertion cannot be a New-Testament ordinance." 
 
 To this I v/ould reply, that there were reasons, why, if 
 it vvAS not indispensibly necessary, it v/as yet highly expe- 
 dient that the ordinance of the supper should be appoint- 
 ed before the death of Christ, or v/hile the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion existed, but which did not exist, in relation to the or- 
 dinance of baptism. One was, to give his people the 
 highest possible evidence of his love to them, and regard 
 for their spiritual interest. It was appointed at the time 
 when ^udas was prepaiing, if he had not gone out to betray 
 
£97 
 
 him inio the hands of his implacable enemies — -at the timt 
 too, when the powers of darkness were let loose uponhimj 
 gnd when he was shortly to suffer all that agony of soul 
 which he suffered in the garden of Gethsemane, not onlv 
 from the hidings of his fatlier's face, but from the pressure 
 of his father's wrath upon him as a substitute for the sins 
 of his people, and which was to issue in a shameful and 
 excniciating death. His people are sensible of this when 
 suiToundiiig his table, and the consideration of such unex- 
 ampled love to thevn, deepens their sorrow for their sins^ 
 which were the cause of his sufferings, and encreases and 
 expands their love to him, v-'hose love to them, all the bil- 
 lows of earth and hell, nor yet his sufferings ft^om his fath- 
 er's wrath could quench. And as the divine life is in- 
 creased in the souls of Christ's followers through suitable 
 means, the views and feelings which have been mentioned, 
 could not have been so effectual!}' produced, had that 
 ordinance been appointed after his resun^ection from the 
 dead. 
 
 But there is anotlier reason why it was appointed, a=nd 
 as appears to myself, why it v, as necessary to appoint it at 
 that time, and at no other — -namely, to inform us, that 
 there was no interregnum in the kingdom of grace, nor a 
 moment when the church of God v/ith all its essential ordi- 
 nances, or those ordinances that had reference to the aton- 
 ing blood of his son, ceased to exist from the time it was 
 constituted by the promise, "that the seed of the woman 
 should bruise the serpent's head." And although I have 
 not mentioned it before, it is to myself one of the strongest 
 arguments that the christian vvas ingrafted into the Jewish 
 dispensation of grace. Both ^latthew and Mark inform 
 us, that it was not after Christ and his disciples had Bnish- 
 ed eating the passover, that the ordinance of the supper 
 was instituted; but, *'as they were eating," Jesus ''took 
 bread and blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, 
 take, eat, this is my body broken for you, this do in remem- 
 brance of me." The preceding considerations will con- 
 vince you, I hope, that the circumstance of the Lord's sup- 
 per being appointed at the time it was, or before the death 
 of Christ, is no argument that John's baptism was christian 
 baptism. 
 
 Acts 19: 1^ — 5, has been frequently adduced as a proof 
 that John's baptism was not christian baptism. "x\nd it 
 
298 
 
 came to pass, that while ApoUos was at Corinth, Paul hav- 
 ing passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesusjaiid 
 finding certain disciples, he said uato them, have ye re- 
 ceived the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said 
 unto him, we have not so much ?.s heard vv-hether there be 
 an Holy Ghost. And he said imto them, imto what th*en 
 were ye baptized? And they said unto John's baptism. 
 Then said Paul, John verily baptized vnth the baptism un- 
 to repentance, saying unto the people that they shotdd be- 
 lieve on him that should come after him, that is,, on Christ 
 Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus, ''^ 
 
 In reply to this you say, tliat the words, "wlien they 
 heard this, they were baptized in th^ name of the Lord Je- 
 sus," are the words of Paul, and designed to inform us, 
 that Johns's baptism, and Christian baptism were the same. 
 Besides the marked difference between the two ordinances 
 Vvhich v/e shall shortly point out, I have no hesitation in af- 
 firming, that there is not an individual who has not heard 
 of the controvervSy on tiiis rioint, and who if he was asked 
 his opinion as to the meaning of that verse, but would im- 
 mediately say, that they are the words of (he inspired his- 
 torian, and intended to inform us, that the persons men- 
 tioned in the preceding verses, and who had been baptized 
 by John, were baptized at that time in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus. Understanding the words as the words of 
 Luke, they are clear and intelligible; >but understanding 
 them as the words of Paul, they are not only dark and un-- 
 intelligible, but convey an idea the very reverse of wliat 
 you say he designed to convey. They are a reflection on 
 his character as a scholar and writer; and how much more 
 when it is considered that when he wrote them, he v/as un- 
 der the direction of the spirit of wisdom and infallibility. 
 And to this I would add, that the vvords "unto what then 
 v.-ere ye baptized," convey the idea of diSerent baptisms; 
 and I vvdll farther add, that if you vrill closely examine the 
 interpretation which you have given to the passage, you 
 v/ill see that it leads to this absurdity — that those on whom 
 Paul laid his iiands were the people whom John taught; and 
 that all the men whom John taught were about twelve. 
 
 In p. 272 you tell us, '-that if the baptism of John wr- 
 not christian baptism, then neither Christ norhisdisciph' 
 received christian. baptism." 
 
299 
 
 With respect to the disciples, we are not positively told 
 'that thej were even baptized by John: and it is not legiti- 
 mate reasoning to draw positive ' conclusions from the si- 
 lence of the scriptures on this, or any other point. Tlie 
 disciples, doubtless, received whatever baptism was ne- 
 cessary to quality them for the ministerial office. I have 
 shewn in the 4tli letter whi^h it is to be presumed you have 
 read, that it is worse than absurd to say, that Jesus was 
 baptized into his ov»'n name for the remission of sins, and 
 that he raiglit receive the Holy Ghost in his regenerating 
 influences^ but Peter positively declares that christian 
 baptism was appointed for this purpose. I have also shewn 
 that Christ's biiptisin by John, was not the same as the 
 baptisrii administered to the Jews, or a baptism ''unto 
 repentance;*' but for the purpose of inaugurating him into 
 the Priestly office. Tiiis was the principal end for Avhich 
 John came into the world, and -was probably the closing 
 scene of his ministry; for we are told by Luke, that it was 
 not until after "all the people w-ere baptized by hiiii,'^' that 
 Jesus presented himself to be baptized. 
 
 The argument in the next page fur the identity of Jolin's 
 and christian baptisin, as deduced from the words, '"He 
 that sent me to baptize," is in my opinion very inconclu- 
 sive. It was the closing scene of the Abrahamic dispensa- 
 tion, and I need not tell you, that diSerent rites, and de- 
 signed for different purposes, Vv'ere appointed under that 
 dispensation, from tin^.e to time. It might be as well said, 
 that the christian dispensation commenced, wdien the 
 various ab'iutions were appointed in the wilderness, as 
 when John v;as sent to baptize. 
 
 To this I will only a<ld, that Christ's testimony in re- 
 gard to John, and Jolin's testimony respecting himself^, 
 both concur in telling us, that neither John's preaching, 
 nor baptism, belonged Ao the Christian dispensation .of 
 grace. Christ e:spressly declares, ''that among those born 
 of women, there was not a greater prophet than John the 
 Baptist; but that (he least in the kingdom of God," or the 
 gospel dispensation, '*was greater than he." When John 
 began to preach, he did not say, that tlie kingdom of heaven, 
 or the gospel dispensation is come; but 'n-epentye, for the. 
 kingdom of heav-en is at handy Christ used the sa:r.e 
 language when he began to preach; and in conformity to it 
 enjoined a strict observance of ail the ordinances of tiir 
 
300 
 
 Jewisli dispeHsation, wmch he enforced bj hia own exam- 
 ple. To the cleansed leper he said, "Go thy way, shew 
 ih jself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses com- 
 manded unto them;^' and as already noticed, he ate the 
 passover Avith his disciples, the very night before he suffer- 
 ed, and why he appointed the ordinance of the supper at 
 that time, we have already shewn. But what fixes more 
 particularly the precise time of difference betv/een John's 
 baptism, and that appointed by Christ is, what John 
 himself, and Christ and his apostles say on that point. 
 In Acts 19: 4, already considered, Paul expressly says, 
 that John in administering his baptism, told the people 
 ^*that they should believe on him who was to come, that 
 is on Christ Jesus;" but the Apostle says, "as many as 
 have been baptized into Jesus Christ have baen baptized 
 into his deathj" or into a Saviour who is come, and who 
 has bled and died for the sins of his people, and risen 
 again for their justification. John tells us that the princi- 
 pal design of his baptism was to manifest, or to point out 
 Christ to the Jewish na.tion — ''"And I knew him not, but that 
 h^hould be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come 
 baptising;" but the same apostle saith, "as many as have 
 been baptized into Clnist, nave put on Christ," by a pro- 
 fession of knowledge of him, and dedication of themselves 
 to his service. And what I tiiink, is irresistible and unan- 
 svv'erable on this point is — Christian baptism is to be ad- 
 ministered in the name of the Father, and of the >Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost: but John in his baptism did not mention 
 the names of the Blessed Trinity under any form of expres- 
 sion whatever. These, Sir, are a few of the leasons which 
 induced me to say in the 4th letter, "that John's baptism 
 did not belong to the Christian, but to the Jewish dispen- 
 sation of grace;" and not because I dreaded any conse- 
 quence prejudicial to the Pedobaptism system, by admit- 
 ting with you that they are the same. I wish you also 
 success and peace in the Lord. 
 Mlngo-Creeh, December 1825. SA^VIUEL RALSTON. 
 
 ERRATA. — Pag-e 28, line 6 from bottom, for sextual^ read sexual. 
 —'^6, 1. 17 do. for hither, read hitherto.— A9, 1. 9 from bottom of 
 Note, for agreed^ read argued. — 52, 1. 16 from bottom, for not ca- 
 pable, read capable.— SO ^ 1. 13 from do, for mpport, read purport — 
 87, 1. 16 from top, fcr hut is rights read butivhaf is right. — 177, 1. 
 15 from bottom, after the word gpaaking^ read of. — 250, 1. 7 from 
 top, for bv PcdobopiiL'f, read sz^c'i Pedobaptii't.—Nextline^ dele such. 
 
•=^,: 
 
•^ . 
 
-MA 
 
 
 r^l£l!0>