'^^ 
 
 JtA 
 
 %^ 
 
 ■*--v*^ 
 
 *1fe»' 
 
» 
 
 '7 
 
 
 y-y^ 
 
 C5 <5 
 
 PRINCETON. N. J. 
 
 © ?ort o" Ibe » 
 
 t ADDISON Al ^' lANDEP. LIBRARY, \ 
 
 which was presented by 
 
 \l/ Messrs. R. j. and A. Stuabt 
 ^ o^ ^ _. ^ » 
 
 «:w.s«'..°'>''*'°"--^-...~.l 
 
 «) »Sr/te7/; Secti.n :^' 
 
 f_^^^"^>/.-. K.,..._ T 
 
 
A 
 
 SERIES OF LETTERS 
 
 02C THE 
 
 iapobe antr t>ub)ects of )5apttsm» 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN PUBLIC. 
 
 To which Is prefixed, 
 
 A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE COMMENCEMENT AND PROGRESS 
 
 OF THE author's TRIAL ON THOSE POINTS WHICH 
 
 TERMINATED IN HIS EMBRACING BELIEVERS* 
 
 BAPTISM, IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND. 
 
 ©econti OEliition* 
 
 With an 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 CbNTAINING 
 
 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE'S REPLY. 
 
 BY STEPHEN CHAPIN, 
 Late Pastor of the Congregational Church in Mont Vernon, n.h. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY LINCOLN & EDiMANDS, 
 
 No. 53 Cornhill. 
 1820. 
 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to luii : 
 
 District ClerPs Office. 
 Be it remembered, Thai on the twelfth of February, A. D. 
 1819, and in the forty -third year of the Independence of the 
 United States of America, Lincoln & Edmands of the said dis- 
 trict have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right 
 whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the words following, to ivit : 
 
 '• A Series of Letters on the Mode and Subjects of Baptism, 
 Addressed to the Christian Public. To which is prefixed, A 
 brief account of the Commencement and Progress of the Author's 
 Trial on those Points which terminated in his embracing Believ- 
 ers' Baptism, in a Letter to a Friend. By Stephen Chapin,late 
 Pastor of the Congregational Church in Mont Vernon, N. H." 
 
 In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States,'^ 
 entitled, **An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by secur- 
 ing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and 
 Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein -mention- 
 ed :" and also to an Act entitled, "An Act supplementary to an 
 Act, entitled. An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by 
 securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors 
 and Proprietors of such Copies during the times therein mention- 
 ed ; and extending the Benefits thereof to the Arts of Designing, 
 Engraving and Etching Historical, and other Prints.'* 
 
 JOHN W. DAVIS, 
 
 Clerk of the District of Massackuaetts. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM 
 
 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 
 
 Beloved Brethren and Friends, 
 
 THE subjects, discussed in the ensuing Letters, aie 
 confessedly of very serious and high moment. Respect- 
 ing them, a diversity of opinions has been cherished, and 
 a controversy has been protracted, which in no incon- 
 siderable degree has agitated the church of God, and di- 
 vided the professed followers of Christ. That the de- 
 bate may speedily close in the triumphs of truth, is a con- 
 summation most devoutly to be wished. All the dark- 
 ness that now rests on these and other topics will, we 
 trust, be chased away by the splendours of the millennial 
 sun ; and then christians of every name and country will 
 coalesce in one immense and holy kingdom, in which there 
 shall be nothing to hurt or destroy. While the debate 
 must continue, it is hoped that it will be conducted with 
 ability, and in a spirit truly christian and benevolent. I 
 have not, my brethren, in taking up iny pen, been prompt- 
 ed by the vAnity that I could shed much original light on 
 the subject at issue. On both sides of the question the 
 field of controversy has been traversed by mighty cham- 
 pions, who have put forth all their energies, and have 
 laid the word of God and the records of the church under 
 tribute, to bring to their aid the whole of their united 
 strength. Still, however, the writer believes that there 
 are adequate motives to justify this appeal to the public. 
 His recent change of opinion is so great in itself, is at- 
 tended with consequences so deeply interesting, and is so 
 liable to misconstruction, that it has become an imperious 
 duty to assign to the world, lully and explicitly, the rea- 
 sons which have produced this change of sentiment and 
 practice. After you shall have duly examined the argu- 
 ments, submitted to your consideration, you will be the 
 
4 LETTER TO A FRIEND. 
 
 lied with much satisfaction on this antiquitj^ and 
 general prevalence of infant baptism, as proof, that 
 it must be apostolic. But now, on more particular 
 examination, I found that this mode of reasoning 
 would prove too much : It would prove the divine 
 right of infant communion. For this was as an- 
 cient and as general, as infant baptism. The fath- 
 ers I found placed both on the same ground, and 
 supported both by the same process of argument. 
 Saint Austin tells us that the church lield, that both 
 ordinances were saving and necessary to eternal 
 life ; and on the ground of this supposed saving 
 quality, he informs, that the church viewed them 
 both, as traditions from the apostles. In the same 
 way of arguing I could prove the divine origin of 
 the use of the cross in baptism ; worshipping with 
 the face towards tlie east, and that baptism was re- 
 generation, he. 
 
 My attempt now was to meet and refute this 
 argument, in favour of infant communion, with- 
 out invalidating at the same time the arguments 
 in support of infant baptism. But on trial 
 1 found that my attack on the former was in fact an 
 indiscriminate warfare on both. If I succeeded in 
 laying to rest the arguments in favour of infant com- 
 munion, I pcrcei'^ed that, if after this, a Taylor or 
 a Pierce had said, sir, where now are your proofs 
 for inflmt baptism ? The question, I confess, would 
 have been to me perfectly confounding. If I at- 
 tempted to support infant sprinkling, I must try 
 to reanimate those very arguments, which I had but 
 just slain. By this time I found myself pretty deep- 
 ly invohxxl, and for relief resorted to the word of 
 God. This I believed was an infallible guide. 
 This I read and read with fastings, and I hope with 
 daily prayers to the Father of light, that he would 
 mercifully send me the illuminating and guiding 
 power of his holy Spirit. I first confined myself 
 
LETTER TO A FRIEND. 5 
 
 principally to the New Testament. Here I found 
 neither precept nor example for infaht baptism. If 
 the apostles and primitive teachers were all Pedo- 
 baptists, they inust have baptized many thousands 
 of children and infants before the closing of the can- 
 on of scripture. And it struck me with peculiar 
 force, that all the inspired penmen should have 
 passed over all those countless instances of infant 
 baptism in the most profound silence. Circum- 
 stances often existed peculiarly calculated to elicit 
 a declaration on infant baptism, if it then existed. 
 Paul and Barnabas might have said to those Jews, 
 who wished to impose circumcision^ on the chris- 
 tians at Antioch,^ you know very well, that^ these 
 believers and their children have been baptized, and 
 baptism we all know is come in lieu of this bloody 
 rite, why then are you not satisfied with the sub- 
 stitute ? On another occasion Paul was accused of 
 denying infant circumcision. See Acts xxi. 21. 
 Novv to me it appeared truly strange, that the Apos- 
 tle did not repel this charge by saying, though I 
 have not circumcised your children, yet you know 
 that I have bajDtized them as a substitution for 
 circumcision. In my view the only reason why 
 the Apostle did not exonerate himself from this 
 charge by pleading infant baptism in place of cir- 
 cumcision is, because he was not in the habit of 
 baptizing infants. I read with particular attention 
 the Acts of the Apostles, and resorted to all those 
 passages with which I used to defend my practice. 
 But upon more minute investigation of them, they 
 seemed to fail me. How or by what process of 
 argument these passages were invalidated, I will 
 not now relate. 
 
 I then repaired to the Old Testament, and en- 
 deavoured to support myself by arguments, drawn 
 from the law of circumcision. But if this law were 
 
 A 2 
 
b LETTER TO A PRIENfi. 
 
 in full force, I thought that consistency required 
 me to observe it throughout. If I obeyed a part, 
 and rejected a part, I ought to be able to shew ex- 
 plicitly, when and where the rejected clauses were 
 repealed, and thus assign the reasons why I omitted 
 some clauses in this statute and obeyed others. 
 But this I could not well do. In short, the argu- 
 ment from circumcision ruined itself by proving too 
 iTiuch. It established the membership of servants 
 and of unbelieving wives, as well the church mem- 
 bership of infants. For the law of circumcision 
 required, that ail in the professor's house, capable 
 of receiving that rite, should be circumcised. _ Now 
 an unbelieving wife, and the unbelieving maid-ser- 
 vants of a christian professor, are just as capable of 
 receiving the rite of baptism, as males. Hence by 
 this law a believing man must not only have his 
 children baptized, but all his servants, and even his 
 unbelieving companion, must all be baptized and 
 made members of the church. All this was in my 
 view the legitimate consequence of adhering to the 
 law of circumcision, as the rule to determine the 
 subjects of baptism. 
 
 I then tried the law of proselyte baptism. This 
 law, if it existed in the days of the Apostles, I found 
 was but human, and that is would concltide against 
 the perpetuity of christian baptism. Because it was 
 administered only upon those of the family, who 
 were in existence, when they passed from paganism 
 to Judaism. All, who were born after this transit, 
 were not baptized. Hence if this law were to be 
 our rule, then as soon as a nation or a family become 
 christian, baptism must cease. All that are born 
 after this event must not submit to this rite. On 
 this principle we shall ultimately all become Qua- 
 kers, and maintain that there is nothing but spiritu- 
 al baptism. 
 
LETTER TO A FRIEND. 7 
 
 Thus the gt'ounds, on \\ hich I had been accus- 
 tomed to lean, gave way. I began to fear, that iny 
 inquiries would inevitably terminate in the relin- 
 quishment of Pedo-baptism. The prospect of a 
 change of denomination rose full in view, and the 
 greatness of the change, and the deeply interesting 
 consequences, which must attend it, threvx' me in- 
 to a state of distress which I can command no lan- 
 guage to describe. The thought of leaving a belov- 
 ed church and people, and of losing all that endear- 
 ing religious connection, w^hich I had long enjoyed, 
 filled me with deep anguish of soul, and wrung from 
 me.uiany sighs and tears. When I viewed the sub- 
 ject in a temporal point of light, it was easy to see 
 that I had nothing to gain, but much to lose. 
 Though my mode of reasoning seemed correct and 
 conclusive, yet I suspected that there was some un- 
 detected -fallacy in the argument. I therefore re- 
 solved not to be precipitate. I concluded however 
 that I w^ould suspend infant baptism, till I could 
 gain farther light. 
 
 Not long after this, it pleased the Lord to 
 pour out his Spirit upon my people in a very 
 remarkable manner. In about one year, more 
 than one hundred were made the hopeful subjects 
 of grace. Seventy seven joined the church. I'his 
 season has laid me under new and everlasting obli- 
 gations to the God of all mercy. At once I drop- 
 ped my studies, believing the conversion of sinners 
 to be of infinitely greater moment than the externals 
 of religion. During the attention, my mind gradu- 
 ally settled back, till at length I thought it my duty 
 to resume my former practice. After the revival 
 had subsided, I resumed my inquiries, because I 
 did not feel all that solid grouiid to support myself, 
 which I wished to feel in administering the ordi- 
 nance. With calmness and leisure I pushed my 
 
8 LETTER TO A FRIEND. 
 
 investigations farther than ever. I endeavoured to 
 rally all the arguments on both sides of the ques- 
 tion, and then with carefulness and candor, to com- 
 pare them, that I might see on which side the scale 
 preponderated. The result, my dear brother, you 
 very well know ; and the reasons which have led to 
 this my change of denomination you may learn, if 
 you will take the trouble of perusing my Series of 
 Letters about to be addressed to the christian pub- 
 lic. 
 
 I am yours, &c. 
 
 S. CHAPIN. 
 
 Mont Vernon^ Jan, 15, 1819. 
 
LETTER TO A FRIEND. 
 
 Beloved Brother, 
 
 IN one of our late interviews you expressed a 
 desire that I should give you a brief history of the 
 origin and progress of those conflicts and trials of 
 mind, which have terminated in a public change of 
 denomination. In cpmpliance with this request I 
 confess I feel some diificulty.^ I could easily tell 
 you, that my trials on the points in debate were 
 long and extremely painful. But should I enter 
 minutely into all my conflicts, this letter would be 
 swelled into a little volume. I will therefcre 
 seize and remark upon a few of the most promi- 
 nent circumstances. 
 
 A little more than two years ago I resolved on a 
 revision of ecclesiastical history. In the progress 
 of my reading, my attention was arrested, respect- 
 ing the validity of the argument in favour of infant 
 baptism, drawn from ancient history. I well knew 
 that the practice was ancient. The authors of the 
 appendices to Moshiem's history tell us* that just 
 at the close of the second century, infant baptism 
 and sponsors existed in the church among the new 
 and remarkable occurrences. Formerly I had re- 
 
 • See vol. vi. p. 194. 
 
10 chapin's letters 
 
 better able to judge whether this change is to be attribut- 
 ed to sinister views, or to the conquering power of truth. 
 Those who are acquainted with my temporal circum- 
 stances, and with my religious connections, will be slow to 
 ascribe my change to a love of fame or wealth. They 
 will be more likely to view it, as the fruit of a pitiable 
 delusion, or of mental imbecility. 
 
 Should you, my brethren, conclude to examine these 
 sheets, I hope you will bring to their perusal a large 
 share of the spirit of the noble Bereans. Investigate 
 with much care and candor, and accompany your whole 
 inquiries with frequent and fervent prayer to the Father 
 of light, that he would grant you the illuminating and 
 guiding influence of his Holy Spirit. Whatever you 
 find in these Letters, that will not endure the test of 
 God's word, you are bound to expunge. But that which 
 is supported by divine truth, you cannot reject with im- 
 punity. 
 
 . Yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 ON THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 Beloved Friends, 
 
 Before I proceed to the main objects in view, it will be 
 proper at this stage, to make some remarks on the na- 
 ture and importance of positive institutions. 
 
 Positive institutions are not discoverable by the light 
 of nature ; but are purely matters of revelation. All 
 that we can know of them must be gained exclusively from 
 the revealed will of God. These institutions, under the 
 ancient economy, were numerous and burdensome, and 
 the exact observance of them was enforced by the most 
 tremendous sanctions. Neglect to sprinkle the posts of 
 the door with the blood of the paschal lamb was to be 
 visited with the death of the first born of every such pre- 
 sumptuous family. Uzzah broke a positive law when, 
 with seemingly pious concern, he attempted to steady 
 the tottering ark of God, and for this temerity he fell 
 a victim to the jealousy of Heaven. If such exemplary 
 vengeance were inflicted on those, who omitted or cor- 
 rupted any of those numerous, difficult and complicated 
 
ON BAPTISM. 11 
 
 ceremonies under the Mosaic law, can we then innocent- 
 ly drop, or change, or corrupt any of the few and simple 
 and easy institutions of the new dispensation ? Among the 
 ceremonies of the gospel church, baptism and the Lord's 
 supper hold the first rank. These symbols are pre- 
 eminently calculated to refresh our memories, to move 
 our affections, and to teach us that from Christ we derive 
 pardon and spiritual life, and that with him we have fel- 
 lowship in his sufferings, burial and resurrection. Since 
 Christ designed that these rites should thus act on our 
 passions, and convey to us this important instruction, we 
 may be quite sure that he instructed his disciples by pre- 
 cept and example how these institutions should be ob- 
 served. Of this opinion was bishop Hoadly, who says, 
 " All positive duties depend entirely upon the will and dec- 
 laration of the person who institutes or ordains them, 
 with respect to the real design and €7id of them, and con- 
 sequently to the due manner of performing them." Speak- 
 ing of the Lord's supper, he says, " It cannot be doubted 
 Jesus Christ sufficiently declared to his first and imme- 
 dial?e followers the whole of what he designed should be 
 understood by, or implied in, this duty ; for this being a 
 positive institution, depending entirely upon his will, and 
 not designed to contain any thing in it, but he himself 
 should please to affix to it, it must follow that he declared 
 his mind about it fully and plainly ; because, otherwise, he 
 must be supposed to institute a duty, of which no one 
 could have any notion without his instruction, and at the 
 same time not to instruct his followers sufficiently what 
 that duty was to be."* 
 
 His lordship has here expressed truths which are 
 equally applicable to baptism, and which no one can easi- 
 ly refute. 
 
 Bishop Taylor is of the same opinion. His words are, 
 *' All institutions, sacramental and positive laws, depend 
 wholly on the will of the law-giver, and the will of the 
 supreme, being actually limited to this specification, this 
 manner, this matter, this institution : whatsoever comes 
 besides, it hath no foundation in the will of the legislator, 
 and therefore can have no warrant or authority. That 
 it be obeyed or not obeyed is all the question and all the 
 variety, if it can be obeyed, it must ; if it cannot, it must 
 
 * Sec his True Account, &c. 
 
12 chapin's letters 
 
 be let alone. He that does any thing of his own head.' 
 either must be a despiser of God's will, or must suppose 
 himself the author of a grace, or else to do nothing at 
 all, in what he does, because all his obedience, and all the 
 blessings of his obedience, depend upon the will of God, 
 which ought always to be obeyed when it can, and when 
 it cannot, nothing can supply it," because the will of the 
 lawgiver is all the reason for obedience.* 
 
 Positive institutions were designed to furnish a more 
 sure test of love and implicit obedience to God, than 
 moral precepts, because, in observing the latter, our obe- 
 dience is enforced by a discovery of the fitness and re- 
 lation of things; but in keeping the former, the great 
 motive is the arbitrary will of God. 
 
 Let us, then, my brethren, repair to the word of God, 
 and gather all our motives, and all our measures for obe- 
 dience from that infallible source. With the due obser- 
 vance of the few and simple institutes of the new dispen- 
 sation, the peace, the purity, and the prosperity of Zion 
 are inseparably connected. Says Dr. Emmcns, " Though 
 the instituted forms of religion maybe maintained with- 
 out maintaining religion itself; yet religion itself cannot 
 be maintained without maintaining its instituted forms. 
 The enemies of the Jewish church gained their greatest 
 advantage against it, by attacking its sacred rites and 
 ceremonies ; and those who have corrupted christian in- 
 stitutions have done the greatest injury to the christian 
 church. Christ has been most deeply wounded in the 
 house of his friends, who have either neglected, pervert- 
 ed, or corrupted his holy ordinances. The whole his- 
 tory of the church of God teaches us, that if we suffer 
 the sabbath, the sacraments, and the positive duties of re- 
 ligion, to be neglected, perverted or corrupted, we shall 
 certainly find that Christianity will die in our hands. This 
 is a solemn consideration which ought to awaken the 
 warmest zeal in the breasts of all christians to maintain 
 the purity of all divine institutions."! 
 
 I am, dear Friends, yours, &c. 
 
 ♦Ductor Dubltantium. Bonk 2. ch iii. 
 f See his Sermons on various and Important subjects, pp. 247,248, 
 
ON BAPTISM. 13 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF PEDOBAPTISTS, AND THE POINTS OF 
 DEBATE RESPECTING THE MODE SPECIFIED. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 Among those who hold to water baptism there is a 
 diversity of opinion respecting its outward administration. 
 The Pedobaptists may be divided into three general 
 classes. I. A very considerable portion of them, and 
 that too of the most enlightened and candid, and who are 
 the most deeply read in this controversy, grant that the 
 word baptizo^ principally used to express the action of 
 baptism, means, in its primary aad most obvious sense, 
 immersion. They admit that John immersed, that Christ 
 was immersed, and that his disciples before and after his 
 death immersed. Yea, they grant that all the primitive 
 christians, and the whole church of God, for more thaa 
 thirteen hundred years, practised immersion, and that 
 too without exception of countries, whether hot or cold. 
 They tell us, however, that sprinkling was allowed ia 
 cases of necessity. It is true, that in the third and fourth 
 centuries the church began to maintain the necessity of 
 baptism, and that all who received it were sure of sal- 
 vation, while those who were not baptized were inevi- 
 tably lost. When they had embraced this error, they 
 began in cases of imminent danger of death, to apply 
 water by pouring it from head to foot upon the sick and 
 dying, who were too weak to bear immersion. This ap- 
 plication, they confessed, was not the instituted baptism, 
 yet they hoped that it would answer the purpose of sal- 
 vation, though they viewed it as imperfect, and not en- 
 titling to all the privileges of the church. Had it not 
 been for this superstitious notion, that baptism was saving, 
 it is believed we should have found no solitary instances 
 of sprinkling or pouring throughout the whole history of 
 the ancient church. 
 
 Though this portion of Pedobaptists concede to this 
 statement, yet they administer this rite by sprinkling. 
 For this practice, they plead that the law of baptism was 
 not designed to be inflexible, but may be accommodated to 
 different customs and climates. The dispute then between 
 them and us, is not whether the Baptists are wrong in 
 .B 
 
14 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 their mode. They grant that we in this are right; that 
 we adhere to the true meaning of the word, which desig- 
 nates baptism, and that when we administer this ordinance, 
 we imitate the example of Christ, of the apostles, and the 
 example of all antiquity. But the question between us 
 is simply this ; whether they are right in sprinkling ; or ia 
 other words, whether they have a right to vary the orig- 
 inal law of baptism, till it is quite another thing. In sup- 
 port of their practice, it behooves them to exhibit clear 
 evidence, that Christ has lodged in their hands the power 
 of altering his positive institutions, to suit the present 
 state of the church and world. It will not answer for 
 them to fancy that this power is necessary for the peace 
 and comfort of the church, and from this infer, that it is 
 the will of Christ that the church should possess this 
 power, though he has no where revealed this will. Let 
 this lax sentiment be once pretty generally adopted in the 
 Protestant churches, and they would fast retrace their 
 steps back to the man of sin, where this power of legisla- 
 tion once reigned without control. 
 
 It is not now my object to state the arguments, which 
 are offered in proof of this supposed right to vary the 
 laws of Christ. In some future Letter we shall state the 
 arguments, and remark upon them. But our present 
 object is to show that the debate on the mode of baptism 
 between us and this class of Pedobaptists, is reduced dowa 
 to this simple question ; whether they are right in devi- 
 ating from what they confess was the original institution. 
 Here the labouring oar is in their hands. As they have* 
 ventured to depart from acknowledged primitive practice, 
 it lies with them to make good such departure. 
 
 There is a second class of Pedobaptists, who maintain 
 that Christ instituted baptism. But they say, that the 
 word which he employed to express this ceremony, is so 
 various and obscure in its meaning, that nothing more can 
 be learned from it, than that water is to be applied in the 
 name of the Trinity to a proper subject, and by a proper 
 administrator. But where, or how, or how much, or how 
 little water is to be used, no one can tell. No one can 
 say whether it is to be applied to the face, or hands, or 
 feet, or head, or to the whole body; or whether the or- 
 dinance is to be administered by plunging, or pouring, or 
 washing, or sprinkling. It is on the ground of this im- 
 penetrable obscurity, that they suppose each man's own 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM 15 
 
 conscience and sense of propriety must form the law, by 
 which the mode of baptism is to be regulated. One 
 chooses to have his feet washed, and pleads the example 
 of Christ in washing the disciples' feet.* A second pre- 
 fers to have his hands washed, and refers to the example 
 of David and others, who washed their hands as an act of 
 purification. A third wishes to have his face sprinkled 
 for baptism ; but for this he can tind no example in the 
 whole word of God. No precept or example can be 
 found in the Bible, (o sanction the sprinkling of water on 
 the face, for religious purification. And a fourth jileads 
 for the immersion of his whole body. Now they must 
 admit the validity of all these forms, because each in his 
 turn pleads that his mode is the answer of a good con- 
 science toward God. Perhaps they would say that one 
 has been more successful in their opinion than the rest in 
 guessing at what was the primitive mode of baptism. 
 
 This second class of Pedobaptists are ready to admit, 
 that if Christ had clearly revealed one specific mode of 
 baptism, then we should all be sacredly bound to observe 
 this definite form. They make no pretentions to legisla- 
 tive power to vary the laws of Christ. But they say that 
 the language, employed to express baptism, and all the 
 circumstances attending its first observance, are so per- 
 fectly unintelligible, that it is impossible to tell what was 
 the appointed mode among the earliest christians. The 
 dispute between us and this class of Pedobaptists is not, 
 whether immersion be right. They admit that it is. 
 And we too must admit that sprinkling is valid, if they are 
 correct in their belief that the law of baptism is so ob- 
 scure, that no one can ascertain its mode. You see then 
 that the question between us is simply this : Is the law of 
 baptism thus impenetrably obscure, or is it plain? They 
 affirm, and we deny. Does this obscurity exist, or does it 
 not ? It seems that the Psalmist did not anticipate such an 
 
 • Seme say that this example of Christ in washing Peter's feet 
 supports a partial application of water in baptism. But in these 
 words, " He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, 
 but is clean every whit," Christ refers to two separate washings. 
 Of this opinion were Gill, ])odd, Mc*Knight, and others. Says 
 Mc'Knight on this text, ••■ One who has bathed himself, need not 
 after that wash any part of his body, except his feet, which in 
 coming out of the bath may have been dirtied." See him on the 
 place. 
 
16 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 obscure law when he said, " The law of the Lord is per- 
 fect, converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is 
 sure, making- wise the simple. The commandment of the 
 Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." Nor did Mr. Beech- 
 er believe in this supposed obscurity, when he said, " the 
 law in all its parts must be intelligible, otherwise it is no 
 law.*' He tells us that on the ground of supposed inev- 
 itable uncertainty, is founded the plea of universal charity. 
 But, says he, '' who is this that libels his Maker as the 
 author of an obscure and useless system of legislation, 
 which no subject can understand ? 
 
 " This indeed is a kind-hearted system in its aspect on 
 man ; but how tremendous its re-action upon the charac- 
 ter of God ? Why are his revealed statutes with their 
 sanctions so obscure ? Because he could not make them 
 intelligible ? You impeach his wisdom. Why then are 
 they obscure ? Because he would not make them plain ? 
 You impeach his justice. For he commands his truth to 
 be loved and obeyed; — an unjust demand, if its obscurity 
 prevent the possibility of understanding it."* 
 
 There is a third-class of Pedobaptists who maintain 
 that baptizo means to sprinkle, and that Christ, and the 
 apostles, and all the primitive churches, generally bap-^ 
 tized by sprinkling This class is now small, and it is be- 
 Jieved continually sening. The question between them 
 and the Baptists is . lis : Whether they or we are right in 
 giving a definition to the word employed to designate 
 baptism. 
 
 Having specified the points of controversy, I shall in 
 my future Letters exhibit what I have to say respecting 
 them. In the mean time I remain, Yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 AKMARKS ON THE SUPPOSED OBSCURITY OF THE LAW OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Beloved Friends, 
 
 If Christ did not specify any mode of applying water in 
 baptism, then he must have foreborne to fix the mode for 
 one of two reasons. 
 
 First, necessity ; or, second, choice. 
 
 * Se^ his or^in^ition sermon ^i Park Street^ pp, 5, 9, 10, 
 
LETTERS ON BAPtlSM. 17 
 
 It the language in which Christ spoke, and in which the 
 sacred penmen wrote, were so barren, that it contained 
 no words nor phrases, which would express the idea of 
 sprinkling, or pouring, or bathing, or plunging, then it is 
 plain that necessity would have obliged him to be silent 
 on all these modes of using water. The language would 
 notdetine either of them. But the language of the New 
 Testament is not thus poor in words and phrases. It is 
 rich and copious. So that Dr. Reed is very correct in 
 saying : "If it had been the intention of Christ, 
 and of his apostles, to have specified the mode, or 
 to have restricted all christians to one and the same mode 
 of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have selected 
 from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal 
 and definite signification. If it had been their intention 
 to have specified the mode of sprinkling, they might have 
 used the word §«vT<^ft/, [rantizo ;] if the mode of pouring, 
 they might have used the word 8»;^;giw, {ekcheo ;) if that 
 mode of washing or bathing, which was performed by the 
 application of water with friction or rubbing, they might 
 have used the word A«y<y, (/ouo.)"* No want of appropri- 
 ate and definite words then made it necessary for Christ 
 and his apostles to be silent on the mode of baptism. 
 
 2. If then Christ was perfectly indefinite on the mode 
 of baptism, he chose to be so. He saw it to be the wisest 
 and best to express himself on this subject with such cau- 
 tious obscurity, that no one can possibly tell how. water 
 is to be applied in the administration of baptism. If he 
 meant that the mode should have been wholly concealed, 
 would he not have chosen the word ttyn^^i, {agnizo) to 
 purify ? or xxdm^u^ [katkairo] to cleanse ? neither of 
 which defines any mode of application. By choosing the 
 word baptizo^ he certainly gave his subjects very good 
 ground to believe that he meant to settle the mode of 
 baptism, because this word most certainly means to dip 
 or to immerse, in its first and most common acceptation. 
 Dr. Reed says, (though we do not admit that this word 
 was so vague originally, but we here reason on his ground) 
 that the best lexicographers and criticks, which he has con- 
 sulted, have rendered the Greek word baptizo into ten 
 different Latin words. The five first are baptizo^ mergo^ m- 
 
 • See his apology. 
 B 2 
 
ly LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 mergo, tingo, intingo.^ All these first, five mean to inur 
 merse, or dip. Two of the remaining five, mean to wash, 
 one to wet, and two to cleanse. Now to say nothing 
 about this washing, and wetting, and cleansing, as taking 
 place in consequence of immersion, still we maintain, 
 that the fair and common mode of explaining statute laws, 
 will lead us to conclude that Christ by the use of this 
 word meant to settle the mode to be immersion. A subject 
 of Christ's kingdom may say, that in explaining the stat- 
 utes of my supreme Law-giver, I am not to be guided by 
 the eighth or tenth meaning of the word, which express- 
 es the principal action of my duty, if it have so many 
 senses ; nor am I to be guided by its figurative or mys- 
 tical use, but I am to explain this word in the statute 
 according to its first and most common acceptation. This 
 is the language of common sense, and is confirmed by the 
 best of human judges. Says Sir William Blackstone, 
 who lays it down as a rule of legal interpretation : " That 
 the words of a law are generally to be understood in 
 their usual and most known signification, not so much re- 
 garding the propriety of grammar, as their general and 
 popular use."t 
 
 Says Dr. Doddridge, " I am more and more convinc- 
 ed that the vulgar sense of the New Testament, that is, 
 the sense in which an honest man of plain sense would 
 take it, on his first reading the original, or any good 
 translation, is most every where the true and the general 
 sense of the passage. I choose to follow the plainest 
 and the most obvious and common interpretation, which 
 indeed I generally think the best."| 
 
 Thus, my brethren, I have endeavoured to shew that 
 no poverty of language made it necessary for Christ to 
 be silent on the mode of baptism. And that if it had 
 been bis intention to express himself with such studied 
 obscurity, that the mode should be perfectly concealed, 
 he would not have chosen haptizo^ because this word 
 would have defeated his object of concealment. 
 
 1 now leave it for you to say, my brethren, whether 
 the mode of baptism is hid beyond the possibility of detec- 
 tion. I am, &c. 
 
 • Tingo., and intingo, were used by the Romans to express the 
 act of dyeing cloth, which was done by immersion. 
 ■f Commentary, vol. 1. Introduction, sect. 2. 
 ^ Note on M«ttt ZYiU* 17, and 2 Cor. viix. 1. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 19- 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 SCRIPTURES IN PROOF OF THE MODE. 
 
 Beloved Friends, 
 
 We are all agreed that the Scriptures, not tradition, not 
 canon law, are to be our only rule of faith and practice. 
 As baptism is a christian institute, and never existed as a 
 rite of admission into the church, and as expressive of our 
 communion with Christ, till after his advent, it is certainly- 
 reasonable to say, that we must look to the New Testament 
 to gain all necessary instruction, respecting its origin, its 
 mode, its nature, its design, and its practical uses. We will 
 therefore proceed to collect and lay before you all the 
 most instructive passages, which relate to this Christian 
 ordinance. These scriptures, when rightly understood, 
 you may be certain, will give a definite view of the primi- 
 tive practice in the administration of this ordinance. 
 
 Matt. iii. 5, 6, 7, Then went out to him Jerusalem and 
 all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were 
 baptized of him in Jordan^ confessing their sins. But 
 when he saw many of the pharisees and saaducees come to 
 his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, &c. 
 Verse 11, I indeed baptize you with water unto repen- 
 tance, &c. Verses 13 — 16, Then cometh Jesus from 
 Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But 
 John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of 
 thee, and comest thou to me ? And Jesus answering, said 
 unto him, suflfer it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us 
 to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And 
 Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of 
 the water. Matt. xxi. 25 — 27, The baptism of John, 
 whence was it ? From heaven, or of men ? And they rea- 
 soned with themselves, saying, if we shall say from heav- 
 en, &c. Mark i. 4, 5, John did baptize in the wilderness 
 and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission 
 of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Ju- 
 dea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him 
 in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Ver. 8, 9, 10, 
 I indeed baptize you with water. And it came to pass in 
 those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and 
 was baptized of John in Jordan, and straightway coming 
 ^p out of the water, &c. Mark xi, 38, The baptism of 
 
20 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 John, was it from heaven, or of men ? Luke iii. 3, And 
 he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the 
 baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Verses 
 7, 8, Then saith he to the multitude that came forth to 
 be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, &;c. Verse 
 12, Then came also publicans to be baptized. Verse 
 16, 1 indeed baptize you with water. Verse 21, Now 
 ^vhen all the people were baptized, it came to pass that 
 Jesus also being baptized, &c. Luke vii. 29, 30, All the 
 people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, 
 being baptized with the baptism of John ; but the phari- 
 sees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, being not 
 baptized of him. Luke xx. 4, The baptism of John, was 
 it from heaven, or of men ? John i. 25, 26, Why baptiz- 
 es! thou then if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neith- 
 er that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize 
 wit4i water. Verse 28, Beyond Jordan, where John was 
 baptizing. Verse 31, That he should be made manifest 
 to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 
 Verse 33, He that sent me to baptize with water. John 
 iii, 23, And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to 
 Salim, because there was much water there ; and they 
 came and were baptized. John iv. 1, The pharisees had 
 heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. 
 Chap. X. 40, Beyond Jordan into the place where John 
 at tirst baptized. Acts i. 5, John truly baptized with wa- 
 ter. Verse 22, Beginning from the baptism of John. 
 Acts X. 37, After the baptism which John preached. Chap, 
 xi. 16, John indeed baptized with water. Chap. xiii. 24, 
 When John had first preached before his coming, the 
 baptism of repentance to all the people. Chap, xviii. 25, 
 He (Apollos) spake and taught diligently the things of the 
 Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. Chap. xix. 3, 
 4, Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said, un- 
 to John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptiz- 
 ed with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the peo- 
 ple, that they should believe on him which should come 
 after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 
 
 Passages of Scripture concerning Christ's baptism. Mat- 
 tliew xxviii. 19, Go ye therefore and teach all nations, bap- 
 tizing them in the name of the Father, &c. Mark xvi. 15, 
 16, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
 every creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved. John iii. 22, After these things came Jesus and 
 his disciples into the land of Judeaj and there he tarried 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 2l 
 
 with them and baptized. Verse 26, Behold the same bap- 
 tizeth, and all men come to him. Chap. iv. 1, 2, When 
 iherefore the Lord knew how that the pharisees had heard 
 that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 
 though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. Acts 
 li. 38, Then said Peter unto them, repent and be baptized 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Verse 41, 
 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized. 
 Chap. viii. 12, 13, When they believed Philip, preaching 
 the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name 
 of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and wo- 
 men. Then Simon himself believed also, and when he 
 was baptized, &c. Verse 16, Only they were baptized 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus. Verses 36 — 39, And as 
 they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. 
 And the eunuch said, see here is water, what doth hinder 
 me to be baptized ? And Philip said, if thou believest, 
 thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the 
 chariot to stand still. And they went down both into the 
 water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 
 And when they were come up out of the water, &c. 
 Chap. ix. 18, And (Saul) arose and was baptized. Chap. 
 X. 47, 48, Can any man forbid water that these should 
 not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as 
 well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in 
 the name of the Lord. Chap. xvi. 15, And when she, Lydia, 
 was baptized, and her household, &c. Verse 33, And was 
 baptized, he and all his straightway. Chap, xviii. 8, 
 And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were 
 baptized. Chap. xix. 5, When they heard this they were 
 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Chap. xxii. 16, 
 And now why tarriest thou ? Arise* and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sins. Romans vi. 3, 4, Know ye not that 
 so many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were bap- 
 tized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him 
 by baptism ; that, &c. 1 Cor. i. 13 — 17, Were ye bap- 
 tized in the name of Paul ? I thauk God that I baptized 
 none of you, but Crispus and Gains, lest any should say 
 that I baptized in mine own name. I baptized also the 
 household of Stephanas ; besides I know not whether I 
 baptized any other ; for Christ sent me not to baptize, 
 but to preach the gospel. Chap. xv. 19, Else what shall 
 they do, which are baptized for the dead? If the dead 
 rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead ? Gal, 
 
22 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 iii. 17, For as many of you as have been baptized into 
 Christ have put on Christ. Eph. iv. 5, One baptism. 
 Col. ii. 12, Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye 
 are risen with him. 1 Peter iii. 21, The like figure 
 whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the 
 putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a 
 good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Je- 
 sus Christ. 
 
 These, my brethren, are nearly all the passages in the 
 New Testament, in which this ordinance is mentioned. 
 They are certainly among the most plain and in- 
 structive. If you can gain the true and primitive 
 meaning of the principal words in them, you will un- 
 questionably learn the manner in which Christ meant 
 this ceremony should be performed. In the above 
 quotations, the words which the sacred penmen employed 
 to express the action of baptism, are baptizo^ and its parti- 
 ciple, and the noun baptisma. These words, when em- 
 ployed in describing this ordinance, were not translated 
 into English. All that the translators did to them was to 
 change their Greek letters for Roman ones, and then trans- 
 ferred them into our language, without rendering them 
 into appropriate English words. That these words were 
 not translated into our language is a fact, which no learn- 
 ed Pedo-baptist is disposed to question. However, in 
 proof of this fact, I will give the opinion of the celebrat- 
 ed Dr. Campbell. He observes, that "in several modern 
 languages we have, in what regards Jewish and Christian 
 rites, generally followed the usage of the old Latin ver- 
 sion, though the authors of that version have not been en- 
 tirely uniform in their method. Some words they have 
 transferred from the original into their language ; others 
 they have translated. But it would not always be easy to find 
 their reason for making this difference. T^hus the word 
 'TTipnofiYi^ {peritome^) they have translated circumcisio, which 
 exactly corresponds in etymology ; but the word /3cc7rrt?/^c6^ 
 {baptisma^) they retained, changing only the letters from 
 Greek into Roman. Yet the latter was just as susceptible 
 of a literal version iato Latin as the former. Immersio^ 
 tinctio^ answer as exactly in the one case, as circumcisio^ in 
 the other." He further adds, "We have deserted the 
 Greek names where the Latins have deserted them. 
 Hence we say circumcision^ and not peritomy ; and we 
 do not say immersion^ but baptism. Yet when the Ian- 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 23 
 
 guage furnishes us with materials for a version so exact 
 and analogical, such a version conveys the sense more 
 perspicuously than a foreign name. For this reason I 
 should think the word immersion (which, though of Latin, 
 origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb 
 to immerse) a better name than baptism, were we now 
 at liberty to make a choice."* In his Four Gospels, (Note 
 on Matt. iii. 11,) he says, " The word /iaTm^uv^ {baptizein^) 
 both in sacred authors, and in classical, signifies to dip, 
 to plunge, to immerse; and was rendered by TertuUian, 
 the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere^ the term used for 
 dyeing, which was by immersion, his always constructed 
 suitably to this meaning. Thus it is, iv v^xri tv ru lopj^y)}, 
 (en udati en to Jordane.) But I should not lay much stress 
 on the preposition «» (en) which may denote tiytr/i, as well 
 as in^ did not the whole phraseology in regard to this 
 ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. According- 
 ly, the baptized are said to uyx'^xivuv {anabainein^) to arise, 
 to emerge, or ascend, from or out of the water. Had the 
 word baptizo been here employed in the same sense of 
 ^uim {raino,) I sprinkle, (which as far as I know, it neuer 
 is, in any Wnsc, sacred or classical) the expression would 
 doubtless have been ' I sprinkle thee with water,' &c. 
 When therefore the Greek word baptizo is adopted, I 
 may say rather than translated, into modern languages, the 
 mode of construction ought to be preserved, so far as may 
 conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regret- 
 ted, that we have so much evidence, that even good and 
 learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the 
 sentiments and customs of the sect, which they prefer. 
 The true partizan, of whatever denomination, always 
 inclines to correct the diction of the spirit by that of the 
 party."! 
 
 Thus you see, that these words were not rendered 
 into English. And had they been correctly translated, 
 according to their first and most common meaning, they 
 would have been rendered into the words immerse.^ im^ 
 m,ersing^ and immersion. And then you would have been 
 accustomed from your childhood to read your Bible in 
 the following manner : Then went out to him Jerusalem 
 and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and 
 
 • See his Prelim. Disser. pp. 22, 23, 24, 
 t See 4th vol. p. 23, 24. 
 
24 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 were immersed of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 
 Then conieth Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John to 
 be immersed of him. And Jesus when he was immersed 
 went up straightway out of the water. Go ye, therefore^ 
 teach all nations, immersing them in, &c. And they went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, 
 and he immersed him. And so you would have read all 
 the other passages in the New Testament, which relate 
 to this institution.* Now had you always read the Scrip- 
 tures in this manner, 1 would ask you to say, my brethren, 
 and to say with candour, whether you or any other per- 
 son would have ever supposed, that sprinkling was that 
 mode of baptism which Christ and his Apostles administer- 
 ed ? Would you have ever thought that the mode of bap- 
 tism was left so perfectly undefined, that no honest in- 
 quirer, however extensively and ably he might push his 
 his inquiries on this subject, could, after all his labour, 
 possibly determine whether Christ meant to institute 
 sprinkling, or pouring, or bathing, or plunging ? I speak 
 as to wise men, judge ye of what I say. 
 
 I am, brethren, yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 ARGUMENTS FROM THE PLACES SELECTED FOR BAPTISM, AND 
 FROM THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN ITS DESCRIPTION. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 In the preceding Letter we cited nearly all the passages 
 of Scripture in which the ordinance of baptism is men- 
 tioned. The words employed to express the name and 
 the action of baptism were hapiis7na, baptizo^ and its par- 
 ticiple. These words, we observed, in their most ob- 
 vious and generally received sense, mean immersion^ 
 immerse and immersr.irr. perhaps, my brethren, 
 you will say that my definition of these words is 
 incorrect. The dispute between us here, respects the 
 meaning of those Greek terms, which are employed in 
 
 • In the texts above quoted, these words occur about seventy 
 eight times. Now if Christ meiint to appoint sprinkling, is it not 
 truly surprising that be should so uniformly have chosen a word" 
 which, in its first, classical and sacred sense, means immersion ? 
 
LETTFRS ON BAPTISM. 25 
 
 expressing^ the action of baptism. It is of very high mo- 
 ment, that the truth respecting their signification may be 
 clearly ascertained and universally known. Because if 
 the sense of these words can be obtained, as they were 
 understood by the Apostles and primitive Christians, this 
 long and unhappy controversy will come to a close. Pedo- 
 baptists, I believe, very generally agree, that the whole 
 controversy, respecting the mode, rests very materially 
 on the meaning of these words. How desirable, then, 
 that some course should be taken, which shall bring us 
 to their true and primitive sense ! Is there no way by 
 which we may learn definitely what was that ceremony 
 or action which Christ required of his disciples, when he 
 commanded them to baptize those whom they had 
 taught? Is there no uray)ire to which we may all appeal, 
 and by whose decisions we may safely abide ? It is not req- 
 uisite to prove that these words are always used literally. 
 Without doubt they have a figurative sense. But it is 
 not correct to reason from the figurative against the lit- 
 eral application of a word. The word baptizo^ some say, 
 doth not mean immersion, because it is employed to ex- 
 press the sufferings of Christ. Here, without doubt, it is 
 used figuratively His sufferings were so great, that they 
 were justly compared to a flood. Great afflictions are 
 often compared to floods and waves. See Psal. Ixix. 1,2. 
 and xlii. 7. " Save me, O God, for the waters are come 
 in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire — I am come into 
 deep waters where the floods overflow me. All the 
 waves and the billows are gone over me." Some of these 
 words are expressly applied to Christ. His sufferings 
 were so great and numerous, that, like the numberless 
 drops of rain, they formed a sea in which he was over- 
 whelmed. Between the sufferings of Christ and. his bap- 
 tism there were some points of resemblance, or the com- 
 parison would never have been made. His soul was 
 covered in the waves of pain and sorrow, like as his body 
 was buried by baptism. But the propriety and the force 
 of this comparison is at once lost, if sprinkling weie the 
 mode. If Christ were sprinkled, and if this were the 
 mode of baptism, w^ould he then say, that my approach- 
 ing sufferings will be so great and distressing, that their 
 overwhelming nature may be very fitly compared to a 
 baptism, in which a few drops of water are scattered on 
 the face ? Ail that we shall attempt to prove, is, that 
 c 
 
26 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 we have defined these words, according to their most 
 fair and obvious sense, and as Christ, the Apostles, and 
 primitive Christians understood them. In support of our 
 definition we appeal to the best arguments and to the 
 most unexceptionable judges. 
 
 We derive an argument of no inconsiderable weight in 
 favour of immersion from the places chosen for its ad- 
 ministration, and from the concomitant language employ- 
 ed in its description. The places chosen were rivers 
 and large collections of water, and places where there 
 was much water. But why speak of rivers and places of 
 much water to baptize in, if sprinkling were the mode ? 
 a mode in which a few gills of water would have sufficed 
 for many thousands. Why speak of going down into the 
 water, of baptizing in Jordan, and then of coming up 
 straightway out of the water, if the application was by 
 sprinkling? If this were the case, then the administrator 
 with a little vessel of water in his hand, could have sprin- 
 kled his subjects much more conveniently and comfortably 
 on dry ground than in streams. Why speak of being 
 buried by baptism, if all that was done, was the scattering 
 of a few drops of water on, or the touch of wet fingers to, 
 the face? Why speak of having the whole body washed 
 with purs water in baptism, if the face only was sprinkled ? 
 Why speak of being buried and of rising in baptism with 
 Christ, if there were nothing in the ceremony which 
 shadowed forth a burial and resurrection? In sprinkling, 
 what distant resemblance is there of the burial and res- 
 urrectigm of Christ ? 
 
 If sprinkling were the ancient mode, why were bap- 
 tisteries built all over the Christian world, and for cen- 
 turies employed for places for baptism ? These were 
 Jarge buildings. A description of them you may read in 
 Rees' Cyclopedia, and in Robinson's History of Baptism. 
 By a baptistery is to be understood a large octagon build- 
 ing, with a cupola roof, resembling the dome of a cathe- 
 dral, adjacent to a church, but no part of it. All (he 
 middle part of this building was one large hall, capable 
 of containing a multitude of people. The sides were 
 parted off and divided into rooms ; and in some, rooms 
 were added withoutside, in the fashion of cloisters. In 
 the middle of the great hall was an octagon bath of water 
 about thirty-seven and a half inches deep. This bath 
 was called the pool, the pond, and the place to swim in. 
 
LETTERS ON B.APTISM. 27 
 
 The administrator and the subject descended to the water 
 by stairs, and when they had reached it, the ordinance 
 was performed by immersion. If sprinkling- were the 
 ancient mode, we cannot account for the existence of 
 these large buiidiijgs over deep fountains of water. Nor 
 would they have been built, had iniant baptism been 
 the general practice. Accordingly we find, that as Pedo- 
 baptism advanced, baptisteries were found to be more and 
 more useless, till at length they were deserted, and little 
 fonts for infants occupied their place. 
 
 Before we leave the argument drawn from the places 
 and descriptive language of baptism, we submit for your 
 consideration the following journal of a missionary, whoso 
 name and denomination are both suppressed. 
 
 He observes, that " On Lord's-day I preached at , 
 
 to a large assembly ; that 1 pressed upon my hearers the 
 great duties of repentance and faith; and all those, who 
 gave good evidence of possessing these graces, I baptized 
 in the river Hudson, confessing their sins, and then came 
 up straightway out of the water. The next day while oq 
 my way, I overtook a man, who, after much conversation 
 on the word of life, professed his faith in Christ, as the 
 Son of God. We soon arrived at the church and society 
 
 of , when he requested to be baptized, and admitted 
 
 to their communion ; and I, having no doubt but he pos- 
 sessed fiiith, the requisite grace, at once complied, and 
 like Philip and the Eunuch, we both went down into the 
 water, and I baptized him. And when we had come up 
 out of the water, he went on his way rejoicing. Tlie next 
 Lord's-day I baptized a large number who brought forth 
 fruits meet for repentance, in a certain place previoush'^ 
 chosen, because there was much water there. After this 
 I exhorted them all to remember that they had put on 
 Christ ; that in their baptism they had been symbolically 
 buried and raised with him, and therefore they ought to 
 be careful to walk in newness of life." 
 
 When you had finished this journal, would you not all 
 say, this missionary v.-ithout doubt was a Baptist, for this 
 narrative exactly describes the practice of that denom- 
 ination ? Whose practice then did this same Bible lan- 
 guage describe more than eighteen hundred years ago ? 
 If the Apostles and primitive Christians were Pedobaptists, 
 and practised adult and infant sprinkling, it seems they 
 were very unfortunate in selecting language to paint their 
 
28 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 practice, which their posterity at this day cannot employ., 
 in describing their mode, without involving themselves in 
 strong suspicions, that they have turned to the opposite 
 persuasion. But the mode of the Baptists is the best de- 
 scribed by this language of scripture. Is not this some 
 proof that they in this are right? Which is safest, to fol- 
 low a mode evidently described in the word of God, or to 
 follow one which is not ? 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THK REASONING IN THE PRECEDING LETTER 
 STATED AND ANSWERED. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 I am aware that some say the prepositions in the places 
 mentioned and alluded to in my last Letter, may mean with^ 
 or at, or io, and/rom. It is true that the preposition tv (en,) 
 may mean with ; and the preposition g<5 [eis] may mean io^ 
 and the preposition «5rft>, [apo) may mean from. And the 
 general construction of the period, in which they are used, 
 must determine their signification. It would sound very 
 singularly to say that John baptized with the whole river 
 <?f Jordan, or with the whole town or city of Enon, be- 
 cause there was much water there. If the prepositions, 
 which are rendered into and out of the water, were in- 
 tended to express motion to and /ro^n, then they would 
 probably have been constructed with different verbs, from 
 those, with which they are now connected. If the evangel- 
 ist had intended to have described simple motion from the 
 water, would he not have chosen ^uiy6>^{baino) which means 
 to go^ to walk] and in this connection the preposition ccttm, 
 (apo) would naturally mean /rom the vvater. But now it is 
 joined with uvu^xim, [anahaino) which means to ascend, to 
 climb, to get, or come up. As this verb describes a ris- 
 ing and not a horizontal motion, it is natural to give the 
 preposition, <e5rft>, {apo) a corresponding sense, namely, he 
 ascended out q/'the water. So on the other hand, if Luke 
 had intended to tell us, that Philip and the Eunuch simply 
 went to the water, and not into it, would he not have taken 
 ^stim [haino] ? But now he has chosen Kctlx^etiva^ [kata- 
 baino) which is a compound verb, and means, to go down- 
 ward. How natural thea to render the phrase, imme- 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 29.^ 
 
 <iiately connected with this verb, into the following words ; 
 they went down both into the "water \ But the sense 
 which some would affix to ihese prepositions in these pas- 
 sages, makes the whole account of baptism appear ex- 
 tremely unnatural. Is it rational to suppose that John 
 and the disciples of Christ would from time to time lead 
 their subjects to and from some river, pond or large col- 
 lection of water, merely for the purpose of sprinkling Z 
 Since sprinkling has prevailed, have not Pedobaptists 
 found it most convenient to bring water in a bason to their 
 subjects, rather than to lead them out of the assembly to 
 some distant stream, and there to sprinkle them at the 
 river's side ? It is true that the phrases, into and out of 
 the water, will not of themselves prove immersion. But 
 they are strong, corroborating evidence. It is not simply 
 said that Philip and the Eunuch went into the water, but 
 that, while in the water, he immersed or baptized him. 
 
 1 know also that some have endeavoured to evade the 
 force of the argument, drawn from the places chosen for 
 the administration of this rite, by saying, that they were 
 selected not for baptism, but merely for the purpose of 
 furnishing the multitudes of men and beasts with a suffi- 
 ciency of drink. And in contiimation of this opinion, they 
 say that the Greek ttoXXx, v^arcc, (polla udata,) translated 
 inuch water^ means many waters, that is, many little 
 springs or brooks, scattered about, at no great distance 
 from each other, and containing water enough to supply 
 many thousands of men and animals with drink, but not a 
 depth sufficient for immersion. If these words, 5raAA<» 
 v^ecrec^ (potla udata^) mean many little separate streams, and 
 not much water collected, why did Jeremiah call the 
 great river Euphrates v^cca-t TroXMif^ (iidasi pollois) many 
 waters? Did he mean many little brooks? Jer. li. 13. 
 Why did the Psalmist call the sea, and the great waters of 
 the ocean v^xrm 7rcXXa>v^{udatdn poUbn^ if these words meaa 
 many little spm^gs or streams, and not much collected 
 water ? If tcoXXcc v^ura (polla udata] mean many rivu- 
 lets, then will not the singular ^roAw v^a^^ [polu udor) mean 
 one such stream? But did Ezekiel mean one small stream, 
 when he said, " I shall bring up the deep upon thee, 
 and great waters, v^ai^ tt^Xv, [udor polu,) shall cover 
 thee ?'** chap. xxvi. 19. The fact is, as critics tell us, 
 e 2 
 • See the Septuagiat on the above passages. 
 
:30 LETTEks on baptism. 
 
 the Hebrew word for water has no plural form. Hence 
 the Greek translators sometimes rendered it into the sin- 
 gular «^&/|, (udor) and sometimes into the plural «^«r«, 
 {udata.) Therefore the phrases it6Xv v^a^^ [polxi udor) 
 and ^«AAfl6 v^<5tT06, [polla udata) sometimes mean the same, 
 and both mean much water. 
 
 Besides, if Jerusalem would not supply the numbers, 
 who followed John, with water for this purpose, then it 
 would not supply the vastly greater multitudes, who re- 
 sorted thither thrice every year, to keep their great 
 festivals. If Jerusalem were such a scanty place for 
 water, then why were not these festivals celebrated on 
 the banks of Jordan, where all the many thousands of 
 Israel might be supplied with drink? But in opposition' to 
 all this, the inspired penman tells us that in Enon John 
 was baptizing, because there was much water there. It 
 is plain that the much water was chosen for the conve- 
 nience of immersion, while there is not the least intima- 
 tion that it was selected for a drinking place for men and 
 animals. Calvin, Aretius, Piscator, Grotius, and Mc' 
 Knight, on this passage, tell us that in this place there 
 was a sufficiency of water to immerse the whole body. 
 They never supposed that this spot was chosen for any 
 other purpose than for baptism. It is seriously doubted 
 whether any, who plead for sprinkling, are satisfied with 
 *his forced construction of the passage. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER VIIT. 
 
 FROOF FROM THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 
 
 Seloved Brethren, 
 
 In our two last Letters we exhibited proof that in the 
 days of Christ and his Apostles baptism was performed by 
 immersion. This proof was taken from the meaning of 
 the word in the institute, and from the places and de- 
 scriptive language of baptism. We will now proceed to 
 examine the history of the primitive church, to learn 
 whether their manner of administering this ordinance 
 agrees with the apostolic practice. 
 
 Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, says : " We 
 die symbolically in baptism." Upon these words, Rigal- 
 tius remarks : " We are immersed as if we suffered deatb> 
 and rise up out of the water, as reviving again." 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 31 
 
 Chrysostom says : " To be dipped and plunged into the 
 water, and then to rise out of it again, is a symbol of our 
 descent into the grave, and of our ascent out of it. And 
 therefore Paul calls baptism a burial, when he says we 
 are therefore buried with him by baptism into death." 
 
 St. Barnabas says, " we go down into the water full of 
 sins and pollution, but come up again, bringing forth fruit 
 in our hearts, Slc." 
 
 TertuHian, in his Treatise on Baptism, says : " It is all 
 one, whether we are washed in the sea or in a pond ; in 
 a fountain, or in a river ; in a standing, or in a running 
 water: nor is there any difference between those that 
 John baptized in Jordan, and those that Peter baptized in 
 the Tiber."* 
 
 Justin Martyr in his apology before the Roman empe- 
 ror, says.: '-* I shall now lay before you the manner of 
 dedicating ourselves to God, through Christ, upon our 
 conversion. As many therefore as are persuaded and be- 
 lieve that the thmgs taught and said by us are true, and 
 moreover take upon them to live accordingly, are taught 
 to pray, and to ask of God with fasting, the forgiveness of 
 their former sins ; and then, and not till then, they are 
 brought to a place of water, and are washed in the name 
 of God the Falher. Moreover the person baptized and 
 illuminated is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 and in the name of the Holy Ghost." (Booth's Paedo. 
 vol. ii. p. 110, 111.) 
 
 Basil, archbishop of Caesarea, puts the following ques- 
 tions in his Lent sermons, to the catechumens before 
 their baptism : — '• How can we be placed in a condition 
 of likeness to his death ? Answer. By being buried with 
 him in baptism. How are we to go down with him into 
 the grave ? By imitating the burial of Christ in baptism; 
 for the bodies of the baptized are in a sense buried in 
 water. By three immersions we administer this impor- 
 tant ceremony of baptism, that death may be represented 
 in a figure." (See Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 76^ 
 77.) 
 
 Grotius, in his Annotation on Matt. iii. 6, says, " That 
 this rite was to be performed by immersion, and not by 
 perfusion, appears both by the propriety of the word and 
 the places chosen for its administration. John iii. 23« 
 Acts viii. 38. And by the many allusions of the Apostles 
 
 • See Gale's Reflections, pp. 190, 191. 
 
32 LETTERS ON BAPTISM, 
 
 which cannot be referred to sprinkling, (Rom. vi. 3, 4. 
 Col. ii. 12,) the custom of perfusion or aspersion seems 
 to have obtained some time after, in favour of such who, 
 lying- dangerously ill, were desirous to dedicate them- 
 selves to Christ. These were called denies by other 
 christians." 
 
 To these testimonies we will add that of several wri- 
 ters, who have given us the history of the primitive 
 church. 
 
 Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. chap. 43, p. 1 13,) speak- 
 ing of Novatian, says : " He received baptism, being be- 
 sprinkled with water on the bed where he lay, if that can 
 be called baptism." This author then strongly doubted 
 whether besprinkling could be properly called baptism. 
 
 Du Pin says, '•'• In the three first centuries, they plung- 
 ed those three times in the water whom they baptized.** 
 (vol. ii. p. 77.) The history of- the church, written by 
 an impartial hand, says, speaking of the three lirst centu- 
 ries, '' To me it seems evident that their usual custom 
 was to immerse, or to dip the whole body.'* (p. 73, 2nd 
 part.) 
 
 Gregory, in his Ecclesiastical History, informs us, that 
 baptism, in the primiiive times, was administered by im- 
 mersion. (See vol. i. pages 53 and 89.) 
 
 Says Mosheim, " Those who had formed the resolu- 
 tion of amending their lives were initiated" by John "in- 
 to the kingdom of the Redeemer by immersion.*' — "The 
 sacrament of baptism was administered in the second cen- 
 tury without the public assemblies, in places appointed 
 and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by im- 
 mersion. Those adult persons, that desired to be baptiz- 
 ed, received the sacrament of baptism according to the 
 ancient and primitive manner of celebrating that institu- 
 tion, even by immersion." (See his Eccles. Hist. Cent, 
 i. part i. Chap. iii. § iii. and Cent. xvii. § ii. part. ii. and 
 Chap. vii. and § i.) 
 
 Dr. Cave, in his Primitive Christianity, says, " The ac- 
 tion having proceeded, thus far, the party to be baptized 
 was wholly immersed or put under water, which was the 
 almost universal custom of those times." (See Part i. 
 Chap. X. p. 203. Edit. 7th.) 
 
 Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine the Great, records 
 the following speech of the dying Emperor. " This is 
 the hour (that is, the hour of his baptism) wherein even 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 33 
 
 we may also enjoy that seal, which confers immortality. 
 I had heretofore taken a resolution of doing this in the 
 stream of the river Jordan, where our Saviour himself in 
 likeness to us is recorded to have partaken of the laver." 
 (Lib. iv. chap. 62.) Sickness prevented this design, and 
 the Emperor was baptized in the usual way, by Eusebi- 
 us, in the suburbs of Nicomedia. (See Du Pfn, vol. ii, 
 p. 90.) 
 
 This account is confirmed by Gregory, who, speaking 
 of the fourth century, says, '^ Many were so desirous of 
 receiving this initiatory rite in the same place with Christ, 
 that they delayed baptism till they could travel into Ju- 
 dea. The emperor Constantine was among the number, 
 and earnestly desired to receive the baptismal rite in the 
 waters of Jordan." (Vol. i. p. 191, 192.) 
 
 These facts carry with them much weight. They 
 show that this great man and many others wished not on- 
 ly to follow Christ in the mode, but into the very river 
 where their Lord was buried and raised from his watery 
 grave. These quotations show us how baptism was per- 
 formed in the four first centuries. 
 
 Robinson, in his History of Baptism, informs us that all 
 the eastern churches, which are independent of the Ro- 
 man hierarchy, always have, and do even to this day, 
 practise immersion. These churches are numerous, and 
 embrace many professors. This learned and laborious au- 
 thorexhibits proof that the Nestorian church, the christians 
 of St. Thomas,* Asian Jacobites, who took their name 
 from Jacob ^araedeus, the African Jacobites, the Armenian 
 church, the Georgian church, the disciples of St. John, 
 and the Manichaeans, all through their whole history, ad- 
 minister this ordinance by immersion. (See his Hist. 
 Boston edit. pp. 439—450. 
 
 Nor did these ancient churches think that any thing 
 short of immersion was baptism, only in given cases of 
 necessity. This might be proved by numerous quota- 
 tions. But we will be brief. " Novatian was besprink- 
 
 • The Christians of St. Thomas often defer the baptism of their 
 children several years. Learned men have not been able to as- 
 certain whether these christians were denominated from Thomas 
 the Apostle, who, it is said, preached the gospel in India, or from 
 Thomas, a Manichean, or from an Armenian merchant, named 
 Tfeoma«, or from some Nestorian bishop of the same name. The 
 first of the two last is the most probable. See Robinson*s Hist. p. 
 442. 
 
34 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 led in his bed in the year two hundred and fifty, because 
 they thought he would immediately die, and could not 
 be immersed." But this mode was deemed so imperfect, 
 that those who were besprinkled on their bed in the 
 immediate prospect of death, and because they were not 
 able to be dipped, were not allowed any office in the 
 church. Valesius notes, " that this baptism was thought 
 imperfect for several reasons." Patavius says, " such 
 were thought irregularly baptized, and were never ad- 
 mitted into holy orders, attributing it to their perfusion." 
 Cornelius speaks thus doubtfully of Novatian's sprinkling r 
 *' If such a one may be said to be baptized." — After this 
 be says, " It was not thought lawful for any, who was 
 baptized in his bed, by perfusion, to be admitted to any 
 charge in the church." The bishop of Oxford says, 
 " Novatian was obnoxious on two accounts ; first, because 
 he had made a schism on account of the lapsi, and second, 
 because though he had water poured upon him in bed, 
 yet he was not baptized." (See, Gale's Reflections, p. 
 208.) 
 
 To the above, I will add the testimony of four oth- 
 ers. " The first is that learned and elegant antiquary, 
 Paul Maria Paciaudi. In the fourth chapter of the sec- 
 ond dissertation, he speaks of the two baptisteries at Ra- 
 venna, and finds fault with the artists for representing 
 John the Baptist pouring water on the head of Jesus. 
 " Nothing, exclaims he, can be more monstrous than 
 these emblems ! Was our Lord Christ baptized by asper- 
 sion ? This is so far from being true, that nothing can be 
 more opposite to truth, and it is to be attributed to the 
 ignorance and rashness of workmen." 
 
 *' The second is that excellent judge, Dr. Joseph De 
 Vicecomes of Milan. In the sixth chapter of the fourth 
 book on the ceremonies of baptism, he says, " I will nev- 
 er cease to profess and teach that only immersion in wa- 
 ter, except in cases of necessity, is lawful baptism in the 
 church. I will refute that false notion that baptism was 
 administered in the primitive church by pouring or sprink- 
 ling." 
 
 " The third is Father Mabillon. He says, that although 
 there is mention made in the Life of S. Liudger of bap- 
 tizing a little infant by pouring on holy water, yet it was 
 cow^rarj/ to an express canon of the ninth century: cou' 
 trary to the canon given by Stephen, which allowee! 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. S5 
 
 pouring only in cases of necessity : contrary to the gen- 
 eral practice in France, where trine immersion was used : 
 contrary to the practice of the Spaniards, who used single 
 immersion : contrary to the opinion of Alwin, who con- 
 tended for trine immersion : and contrary to the practice 
 of many, who continued to dip till the fifteenth century. 
 For all this he quotes his authorities." 
 
 " The fourth* is the celebrated Lewis Anthony Mura- 
 tori, a man to be had in everlasting remembrance for the 
 extent of his knowledge, the indefatigableness of his ap- 
 plication, the refinement of his understanding, and the ac- 
 curacy of his taste ; the ornament of his country, and an 
 honour to humanity itself This perfect master of the 
 subject, in the fourth volume of his Antiquities of the 
 middle ages of Italy, in the fifty-seventh dissertation, 
 treats of the rites of the church of Milan, called the Am- 
 brosian from Saint Ambrose, the first compiler of the 
 ritual of that church. As usual, he confirms every 
 word by original authentic papers. Speaking of bap- 
 tism by trine immersion, which was the Ambro- 
 sian method, he says : " Observe the Ambrosian man- 
 ner of baptizing. Now-a-days the priests preserve a 
 shadow of the ancient Ambrosian form of baptizing, for 
 they do not baptize by pouring as Romans do : but, tak- 
 ing the infant in their hands, they dip the hinder part of 
 his head three times in the baptismal water in the form 
 of a cross : which is a vestige yet remaining of the most 
 ancient and universal practice of immersion." See Rob. 
 Hist, of Bap: pp. 385, 386, 387. 
 
 Thus, my brethren, the proof is abundant that the an- 
 cient church did not admit the validity of sprinkling only 
 in cases of imperious necessity. 
 
 I know that it is easy to collect scattering instances of 
 sprinkling or pouring in the third century and onward, 
 in cases of necessity. As the fathers believed in the 
 absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, they admin- 
 
 * ** These four will be exceedingly multiplied, if that fiery 
 trial, through which books are obliged to pass before they can 
 receive an imprimatur, be noticed, for it is understood, that the 
 book is the voice of a whole order, the doctrine of the whole 
 churcli, and therefore it is carefully read in manuscript by several 
 officers appointed on purpose both by the orders in particular 
 and the church in general, before it is put to press." See Rob. 
 p. 385. 
 
36 LETTERS ON BAPTISM, 
 
 istered it to the sick and dying, who were too weak to 
 bear dipping, the best way they could. But these very 
 fathers would not allow sprinkling when no such neces- 
 sity existed. It is not fair for a writer to collect these few 
 cases of sprinkling in the primitive church, and then to 
 say generally, without specifying the necessity, that 
 sprinkling was the practice of the first centuries. What 
 if these ancient men did say that sprinkling was valid in 
 given circumstances? Were they not led to say thus be- 
 cause they superstitiously attached a saving quality to 
 baptism ? The question is not what these fallible men say 
 will answer for baptism in the immediate prospect of 
 death, but what the scriptures have appointed. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 FURTHER PROOF THAT OUR DEFINITIONS ARE CORRECT, 
 DRAWN FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. 
 
 Beloved B rethren. 
 
 The first that we shall here mention, is to be taken 
 from the practice of the Greek church. This is a large 
 collection of professed believers, comprising a large por- 
 tion of the Christian world. This church embraces a 
 great portion of the Empire of Russia, over which the 
 illustrious Alexander presides. The New-Testament 
 was originally written in Greek. Now the members of 
 the ancient Greek church must have been the best in- 
 terpreters of their mother tongue. How then did they 
 understand the meaning of this term ? Their practice 
 will furnish the best answer to this question. If they be- 
 lieved that the word baptizo meant to sprinkle, they 
 would have practised in this mode. But instead of this, 
 they have, from their earliest histor}'^ down to the pres- 
 ent day, uniformly baptized by immersion, and that too 
 in all the diversified climates over which their church is 
 spread. Even the Muscovites practise in this mode, who, 
 if coldness of region will excuse, might throw in the 
 strongest claims to dispense with immersion, and to adopt, 
 in its lieu, sprinkling. Now their steady and uniform 
 adherence to this way^ through so many ages, and that 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 37 
 
 tco in the coldest sections of their church, forms an irre- 
 fragable proof, that they believe immersion is the bap- 
 tism which Christ appointed. We cannot account for 
 this adherence, without admitting, that they believe 
 they have no liberty to depart from the original mean- 
 ing of the word.* 
 
 In farther proof, we appeal to translators. Those men 
 who undertook to translate the New-Testament into other 
 languages, ought to be good judges of Greek. The 
 New-Testament has been translated into the language of 
 the Syrians, Armenians, Persians, Romans, Germans, 
 Danes, Swedes, and Dutch. Now linguists tell us, that 
 in all these languages the word Becyrli^a, [baptizo) is trans- 
 lated by one, which means to immerse. If they had un- 
 derstood this word to mean to sprinkle, why did they not 
 choose a word that would have expressed that idea? If 
 they wished to establish sprinkling, they were certainly 
 very unhappy in selecting a word to express this ordi- 
 nance, which would naturally lead their readers to adopt 
 a different practice. 
 
 • Says Vossius, going to dip an infant, " tl«at the word baptize 
 signifies to pour as well as to dip. In virtue of this he takes the 
 infant, and neither pours nor dips, but sprinkles, and then says to 
 a congregation of English peasants, the Greek will bear me out." 
 
 *■■ Suppose an honest Baptist peasant should stand up and say to 
 such a man, sir, I have understood that Jesus lived and died in 
 the east That four of his disciples wrote his history in the Greek 
 language, that his apostles preached in Greek to the inhabitants 
 of Greece, that the Greeks believed and were baptized. Every 
 nation understands its own language best ; and no doubt the 
 Greeks understand Greek better than we do Now I have been 
 informed, set me right if I be wrong, that from the first preach- 
 ing of the apostles to this day, the Greeks have always under- 
 stood that to baptize, was to dip. I do not understand Greek, but 
 I think the Grecians themselves do If therefore I were not to 
 dip for other reasons, and if I were obliged to determine my prac- 
 tice by the sense of the single word baptism^ and if I were driven 
 to the necessity of trusting to some body, my reason would com- 
 niand me to take the sense from the natives of Greece, rather than 
 from \ou. a foreigner" That this honest man would suppose a 
 true fact is beyond all contradiction. In determining the precise 
 meaning of a Greek word, used to signify a Greek ceremony, 
 what possible chance hath a session of lexicographers against 
 whole empires of native Greeks .' Let the illiterate then enjoy 
 themselves, and recollect, when they baptize by dipping, they 
 understand Greek exactly as the Greeks themselves understood 
 it." See Robinson's Researches, pp. 91, 9i, 
 
38 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 In the Helvetic confession of faith for the Protestant 
 churches of Switzerland, drawn up by the direction of 
 Bucer in 1536, and ten years before the death of Luther, 
 and re-published in 1566 by the Pastors of Zurich, we 
 have the following declaration in favour of immersion : 
 «' Baptism was instituted and consecrated by God ; and 
 the first that baptized was John, who dipped Christ in the 
 "water in Jordan. From him it came to the Apostles, who 
 also did baptize with water." 
 
 The confession of faith adopted by the Saxon church- 
 es, and written by Melancthon in 1551, perfectly 
 agrees with the above. It says, " baptism is an entire 
 action, to wit, a dipping and a pronouncing of these 
 words, I baptize thee, Sz,c." See Dr. Baldvvin''s Letters 
 to N. Worcester, p. 87. 
 
 These two confessions are not to be considered as the 
 testimony of two men, nor of two churches, but as the 
 united belief of a number of churches in two large dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 The Assembly of Divines, that body of men who com- 
 posed the catechism, in their Annotations on Col. ii. 12, 
 *' buried with him in baptism," say, " In this phrase the 
 apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of bap- 
 tism, which was to dip the parties baptized ; and, as it 
 were, to bury them under the water awhile, and then to 
 draw them out of it, and lift them up, to represent the 
 burial of our old man, and our resurrection to newness of 
 iife." 
 
 The concessions of many Pedobaptists afford decisive 
 proof in favour of immersion. If those of them who 
 make these concessions knew that this word, in its natu- 
 ral and most common and obvious sense, meant to sprinkle, 
 it they knew that it had been so understood all along in 
 the ancient church, and that sprinkling was the primitive 
 mode, they certainly would have been quick to see, and 
 loud to proclaim all these fticts, as so many unanswerable 
 arguments in favour of their own practice. But if they 
 concede that this word in its primary signification means 
 ■0 immerse, and that it was so understood, and that im- 
 mersion was universally observed in the earhest ages of 
 "±ristianity, we are sure that they would not make this 
 4:oncession, unless urged to it by the force of truth and can- 
 dour. They were certainly interested to give in a dif- 
 i^rent judgment. Of all men in the world, we should 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 39 
 
 stippose that they would be the last to yield so much, 
 when consistency and the reputation of their own prac- 
 tice would naturally prompt them to speak otherwise, if. 
 they could see how an opposite statement could be made 
 in fairness. But let us hear what they say on this subject. 
 Says Luther, " The term baptism is a Greek word, and 
 may be rendered immersion^ as when we plunge some- 
 thing in water, that it may be entirely covered with 
 water." See Judson, p. 7, Edit. 1st. He says further, 
 that the etymology of the word evidently requires im- 
 mersion. Calvin says, " the very word baptize^ however^ 
 signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immer.tion was 
 the practice of the ancient church." (Cal. Inst. B. iv 
 Ch. 15. Sect. 19. Allen's translation.) 
 
 Rogers says, " None of old were wont to be sprinkled : 
 and 1 confess myself unconvinced by demonstration from 
 scripture for infants' sprinkling. It ought to be the 
 churches' part to cleave to the institution, which is dip- 
 ping ; and he betrays the church, whose officer he is, to a- 
 disorderly error, if he cleave not to the institution, which is 
 to dip. That the minister is to dip in water, is the meet- 
 est act — the word baptizo notes it. For the Greeks 
 wanted not other words to express any other act besides 
 dipping, if the institution could bear it. What resem- 
 blance of the burial or of the resurrection of Christ is 
 there in sprinkling ? All antiquity and scripture con- 
 lirm that way {to immerse.) To dip, theretore, is ex- 
 ceedingly material to the ordinance, which was the usage 
 of old, without exception of countries, hot or cold." 
 (Booth abridged, p. 24.) 
 
 " That immersion was the practice of the ancient 
 church is so plain, says Dr. Wall, and clear by an infinite 
 number of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak 
 endeavours of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the 
 negative of it, so also we ought to disown and show a 
 dislike of the profane scofls which some people give to 
 the English Antipedobaptists, merely for their use of dip- 
 ping. It was in all probability the way in which our 
 blessed Saviour, and for certain was the most usual and 
 ordinary w^y, by which the ancient christians did receive 
 their baptism. It is a great want of prudence as well as 
 of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary, what is 
 certainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a 
 jealousy of all the rest that one says. As for sprinkling} 
 
40 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 1 say as Mr. Blake at its first coming up in England, let 
 them defend it, who use it. They who are inclined to 
 Presbyterianism are hardly prevailed on to leave ofl that 
 scandalous custom of having their children, though never 
 80 well, baptized out of a basin or porringer, in a bed 
 chamber : hardly persuaded to bring them to church ; 
 iDUch farther from having them dipped, though never so 
 able to bear it." (Hist, of Infant Baptism, Part ii. Chap, 
 ix. p. 462. first edit.) 
 f I might swell this list, and bring forward Pool, Mc' 
 Knight, Doddridge, and a host of others, all testifying to 
 the same truth. To these I might add the names of sev- 
 eral divines now living, and who are the most dis- 
 tinguished for a critical knowledge of the Bible and of 
 the history of the church ; all conceding the fact, that 
 hapiizo means to immerse in its most obvious sense, and 
 that this wa^ practised universally for more than thirteen 
 hundred years in the ancient church, saving a few cases 
 of necessity. In proof that immersion prevailed during 
 this period, I will cite the testimony of a few witnesses. 
 
 Says Stackhouse, " Several authors have shown that 
 we no where read in scripture of any one's being bap- 
 tized but by immersion, and from acts of councils and 
 ancient rituals (they) have proved that this manner of 
 immersion continued as much as possible to be used for 
 thirteen hundred years after Christ.*' (His Hist, of the 
 Bible, Book 8, Chap. i. pp. 291, 292.) 
 
 Says Dr. Whitby: ""It being so expressly declared 
 here, (Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii. 12,) that we are buried with 
 Christ in baptism, by being buried under water, and the 
 argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by 
 dying to sin, being taken hence ; and this immersion being 
 religiously observed by all churches for thirteen centuries^ 
 and approved by our church, (church of England) and the 
 change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance 
 from the author of the institution, or any license from any 
 council of the church, being that which the Romanist still 
 urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity; it 
 were to be wished that this custom might be again of gen- 
 eral use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in cases 
 of the clinici, or in present danger of death." 
 
 Nor was Dr. Whitby alone in his desire for the return 
 of immersion. Many of the most learned, pious and em- 
 inent divines, yea, the clergy of England in general, ex- 
 pressed a desire for the return of this ancient practice. 
 
LETTERS OX BAPTISM. 41 
 
 These eminent men, in arguing for the restoration of im- 
 mersion, plead the sense of this word ; they plead the 
 ancient usage of the church, and even the practice of 
 the church in their own time. To the advocates of 
 sprinkling they said : " Divide the christian v/orld into 
 three parts, and you will find that all Asia, all Africa, and 
 one third part of Europe, do at this day baptize by im- 
 mersion." (See Stackhouse's Body of Divinity.) 
 
 Says Wall—" France seems to have been the first coun« 
 try in the world where baptism by aflfusion was used or- 
 dinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of ad- 
 ministering it. It being allowed to weak children (in the 
 reign of Elizabeth) to be baptized by aspersion, many fond 
 ladies and gentlewomen first, and then by degrees, the 
 common people would obtain the favour of the priest to 
 have their children pass for weak children, too tender to 
 endure dipping in the water. As for sprinkling, properly 
 so called, it seems it was at sixteen hundred and forty-five, 
 just then beginning and used by very few. It must have 
 begun in the disorderly times after forty-one. They (the 
 assembly of divines in Westminster) reformed the font 
 into a basin. This learned assembly could not remem- 
 ber that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the 
 primitive christians, long before the beginning of popery, 
 and ever since churches were built ; but that sprinkling, 
 for the common use of baptizing, was really introduced 
 (in France first, and then in other popish countries) m 
 limes of popery. And that accordingly all those coun- 
 tries in which the usurped power of the pope is or has 
 been formerly owned, have left off dipping of children ia 
 the font ; but that all other countries in the world, which 
 had never regarded his authority, do still use it, and that 
 basins, except in cases of necessity, were never used by 
 Papists or any other christians whatever, till by them- 
 selves." "The way that is now ordinarily used we can- 
 not deny to have been a novelty, brought into this church 
 by those that had learned it in Germany, or at Geneva. 
 And they were not content to follow the example of 
 pouring a quantity of water, (which had there been in- 
 troduced, instead of sprinkling) but improved it, if I may 
 so abuse that word, from pouring to sprinkling, that it 
 might have as little resemblance of the ancient way of 
 baptizing as possible."* 
 
 ♦ Hist, of Inf. Patt 2nd, Chap. 9, 
 D 2 
 
42 LETTERS ON BAPTISBI. 
 
 By this quotation you see that the assembly of divines 
 were the first ecclesiastical body in England, that author- 
 ized sprinkling for general use in lieu of inrimersion. 
 When the mode of baptism was debated in that body, the 
 question was called, whether they would retain im- 
 mersion, or adopt sprinkling — the assembly were nearly 
 divided, 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 voted against it. 
 The vote for sprinkling, was finally carried through the 
 influence of Dr. Lightfoot. Had it not been for the in- 
 iluence of this one man, immersion in all probability 
 would have been retained. Had it not been for him, the 
 question in their catechism. What is baptism ? would 
 most likely have been answered thus,* " baptism is a sa- 
 crament, in which the subject is immersed in water in the 
 name of the Father," &;c. so, for ought we can say, this 
 practice would have been continued to this very da}^ 
 
 Thus, my brethren, in favour of immersion you have 
 many arguments. In support of it you have the first and 
 most obvious meaning of the word, employed to express 
 this rite; you have the places chosen for its administration, 
 in .Jordan, in rivers, in places where there was much 
 water, and in baptisteries; you have the language em- 
 ployed in its description, going down into the water, and 
 coming up out of it, being buried and raised with- 
 Christ in baptism, having our bodies washed in pure 
 water; you have the testimony and concessions of the 
 ablest Pedobaptist writers in favour of this practice ; 
 yea, you have the united voice of the whole church, 
 whether Greek or Roman, in favour of immersion, for 
 more than thirteen hundred years. When we take into 
 consideration, that the Greek, the Armenian, the Geor- 
 gian and Nestorian churches, and all the oriental church- 
 es, which have never acknowledged the papal power, 
 have throughout their whole history practised in this 
 way ; and when we farther reflect on the number of the 
 Baptists, now scattered through the christian world, we 
 are sure that a great portion, if not half the professed fol- 
 lowers of Christ, do at this very hour adhere to immersion. 
 
 If, my friends, you can adduce proofs in favour of sprink- 
 ling that will fairly outweigh all these arguments, you 
 will without doubt practise accordingly. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 •S«e note in Neal's Hist, of Pup. p. 169. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 43 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE FOREGOING REASONS STATED AND AN- 
 SWERED. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 To the preceding arsfuments it may be objected, that 
 the words bapto and baptizo^ do not in scripture in their 
 literal application mean an entire wetting by immersion. 
 In support of this objection, several passages are adduc- 
 ed. Lev. xiv. 6. " As for the living bird, he shall take 
 it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, 
 and shall dip fix-^ih {bapsei) them in the blood of the 
 bird, that was killed over the running water." Here 
 the word fiecif/u (bapsei) dip, Dr. Wall and some others 
 say cannot mean immersion. "For,*' says Wall, "the 
 blood of the bird in the basin could not be enough to re- 
 ceive the living bird and the cedar wood, and the scar- 
 let, and the hyssop all into it." See his History of In- 
 fant Baptism, part 2nd, p. 221. 
 
 This objection is grounded on a mistake. It supposes, 
 that the blood of the slain bird was preserved by itself, 
 and therefore could not receive the bulky sprinkler, 
 formed of the several prescribed articles. But the fact 
 was, the bird was slain in an earthen vessel, containing a 
 considerable quantity of running or living water. Into 
 this water the blood fell and mixed, so that the quantity 
 of this sanguineous liquid was abundantly sufficient to ad- 
 mit the sponge by dipping. See verse 5 — " And the 
 priest shall command that one of the birds be killed ia 
 an earthen vessel over running, or living water, which 
 it contained." See also the 5 1st verse of this chapter. 
 Indeed a little reflection will teach us that the blood of 
 the slain bird, not being more than a spoonful or two, 
 could not alone wet a large sponge sufficiently to sprin- 
 kle a person and a whole house seven times over. The 
 word i3«^6<, {bapsei) therefore, in the above text most 
 certainly means to dip^ but not to pour or sprinkle 
 
 Another text in support of the above objection is tak- 
 en from Ezek, xxiii. 15. "Girded with girdles upon their 
 loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon th '^ heads.'* Here 
 the word dyed in the septuagint is Trupa^uTrlec- [parabapta ;) 
 heuce some say, that this word meaos lo dye, as wtU as 
 
44 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 to dip. But this objection will lose all its force, when 
 we reflect that the ancient " Greeks very frequently ap- 
 plied the word, in all its various forms, to the dyer's art, 
 so as to innply and refer only to its true natural significa- 
 tion, to dip." Besides, the " Grecians made a difference 
 between dye and other colouring matter. Thus Plu- 
 tarch distinguishes between xi»fiecix, {chromata) and 
 ^otf^^e^u^ {bammata). The latter word signifies only that 
 sort of colouring, into which any thing is dipped, accord- 
 ing to the sense of the word." See Gale's Reflections, pp. 
 101, and 103. In the Hebrew of this verse the word 
 translated dye^ is b^D, which Parkhurst says means to dip, 
 immerge, to plunge, and to dye with a certain color, 
 which is usually performed hy dipping. See his Lexi- 
 con. The LXX translated this word into the Greek word 
 rret^et'^ccTrlx, (parabapta) which also signifies dipped. Hence 
 if this word had been rendered in our English bibles, 
 dipped garment, the translation would have been literal 
 and correct. In this case no one would have thought 
 that the passage countenances sprinkling, or pouring. I 
 do not object to the present version. For the phrase 
 dyed garments^ involves the idea of dipping, because cloth 
 is dyed, not by sprinkling or pouring, but by dipping. 
 This text, then, most certainly makes in our favour, but 
 gives no support to those of a different practice. 
 
 Should any one quote Daniel iv. 33, and v. 21, as proof 
 that the word /iuTrra {bapio) means to sprinkle, we reply, 
 that the word here is without doubt used figuratively, and 
 designed to express more emphatically the entire wet- 
 ting, which Nebuchadnezzar should receive from the 
 great dews of Chaldea, by saying, that he should lie in 
 dew, and be covered with it all over, as if he had been 
 dipped. 
 
 That this word means to dip, is evident from the follow- 
 ing passages : Exo. xii. 22. ^^ And ye shall take a bunch of 
 Ijyssop and dip it, &c. Lev. iv. 6. And the priest shall dip 
 his finger, &c. verse 17. And the priest shall dip his fin- 
 ger in some of the blood. Chapter ix. 9. And he dipped 
 his finger in the blood. Chap. xi. 32. Whatsoever vessel 
 it be, it must be put into water. Chap. xiv. 6, 16, 51. 
 Num. xix. 18. And a clean person shall take hyssop, and 
 dip it in the water, &c. Deut. xxxiii. 24. Let him dip bis 
 foot in oil, &c. Josh. iii. 15. And the feet of the priests 
 were dipped in the brim of the water, &c. Ruth ii, J 4/ 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 45 
 
 Dip thy morsel in the vinegar. 1 Sam. xiv. 27. And dip- 
 ped it in an honey-comb. 2 Kings v. 14. Then went he 
 down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan. Chap, 
 viii. 15. He took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water. 
 Jobix. 31. Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch. Psalm 
 Ixviii. 23. That thy foot may be dipped in the blood, &c.'' 
 These words bapto and haptizo occur in the septuagint 
 about twenty-one times. Having attended to the most 
 considerable texts in the Old Testament on this subject, 
 and having shewn that these words in their literal sense 
 mean to dip or immerse, and not to sprinkle or pour, we 
 will now advance to the New. 
 
 Here one of the most plausible passages, brought against 
 us, is found in Heb. ix. 10. '• Which stood only in meats 
 and drink, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances." 
 Here the Greek is ^u^Tisf^-cii ^ {baptismois ;) the correct 
 translation of the phrase is, divers immersions. So Grotius^ 
 Whitby and Mc'Knight, understand the passage. Had it 
 been so rendered, no one one would have thought that 
 this text favoured sprinkling. But as the Levitical law- 
 enjoined divers immersions, how do we know but that 
 Paul had exclusive reference to these? He might in- 
 clude the various sprinklings in the clause, " carnal or- 
 dinances." In the seventh chapter of this epistle, he 
 calls the law, which prescribed the ceremony of indue-' 
 tion into the priest's office, k carnal commandment. See 
 verse 16. This law we know required sprinkling, shav- 
 ing, washing the clothes, and cleansing the body. Still it 
 was called a carnal commandment. As the Apostle here 
 certainly meant to comprise sprinkling, and washing 
 clothes, and cleansing the flesh, in the phrase carnal com' 
 mandrnent., why is it not true to say, that by carnal or- 
 dinances, he might refer to the various sprinklings and sa- 
 crifices of the Jewish ritual ? 
 
 But let us proceed to mention some of the numerous 
 and divers immersions required by the law. When detil- 
 ed by the touch of a dead body, all manner of wooden 
 vessels, all kinds of raiment, all skins, all sacks, and what- 
 soever vessel it be, in which any work tvas done, all must 
 be baptized, or put into water. See Leviticus xi. 32. 
 Birds, cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop, were to be dipped 
 in blood and water, See Lev. xiv. 6. Various things 
 taken in war with Gentile nations, and which would not 
 abide the fire, were to be put in, or made to pass through 
 
46 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 the water. See Num. xxxi. 23. Priests, lepers, and 
 persons who were defiled by the touch of a bone, or a 
 dead body, were to bathe or immerse their bodies in 
 water. See Lev. xiv. 8. Num. xix. 7 and 19. Gill, 
 Gale, Dr. Reed and many others, say that these bathings 
 were performed by immersion. 
 
 Now these divers immersions must occur very fre- 
 quently. If the dead body of a weasel, or mouse, or 
 tortoise, or ferret, or chameleon, or lizard, or snail, or 
 mole, touched any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, 
 or sack, and whatsoever vessel in which work was done, 
 were all to be immersed. When a person died in a tent, 
 every thing and person in it were rendered unclean. 
 Whoever in the confusion of battle touched one that was 
 slain with the sword, or a dead body of a man or beast, or 
 even a bone or a grave, was unclean, and must bathe in 
 water. In every conquest a very large portion of their spoils 
 must be made to pass through the water, or be dipped. 
 See Lev. xi. 30, 31, 32, and Num. xxxi. 21, 22, 23. 
 
 Thus you see, my brethren, that under the law, divers 
 immersions must have happened very frequently, and 
 they were administered for divers purposes. Well might 
 the apostle say, that the ancient economy stood in divers 
 immersions, and yet in this phrase have no reference to 
 sprinkling. If, as our opponents say, the apostle meant 
 to express the various sprinklings of the law by the words, 
 hec<pcpois /iecTTTKr/^oti;^ {diaphorois baptismois) translated divers 
 washings.^ why did he not in the subsequent parts of the 
 chapter continue to employ the same word, when he 
 <5pake of sprinkling ? If this term would naturally express 
 the idea of sprinkling in one place, it would in another. 
 But let us look over the chapter and see if he retained 
 this word. See verse 13. "For if the blood of bulls and 
 of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling, 
 ^»yTi^ov(rec [rantizousa^] not /iaTrno'^ioie (baptismois) . Ver. 19. 
 Moses — sprinkled ifp«vT«r£ [errantise) hoth the book, &c. 
 Verse 21, "Moreover he sprinkled, «pp«vT^(r£, [errantise) 
 likewise with blood both the tahernacle,*' &c. His 
 steady use of the word pecyn^ta, (rantizo) to express 
 sprinkling in this chapter, is strong proof that he well 
 knew the word bapiizo meant something quite different, 
 viz. to immerse. This latter word, Campbell says never 
 means to sprinkle, either in sacred or classical writer^. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 47 
 
 In support of the above objection, the passage in Luke 
 xi. 38, is cited, '• And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- 
 velled, that he had not first washed before dinner." The 
 original word is iox'Tinr^n^ (ebaptisthe). It is not said in 
 these words, what wa« baptized, whether the hand or the 
 entire body It is supposed, however, by some, that the 
 inspired penman had particular reference to the washing 
 of hands, and that this passage is parallel to the one in 
 Mark vii. 3, " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except 
 they wash their hands oft, eat not." The original is 
 iciv jt6^ TFvyfin vi'^mreci reci KU^ecg, yx itBujo-i : that is, except 
 they wash their hands up to the wrist, or elbow, they eat 
 not.* This mode of washing was performed most likely 
 by first dipping their hands into the water. Of this opin- 
 ion was Dr. Pocock. His woids are these : "The great- 
 est and most notorious uncleanness of the hands reached 
 but to the perek, or the wrist, and was cleansed by im- 
 mersing or dipping them up so high." Dr. Hammond is 
 of the same opinion, and determines this to be the sense 
 of this passage. Says he, "Washing of any part, as the 
 hands here, by way of immersion in water, as that is op- 
 posed to affusion or pouring water on them." See Gale^ 
 pp. 158, 159. 
 
 Again, it is said that the washing, performed by the 
 Jews when they returned from market, was not a cleans- 
 ing of the whole body, but only a partial application of 
 water. See Mark vii. 4. 
 
 In reply to this, we observe, that the law of God re- 
 quired the Priests, when defiled, to bathe in water before 
 they eat of the holy things. See Lev. xxii. 6. " The 
 soul which hath touched any such, shall be unclean until 
 even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash 
 his tlesh with water." Now is it not rational to suppose^ 
 that the common people in cleansing their bodies would 
 follow the example of their religious teachers, and bathe 
 their flesh in water ? That the more superstitious Jews 
 did immerse their whole bodies when they returned from 
 the market, is confirmed by the best critics. Vatablus, 
 on this text, remarks, " They (the Jews) washed them- 
 selves all over." See Gale, p. 164. Grotius, in com- 
 menting on this place, says, "They were more solicitous 
 to cleanse themselves from the defilement they had con- 
 
 • See Gill on this passage. 
 
48 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 Iracted in the market, and therefore they not only washed 
 their hands, but immersed their whole bodies." See 
 him in loco. 
 
 Some suppose that the baptism of pots, cups, tables 
 and brazen vessels, was not performed by immersion, but 
 by pouring and rubbing. In reply, we remark, that all 
 wooden vessels which were defiled, were, by the law of 
 God, to be put into water. See Lev. xi. S2. Earthen 
 vessels, when defiled, were to be broken, and brazen ones 
 were to be purified by fire, and then made to pass through 
 the water. Both the law of God and the tradition of the 
 elders required that defiled vessels should be put into 
 water. Their tables were not three nor four footed, 
 like ours at this day, but they were couches, on which 
 they leaned at their meals. And these couches, or tables 
 as they are called, were not washed by having water 
 sprinkled or poured upon them, but by being put into 
 water, as other clothes were washed.* Some have main- 
 tained, that the text in Isaiah lij. 15, "so shall he sprin- 
 kle many nations," gives countenance to that mode of 
 applying water. But the scholar, who will consult the 
 original text, will at ouce discard this passage as afford- 
 ing any support to sprinkling. 
 
 The Hebrew word in this verse is n^a*!, which is ren- 
 dered sprinkle. But it literally means to increase, and 
 by consequence, to make to rejoice, or to exult. See 
 Simonis' Heb. Lex. The LXX translated this word into 
 ^uvfiTovrcch ithaumsontai) which signifies either to astonish, 
 or to cause to exult or rejoice. But in no instance is it 
 equivalent to sprinkle^ as is known by all who understand 
 the Greek language. 
 
 /Christ, by the greatness of his suffering, would astonish 
 many nations, or, when they saw the design of his vicari- 
 ous death, would rejoice or exult in hope of eternal life. 
 This seems to be the sense of the passage. Our transla- 
 tors, perhaps, rendered this word as they did, because 
 they well knew that to sprinkle fragrant waters on visit- 
 ers, was the customary mode of doing respectful and kind 
 honours to guests, through the east. See Burder's Ori- 
 ent Gust p^ 199. 
 
 It is also objected, that the three thousand could not be 
 baptized by immersion, for the want of time. It is said 
 
 * The Jev/ish cman r.tn thus : " A bed that is wholly defiled, 
 if he dip it part by part, is pure." See Gill on the text. ' 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 49 
 
 that the day was considerably advanced before Peter be- 
 gan his famous sermon, and that after public services, 
 the lime was too far spent to admit on that day the bap- 
 tism of such a vast number. 
 
 In reply, we observe, that on supposition there were 
 only 12 administrators, (you will recollect that before this 
 event, Matthias filled the place of Judas) allowing them 
 250 each, the twelfth part of 3000, and six hours to per- 
 form the ceremony, they would have to baptize about 41 
 an hour. But on supposition the seventy-two disciples 
 were present, whom Christ had before commissioned to 
 baptize, as in all probability they were, then the portion 
 of each would not be quite 43 ; and allowing them three 
 hours time, they would have only about 14 to immerse, 
 only one in 13 minutes. 
 
 But setting aside the above Calculation, we will engage 
 to answer this object ion as soon as any one will inform us 
 how Abraham could, in the short space of one day, cir- 
 cumcise, after this rite was performed upon himself, be- 
 tween three and four hundred males. See Gen. xvii, 2S. 
 *' And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were 
 born in his house, and all that were bought with money, 
 every male among the men of Abraham's house, and cir- 
 cumcised the flesh of their fore-skin, the self-same day."^* 
 Before this we are informed that he had 318 trained ser- 
 vants born in his house. Now should we add to those 
 318 all the males, who were bought with money, and all, 
 who were either too old or too young to bear arms, the 
 number of males in his household would be much enlarg- 
 ed. When therefore we are told how Abraham in one day 
 could perform this rite on so large a number, we shall be 
 prepared to tell how the 12, or 72 disciples, in six, or 
 three hours, could baptize 3000. 
 
 It is also said that in Jerusalem the disciples could not 
 have found conveniences for the purpose of dipping. It 
 is argued that the angry Jews would not allow them ad- 
 mission to any of their places of worship. 
 
 In answer, we remark, that the primitive christians 
 were not excluded the temple, nor from the public places 
 of bathing. See Acts v. 20, 25, and 42. " And daily in 
 the temple and in every place, they ceased not to teach 
 and preach Jesus Christ." — "Go stand and speak in the 
 temple all the words of this life.-^Then came one and told 
 
50 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 them, saying, behold the men whom ye put in prison, are 
 standing in the temple, and teaching the people." 
 
 May we not rationally suppose, that the apostles could 
 easily find accommodations for immersion in this great 
 city, and among a people who, by their sacred laws, were 
 subjected to various bathings ? 
 
 Says Dr. Gill, " In the city of Jerusalem, in private 
 houses, they had their baths for purifications, by immer- 
 sion, as in the case of defilements, by touching unclean 
 persons and things, which were very frequent ; so that a 
 digger of cisterns, for such uses, and others, was a busi- 
 ness in Jerusalem. And in the temple there was an a- 
 partment, called the dipping place or room^ where the 
 high priest dipped himself on the day of atonement. And 
 besides these there were ten lavers of brass, made by 
 Solomon ; and every laver held forty baths of water, and 
 each was four cubits broad and long, sufficient for immer- 
 sion of the whole body of a man. Add to this, that there was 
 the molten sea also for the priests to wash in, (2 Chron. 
 iv. 6,) which was done by immersion ; on which one of 
 the Jewish commentators has these words : " The sea 
 was /or the dipping of the priests ; for in the midst of it 
 they dipped themselves from their uncleanness ; but in 
 the Jerusalem Talmud, there is an objection, is it not a 
 vessel ? as if it was said, how can they dip in it, for is it 
 not a vessel ? and there is no dipping in vessels : R. Josh- 
 ua ben Levi replied, a pipe of water was laid to it from 
 the fountain of Etam, and the feet of the oxen, which 
 were under the molten sea, were open at the pomegra- 
 nates; so that it was as if it was from under the earth, 
 and the waters came to it, and entered, and ascended, by 
 the way of the feet of the oxen, which were open be- 
 neath them and bored." — And it may be observed, that 
 there was also in Jerusalem the pool of Bethesda, into 
 which persons went down at certain times, (John v. i,) and 
 the pool of Siloam, where persons bathed and dipped 
 themselves, on certain occasions. So that there were 
 conveniences enough for baptim by immersion in this 
 place." Gill on Acts ii. 41. 
 
 " We who are so little used to washing the whole body, 
 either in a common or religious way, are apt to wonder 
 where, and how, such prodigious numbers, as are mention- 
 ed in the JVew Testament to be baptized, could be accom- 
 modated if they were immerged in water ? But it needs 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 51 
 
 only to be considered, the principal scene of baptism lay 
 in a country, where immersion was quite familiar,^ and 
 must, by the very laws of their religion, come into daily 
 use through all parts of the land ; and then the wonder will 
 cease. For, as Bishop Patrick observes, '-'• there are so 
 many washings prescribed [in the law of jMoses] that it is 
 reasonable to believe, there were not only at Jerusalem^ 
 and in all other cities, but in every village, several bathing 
 places contrived for these legal purifications, that men 
 might, without much labour, be capable to fulfil these 
 precepts." Comment, on Lev. xv. 12.* 
 
 It is said that John*s baptism was legal ; and therefore 
 never was designed for an example to regulate gospel 
 baptism. 
 
 In proof that John's baptism belonged to the gospel 
 dispensation, we shall offer only two arguments, viz. — 
 
 1. We believe John's ministry was the beginning of 
 the gospel of the Son of God, because it is declared so to 
 be by the mouth of inspiration. See Mark i. 1,2, 3, 
 ^i-The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 God. As it is written in the prophets, behold I send my 
 messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way 
 before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
 prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." 
 
 On these words, Mr. Scott observes thus : — ^^ Thia 
 was in fact the beginning of the gospel, the introduction of 
 the Kew-Testament dispensation, the opening of the glad 
 tidings, relating to Jesus Christ, the anointed Saviour, the 
 incarnate Son of God.'* 
 
 '•The history of John the Baptist, "says Whitby, "is 
 styled the beginning of the gospel, because he began bis 
 otfice by preaching repentance, as the preparation to re- 
 ceive it, and faith in the Messiah as the subjects of it." 
 See Scott's Note on the passage. 
 
 Observe, my brethren, that the inspired penman doth 
 not here say, that John's ministry was the protraction of 
 the Levitical economy, nor the commencement of an in- 
 termediate and temporary dispensation, but the beginning 
 of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Would the evangelist 
 characterize the ministry of John, by saying, that it was 
 the voice which proclaimed glad tidings, when in fact he 
 meant to say, that it was the same voice which had long 
 been heard from Sinai, enforcing the law with ail its tre- 
 mendous sanctions ? 
 
 • Foot's Let. p. 29. 
 
52 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 Why is it, my brethren, that there is such an effort 
 made to confine John in the dark dispensation of the law? 
 Is it because his ministry frowns so heavily on modern 
 practices ? Had he sprinkled parents and their infants, do 
 you imagine that his conduct would never have been 
 drawn into a precedent, or example, to sanction the cer- 
 emonies of Pedobaptists ? Would they have said to all 
 writers on their ground, you must not avail yourselves 
 of the conduct of John in baptism, because he was a Le- 
 vitical priest, and not a minister of the gospel ? 
 
 If John belonged to the Levitical priesthood, and if 
 Christ was baptized by him to fulfil the Levitical law, as 
 many say, then it will follow that Christ was a priest after 
 the Aaronic order, and not after the order of Melchisedec. 
 But, my brethren, this reasoning carries us abreast to the 
 arguments of Paul, in the 7th of Heb. He there tells us 
 that Christ was made a priest, not after the law of a carnal 
 commandment^ but after the order of Melchisedec. See 
 verses 16 and 17. 
 
 My second argument, in proof that John's ministry be- 
 longed to the gospel dispensation, is taken from the cal- 
 culations of Dr. Prideaux. In explaining the prophecy 
 of Daniel's seven weeks, and the three score and two 
 weeks,* or the 483 years from the going forth of the 
 commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Mes- 
 siah, the Prince, he says, " This will lead us down 
 to the year of the Julian period, 4739, which was 
 the very year in which the ministry of the gospel first 
 began. This Christ executed at first, and therein made 
 his appearance as the Messiah, by his forerunner, John 
 the Baptist, for the space of three years and an half, and 
 after that, by himself in his own person, for three years 
 and an half more. And' these two being put together, 
 make up the last week of this prophecy, which began ex- 
 actly at the ending of the said sixty-two weeks. And 
 therefore here the prophecy concerning the coming of 
 the Messiah had its completion. St. Luke tells us,t 
 "The word of God first came to John, in the fifteenth 
 year of Tiberius Caesar,*" emperor of Rome. And from 
 the coming of that word to John, and his preaching of 
 it to the Jews,J was the beginning of the gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, and the first appearance of his kingdom here on 
 
 • Dan. ix. 25. | Chap. iii. 1, 2, X Mark i. 1. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 53 
 
 earth. And this Christ himself tells us : for his words 
 are, (Luke xvi. 16,) " The law and the prophets were 
 until John ; since that, the kingdom of God is preached." 
 That is, the Jewish economy, under the law and the pro- 
 phets, lasted until the coming of John, and his preaching 
 of the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 
 But from the time of his coming on this ministry, which 
 was the ministry of the gospel, the kingdom of the Mes- 
 siah began. For, as in the gospel of St. Matthew, hj' the 
 kingdom of heaven, so here by the kingdom of God,* 
 is meant the kingdom of the Messiah, the church of 
 Christ, which he hath here established among us. And 
 therefore this kingdom thus beginning with the preach- 
 ing of John, there must we necessarily place the first 
 coming oi that King, Christ our Lord, who founded this 
 his kingdom here among us." Prideaux's Connections, 
 vol. 2. pp. 53^ 54. 
 
 Thus, according to the calculations of this laborious 
 divine, this prophecy of Daniel cannot be explained only 
 by admitting that John's ministry was the beginning of the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 
 
 I am, brethren, yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 REMARKS ON THE REASONS ASSIGNED TO JUSTIFY THE CHANGE 
 OF IMMERSION INTO SPRINKLING. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 In attending to the subject of this Letter, I cannot do bet- 
 ter than to submit for your consideration, the opinions of 
 several distinguished writers. If 1 should discuss the sub- 
 ject anew, 1 should exhibit the same arguments, dressed 
 in my own language. 1 will also premise, that in this Let- 
 ter I have reference to that class of Pedobaptists who ad- 
 mit that immersion was the instituted mode, but say that 
 the original law was not inflexible, but was to vary so as 
 to accommodate itself to changing customs and climates. 
 E 2 
 
 * Vide Grotii Annotationes in secundum caput Mattbaei, et 
 Xightfooti. Uoras Hebraicas ftd euadem locum. 
 
,54 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 Says Mr. Foot, in his Letters to Bishop Hoadly, " I come 
 now, ray lord, to what was promised in the last Letter, viz. 
 to consider the excuse of those who, thoughjthey confess 
 the scriptural baptism to be immersion^ yet apologize for 
 a departure from it : and of two quite different distinct 
 laws and institutions, put one in the room of the other. 
 In consequence thereof, it is come to that pass, that what 
 at first was done hut seldom^ and in supposed cases of ur- 
 gent necessity, is now become the universal, constant 
 practice ; and the one baptism, the acknowledged one bap- 
 tism of scripture, is entirely cast out^ in favour of another 
 RHE ; except aniong a handful of people, who still pre- 
 serve the primitive form. Mr. Baxter^ we have already 
 seen, excuses the matter by the coldness of our climate. 
 Calvin, the celebrated reformer at Geneva, observes, in 
 his exposition of Acts viii. 38 — '' We see here what wag 
 the baptismal rite among the ancients ; for they plunged 
 the 'whole body in the water. Now 'tis the custom for the 
 minister to sprinkle only the body or head." And he 
 too excuses this sprinkling by saying, — " It is certain that 
 we want nothing which maketh to the substance of bap- 
 tism. Wherefore the church did grant hberty to herself, 
 since the beginning., to change the rites somewhat, except- 
 ing the substance." See Calvin's Com. on Acts viii. 38. 
 
 Bishop Burnet, though he thus describes the primitive 
 baptism, *' With no other garments but what might serve 
 to cover nature ; they at first laid them down in the water^ 
 as a man is laid in a grave., and then they said these words,. 
 ' / baptize., or wash thee in the name., kc. Then they rais- 
 ed them up again, and clean garments were put on them : 
 from whence came the phrases of being baptized into 
 Chrisfs death., of being buried zvith him by baptism into 
 death : of our being risen with Christ, and of our putting 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ., of putting off the old man., and 
 putting on the new :" And though he justly observes, 
 sacraments are positive precepts which are to be measur- 
 ed only by the institution., in which there is not room left 
 for us to carry them any further ;" yet forgetting his 
 own measure of the institution, viz. the party baptized was 
 laid down in the water., as a man is laid in the grave, " He 
 says, the danger of dipping in cold climates may be a very 
 good reason for changing the form of baptism to sprink- 
 ling:^ Expos, xxxix Articles, pages 326, 300, 346, Editi 
 1st. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 55 
 
 " But as the good Bishop observes, in the page last cited, 
 on the other sacrament, and the change made therein by 
 the church of Rome, '' All reasoning upon this head is an . 
 arguing against the institution ; as if Christ and his apostles 
 had not well considered it ; but that 1 200.years after them, 
 a consequence should be observed, that till then had not 
 been thought of^ which made it reasonable to alter the man- 
 ner of it. He who instituted it knew best what was most 
 iitting and most reasonable ; and we must^choose rather 
 to acquiesce in his commands^ than in our own reasonings.''^ 
 Page 347. 
 
 " It is evident to your Lordship, that when our blessed 
 Saviour said unto the apostles, Go, teach all nations, hap- 
 tizing them., they understood him to mean dipping. Here 
 then is one only rule and law for all nations. No provi- 
 sion for making a dilTerence between warm climates and 
 cold. Not the least hint of two rites, of which the admin- 
 istrator may take his choice., according to his own pru- 
 duce and discretion ; but there is one law, one institution, 
 for all nations upon the face of the earth ; Go teach and 
 dip them. Why then, my lord, do we not acquiesce in 
 this command, but change it by our own reasoning? 
 
 '• But I beg leave to say two or three things in particu- 
 lar to the plea fur this confessed alteration. 
 
 '•'' First, coldness of climate is an excuse which, make 
 the best of it, can serve but for some part of the year, and 
 for some weakly constitutions ; and yet the practice of 
 sprinkling is universal and constant, in the hot season as 
 well as cold, and on the most robust and healthy as well 
 as the weak. The reason offered in justification of the 
 7iew way implies, that were it not for necessity., the primi- 
 tive baptism should be observed ; nevertheless, it is not 
 observed, where no shadow of necessity is pretended. 
 Such commonly is the end and effect of departing from 
 our rule : Human nature falls in with what is least trou- 
 blesome. We first plead a necessity of relaxing in certain 
 cases; these cases continually multiply in favour o^ ease 
 and indulgence.^ and then custom carries all before it. Dr. 
 Wall, giving the reasons why in queen Elizabeth's reiga 
 the custom of dipping was laid aside, observes, " It being 
 allowed to weak children to be baptized by affusion., many 
 fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and then by degrees the 
 common people, would obtain the favour of the priest 
 to have their children pass for weak children, too tender 
 to eadure dipping in the water." Vol. 3. p. 301, edit. 1st, 
 
o6 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 " Secondly, Immersion was the constant practicdn this 
 same cold climate for many hundred years, (the change 
 into sprinklings as a general practice, being scarce two 
 hundred years old) and yet 1 believe no history can be 
 produced of its having been of ill consequence even to in- 
 fants. Take the affair only in a medical view, and cold bath- 
 ing is not only safe, but very useful, many times, to tender 
 babes, which made the late Dr. Cheyne say, ^' I cannot 
 sufficiently admire how it [cold bathing] should ever have 
 come into such disuse, especially among christians, when 
 commanded by the greatest Lawgiver that ever was, under 
 the direction of God's holy Spirit, to his chosen people, 
 and perpetuated to us in the immersion at baptism by the 
 same Spirit, who, with infinite wisdom, in this, as in ev- 
 ery thing else, that regards the temporal and eternal fe- 
 licity of his creatures, combines their duty with their 
 happiness." Essay on Health, &c. chap. 4 sect. 7. 
 
 ••^Thirdly, The rule [God will have mercy and not sac- 
 rifice] may justly be applied to excuse from baptism itself ^ 
 [that is, as I understand it, from immersion'] those who can- 
 not receive it without manifest danger ; but, I think, will 
 by no means justify a change oihaptism into another quite 
 different rite. For illustration sake, my Lord, I beg leave 
 to mention the case of an old-testament rite, circumcision. 
 It was a divine appointment, that this rite should be 
 observed with respect to e-very Jewish male at eight days 
 old. Yet during the Israelites'' travel through the wilder- 
 ness, for the space of forty years, it was omitted. The 
 reason of which was the danger and great inconvenience 
 that must arise from it, in their travelling, unsettled con- 
 dition. Vide Patrick and other expositors on Joshua v. 
 But suppose the Jews, from the undoubted inconvenience 
 of circumcising the part appointed, had reasoned them- 
 selves into the practice of circumcising a finger or toe, 
 ■would not this have been an unwarrantable departure 
 from the institution of God ? Unquestionably it would. 
 Who required this at their hand ? And especially would 
 they not be chargable with a notorious perversion of a 
 plain positive precept, if from this plea of necessity in the 
 wilderness they should take occasion to make the change 
 total and perpetual, upon all persons, and in all times ? 
 And how long soever this alteration had prevailed, would 
 it not be justifiable, and matter of commendation, nay, 
 even duty, in those persons who saw the deviation from 
 
JuEtTERS ON BAPTISM. 57 
 
 the declared will of the Institutor, to reject this circum- 
 cision of human device, and restore it to its first institu- 
 tion ? We must think so, unless the antiquity of error ex- 
 cuse it, and make that right, which at first was wrong". 
 If therefore baptism was originally immersion, let it be 
 immersion still ; for, as your most learned friend. Dr. S. 
 Clarke, has observed, " In things of external appointment, 
 and mere positive institution, where we cannot, as in mat- 
 ters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning the nat- 
 ural reason and ground of the obligation, and the original 
 necessity of the thing itself; we have nothing to do but 
 to obey the positive command. God is infinitely better 
 able than we to judge of the propriety and usefulness of 
 the things he institutes ; and it becomes us to obey with 
 humility and reverence." Expos. Church Cat. page 305, 
 &c. edit. 2d. 
 
 '• Your Lordship will suffer me to add, there is not so 
 great a difference between circumcising a finger, and the 
 foreskio, as between covering the whole body in water, 
 and sprinkling the face. It would be circumcision still, 
 only of a different part ; but bathing and sprinkling, the 
 book of God always considers as two institutions quite dis^ 
 tinct." Foot, pp. 20—34. 
 
 Those congregational divines who plead for this right 
 to vary an acknowledged institute of Christ, disarm them- 
 selves in their debates with Episcopalians and Catholics, 
 respecting traditions and legislative power. 
 
 " In the time of king Charles the second, lived Mr. Jer- 
 emiah IveS, a Baptist minister, famous for his talent at dis- 
 putation, of whom the king having heard, sent for him to 
 dispute with a Romish priest; the which he did before 
 the king and many others, in the habit of a clergyman. 
 Mr. Ives pressed the priest closely, shewing that whatev- 
 er antiquity they pretended to, their doctrine and practi- 
 ces could by no means be proved apostolic ; since they are 
 not to be found in any writings which remain of the apos- 
 tolic age ; the priest after much wrangling, in the end, 
 replied, that this argument of Mr. Ives, was of as much 
 force against infant baptism as against the doctrines and 
 ceremonies of the church of Rome ; to which Mr. Ives 
 answered, that he readily granted what he said to be 
 true ; the priest upon this broke up the dispute, saying, 
 he had been cheated, and that he would proceed no fur- 
 ther; for he came to dispute with a clergyman of the es- 
 
58 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 tablished church, and it was now evident, that this was 
 an Anabaptist preacher. This behaviour of the priest 
 afforded his majesty and all present not a little diver- 
 sion :'** And as Protestant Pedobaptists are urged by this 
 argument to admit the unwritten traditions of the Pa- 
 pists : so dissenters of the Pedobaptist persuasion are press- 
 ed upon the same fooling by those of the church of Eng- 
 land to comply with the ceremonies of that church, re- 
 tained from the church of Rome, particularly by Dr. Whit- 
 by,! who having pleaded for some condescension to be 
 made to dissenters, in order to reconcile them to the 
 church, adds, '' and on the other hand, says he, if, not- 
 withstanding the evidence produced, that baptism by im- 
 mersion is suitable both to the institution of our Lord and 
 his apostles; and was by them ordained to represent our 
 burial with Christ, and so our dying unto sin, and our con- 
 formity to his resurrection by newness of life ; as the 
 apostle doth clearly maintain the meaning of that rite : I 
 say, if, notwithstanding this, all our dissenters {i. e. who 
 are- Pedobaptists, he must mean) do agree to sprinkle the 
 baptized infant; why may they not as well submit to the 
 signiticant ceremonies imposed, by our church? for, 
 since it is as lawful to add unto Christ's institutions a sig- 
 nificant ceremony, as to diminish a significant ceremony, 
 which he or his apostles instituted, and use another in its 
 stead, which they never did institute ; what reason can 
 they have to do the latter^ and yet refuse submission to 
 \\ie former ? and why should not the peace and union of 
 the church be as prevailing with them, to perform the 
 one, as is their mercy to the infant''s body to neglect the 
 other? Thus infant baptism is used as the grand plea for 
 compliance with the ceremonies both of the church of 
 Rome and of the church oi England.'''' 
 
 Suppose a Protestant, who maintains the right to vary 
 the law of baptism, should say to a Catholic priest — Sir, 
 by what authority do you refuse the cup to the laity ? 
 Why do you not communicate in both kinds ? Did not 
 Christ and the primitive teachers administer the bread 
 and the wine to all the communicants? But now you with- 
 hold the cup from private brethren. Your service in 
 this rite, therefore, is but a half communion. Tell me, 
 will you, by what power you have ventured to vary so 
 materially from this sacramental law ? 
 
 • Crosby's History of the Baptists, vol. 4. p. 247, 248. 
 f Protestant Reconciler, p. 289, 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 59 
 
 The priest, in reply, admits the charge of innovation, 
 and confesses, that in the beginning the elements were 
 administered in both kinds to the whole brotherhood. 
 But, says he, Christ left in his chuich the power to change 
 his' original laws, as she should think most conducive to 
 the honour and prosperity of religion. And you, Protes- 
 tants, whatever you say to the contrary, have assumed the 
 same power to change the instituted forms of worship, as 
 you deem best suited to the existing state of the church 
 and world, and most conducive to the growth of Zion. You 
 have ventured to change the original law for immersion, 
 first into a rule for pouring, and then for sprinkling. 
 The word of God has ever considered immersion and 
 sprinkling as two distinct rites. But you have changed 
 one for the other, or attempted to blend two ceremonies 
 which the Scriptures have ever kept asunder. If our 
 communion is but a half communion, your baptism is but 
 a half baptism. If you have arguments to justify the 
 great liberty you have taken with the law of baptism, 
 these very arguments will answer just as well for us to 
 vindicate our conduct in varying the pristine law of com- 
 munion. 
 
 After sprinkling began to prevail in the church, strong 
 opposition was made to it both by Episcopalians and 
 Catholics. 
 
 Dr. Wall, after accounting for the change of immersion 
 into sprinkling in Queen Elizabeth's day, says, "many 
 learned men in several countries have endeavoured to 
 retrieve the use of it, dipping."* 
 
 • . I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER XIL 
 
 ON THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 Having gone through with our discussions on the mode 
 of baptism, we will now proceed to the subject. This 
 is confessedly the most material point of difference, be- 
 
 • He quotes Sotus, Mede, Bishop Taylor, Sir Norton, Knatch- 
 bull, Rogers Walker, Dr. Towerson, Dr. Whitby and Sir John 
 Floyer. See Wall, Part 2nd, Chap. ix. Second Edition. 
 
60 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 cause it affects the whole system of church building. But 
 after all my inquiries, I have been led to believe that 
 infant baplism has no foundation in scripture. My rea- 
 sons for this belief are now submitted for the candid con- 
 sideration of the reader. 
 
 Infant baptism is not contained in the great commission 
 given by Christ to the apostles, Matt, xxviii, 18, 19. 
 " And Jesus came, and spake unto them, (his disciples) 
 saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ; 
 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 ; and lo, I am with you always, 
 even unto the end of the world. Amen." 
 
 This commission is the sacred statute, enacted and 
 proclaimed by Christ, the great Lawgiver of Zion. By this 
 divine canon all the ambassadors of Christ are to be reg- 
 ulated in their ministrations. As this law is the rule that 
 Christ gave to guide his ministers, respecting the mode 
 and the subject of baptism, we may presume that he 
 would be plain and definite on these two important points. 
 If then he meant that his apostles should baptize infants, 
 he would without doubt have inserted a clause, that 
 would have given them an unquestionable right to 
 this ordinance. Would he not have said, " Go ye, &c. bap- 
 tizing your disciples and their children in the name,&c.?" 
 Without this explicit declaration in their favour, his apos- 
 tles would have been extremely apt to suppose, that he 
 did not intend to comprise them in their commission. 
 Consider what they had been previously accustomed 
 to witness, and to practise themselves, fro^n the days of 
 John, until the death of Christ. They, rhost or all of 
 them, had been baptized by John without their families. 
 In all the baptisms performed by this harbinger of Christ, 
 they saw no households of children and servants baptized 
 on the professed belief of their parents and masters. 
 They had seen him rejecting those from baptism, who 
 did not bring forth fruits meet for repentance. " O gen- 
 eration of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the 
 wrath to come I" '^ Bring forth therefore fruits meet for 
 repentance." These apostles in the early part of Christ's 
 ministry had been commissioned to go and preach the 
 gospel to the lost sheep of the house, of Israel. And 
 wherever they went they proclaimed the glad tidings of 
 
LETTERS ON" BAPTISM. 61 
 
 the kingrdom of God, and baptized none but adult be- 
 lievers. Few, if any, ,Pedobaptists pretend that the 
 apostles, previous to the crucifixion of Christ, ever bap- 
 tized any but professed believers. They did not then bap- 
 tize believing parents with their unbelieving children and 
 servants. Now since these apostles had never seen par- 
 ents and their infants connected in baptism, neither in the 
 ministry of John, nor in that of Christ; and since they 
 had, for a considerable time before this, been leaching and 
 immersing those only whom they taught, and that too 
 under the eye and approbation of Christ, would they not 
 most naturally suppose, that after his ascension he meant 
 they should continue this same practice, so far as the 
 mode and the subjects were concerned? In this renewed 
 commission, it is true there were additions, but no 
 changes. These were two : First, they were now au- 
 thorized to pass the lines, that bounded Judea, and go 
 into all nations, and preach the gospel to every creature ; 
 and second, the form of words, to be pronounced in the 
 administration of this ordinance, was settled. With these 
 additions, and under these circumstances, the apostles 
 woilld naturally continue to use water in the same man- 
 iier and upon the same subjects, as before. Is it rational 
 to suppose, that these men, who all along had been accus- 
 tomed to see infants omitted in this rite, as having no con- 
 cern with it, and who themselves had been in the habit 
 of excluding them, and that too under the eye and sanction 
 of Christ, would, thus situated, suddenly embrace infants 
 in baptism. without some express command so to do from 
 their Lord and Master? 
 
 This commission is not only silent on this subject, but 
 its fair interpretation will lead us to exclude from this 
 ordinance all, who do not exhibit to the eye of 
 charity some evidence of faith and repentance. This 
 commission enjoins two things, — 1st, Teach all nations. 
 2nd, Baptize all the taught, or disciples. The command 
 to teach, all agree, is limited to those, capable of instruc- 
 tion ; because it would be making Christ a hard master in- 
 deed to say, that he required of his disciples impossibili- 
 ties ; namely, to teach babes and the insane. If then the 
 command to teach, must be limited to those who are capa- 
 ble of instruction, must not the command to baptize, be 
 limited also and confined to the taught? If this commis- 
 sloa requires the baptism of ten, without faith and re- 
 F 
 
62 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 pentance, why not ten thousand ? If the commission be not 
 limited as above, the command to baptize admits of no lim- 
 itation. What couhl the apostles see in this commission, 
 which would lead them to believe that Christ meant they 
 should teach some to prepare them for baptism, and that 
 they were at the same time to baptize some to prepare 
 them for teaching ? Should a recruiting- officer, commis- 
 sioned to enlist those, who were capable of bearing arms 
 and of learning the science of war, on his return, inform 
 the commander, that in some instances he enrolled those, 
 who possessed the prescribed qualifications, while in most 
 cases he enlisted babes and minors and whole households 
 to bring them into the military school, and under the hope 
 that they in some future period would become the sub- 
 jects of all th«3 requisite accomplishments ; — would he not 
 find some difficulty in defending this conduct when inter- 
 rogated what he saw in his commission, which encourag- 
 ed him to depart so materially from his instructions ? 
 Whatever this commission requires of some, as a prereq- 
 uisite for baptism, it equally requires the same of all the 
 candidates for this ordinance ; consequently it excludes 
 infants, because they are incapable of instruction, the es- 
 sential qualification. 
 
 Some Pedobaptists say that the apostles would teach 
 adults, and then baptize them and their children. This 
 they say they would do, because they had all along been 
 accustomed to household circumcision. But is not this 
 saying that the apostles learned infant baptism, not from 
 this commission, but from the law of circumcision ? All 
 snch, as reason in this manner, abandon the commission, 
 as affording any warrant for this practice. Others there 
 are who say, as this commission enjoins the teaching and 
 baptizing all nations, and as infants are component parts 
 of all nations, therefore, this commission commands infant 
 baptism. This mode of reasoning, you see, my brethren, 
 places the right of infant baptism, not on the Abrahamic 
 covenant, nor on the faith of parents, but on the member- 
 ship in the great family of man. They ar^. members of na- 
 tions, they say, and therefore ought to be baptized. But 
 the infelicity attending this argument is, that it proves too 
 much, and therefore is good for nothing. It prove« that 
 we ought to baptize idiots, infidels, an<l the children of 
 unbelievers, because all these are as truly parts, or mem- 
 bers of all nation?. a« are the children of professors. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 63 
 
 The Pedobaptists in general are at one time very san- 
 guine, that this commission embraces infants, yet at an- 
 other they seem to be equally !«ure, that it doth not em- 
 brace them. Thus when a Baptist objects to infant bap- 
 tism, because they are incapable of the requisite qualiti- 
 cation, and quotes this clause of the commission, viz. 
 " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, and 
 he that believeth not shall be damned," as proof that 
 faith must be before baptism, his opponent promptly at- 
 tempts to parry this objection, by saying, this clause re- 
 spects adults and them only, and by no means has any re- 
 spect to infants, because it would be reproachful to Christ, 
 to say, that he threatens infants with final ruin, merely 
 because they cannot believe and embrace his gospel. 
 Here you see that his opponent joins with the Baptist, 
 and maintains that this commission, as recorded by 
 Mark, requires faith of all those, of whom it requires bap- 
 tism. Now is not this granting all that we have attempt- 
 ed to , rove, viz. that this commission does not embrace 
 infants, and enforce their baptism? Would the Holy 
 Ghost move the Evangelist Mark, to word this commis- 
 sion so as to exclude all infants, whilst this same Spirit 
 moved St. Matthew to express it in such a manner, as to 
 embrace all infants I If this he true, and if they both were 
 guided by their respective commissions, then it must fol- 
 low, that their practice would be correspondingly differ- 
 ent : One would embrace and baptize infants, and the 
 other would exclude them as not contained in his orders, 
 and as incapable of the prerequisites for this ordinance. 
 
 We are sensible that Whitby, Peter Edwards, and many 
 others, have said, that if the want of faith will exclude 
 them from baptism, then the want of faith will exclude 
 them from heaven, because, say the . , faith is more strong- 
 ly required for salvation, than t^or baptism. On all those 
 who deny the right of infant communion this argviment 
 may be retorted thus : You exclude infants from the ta- 
 ble, for want of faith to discern the Lord's body ; but this 
 reasoning will debar them from heaven — because Christ 
 has more strongly required faith for salvation, than he 
 has for communion. If, then, want of faith will shut in- 
 fants from the Lord's supper, much more will it forbid 
 their admission to future glory. But we trust that neither 
 their reasoning nor ours will exclude them from the para 
 disc of God. 
 
 I am, &e. 
 
64 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 LETTER XIIL 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM NOT FOUND IN THE HISTORY OF THE APOSTLE?, 
 NOR IN ANY FART OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 In our last we endeavoured to show, that the great gos- 
 pel commission demanded faith and repentance, as terms 
 of admission into the church of Christ, and therefore did 
 not comprise infants. Let us now proceed to examine the 
 history of primitive times, as recorded in the Acts of the 
 Apostles. If throughout this history, and every part of 
 the New Testament, we find no solitary instance of the 
 baptism of babes and children on the profession of their 
 parents, and no allusion to such a ceremony, the presump- 
 tive argument is very strong, that no such practice then 
 existed. 
 
 The inspired penmen often mention the baptism of 
 adults, both men and women, and that too in great num- 
 bers ; but they give no intimation of infant sprinkling. It 
 is sometimes said, that it is unreasonable to look for any 
 direction to baptize infants, because God had once given 
 a command to circumcise them. But if this remark be 
 correct, will it hence follow, that it would be equally un- 
 reasonable to expect to find some account that the apos- 
 tles obeyed this ancient injunction, by applying to infants 
 the same seal, as it is said to be, only in a milder form? 
 If they thought there was a precept of this kind, it is not 
 a little strange we are left without proof that it received 
 their obedience. If this practice then prevailed, is it not 
 passing strange, that all the sacred penmen should have 
 passed over in profound silence all the many thousand 
 cases of Pedobaptism, which must have occurred before 
 their writings were brought to a close ? Children, when 
 they were parties in the narrated facts, were constantly 
 mentioned. '' Israel journijd from Rameses to Succotli, 
 about 600,000 on foot., that were men, besides c/aWren." ' 
 " And they that had eaten were about 5000 men, besides 
 women and children.*' Children sung hosannas to the 
 Son of David, Children accompanied their parents on 
 their way. Children are often mentioned in scripture, 
 evidently for the purpose of swelling numbers, and for 
 rendering the miracles of God the more illustrious. So 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 65 
 
 when the inspired writers wished to magnify the power 
 of the Gospel and its triumphant success, they were par- 
 ticular to specify sexes, and the multitudes, who embrac- 
 ed its offers. '^ And believers were the more added to 
 the Lord, multitudes, both men and women." if the 
 aposties were in the habit of baptizing infants, and of add- 
 ing them to the church, as some do now, then the child- 
 ren of those men and women might compose nearly half 
 the number, who were added to the Lord. It is rather 
 myiiterious, that in their calculations they should have 
 taken no notice of such a large accession, especially when 
 we reflect that it was manifestly their design to exalt the 
 power of grace, by showing the greatness of the numbers 
 gathered into the kingdom of God. If on this occasion 
 numberless children were brought within the pale of the 
 church, how natural for the apostles to mention them, and 
 to say, '*' believers and their households were added to 
 the Lord, multitudes, both men, Women, and children." 
 
 Let us proceed to recite to you, and remark on several 
 passages of scripture, where the subject of baptism is in- 
 troduced, to learn whether in any of them we can find 
 support for Pedo'baptism. " Then Peter said unto them, 
 Repent and 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 Pioly Ghost." Acts ii. 38, 39. '' For the 
 promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that 
 are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 *' Then they that gladly received the word were baptiz- 
 ed: and the same day there were added unto them about 
 three thousand souls." Verse 41. "And the Lord add- 
 ed to the church daily such as should be saved." Verse 
 47. Here we see that Peter commanded the same per- 
 sons to be baptized, whom he had previously exhorted to 
 repent and believe; and there is not the least intimation, 
 that he baptized any, except those who gladly received 
 his word. The Lord added unto the church daily, such 
 as should be saved. But if at the same time all the in- 
 fants and unbelieving children, and servants of chrisliaa 
 parents, and ma^^ters, were added to the church, would it 
 have been safe to say of all those, who were tiien desti- 
 tute of grace, that they were such as should be saved? 
 Would it not have been hazardous for parents or masters 
 to promise in behalf of all these infants and minors, th^t 
 they should all repent and believe, when they knew not 
 F 2 
 
OO LETi'ERS ON BAPlIbM.. 
 
 but that some oflhem would grow up without rational 
 powers, and others without any heart to embrace the Sa- 
 viour ? 
 
 I am aware, that the advocates of Pedobaptism employ 
 the phrase, ^' For the promise is unto you and your chil- 
 dren," as a strong proof of their system. They consider 
 it as referring to the promise made to Abraham in the 
 17th Chap, of Genesis. Those whom the Apostle ad- 
 dressed were Jews and Gentiles, individuals out of divers 
 nations. To these he says, '•' The promise is unto'^ou 
 and to your children." The detinite article prefixed to 
 this sentence, shows that the promise was great and well 
 Jinown. But in the covenant of circumcision there is no 
 promise, that God would be a God to the Gentiles and to 
 their seed, as well as to the Jews and to their seed. If 
 the promise in the 17th of Gen. were as applicable to 
 Gentiles as to Jews and to their children, then circum- 
 cision sealed the same blessings to Gentiles and to their 
 seed, as it did to Jews and to their seed. How then 
 could it become a mark of discrimination between Jews 
 and Gentiles? On this plan, what advantage had the Jew 
 above the Gentile ? and what peculiar profit was there in 
 circumcision ? The promise, then, here mentioned, doth 
 not, we believe, refer to the one mentioned in Genesis, 
 but to the promise of the affusion of the Holy Ghost. 
 That this is the promise, to which he alludes, will ap- 
 pear from an attentive perusal of the chapter. 
 
 The many thousands who were assembl^^d at Jerusa- 
 lem, were confounded and amazed, when they heard the 
 Apostles, and others, preaching in all the various tongues 
 which v/ere spoken in their respective nations. Peter-, 
 perceiving their surprise, undertook to remove the 
 ground of their astonishment. When they said, ''What 
 meaneth this?" he replied, ^' These men are not drunk 
 as ye suppose, but this is that which was spoken by the 
 prophet Joel. And it shall come to pass in the last days, 
 (saith God) 1 will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and 
 your young men shall see vifeions, and your old men shall 
 dream dreams And on my servants and on my hand- 
 maidens, I will pour out in those days of my spirit ; and 
 they shall prophesy." After saying much on the ascen- 
 sion of Christ, he adds, "-This Jesus hath God raised up. 
 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and 
 having received of the Father the promise of the Holy 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 67 
 
 Ghost, bath shed forth this, ^vhich ye now see and hear.** 
 The promise of the Father to pour out his Spirit in the 
 last Jays, may be found in Isa. xxxii. 15, 16, and xliv. 3. 
 Jer. XKxi. 33^ &c. '^ Christ repeatedly promised to send 
 from his Father the Holy Gho^l to his di.-cipies. See 
 John xiv. 16, "i will pray the Father, and he shall give 
 you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for- 
 ever. Verse 26, But the Comforter, which is lijc Holy 
 Ghost, whom the Father Avill send m my name, he shall 
 teach you all things. Chap. xv. 26, But when the Com- 
 forter is come, whom I will send unto you I'rom the Lath- 
 er. Chap. xvi. 7, But if I depart, I will send him (Holy 
 Ghost) unto you." When Christ ascended, he renewed 
 the promise of the Holy Ghost, saying, •*• Behold 1 send 
 the promise of my Father unto you, but tarry ye in the 
 city of Jerusalem until ye be endowed with power I'mm 
 on high." See Luke xxiv. 49. For this promise of the 
 Holy Ghost they waited. And when the Holy Ghost fell 
 on them on the day of Fenteco;«t, and they began to 
 prophesy and to w.-rk miracles, Peter tohl the wondering 
 strangers that wliat they tiien saw and heard was only 
 the fulhlmenl of ttiat promise of the effusion of the Holy 
 Ghost, which Christ made to his disciples when he was 
 taken up into heaven. *' He, (i. e. Christ,) having receiv- 
 ed of the Fatlu'r the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath 
 shed forth this which ye now see and hear.*' See v. 33. 
 He soon after exhorted them to repent and to be baptiz- 
 ed lor the remission of sins. And as a motive to ooedi- 
 ence, he promised that they too should receive the Ho- 
 ly Ghost. To encourage their hope of this promise, he 
 says, '•'' the promise is unto you and to your children." 
 Now as Peter had told them that what was then passing 
 betore their eyes was the fuUilment of the prediction of 
 the miraculous etfu.-ion of the Holy Ghost, and of the 
 promise of Christ of the same thiny;', wojld they not nat- 
 urally conclude that he iiad reference to the same prom- 
 ise, when he said, Ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, for 
 the promise is unto you and to your children ? His ex- 
 hortation is this : God hath promised by the mouth of 
 Joel, that he wouhl, in the last days, pour out his Spirit 
 on all flesh, and that miraculous things should follow, and 
 Christ hath received of the Father the fulfilment of this 
 promise, and is shed«Ung^ ierth the Holy Ghost as ye now 
 see and hearj repent ye j therefore, and you shall receive 
 
68 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 the Iloiy Ghost, the same which ye now see shed fortk 
 on us : lur the same promise of the Hol^ Ghost is unto 
 you and to your children. 
 
 Tiie phrase •' For the promise is unto you and to your 
 children,'"' Peter assigns as a motive for something-. But 
 for what, ail are not agreed. Pedobaptists say that it is 
 connected with the phrase, '•'• repent and be baptized," 
 and is given as a motive for believing parents to submit 
 themselves and their infants to baptism. But Baptists 
 say that it is connected with the phrase, " and ye shall 
 receive the Holy Ghost, for the promise is unto you and 
 to your children." Which is the most natural and the 
 most consistent with the whole context, and wi^h the con- 
 struction of the passage, is submitted to the decision of the 
 candid reader. He is desired to read the whole chapter. 
 
 Beside, let those, who use this text as an argument for 
 infant sprinkling, j'jrove, that ta tekna^ rendered children^ 
 means here any thing more or lev«;s, than posterity. If it 
 mean only posterity, then their argument will prove 
 that if a man be converted when he is seventy years old, 
 he must be baptized and all his children, though they 
 are ail unbelievers, and though they may be forty or hfty 
 years old, because the promise is unto him and to his 
 [ta tckna^) children. It is not unto him and to his 
 infants and minors, but unto all his posterity, of every 
 age and sex. If this promise respecting posterity gener- 
 ally, be a good argument why minors should be baptized, 
 why is it not an equally good argument, that all the other 
 po-terity of believing parents should be baptized ? 
 
 Leigh, in his Critica Sacra, saj^s tekiia is a general word 
 which, in scripture and other writers, is used to set forth 
 all sorts of children, of whatever sex, of whatever age, of 
 whatever degree soever they be. See him on the word. 
 
 Moreover, will not this exposition prove that all the 
 children of believing parents will be saved ? because ef- 
 Actual calling is just as extensive as the promise. If then 
 the promise be to all their posterity, then all their pos- 
 terity will be called and saved. 
 
 See Acts viii. 12. '^ But when they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdoni of God, and 
 the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men 
 an^! women.*' You will observe, that it is not said, mea 
 and women, and their children, is there any evidence 
 here that Philip baptized any who did not hear and be- 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 69 
 
 ireve what he preached concerning the name of Jesus and 
 the kingdom of God? 
 
 Acts viii. 36, 27, 38, 39, " And as they went on their 
 way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch 
 said, See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be bap- 
 tized ? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine 
 heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe 
 that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded 
 the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into 
 the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized 
 him. And when they were come up out of the water, 
 the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eu- 
 nuch saw him no more ; and he went on his way rejoic- 
 ing." Here Philip demanded of this man, faith as an es- 
 sential pre-requisite for baptism — If thou believest, thou 
 mayest. Is it probable then that he would admit other 
 adults to this ordinance without making the same demand? 
 But if he were a Pedobaptist, and determined the sub- 
 jects of this rite by the law of circumcision, he might fre- 
 quently baptize individuals in the households of profess- 
 ors, who gave no evidence of faith, though perhaps they 
 were 60 or 70 ^ears of age. 
 
 '*• And the morrow after they entered into Cesarea. 
 And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together 
 his kinsmen and near friends." — " While Peter yet spake 
 these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard 
 the word." — '' Can any man forbid water that these 
 should not be baptized, which have received the Holy 
 Ghost as w«ll as we ?" '^ And he commanded them to be 
 baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts x. 24, 44, 47, 48. 
 
 Here we are informed that Cornelius had called in his 
 kinsmen and near friends and neighbours. While they 
 expected to wait some time for the arrival of Peter, ii is 
 likely they would take with them some of their infants 
 and children. This is certainly as probable as it is that 
 Lydia would take her children, if she had any, on a long 
 voyage. If, then, Peter practised infant baptism, it seems 
 rational to look for some account of it in this place. But 
 we find that those who heard the word, received the Holy 
 Ghost, and those were the only individuals, whom he 
 commanded to be baptized. 
 
 Beside these places, the baptism of individuals is men- 
 tioned in Acts ix. 17, 18. xxii. 16 xviii. 8. xix. 5. In 
 these passages we are directed to apply this rile to those 
 only, who make profession of their faith. 
 
70 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 Bat it may be asked, were not infants admitted to this 
 ordinance, in those recorded instances of household bap- 
 tism ? Ttiese are three, the household of Stephanus, the 
 Jailer, and that of Lydia. Let us, my brethren, examine 
 them with fairness and candor. 
 
 The history which Paul has given of the first family, 
 IS sufficient to silence all arguments drawn from it in sup- 
 port of Pedobaplism. Says he, '' Ye know the house of 
 Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that 
 they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
 saints." On this text Dr. Mc'Knight says, '^ The family 
 of Stephanus seem all to have been adults, when they 
 were baptized ; for they are said to have devoted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints." Dr. Guise remarks, 
 *' It therefore seems that the family of Stephanus were 
 all adult believers, and so were all baptized on their own 
 personal profession of faith in Christ." 
 
 What was the character of this house ? They were the 
 holy fruits of Paul's ministry. What was their employ- 
 ment ? They exerted themselves in acts of charity, and 
 in expressions of christian sympathy and affection towards 
 the sick and afflicted. But this character and these la- 
 bours of love cannot be predicated of infants. 
 
 An account of the Jailer and household we have in 
 Actsxvi. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. "Then he called for a 
 light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down 
 before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, 
 Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? And they said. Believe 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and 
 thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the 
 Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took 
 them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
 stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 
 And when he had brought them into his house, he set 
 meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all 
 his house." Here we ha^ the act of the jailer. — He 
 brought them out ; he inquired what he must do to be 
 saved — He is directed, " Believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." The 
 meaning of this promise "cannot be (says Dr. Doddridge,) 
 that the eternal salvation of his family could be secured 
 by his faith, but that, if they also themselves believed, 
 they should be entitled to the same spiritual and ever- 
 lasting blessings with himself" Family Expos. We al- 
 so learn from these words, of what characters his house- 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 71 
 
 hold consisted. '• They spake unto bim the word of the 
 Lord, and to all that were in his house.'''* Here we find 
 Paul in the jailer's house, instructing all, or preaching to 
 all the members of the house They a// heard, they all 
 believed, or rejoiced in God, and were all baptized. Be- 
 fore baptism, we tind them all in the house ; after bap- 
 tisin, we find the jailer led them back into his house. It 
 is certain, then, that after sermon they went out of the 
 jailer's house. But for what purpose, unless for baptism ? 
 Had they been sprinkled, then for this purpose there 
 would have been no need of leaving Uie house ; because 
 one cup of water would have sufficed. Some have said, 
 that fear of transgressing the injunction of the raagislrates 
 would have kept them from going out of the prison lor 
 baptism. But facts prove that this fear did not contine 
 them. They came out of the inner prison, they went 
 into the jailer's house, they went out of the house, and 
 they entered it again. All this motion is certain. This fear, 
 then, did not confine them during the night — nor did they 
 on this ground refuse to leave the prison in the morning. 
 But they meant to remain and humble those magistrates, 
 who had infracted the laws by their false imprisonment, 
 and oblige them to come in person and give them an hon- 
 ourable discharge. See ver. 37., 38. It is said that we 
 have no proof that any of the jailer's family believed but 
 himself The apostle says, he rejoiced, believing in God 
 with all his house. If you say that you dined with the 
 legislature, none would doubt but they ate as well as 
 yourself Should you say that you rejoiced with them at 
 the ratification of peace, the idea would be taken, that you 
 were both the subject"^ of joy. And if it were said, you 
 believe with the congress of the United States, that Wash- 
 ington captured Cornwallis, no one from this mode of ex- 
 pression would doubt, but what they believed thi^ intelli- 
 gence, as well as yourself So when it is said that the 
 jailer rejoiced, believing in God with all his house, we 
 are naturally led to conclude, that both he and they 
 were the subjects of faith.* 1 will just add, my brethren 
 
 * The adverb TTMvetxt some say means, domestically, i e. he 
 rej'Mced, they say, not with his family., but in all the vari'-us 
 apartments of his house But in opposition to this strange no- 
 tion, Josephus, Screvillius, Parkhip-^t, apd others, say, this word 
 is equivalent to the G'eek words, o-ui» 5r«rT< tmcu. nuith allthehnuse^ 
 and equiva'ent to the Latin words cum totu dumo cum totaf.imil- 
 ia, v:ifh all the house, and SO fully justify the correctness of our 
 version. 
 
72 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 that the manner in which Pedobaptists explain this text, 
 will turn it into an argument to baptize a pagan woman, and 
 admit her into ihe church. For if, as they say, no indi- 
 vidual of this house believed but the jailer, and that all 
 were baptized on his faith, then it is just as fair to say, 
 that he had an idolatrous wife to baptize, as well as un- 
 believing children and servants. It was as likely that she 
 was a component part of the family, as graceless children. 
 Should a minister take this text, thus interpreted, for his 
 guide, then if blessed to the conversion of an Indian sa- 
 chem, who is the only believer over a numerous family, 
 he must proceed to baptize him and his graceless com- 
 panion, all his children and pagan servants, and incorpo- 
 rate them all into the church. And when he had done, 
 he might say, in this conduct, 1 am borne out by the ex- 
 ample of Paul, for he baptized the jailer's whole house- 
 hold, though in it he was the only believer. Wherever 
 then I find a believing father, connected with an impeni- 
 tent wife and children, I must comprise them all in the 
 baptismal law, and by this rite initiate them all into the 
 kingdom of God. This, says he, is the manner in which 
 the apostle treated the household of an individual believer. 
 The next case to be considered, is that of Lydia. Be- 
 fore the baptism of her household can be juade to bear 
 on the point at issue, four things must be taken for grant- 
 ed. 1. That she at this time, or lately, had an husband. 
 
 2. That she had children, and children then in infancy. 
 
 3. That these children were then with her at Philippi. 
 
 4. That such children were actually baptized. 
 
 But, my brethren, where is the proof that any of these 
 circumstances existed? What evidence is there that she 
 was then, or recently, a married woman ? If she had a 
 companion, why did she, the weaker sex, take the 
 management of their commercial concerns, and for traf- 
 fic engage in a distant and perilous voyage ? Why was he, 
 in the history, cast entirely into the shade, while she ap- 
 pears as the only ruler and director of her domestic and 
 public affairs? If she had children, who were then too 
 young to act for themselves, where is the proof that they 
 were then with her? She belonged to the city of Thya- 
 tira, in Asia Minor. Paul found her at Philippi, a city in 
 Europe, whither she had trav^elled, and taken temporary 
 lodgings, for the purpose of vending purple, which in 
 those days was held in high demand. Now it seems 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 73 
 
 very improbable, that she should, with all her merchan- 
 dise, take her little children, if she had any, on a journey 
 of about 200 miles, performed mostly by sea. 
 
 Lydia's household comprised all the individuals who 
 were first baptized within the boundaries of Europe ; 
 and the jailer's contained the second company of baptized 
 individuals. The last, Paul and Silas left at the prison, 
 when they went back and entered the house of Lydia. 
 Here they saw, and comforted the brethren. But who 
 were these brethren ? — how came they in her house? 
 What evidence have we, that they had, during the ab- 
 sence of Paul and Silas, collected from the neighbour- 
 hood? If there were believers interspersed in the city, it 
 is all conjectural, that they were then assembled in her 
 house. Who, then, the question returns, were those 
 brethren, whom Paul and Silas comforted in the house of 
 Lydia ? Were they not those believing individuals, whom 
 he baptized in her family, when he first landed in Europe ? 
 Dr. Whitby, on this place, says, " And when she, and those 
 of her household, were instructed in the christian faith, 
 in the nature of baptism required by it, she was baptized, 
 and her household." The assembly of divines, in their 
 annotations, and note on this text, say, that Paul and Si- 
 las entered into the house of Lydia, " doubtless to con- 
 firm them in the faith, which they had preached to them. 
 — Lydia, and hers^ hearing o{ their miraculous deliverance. 
 Could not but be comforted, and confirmed in the faith." 
 
 I am, kc. 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 
 ON THE DESIGN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTlS>I. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 It is of the highest moment in this debate, that we 
 should gain correct views of the sacred design of this re* 
 ligious rite. A mistake here, like the adoption of a 
 wrong figure in mathematical calculations, will inevitably 
 lead to a false result. But if we can ascertain from scrip- 
 ture the design or import of this institution, we can then 
 the better determine in what mode, and to what subjects 
 it was administered. 
 
 O 
 
74 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 1. Baptism was designed to form the visible boundary 
 between the world and the kingdom of Christ. Says 
 Christ to Xicodemus, " Verily, verily, 1 say unto thee, 
 except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can- 
 not enter into the kingdom of God." By kingdom of God, 
 I believe, is generally understood the visible kingdom of 
 the Messiah on the earth ; though the kingdom of glory 
 may be included. Now for a regular, visible standing in 
 this kingdom, Christ demanded two prerequisites. First, 
 being born of water, or, which is the same thing, being 
 baptized. And second, being born of the Spirit. All 
 who gave evidence of possessing both of these, had a 
 regular standing in the kingdom. But those who gave no 
 evidence of grace, and were not the subjects of the bap- 
 tismal birth, could not, according to Christ, enter into this 
 kingdom of God. Hence it follows, that being born of 
 "^vater, or baptized, is the external sign which forms the 
 dividing line between the church and the world. 
 
 In passing, we will pause to make two remarks. First, 
 that if the gospel church, and the Jewish church, be one 
 and the same, as some say, why then did Christ declare 
 with reiterated emphasis, that Nicodemus must be born 
 of water, and of the Spirit, in order to his entering into 
 that kingdom in which he had long stood, and was at that 
 very moment one of its distinguished officers ? Can the 
 question be answered, without admitting that these 
 churches were different in their terms of admission ? 
 
 Second, since Christ here makes the spiritual birth, as 
 essential as the water birth, for admittance into this king- 
 dom of God, will it not follow, that baptism alone, on a 
 subject that gives no evidence of being born of the Spirit, 
 cannot give that subject admittance into the kingdom of 
 God ? Does he not lack a qualification, without which 
 Christ hath declared, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
 of God ? But can an infant give charitable evidence of 
 this new birth, without which evidence none are to be re- 
 ceived into the Church? 
 
 2. Baptism is designed to answer a good conscience 
 toward God. Says Peter, " the like figure whereunto 
 even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away 
 of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- 
 science toward God,") I Peter, iii. 21. The apostle 
 here without doubt means, that baptism is the answer of 
 a good coascience toward God in those, who are the sub- 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. i5 
 
 jects of the ordinance. Peter doth not here sa)' that it 
 was the answer of a good conscience in some, but not in 
 others. His definition is general, teaching us, that whea 
 baptism was received with right motives, it was in all 
 such the answer of a good conscience toward God. Novir 
 if this be the design of baptism, must it not be confined to 
 those who are capable of exercismg a good conscience ? 
 Apply it to an idiot, and it would not in him be the an- 
 swer of a good conscience. He does not know whether 
 the ceremony is right or wrong, and of cour^ie his con- 
 science neither approves, nor condemns the action. Let 
 us suppose for a moment that Pedobaptism is true, and thea 
 in the millennium all parents are believers, and all childrea 
 are baptized in infancy ; when this is the case, will not this 
 general definition of baptism cease to be true ? will it any 
 longer be the answer of a good conscience toward God? 
 If any one will say that the answer of a good conscience 
 is found not in the subject of baptism, but in the infant's 
 parent, or sponsor, we will call upon him to exhibit, if he 
 can, one syllable in the word of God, that gives the least 
 proof that the good conscience is to be answered, not ia 
 the subject of baptism, but in his proxy. It is true, that 
 in the baptism of an infant there may be a washing away 
 of the filth of the flesh, but where is the answer of a 
 good conscience toward God ? Can it be found in that 
 tender age, alike ignorant of the existence of God, and of 
 all moral obligation? Beside, if all infants in the millen- 
 nium are baptized, will not every ambassador of Christ 
 then be under the necessity,- when he recites his commis- 
 sion, to change the order of its words somewhat, to make 
 it speak truly? Can he then say, "He that believeth, 
 and is baptized, shall be saved?" or must be not reverse 
 the order, and say, '' he that is baptized^ and believes after' 
 ■asards^ shall be saved." No one can with propriety re- 
 tort and say, that in that day there will be no need of ex- 
 hortations to believe and be baptized, unless he is pre- 
 pared to maintain that all faith, in that happy period, will 
 be miraculously produced in all infants as soon as they 
 are born, 
 
 3. Baptism is designed to be a badge of our public 
 profession. Says Paul, '' For as many of you as have 
 been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." What is 
 meant by putting on Christ? This text will be best ex- 
 plained by quoting parallel passages, " Put off, concern- 
 
76 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 ing the former conversation, the old man, which is cor- 
 rupt, according to the deceitful lust ; and be renewed in 
 the spirit of your mind; and that ye may put on the new 
 man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and 
 true holiness." Eph. iv. 22, 23, 24. Putting on Christ, 
 then, means the same as putting on the new man; and 
 this new man is created by the power of God, in right- 
 eousness and true holiness. Putting on Christ, is the 
 same as having the heart and spirit renewed, and pos- 
 sessing so much of the temper and disposition of Christ, 
 as to resemble him in his spirit and conduct. Mr. Locke 
 explains the phrase, putting on Christ, thus : " God now 
 looking on them, there appears nothing but Christ, they 
 are, as it were, covered all over with him, as a man is 
 with the clothes that he hath put on ; and hence in the 
 next verse it is said, they are all one in Christ Jesus, as 
 if there were but that one person." But if Paul had bap- 
 tized all the unbelieving children, and infants, and ser- 
 vants, of all the professors among the Galatians, who 
 gave no evidence that they, by regeneration, had put on 
 Christ, how could he in this case say, that " as many of 
 you, or all of you, who have been baptized into Christ, 
 Lave put on Christ," when at the same time a great por- 
 tion of those, who had been baptized, had never put on 
 Christ? On the whole, does not the Apostle here teach 
 us, that all who had been baptized into Chiist, had exhib- 
 ited qualitications, of which infants are utterly incapable 
 of manifesting ? They can exhibit no evidence, unless by 
 miracle, that they have put off the old man with his deeds, 
 and put on ihe new man, with air his christian graces. 
 
 4. Baptism was designed to be a symbolical represen- 
 tation of our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection to 
 newness of life. In this way it also becomes a sign of 
 our fellowship and communion with Christ, in his death, 
 and burial, and resurrection from the grave. This opin- 
 ion of the design of baptism has been believed and sup- 
 ported by the most eminent divines in all ages of the 
 church. In proof of this we could produce many testi- 
 monies. Says Dr. J. Goodwin, '' The covenant there sig- 
 nified and represented by baptism, is not simply the blood 
 of Christ as it washeth us from sin, there is a farther rep- 
 resentation therein of Christ's death, burial, and resur- 
 rection, in the baptized's being tirst buried under the wa- 
 ter, and then rising out of it ; and this is not in a bare 
 
LETTERS ON BAPJISM. tl 
 
 conformity unto Christ, but a representation of a commu- 
 nion with Christ in his death and resurrection." See 
 Christ set forth, pp. 82, 83, as quoted by Booth It 
 seems that the apostle Paul was of this same opinion. 
 Hence he says, '"• Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
 baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death. 
 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, 
 that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the 
 glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
 ness of lite.*' Rom. vi. 3, 4. Mc'Knight, in his notes on 
 this place, says, '• Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, 
 to be buried under the water, by John, and to be raised out 
 of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resur- 
 rection. In like manner the baptism of believers is em- 
 blematical of their own death, burial, and resurrection. 
 The burying of Christ and believers, first in the water of 
 baptism, and afterward in the earth, is fitly enough com- 
 pared to the planting of seeds in the earth, because the 
 effect in both cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater 
 perfection. Our baptism, setting these things before us, 
 the daily recollection of it, ought to stir us up to every 
 religious and virtuous action, that we may be meet for 
 the society of God and Christ forever." 
 
 In Col. ii. 12, we read, ^' Buried with him in baptism, 
 wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of 
 the operation of God." This same critic notes on these 
 words: "Christ began his ministry with receiving bap- 
 tism from John, to show in an emblematical manner, that 
 he was to die, and to rise again from the dead. And af- 
 ter his resurrection he commanded his disciples to initiate 
 mankind into his religion, by baptizing them, as he him- 
 self had been baptized, (and that the Dr has told us, was 
 by putting him under water,) to show that although they 
 shall die like him, through the malignity of sin, yet as 
 certainly as he rose from the dead, believers shall be 
 raised at the last day. Wherefore his disciples, having 
 been baptized, as he was, and for the very same purpose, 
 they are titly said to be buried \s'\\.{\ Christ in baptism ; 
 and in baptism to be raised with him." 
 
 If baptism be designed to be an expressive symbol of 
 our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, then immer- 
 sion roust be the mode. Change it into sprinkling, and 
 this design vanishes from the view, and it ceases to be a 
 siga of our fellowship with Christ. Who will pretend, 
 G 2 
 
78 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 that opposite sets of symbols will equally well express the. 
 same ideas ? We might as well say, that the declaration, 
 John is buried in bis grave, may be just as naturally and 
 impressively expressed by this different combination of 
 words, viz. John has had a few particles of earth scatter- 
 ed on his face. 
 
 If we are correct in our views of the import of bap- 
 tism, then its application is fixed to believers. Apply it 
 to a new born babe, is it then an outward sign, that the 
 infant is the subject of spiritual death, that his old man is 
 buried, that he has been raised to walk in newness of life, 
 that he has repented and believed, that he has put on 
 Christ, and is ingrafted into his mystic body, and that 
 "with him he holds a spiritual and sensible communion and 
 fellowship ? I know that some say that baptism when ap- 
 plied to adults is a sign of inward purity, but when applied 
 to an infant, it is a sign that it is polluted, and needs cleans- 
 ing. What evidence have we, my brethren, that bap- 
 tism is designed to signify one thing, when applied to one 
 person, but a different thing when applied to a different 
 individual ? Do the scriptures teach us that it is in some 
 the sign of inward purity, but in others the sign of inward 
 pollution, and the need of renovation ? 
 
 I am, kc. 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 THE DESIGN OF CIRCUMCISION CONSIDERED, AND SHOWN TO 
 BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 We are sensible that much has been said and written 
 respecting the covenant of grace, and the covenant of 
 circumcision. Some have maintained their identity ; 
 others, their individuality. For the present, we shall 
 pass this debate, because even should we admit the one- 
 ness of these two covenants, we should not be obliged to 
 adopt infant baptism as the legitimate consequence of 
 this admission. For if circumcision and baptism be dif- 
 ferent in their nature and design, then there is no con- 
 clusive reasoning from the former to the latter. 
 
 The reasoning, on the covenant of circumcision, if we 
 rightly apprehend, is this : This coYenant is spiritual and 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 79 
 
 CFerlasting. In it God promised to make Abraham the 
 spiritual father of a spiritual seed, among his natural de- 
 scendants, and that circumcision was a pledge from God 
 that he would faithfully execute this promise ; that in 
 this promise all successive believing parents became in- 
 terested, and that circumcision was performed on their 
 children as the renewed pledge that God would be faith- 
 ful to them respectively, in rearing up a spiritual seed in 
 their posterity. This same promise is made, they say, 
 to christian parents and to their seed, and therefore bap- 
 tism, the changed seal of this covenant, must be adminis- 
 tered to their children, as a continued pledge from God 
 that he will keep his word and make them the spiritual 
 parents of a spiritual seed. 
 
 Now this process of argument takes for granted two 
 things which require proof, and which are by no means 
 conceded: viz. 1. That circumcision was a sacred pledge 
 from God, that he would rear up to each believing parent 
 a spiritual 'seed among his posterity ; and 2. That bap- 
 tism is a substituted pledge for the same things. If both 
 these positions are on examination found to be incorrect, 
 then all arguments drawn from them must be equally in- 
 correct and inconclusive. Or, in other words, if circum- 
 cision were not intended to be a divine pledge to parents, 
 that they should become spiritual fathers to a spiritual 
 offspring, and if baptism be not its substitute, but is dif- 
 ferent in its nature and design, then the supposed simi- 
 larity between the two rites vanishes; and all arguments 
 in favour of infant baptism, resting ou this supposed 
 similarity, fall to the ground. 
 
 1 do not deny but God has made many gracious prom- 
 ises to believing parents, respecting their seed. But I 
 believe circumcision was not designed as a pledge from 
 him that he would fulfil them. For if it were to be so 
 viewed in relation to one parent, without doubt it must 
 be so viewed in relation to all parents. Hence, upon this 
 plan, Ishraael, when he became a parent would have a right 
 to consider his circumcision as a pledge from God, that 
 he had entered into the same covenant with him, that he 
 had made with his father, and that he, on given con- 
 ditions, was to become a spiritual father of a numerous 
 spiritual seed, and that God would collect a church out of 
 his descendants. But you see, my brethren, that all this 
 is directly io opposition to the word of God. It is there 
 
80 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 said, to the exclusion of Ishmael, " But my covenant will 
 1 establish with Isaac.'''' It is true that he was blessed, 
 and was to be multiplied exceedingly, and to become a 
 great nation ; but these blessings were not conferred on 
 him because God had made with him a covenant similar 
 to that with Abraham. Did circumcision seal to the sons 
 of Abraham, by Keturah, that they too should become 
 spiritual fathers, and that the covenant of grace should 
 descend in their line? Had Esau a right to view his cir- 
 cumcision as a pledge from God, that he would take out 
 of his natural posterity a holy seed, a peculiar people ? 
 If this be true, why was not Esau's standing as good as 
 Jacob's? Upon this plan both were in the same covenant, 
 both had the same promises, and both had the same 
 pledge of their fulfilment. But what saith the scriptures 
 on this point? ^^ Neither because they are the seed of 
 Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed 
 be called — The children of the promise are counted for 
 the seed. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau 
 have I hated." Rom. ix. 7, 13. 
 
 When this rite was performed upon the children of 
 Ishmael, of Esau, of the sons of Keturah, and on the chil- 
 dren of heathen proselytes, was it to these parents re- 
 spectively a sacred pledge from God, that he had es- 
 tablished the covenant of circumcision with them, and 
 that he would on certain conditions fulfil to them, and to 
 iheir children, its promises? If this be true, then each of 
 these individuals was as truly in this covenant, as was 
 Abraham ; and when they like him believed in Christ, 
 then they might plead the covenant promise, that God 
 would make them, respeciively, exceedingly fruitful; 
 that they should become the renowned ancestors of na- 
 tions and kings; that they in their turn should become 
 Abrahams, and be the spiritual fathers of all born into the 
 kingdom after them; the inheritors of the promised land, 
 and the heirs of the world. For all these blessings, and 
 more, were promised to Abraham, and if they stood ex- 
 actly in the same covenant with him, then certainly they 
 would become heirs to the same promised blessings. 
 Now if circumcision did seal covenant blessings to these 
 individuals, why then were they so often excluded the 
 covenant? It is said, "• in Isaac," not in Ishmael, *'iQ 
 Jacob," Dot in Esau, '^ will I establish my covenant. The 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 81 
 
 son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of 
 the free woman." 
 
 Nor was circumcision, when applied to the seed of be- 
 lievers after Abraham's time, a pledge from God that he 
 would fulfil to them respectively and in succession the 
 same promises, which he had made to Abraham in the 17th 
 chapter of Genesis ; because, as before, on this plan each 
 believing parent could, while standing in the place of 
 Abraham, claim by promise great earthly prosperity, a 
 large landed estate, a numerous offspring, the honour of 
 being the parent of kings and nations, the heir of the 
 world, and father of the church. The truth is, as Dr. 
 Emmons hath well observed, " there is no evidence, in 
 the New-Testament, that believers are now in the cove- 
 nant of circumcision ; but clear evidence to the contrary. 
 For, they are neither under obligation to perform the 
 duties of that covenant, nor entitled to any of its peculiar 
 blessings. The bond of that covenant does not lie upon 
 them ; for they are not required to circumcise either 
 themselves or their families. And it is equally evident, 
 that they are not entitled to any of the peculiar blessings of 
 that covenant. In that covenant, God promised to give 
 Abraham a numerous posterity ; but he makes no such 
 promise to believers under the gospel. In that covenant, 
 God promised, that Abraham's seed should possess the 
 land of Canaan ; but he makes no such promise to be- 
 lievers under the gospel. In that covenant, God prom- 
 ised, that Abraham's seed should enjoy great temporal 
 prosperity ; but he makes no such promise to believers 
 under the gospel. In that covenant, God promised, that 
 the Messiah should descend from his family; but that 
 promise was fully accomplished at the incarnation of 
 Christ." 
 
 But it is time to express positively our belief, respect- 
 ing the design of circumcision. — 1st. It was designed to 
 prefigure the necessity of regeneration, — Rom. ii. 28,29. 
 " For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither 
 is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh r But he 
 is a Jew which is one inwardly : and circumcision is that 
 of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose 
 praise is not of men, but of God." Gal. vi. 15. " For in 
 Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor 
 uncircumcision, but a new creature." Col ii. 11. '*• In 
 whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made 
 
82 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the 
 flesh by the circumcision of Christ." This rite, when ap- 
 plied to infants, was designed to show the want of a new 
 heart, not the actual possession of it. 
 
 2. Circumcision was a seal from God of the righteous- 
 ness of Abraham's faith, which he had previous to his re- 
 ceiving that rite. Or, in other words, circumcision was 
 to be, in all its repetitions, a pledge from God, that all who 
 believed in Christ should have this their faith imputed to 
 them for righteousness, in lieu of perfect obedience. 
 Circumcision spoke this gospel truth, whether put upon 
 Isaac or Ishmael, Jews or Gentiles. In all its exhibitions, 
 it held up the gracious encouragement, that those who 
 believed in Christ, of whatever nation, should be counted 
 righteous persons, and be delivered from the curse of the 
 law. 
 
 That this view of the design of circumcision is correct, 
 is confirmed by what is said in the fourth chapter of Ro- 
 mans. In this chapter the apostle treats of the blessed- 
 ness of those whose faith is imputed to them for righteous- 
 ness without the deeds of the law. Says he, verse 3d, 
 "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for 
 righteousness." Ver. 6 — 12, '' Even as David also describ- 
 eth the blessedness of the man unto whom the Lord im- 
 puteth righteousness without works. Saying, blessed are 
 they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are 
 covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not 
 impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the cir- 
 cumcision only ; or upon the uncircumcision also ? For 
 we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous- 
 ness. How was it then reckoned ? When he was in cir- 
 cumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
 but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
 had, yet being uncircumcised ; that he might be the fath- 
 er of all them that believe, though they be not circum- 
 cised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto them 
 also ; and the father of circumcision to them, who are not 
 of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps 
 of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had, being 
 uncircumcised." Here we are taught that the blessed- 
 ness of having faith imputed for righteousness came upon 
 Abraham before he was circumcised, and that it was thus 
 imputed before this rite for several reasons. And 1st, 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM* 83 
 
 That this righteousness of faith might be sealed by 
 circnmcision ; 2nd, That he might become the father 
 of all them that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles ; that 
 righteousness might be imputed to them also. In the last 
 part of this chapter we learn, that an account of this im- 
 putation and sealing of the righteousness of faith was not 
 written for Abraham's private interest only, but for the 
 benefit of his spiritual children. Verses 23,24, "Now 
 it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed 
 to him. But for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if 
 we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the 
 dead." Here we learn that circumcision sealed the great 
 gospel truth, that faith in the promised seed, the Messiah, 
 should be counted for righteousness; and that this seal 
 of the righteousness of faith was exhibited for the design 
 to instruct and comfort all succeeding believers, to the 
 coming of Christ. it was a seal of the general gospel 
 truth, that faith in Christ should be imputed for righteous- 
 ness. It spoke this gracious language to Jew and to 
 Gentile. 
 
 From this view of the design of circumcision, let us 
 turn to baptism, and see if this rite be designed for the 
 same thing. If it be a seal of the same truth, a sign of 
 the same thing, and the same pre-requisite for admission 
 into the church, then there may be some safety in reason- 
 ing from one to the other. 
 
 Where then is the passage in the whole New-Testa- 
 ment that teaches us, or that will lead us fairly to con- 
 clude that baptism is the seal of the righteousness of fiiith? 
 It is no where called a seal of the covenant, or of the 
 righteousness of faith, or a sign of faith, or token to recog- 
 nize, as Pedobaptists say, the constituted relation between 
 believing parents and their children. No intimation is 
 given that it was intended as a pledge from God that he 
 would fulfil to professing parents the same promises 
 which he made to Abraham. 
 
 Let us now more briefly show the difference between 
 these two rites. Circumcision was a mark of national 
 distinction ; but baptism is a mark to distinguish individual 
 saints from sinners. Circumcision was generall)' a sign of 
 the want of a new heart ; but baptism is an outward sign 
 of that, which already exists. Circumcision looked for- 
 ward to something to come ; but baptism looks hack to 
 something already come. Circumcision was typical^ bap- 
 
84 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 tism commemorative. Circumcision was a seal of the right- 
 eousness offaith^ but baptism is no such seal. Circumcis- 
 ion was expressly confined to males, but baptism is to be 
 applied to believers of both sexes. Circumcision did not 
 demand faith and repentance as prerequisites for its re- 
 ception ; but the law of baptism demands of all faith as a 
 qualification for its due reception. Circumcision might 
 be administered by any private head of a family ; but bap- 
 tism is to be administered only by regular ministers of 
 Christ. Baptism is an outward sign of our communion 
 and fellowship with Christ ; but circumcision was gene- 
 rally an outward sign that the subject of it was not yet pre- 
 pared for this union and fellowship with Christ. By com- 
 paring these two rites, it is easy to see that they were 
 different in nature, design and practical purposes. This 
 difi*erence between the two ceremonies destroys the force 
 of the whole system of analogical reasoning from one to 
 the other. 
 
 1 am, &(?. 
 
 LETTER XVL 
 
 MORE SCRIPTURE PASSAGES CONSIDERED. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 Having attended to the history of the church, as record- 
 ed in Acts, I will now proceed to some other passages in 
 the word of God, which are viewed as favouring Pedo- 
 baptism. 
 
 The first that 1 shall mention, is the text in Jer. xxx. 20. 
 " Their children also shall be as aforetime." Great re- 
 liance has been made on these words, as supporting Pedo- 
 baptism. But let any one consult the context, and he 
 will be satisfied that it contains a prediction of the resto- 
 ration of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon. See 
 ▼erse 18. "Thus saith the Lord, behold I will bring 
 again the captivity of Jacob's tents — and the city shall 
 be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall re- 
 main," &c. Says Pool, " This verse manifestly is a 
 promise of the rebuilding of the city, and was fulfilled in 
 the times of Ezra." In commenting on the 20th verse, he re- 
 marks, " Their posterity also shall be as happy, and in as 
 much repute as they were before this carrying into Baby- 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 85 
 
 Ion." This verse contains a promise long since fulfilled^ 
 and has no reference to infant baptism. 
 
 The next thai 1 shall mention, is the famed text, found 
 in Mark x. 14. "Suffer the little children to come unto 
 me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 
 God.*' Mr. Scott and others grant that these children 
 had not been admitted to baptism. They came there un- 
 baptized. They were not brought to receive that cere- 
 mony, but to obtain his blessing. When Christ had pray- 
 ed and blessed them, they went away, as they came, un- 
 baptized. All these circumstances, one would think, 
 were rather forbidding to Pedobaptism. They were not 
 baptized before they were brought ; they were not 
 brought for this purpose ; they did not receive it while 
 present ; and without it they retired. It is difficult to see 
 how all these negatives^ respecting infant baptism, can be 
 framed into an argument to enforce that practice. 
 
 I know it is said that their membership in the kingdona 
 of heaven, is the ground on which this rite is supported. 
 Here a question arises, what is meant by the kingdom of 
 heaven ? If it here mean the future world of glory, as is 
 most likely, then another question arises, what constitut- 
 ed these children heirs of that kingdom ? Was it the faith 
 of their parents? Then it will follow, that all infants of 
 unbelieving parents, when they die, are lost forever ! be- 
 cause their parents were destitute of that faith, whick 
 would have made their children heirs of life. But if they 
 were constituted heirs of the kingdom of heaven, by cir- 
 cumstances common to all infants, then the argument 
 drawn from this text becomes too sweeping ; it will en- 
 force the baptism of all infants, whether their parents are 
 christians or infidels. 
 
 In our remarks thus far on this text, we have employ- 
 ed what logicians would call " argumentum ad hominem,'^ 
 or have taken our opponents on their own ground. They 
 consider the word such as a term, which in this place ex- 
 presses identit}'^, but not comparison. This opinion of 
 theirs is by no means certain. The question is, did Christ 
 mean to say, the kingdom of heaven is made up in 
 part of these identical children ? Or of those adult indi- 
 viduals who were like these little children, not in age 
 and size, but in a bumble and docile spirit ? If the word 
 such here expresses conipari«on. -^nJ n^^t identity, thea 
 the passage affords no bupport to Fedobaptism. In the 
 H 
 
S6 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 context, and other places, Christ used the words such, as^ 
 like^ &c. in relation to children, not as terms of identity, 
 but to express that resemblance, which in several points 
 exists between christians and little children. " And Jesus 
 called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of 
 them, and said, verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye 
 be converted and become as little children, ye shall not 
 enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, there- 
 fore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same 
 is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." No one sup- 
 poses that Christ here meant to teach that we must shrink 
 into the size and age of little children, but that we must 
 in certain points resemble them in the temper of our 
 heart. " Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of 
 God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." Does 
 not Christ here mean to say, that adults must receive the 
 kingdom of God in that humble, meek, and depending 
 temper, which will make them appear like or as little 
 children? So when he said, " Of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven," he used the word such^ we believe, as a term of 
 comparison. This some deny, and say, that the words of 
 such^ are equivalent to the words of the same. According 
 to this, let us see how the text will read. " Suffer the 
 little children to come unto me, and forbid them not," for 
 these same little children " are the kingdom of heaven." 
 Did he then mean to say, that these little children con- 
 stituted the kingdom of heaven ? From the absurdity 
 which results from saying the word such expresses identi- 
 ty, we conclude that it must express resemblance. A com- 
 parison is instituted. But between whom ? between two 
 sets of children, or between children and adults? Let the 
 comparison be between children and adults, and the 
 sense is natural. " Suffer the little children to come un- 
 to me, and forbid them not, for of such, [as resemble 
 them] is the kingdom of heaven. You will not, my breth- 
 ren, suppose that by these remarks, I mean to argue 
 against the salvation of infants. Yea, to them I view this 
 very passage as peculiarly auspicious. Christ took them 
 up in his arms, and blessed them, and said, of such, or of 
 those who are like them, is the kingdom of heaven Mr. 
 Scott, and others, tell us that these children had been cir- 
 cumcised, and this rite was not then abolished, and there- 
 fore their baptism was unnecessary and improper. Why 
 theft was not baptism unaecessary and improper for any 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 87 
 
 0f the immediate disciples of our Lord ? They too had 
 been circumcised. 
 
 The next passage on which I shall remark is found in 
 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13, 14. " if any brother hath a wife that 
 believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let 
 him not put her away. And the woman that hath an hus- 
 band, that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell 
 with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctitied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctified by the husband : else were your children un- 
 clean, but now are they holy." It appears from a care- 
 ful inspection of this chapter, that in Corinth some doubt- 
 ed the propriety of entering or continuing in the mar- 
 riage state, under any circumstances. They wrote to 
 Paul, desiring him to solve their scruples* In reply, he 
 took up several cases, told the believer not to 
 leave his or her unbelieving companion, and thc^n gave 
 his reason for this direction: " For the unbelieving hus- 
 band i- sanctitied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
 sanctitied by the husband." Here we are told that liie 
 unbelieving husband is sanctified by or to the wife. To 
 sanctify, is to make holy. The unbelieving husband then 
 is made holy. This holiness cannot mean internal purity, 
 because he was an unbeliever. His holiness must be 
 either a ceremonial, or a civil holiness. 
 
 The same kind of holiness, possessed by the father, is 
 without doubt conveyed to his children. If then both the 
 unbelieving parent and his dUildren possess the same cere- 
 monial holiness, why not admit both to the same rite ? Both 
 have the same qualifications. If the holiness of the chil- 
 dren be a good argument, as Pedobaptists say, why they 
 should be baptized, why is it not an equally good argu- 
 ment to enforce the baptism of the unbelieving husband 
 or unbelieving wife ? Here is a child and his mother, both 
 possessing the same kind and the same degree of holiness. 
 Will you admit the child into the visible church because 
 he is sanctified and made holy, while you repel the moth- 
 er, though she be equally holy ? Should she ask you to 
 tell her, how you proved that her holiness was no reason 
 why she should be admitted to the ordinances of the 
 church, while you maintained that the holiness of her 
 chijd was the sole reason, why he was received, would 
 you not find it somewhat difficult to make a satisfactory 
 reply ? Could you invalidate the claims of the mother, 
 
88 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 without equally invalidating the claims of the child ? But 
 if the holiness of the unbelieving" partner be civil, as I be- 
 lieve, or that which sanctifies the marriage bond, the 
 "Same kind must be imparted to the children, and then this 
 text furnishes no ground for Pedobaptism. 
 
 Before we can accede to the exposition usually given to 
 this text, we wish to have the following objections remov- 
 ed. 
 
 1. The usual manner of construing the< passage places 
 the right of infants to baptism on the legality of marriage. 
 It is, if 1 mistake not, agreed that the sanctity imparted to 
 the unbeliever, is that something which consecrated the 
 marriage bond. Now the apostle has told us that with- 
 out this sanctification of the matrimonial state, their chil- 
 dren would hav^ been unclean; "else were your chil- 
 dren unclean," i. e. as some say, not fit for baptism. But 
 restore this sanctity, and then their children would have 
 been clean, i. e. fit for baptism. Is not this placing their 
 right to this ordinance on the legality of marriage ? On this 
 plan, if David and Bethsheba were now living, their first 
 child could not be admitted to this rite, notwithstanding 
 all the faith and penitence of his father, because it was 
 begotten out of wedlock. 
 
 in passing, I will just observe, that I do not suppose the 
 sanctity which the apostle here mentions came into exist- 
 ence after one of the parties became a believer ; but it 
 was commensurate with their marriage bond. To say 
 that it began at the conversiorf^f one of the parties, would 
 be nullifying, at one sweeping stroke, every marriage 
 contract throughout the pagan world.* 
 
 2. This exposition perpetuates that ceremonial un- 
 cleanness, which God has removed. " Else were your 
 children unclean." That is, say they, possessed of the 
 ceremonial uncleanness, which existed between the Jews 
 and Gentiles, and which render them unfit for the congre- 
 gation of Israel. But this kind of uncleanness before this, 
 was done away by the express command of God. See 
 Acts X. 15. " What God hath cleansed, that call not thou 
 common." This was said in immediate reference to the 
 Gentiles, and with a design to convince Peter that he 
 might go and preach to Cornelius, a Gentile, because 
 that ceremonial uncleanness, which had long subsisted 
 
 • The verb in the original is in the perfect passive time. The 
 unbelieving husband has been made holy by the wife. 
 
XETIERS ON BAPTISM. 89 
 
 between them and the Jews was abolished. But do not 
 those perpetuate this distinction, who maintain that the 
 children of non-professors are unclean like the ancient 
 Pagans, in relation to the Jews? 
 
 3. This exposition involves the absurdity that the 
 brethren at Corinth knew that their children wen' holy, 
 and had baptized them as such, when at the same time 
 they were ignorant of the existence of- the very catise 
 which made them holy. The unbelieving husband is 
 sanctified by or to the wife, else, or if it were not so, 
 your children would be unclean, but now are they holy. 
 Here we are taught, my brethren, that the sanctity of 
 the marriage bond was the very cause of the holiness of 
 their children. But of this sanctifying cause they were 
 wholly ignorant. Yea, they strongly feared that their 
 marriage union was unholy. Yet it is said that those very 
 parents had gotten their children baptized as holy. But 
 what could lead them to believe their children were ho- 
 ly, and to treat them as such, when at the same time they 
 were wholly ignorant of the very and only cause of their 
 holiness, viz. the holiness of their marriage covenant ? 
 
 Finally, the interpretation usually put on this text 
 makes Paul reason at a singular rale. It makes him as- 
 sign the baptism of infants as an argument to prove the 
 sanctity of the married state, between a believer and an 
 unbeliever. It represents him as virtually saying to those 
 doubting christians at Corinth, '^ You, my brethren, might 
 have known that your scruples, respecting cohabiting 
 with your unbelieving partners, were altogether ground- 
 less, if you had only reflected how I baptized your chiU 
 dren, when with you, and considered them as holy mem- 
 bers of the church, which I never should have done, had 
 not your continuance in marriage been proper. By bap- 
 tizing your children, I furnished you with a sure argument 
 tha: your marriage was lawful." 
 
 To conclude, my brethren, we observe, if the holiness 
 here mean federal holiness, the text proves too much ; 
 and if it mean civil, it proves nothing to the point. Take 
 it as you please, it gives no aid to Pedobaptism. 
 
 Col. ii. 11. ^Mn whom also ye are circumcised with 
 the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the 
 body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of 
 Christ." This text is cited as proof that baptism is sub- 
 stituted for circumcision. But this circumcision is said to 
 H 2 
 
90 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 be made without hands, but baptism is made with the hands: 
 This circumcision consisted in putting off the body of the 
 sins of the flesh, but not in washing away the tilth of the 
 flesh by water baptism. It is said to be made by Christ, 
 but baptism is performed by man. Hence we conclude, 
 that the circumcision mentioned in the last part of this 
 Terse is wholly spiritual, and therefore not synonymous 
 with baptism. 
 
 If baptism was to occupy the place of circumcision, 
 why have we not somewhere an account of this substitu- 
 tion ? Circumstances often existed, which seemed impe- 
 riously to demand an explicit avowal of this change of 
 seals. Why was not this substitution recognized by the 
 first council, who convened for the express purpose of 
 settling the question, whether those very individuals, 
 who had been baptized, ought not also to be circumcised ? 
 If these early christians had understood this substitu- 
 tion, why then did such a question ever arise ? and why 
 did not these Apostles put down this question by this 
 broad declaration ? — " These brethren at Antioch have all 
 been baptized, and received the milder seal, which you 
 all know Christ appointed in lieu of circumcision, why 
 then clamour any longer about that bloody and vacated 
 rite." Read the summary of the result of this council, in 
 Acts xxi. 25. " As touching the Gentiles, which believe, 
 we have written and concluded that they observe no 
 such thing ;" i. e. no such thing as circumcision. What, 
 HO such thing ? When if they were Pedobaptists, they 
 believed that baptism was the same in nature, same in 
 design, same in import, the same seal of the same cove- 
 nant, the same door into the same church, and to be ap- 
 plied to the same subjects ? Yet, strange to say, these 
 Tery churches are directed to observe no such thing as 
 circumcision. 
 
 The Jews were informed that Paul denied circum- 
 eision to children. Why did he not exonerate himself, by 
 saying, true, I iXb not apply the bloody rite, but you know 
 that l sprinkle them as a substitute. When he entered 
 Jerusalem, they said to him, '•'' Thou seesl, brother, how 
 many thousands of the Jews there are which believe, and 
 they are all zealous of the law : and they are informed 
 «f thee, that thou teachest all the Jews that are among 
 the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not 
 
fh circumcise their children ; neither to walk after the 
 eustoms." Acts xxi. 20, 21. 
 
 On these words, Dr. Baldwin justly remarks, in his 
 Letters to Dr. Worcester, ^'* Two things are plain from 
 the above passage. 1. That the Jewish believers still 
 continued to circumcise their male children, and there- 
 fore not at all likely that they baptized them in the room 
 of circumcision. Had they not been still in the practice 
 of circumcision, they certainly would not have blamed 
 the apostle for neglecting it. 2. Notwithstanding their 
 zeal for the continuance of circumcision among such Jews 
 as embraced Christianity, and had been baptized, they 
 totally disapproved of its being urged upon the Gentile 
 churches. 
 
 Had the Apostle, Sir, understood the subject precisely 
 in the same light as you do, it would have been the easi- 
 est thing in the world for him to have satisfied his breth- 
 ren entirely, unless they were as obstinate as the Bap- 
 tists. Could he, consistently with truth, have availed 
 himself of the second part of your conclusion, it would 
 have done the work at once. What could they have 
 said, had he boldly insisted, with you, that '' the infant 
 »eed of the church are now as proper subjects for the 
 sea/of the covenant, in the form of baptism, as anciently 
 they were for the same seal in the form of circumcision?" 
 They must have either denied his statement, or been en- 
 tirely silenced by it. 
 
 And is It not unaccountable, that this happy thought 
 should have wholly escaped the Apostle ? Yes, Sir, per- 
 fectly unaccountable, that neither at Antioch^ nor before 
 the council^ nor at this time when the subject was again 
 revived, a solution so perfectly natural and easy, as that 
 proposed by you, should not in the 4vhole course of the 
 debate have occurred to his recollection ? 1 am persuad- 
 *ed, Sir, had you been on the spot with your present 
 views, they would have felt the force of your eloqueirtse, 
 if you had not convinced them." Baldwin^s Letters, pp. 
 136, 137. 
 
 Another passage which has been much employed in 
 this debate, is found in Rom. ix. 16. 24. ^^ For if the first 
 fruit be holy, the lump is also holy ; and if the root be 
 holy, so are the branches." 
 
 On these words we will propose some questions: 1, 
 Whai 13 meant by tiist fruits ? Probably, the Apostles, and 
 
92 LETTERS ON BAPiiSM. 
 
 first converts to Christianity. 2. What kind of holiness 
 did this first fruit possess ? Internal and spiritual ; but not 
 ceremonial. 3. What is naeant by the lump? The whole 
 mass, or nation, of the broken otf, or rejected Jews. 4. 
 What did the Apostle mean, when he said, the lump also? 
 The reader wiil observe, that the words is and holy^ are 
 not in the original, but are supplied by the translators. 
 Various versions, and the best critics, teach us, that the 
 supplied verb i>, should be in the future tense, shall be ; 
 the lump shall be also holy. The Apostle certainly did not 
 mean to say, that this lump of rejected Jews was then 
 possessed of internal holine§s ; nor did he, as we believe, 
 mean to say, that they wer^ then ceremonially holy ; 
 because they were then under the anathema, or curse 
 of God. The g-athering of the first fruit, or first Jewish 
 converts, Paul viewed as a divine intimation, that the 
 whole lump of broken off Jews would be made intrinsi- 
 eally holy al their restoration, or millennial harvest. Of 
 this opinion was the pious Mr. Baxter ; says he, "• If God 
 hath accf^pted those Jews which are believers, who are 
 to the whole nation but as the first fruits to the lump, he 
 will accordingly accept the nation, when they come to 
 Chi ist, as we have done , and as he accepted Abraham 
 and their believing ancestors, he will also accept them. 
 And if those Apostles be honoured of God as holy, who 
 from them are sent with the gospel into the world, so 
 shall the broken branches be when they are restored.'* 
 See his Paraphrase on the New Testament. 
 
 You see, my brethren, that Paul is here reasoning about 
 a few pious Jews, called first fruits, and the whole com- 
 muniiy of rejected Israelites. ^What can you see in all 
 thii^, which has any relation to infant baptisn» ? If the 
 early conversion of these few individuals, was an earnest 
 that the whole excommunicated body were in due time 
 to be made holy, will it hence follow, that each believing 
 Gentile parent becomes a first fruit, or root, in relation to 
 his natural seed, and that they are a holy lump, or holy 
 branches.^ This would be saying more of the children of 
 professors, than was €aid of the rejected Jews. Of them 
 it was predicted, that they should be holy at their restora- 
 tion. If the conversion of a few Jews to the christian 
 faKh, be viewed by Paul as a merciful intimation that God 
 wiil convert the whole scattered tribes, are we from this 
 to infer that each believing parent becomes a holy root, 
 
BETTERS ON BAPTISE. ^ 
 
 ii spiritual father, and all his household the holy lump, ot 
 holy branches in the church ? Such an inference is not 
 contained in the premises, and is unnatural and incon- 
 clusive. It is certainly foreign from the subject which; 
 Paul was discussing. 
 
 It is said, that as the Gentile converts were insertea 
 into the good olive tree, hence it must follow, that the 
 privileges in relation to households, which belonged 
 to the rejected branches, must also belong to those who 
 were newly ingrafted. This mode of reasoning goes on 
 the ground that the olive tree symbolizes the church as 
 formed by the covenant of circumcision. This, however, 
 is not granted.* But for a moment let it be granted ihat 
 the olive tree is a type of the church as it existed frona 
 Abraham to Christ, and the above argument will ruin it- 
 self by proving too much. Says Mr. innes on this text, 
 *' We must not only bring in all the children of converted 
 Gentiles, but all their slaves ; and we must not only admit 
 the children to baptism, but, on the same principle, admit 
 them to the Lord's table. Few, however, would think of 
 carrying the argument this length, though there appears 
 not a doubt, that this passage furnishes as fair an argu- 
 ment for these practices, as it does for infant baptism. 
 Again is it alleged, that if you abridge the privileges of 
 Christians by depriving their oflspring of the seal of the 
 covenant, you will thus throw a stumbling block in the 
 way of the Tews ? I reply, will you not throw a similar 
 stiunb'liig block in their way, by not admitting these 
 cbiidrea to the Lord's supper, seeing the event it com- 
 memorate is so directly compared to the passover of 
 old, of which all the members of the Jewish family were 
 
 • Says Dr. Austin, *' The reinsertion of these broken off 
 branches into the good olive tree, (alluding' to the restoration of 
 the Jews,) can mean no less than their occupying the place, which 
 they held, before they were broken off. Occupying this place, 
 they necessarilv partake of the fatness of the olive tree. This is 
 the blessing, the entire blessing secured in the promise. But the 
 land of Canaan is expressly a part of this blessing. Their being 
 brought back then under the covenant, mu^t necessarily restore 
 them to the enjoyment of this land" Viev) of the Economy of the 
 Church of God. chap xlv. p. 305. 
 
 If this reasoning be correct, it follows that Gentile believers can- 
 not be considered as ingrafted into the olive tree, because they do 
 not inherit the land of Canaan, which is expressly a part of the bless- 
 ing, secured in the promise, and represented by the fatness of the 
 olive. Hudson's Sermon on Chr. Bap. p. 29, 3d Edit. 
 
94 LETTERS ON BAPTISJVf. 
 
 allowed to participate ? The whole argument proceeds 
 on the fallacious supposition, that the Apostle cannot con- 
 trast the character and conduct of adult Jews, who are 
 moral agents, with that of Gentiles of the same descrip- 
 tion, without mciuding the infants of both, who are not 
 moral agents. But, 1 conceive, on this passage we may 
 even go a little farther, and say, not only is there no al- 
 kision to children here, but the reasoning is such, that 
 children cannot be included. The apostle is only speak- 
 ing of those who are capable of believing, or being guilty 
 of unbelief Hence, if we attend to his orgument, so far 
 is it from countenancing infant baptism, that it may, per- 
 haps, fairly be viewed as leading to the very opposite con- 
 clusion. Thus, the branches broken off, represented 
 those Jews separated on account of the personal guilt of 
 unbelief; the branches grafted in, denoted those Gentiles 
 who believed, as they stood by faith. Would it not be a 
 plain inference from this figurative language, that they 
 only of the Gentiles became partakers of the root who 
 were capable of faith? in other words, those who profess- 
 ed faith were alone considered as the spiritual seed ot 
 Abraham." [Conversations, pp. 173, 179 
 
 1 am, brethren, yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE PRACTICAL TENDENCY OP PEDOBAf- 
 TISM STATED. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 We beg leave to submit for your consideration, some 
 remark.s which we have to make ou the natural tendency 
 of the theory we oppose. 
 
 And 1st. We object to Pedobaptism, because it mili- 
 tates against the grand object of the new dispensation, 
 namely, to advance the gospel church to a higher state 
 of purity, than what obtained in the Jewish church. 
 
 There are several passages, which teach us that the 
 kingdom of God under the present economy, is to be ele- 
 vated in purity and spirituality much above the ancient 
 congregation of Israel. 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 95 
 
 Matt. iii. 10. " And now also ihe axe is laid unto the 
 root of the trees : therefore every tree which bringeth not 
 forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the lire.*' 
 Verse 12, '• Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thof' 
 oughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the gar- 
 ner." Eph, ii. 15. "To make in himself of twain^ one 
 new man ^ so making peace." Verse 21. " In whom all 
 the hwM'iwg fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy 
 temple in the Lord." Chap. iv. 16. "From whom the 
 whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that 
 which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual 
 working in the measure oi every part, maketh increase of 
 the body, unto the edifying of itself in love." Chap. v. 
 26, 27. " Christ also loved the church, and gave himself 
 for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the wash- 
 ing of water by the word : That he might present it to 
 himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle^ or 
 any &uch thing ; but that it should be holy and without 
 blemish.'''' 1 Pet. ii 5. " Ye also, as lively stones, are 
 built up a spiritual house^ an holy priesthood, to oflfer up 
 spiritual sacrifices., acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 
 
 Now, my brethren, let us grant for a moment that the 
 whole world are all Pedobaptists, then after this, the 
 church will, in all instances, be built, not of living and 
 spiritual stones, but of infants, who are incapable of man- 
 ifesting moral life. Whatever change may pass on these 
 infants after baptism, it must be granted, that for aught 
 we know, they were dead materials and inwardly unholy 
 at the tiiiie they were incorporated into the holy temple 
 of66d. On this plan the builders of Zion frame nothing 
 into her walls but lifeless stojies. Tell me, will you, my 
 brethren, how this continued addition of moral death can 
 preserve and augment her moral life ? How can the 
 continued accession of such a mass of spiritual impurity 
 augment her sanctity ? A missionary under God converte 
 an Hindoo Rajah, he proceeds to baptize all his chil- 
 dren, all his Pagan wives and servants, and builds them 
 all upon Christ, the foundation of Zion. This must 
 be the consistent practice of all those, who take the 
 law of circumcision for their guide, to determine 
 the subjects of baptism. Now would not this mission- 
 ary find the work of self-defence somewhat difficult, if 
 the great Apostle Paul should return, and say to him, 
 Have you, as a wise builder on this foundation, takea 
 heed how you hare buUded ? Have you been careful to 
 
S6 JL^tTieRS ON BAPTIS]^. 
 
 select only the gold and the silver ? Or have you not 
 knowingly built thereon, principally with Aay, tsoooA and 
 stubble ? Does the enlargement of the church, with 
 such unholy materials, tend directly to preserve and ad- 
 vance her internal purity ? Or will not the introduction 
 of such an assemblage of pollution so defile the temple of 
 God, that it will need cleansing, yet so as by fire ? 
 
 2. We object to Pedobaptism, because it infringes that 
 personal freedom of choice, which the gospel vouchsafes 
 to each individual. 
 
 Says Paul, "who art thou, that judgest another man's 
 servant ? to his own master he standeth or falleth." 
 Rom. xiv. 4. " With the heart man believeth unto right- 
 eousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation." Rom. x. 10. Religion is a personal concern, 
 and lies between God and the soul. It must spring from 
 the free exercises of the heart, as excited by the spirit of 
 the Lord. Under the hand of restraint or compulsion it 
 dies away, and its ceremonies, without the heart, become 
 like the sounding brass or the tinkling cymbal. 
 
 Let us proceed, my brethren, to inquire whether the 
 system of Pedobaptism will not detract from the rights of 
 conscience. 
 
 To-day a believing parent gets all his children sprink- 
 led and incorporated into the church. As they advance 
 in years and knowledge, he continues to instruct them, 
 and to call on them to acknowledge the validity of their 
 baptism, and to embrace the creed, and to submit to the 
 practice of the church. But it so happens that these 
 children, while reading for themselves, are led to believe 
 ^hat sprinkling is not the mode, nor infants the subjects of 
 that baptism, which Christ appointed. The parent con- 
 tinues his fruitless labors. He calls in the aid of the 
 church, but nothing avails. These children refuse compli- 
 ance. But still they give good evidence that they arc 
 conscientious. This church has then within her walls 
 several individuals, who refuse to adopt that belief and to 
 obey those laws, which give her visibility. What roust 
 be done ? Will not a strict and consistent adherence to 
 the law of circumcision require their expulsion ? Should 
 they carry their system out, and anathematize these indi- 
 viduals, would they not tax the rights of conscience by 
 the infliction of a punishment, more tremendous than auy 
 Other within the power of the church ? 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. Vt 
 
 Take another case. Suppose that a parent has half a 
 dozen children all under age, and all belong to his house. 
 They are all the subjects of grace, and some of them in 
 opinion are Baptists, and the rest Quakers. Soon after 
 this their parents both are converted, and join a Pedo- 
 baptist church. They are required to bring all their 
 children for baptism and admission. How shall this case 
 be managed ? The children are all minors, all under the 
 control of their parents, and ail residing in the house ; 
 but they have all chosen a different religion. Now, says 
 a Pedobaptist, to guide us in this difficult sase, we must 
 take the law of circumcision. It has never been repeal- 
 ed, and that required the believing parent to apply this 
 rite to all in his house, capable of its reception ; hence, 
 says he, all that we find within the walls of the family, 
 we must comprise in the baptismal law. What would 
 have become of those children, who grew up in the wil- 
 derness, had they refused to be circumcised by Joshua, 
 because they professed to differ from their fathers in their 
 religious opinions? The law speaks with a plainness, 
 that no one can misapprehend. " The uncircumcised 
 man child — shall be cut off from his people, he hath 
 broken my covenant." To dedicate offspring in baptism, 
 is the sacred duty of parents which they owe to the 
 church, and to their God. In this ceremony children, while 
 minors, are to be considered as passive as the infant of 
 eight days old. The scruples therefore of these chil- 
 dren, continues he, are without foundation. Baptism is a 
 duty not on their part, but on the part of their parents. 
 For it they are not responsible. They ought to acqui- 
 esce, and give their parents the privilege of performing 
 that duty, which they owe their Maker. 
 
 If this speech should take effc^ct, then an attempt 
 would be made to compel these children to embrace opin 
 ions, and to engage to submit to practices which they sin- 
 cerely believe to be contrary to the word of God. It is 
 useless to say these consequences never have occurred? 
 The question is not what is usually done in such a case, 
 but what are the legitimate consequences of the Pedo- 
 baptist theory ? 
 
 That Paul did not take the law of circumcision for his 
 guide in applying the rite of baptism, is evident from the 
 fact, that he required a christian believer to dispense 
 with baptism, in relation to his unbelieving wife. The 
 
98 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 law of circumcision demanded the application of that rite 
 to €very member of the household capable of receiving 
 it, on the pain of excision from the people of God. Now 
 if this law be our guide in settling the subjects of bap- 
 tism, then it must irresistibly follow, that it must be ap- 
 plied to all the members of a believer's family, who are 
 capable of receiving that ordinance. All must grant that 
 an unbelieving wife is as capable of receiving it, as a male 
 child. But the Apostle directed a believer at Corinthto 
 retain in his family his unbaptized companion, when if 
 •the law of circumcision had been his guide in this case, 
 he would have required her expulsion. See 1 Cor. vii. 
 14. The directions which he here gave furnish irrefrag- 
 able proof, that he did not reason from the vacated law of 
 circumcision, to determine who were to be baptized, and 
 in what manner to treat the unbaptized. 
 
 Take another case. A believing father brings his son, 
 of 20 years of age, to baptism^ and incorporates him into 
 the church. But his life is bad. His father and the 
 church immediately begin to labour with him to persuade 
 him to repent, to own his baptism, and come to the table 
 of the Lord. But all in vain ; he remains refractory, and 
 is cut off. After you have excluded him, he turns and 
 9a} s to you : Show me the two opposite texts of scrip- 
 ture, which authorized you to take into your church an 
 individual, without requiring faith and repentance ; and 
 then immediately to excommunicate the same individual, 
 for the -want oi faith and repentance ? Why did you say, 
 that I, an unbeliever, ought to be brought into your 
 church, and then say to me, no unbeliever has any right 
 to remain, and therefore I must be turned out again ? 
 
 I am, brethren, yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER XVIIL 
 
 ARGUMENT FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORV. 
 
 Beloved Brethren, 
 
 As 1 have closed the examination of this subject in the light 
 of divine truth, you perhaps now expect me to enter the 
 boundless and maizy field of Ecclesiastical History. But yon 
 may be assured that in this way I shall not severely tax your 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 99 
 
 patience. Respecting myself, I can say that I have gone 
 over this field, and in it taken a pretty wide range. 
 From this source it would be easy to collect favourable 
 arguments enough, to swell this little pamphlet into a 
 ponderous volume. This, however, is unnecessary and 
 inexpedient. 1 shall only very briefly touch on a few 
 points, and then relieve your patience. 
 
 Before we proceed, we will just repeat an observation 
 on the inspired records. 
 
 In all the writings of the New-Testament, we find 
 neither precept nor example for infant baptism. These 
 writings cover a period of nearly one hundred years. 
 During this time, instances of infant baptism, if it then 
 prevailed, must have been quite innumerable ; yet all 
 are passed over in the most mysterious silence. 
 
 It may be objected here, that if the want of precept 
 and example will exclude infants from baptism, then for 
 the same want, consistency requires us to shut females 
 from the table. This old objection rests on the false sup- 
 position, that sexei must be specified in order to enforce 
 a duty, or to give title to church privileges. This 
 ground is not tenable ; if it were, would not females be 
 excused from the duty of faith, love to God, and self-ex- 
 amination ? For where is the command in the 
 New Testament, which enjoins these duties on fe- 
 males ? The fact is, the gospel describes character which 
 entitles to ordinances, and by this we are to be guided. 
 If the specified character of a penitent and believer be 
 found, then the administrator must admit the person to 
 allotted privileges, without stopping to inquire whether it 
 is found in man or woman, because in relation to the ben- 
 efits of the gospel, the distinction of sexes is expressly 
 abolished. "There is neither male nor female, for ye 
 are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. iii. 28. We do not ob- 
 ject to infant baptism merely because infants are not men- 
 tioned in the commission, but because in them we cannot 
 find that character, which we are to require in all the 
 candidates for this ordinance. 
 
 Though the apostolical Fathers of the first century 
 frequently mention the baptism of believers^ yet, like the 
 inspired penmen, they are all silent on infant baptism. 
 
 No mention is made of infant baptism in the second 
 century, unless it be just at its close. 
 
100 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 In the third century we grant that there is clear eVi* 
 dence of infant baptism, and infant communion. In ec- 
 clesiastical history, these two practices may be traced to 
 the same origin, and they are here supported by the same 
 arguments. In proof of this we will cite some author- 
 ities. 
 
 (Jljiillingworth says, " Saint Augustine I am sure held 
 the communicating of infants, as much apostolic tradition, 
 as the baptizing of them. — The eucharist's necessity for 
 infants — was taught by the consent of the eminent fath- 
 ers of some ages without any opposition from any of their 
 contemporaries, and was delivered by them, not as doc- 
 tors, but as witnesses ; not as their opinion, but as apos- 
 tolic tradition." Judson, p. 39. 
 
 Says St. Austin, " No one who professes himself a 
 christian of the catholic faith, denies or doubts, that chil- 
 dren, without receiving the grace of regeneration in 
 Christ, and without eating his flesh, and drinking his 
 blood, [i. e. without baptism and the Lord's supper] have 
 not life in them, and therefore are liable to ever- 
 lasting punishment. Would Austin, do we think, ever 
 talk after this rate, unless he knew it to have been" the 
 practice of the eastern, as well as the western churches, 
 to give the eucharist to children ? and very remarkable 
 is another passage of St. Austin to our purpose ; which Dr. 
 Wall has taken notice of, and thus translated. The 
 christians of Africa do well call baptism itself one's sal- 
 vation ; and the sacrament of Christ's body, one's life. 
 From whence is this, but, as I suppose, from that ancient 
 and apostolical tradition, by which the churches of Christ 
 do naturally hold, that without baptism, and partaking of 
 the Lord's table, none can come either to the kingdom of 
 God, or to salvation, and* eternal life? For the scripture, 
 as 1 shewed belore, says the same. For what other thing 
 »lo they hold, that call baptism salvation, than that which 
 is said ; he saved us by the washing of regeneration ; and 
 that which Peter says, The like ligure whereunto even 
 baptism doth now save us ? And what other thing do they 
 iioid, that call the sacrament of the LorJ's table /i/e, than 
 that which is said, I am the bread of life, &c. And the 
 t)read which I will give is my flesh, which 1 will give for 
 ihe life of the world. And except you eat the flesh, and 
 drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in 
 vou? If then, as so many divine testimonies do agree, 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTISI^. 101 
 
 neither salvation, nor eternal life is to be hoped for with- 
 out baptism, and the body and blood of our Lord, 'tis 
 in vain promised to infants without them." See Dr. Aus- 
 tin's View, pp. 244, 245. This is, without doubt, clear 
 evidence that St. Austin was satisfied that infant commu- 
 nion was as necessary and as much apostolic as infant bap- 
 tism. 
 
 In this quotation St. Austin tells us he supposed that 
 the churches naturally held that infant baptism and infant 
 communion were both traditions from the Apostles ; and 
 he also informs us, why they viewed them as traditions, 
 viz. theirbelief that certain texts of scripture make both 
 baptism and communion absolutely essential to all for eter- 
 nal life. All agree that the false construction of the pas- 
 sage in the 6th chap, of John, 53d verse, " except ye 
 eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye 
 have no life in you," was the erroneous ground, on which 
 they placed the necessity of infant communion. On a 
 similar perversion of certain texts, which speak of bap- 
 tism, they grounded the necessity of imposing this rite on 
 infants. History traces both of these ceremonies to one 
 common origin, namely, necessity; and supports both 
 by the same process of argument. It seems then impos- 
 sible to invalidate the historic arguments for infant com- 
 munion without ruining to the same extent the arguments 
 in favour of infant baptism. Nor can you, my brethren, 
 it is believed, argue against infant communion, even 
 from scripture^ without confuting all your favourite argu- 
 ments in-eupport of infiint baptism. Do you say that in- 
 fants ought not to partake of the Lord's supper, because 
 they cannot manifest any evidence of repentance, faith 
 and ability to discern the Lord's body, the prerequisites 
 for this ordinance ; are they not equally incapable of 
 manifesting faith and repentance, which are just as much 
 demanded for baptism as they are for communion? Do 
 the scriptures teach us- to administer the eucharist to 
 none but the visibly penitent, and at the same time direct 
 us to baptize some penitents^ and some who are manifestly 
 impenitent ? Nor can infant baptism be supported without 
 furnishing arguments for their right to communion. 
 Will you say that the law of circumcision, covenant re- 
 lation, m<imbership in the church, the benediction of 
 Christ, the heliness of children, the law of kindness, and 
 their superior privileges under the gospel, all go to prove 
 1 3 
 
102 LETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 that all minors an<l servants of believers ought to be bap- 
 tized, and yet deny that these same arguments afford 
 any proof that any one of them ought to commune? The 
 Jewish church admitted all her members to communion ; 
 but Pedobaptist churches admit only about half her mem- 
 bers to the table of the Lord. How then can they, on 
 their mode of reasoning, say that the gospel church has en- 
 larged the privileges of her children above Avhat they en- 
 joyed under the former dispensation ? And how can they 
 consistently talk of open communion, while they refuse 
 to communicate with perhaps more than half their own 
 regular members? 
 
 Let it be proved how their exclusion from the table of 
 the Lord will not in any measure sink the gospel church 
 below the Jewish church, and this argument will be just 
 as good to prove that their exclusion from baptism will 
 not diminish their religious privileges. 
 
 If any one question the truth that little children were 
 admitted to the passover, I would refer him to Exodus 
 xii. 3, 4. ''- They shall take to them every man a lamb 
 according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for a house. 
 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him 
 and his neighbour next unto his house take it according 
 to the number of the souls ; every man according to his 
 eating, shall make your count for the lamb." 
 
 Why was each parent here directed to enumerate his 
 household to determine how much or how little he must 
 prepare for the passover, if none of them were to eat 
 with him? If the number of souls in one house was too 
 small to eat one lamb, they must join the next family, and 
 so increase the number of communicants at one table till 
 they could consume the paschal feast. 
 
 Further, no member of the household was allowed to 
 eat any unleavened bread for 7 days. Now is it not 
 highly improbable that their children, and little ones, 
 during all this long space, were prohibited the use of 
 bread ? 
 
 I know some of late have said, that infants ought not 
 to be brought to the table, because they are physically 
 unable to participate. But do the men, who make this 
 excuse, mean to tell us, that'as soon as this inability is gone, 
 they are then to be brought to the Lord's Supper? Cer- 
 tainly not : tlieir practice informs us, that they exclude 
 little children from the eucharist, not for natural inability, 
 
LETTERS ON BAPTIS^vr. 103 
 
 but for the want of f^^th aqcj repentance. This excuse, 
 therefore, is altogether de*oeptive and nugatory. 
 
 But, to return to Church History. We observe, that 
 though infant baptism is found in the third century, yet 
 then, and for some time after, it was far from being uni- 
 versal. In proof of this, we submit the following author- 
 ities : 
 
 The first shall be Archbishop Basil, of the fourth cen- 
 tury. Says he, in one of his Lent Sermons to the candi- 
 dates for baptism, '* What time for baptism, so proper as 
 Easter? For this the church lifts up her voice, and calls 
 from far her sons, that those whom she once brought 
 forth, she may now bring forth again ; and feed with sub- 
 stantial food, them whom she hath hitherto fed with the 
 milk of the first elements of religion. To j^ou the apos- 
 tle says. Repent and be baptized, every one of you — Why 
 do you delay? Why do you deliberate? Wliat do you 
 wait for? Instructed in the doctrine of Christ from your 
 infancy, are you not yet acquainted with it? Will you 
 continue your trials to old age ? Last year you deferred 
 it till this; do you now intend to put off your baptism till 
 the next?" 
 
 The second shall be taken from the Lent services of 
 the Church at Rome. Says the Priest, " Dearly beloved 
 brethren, you know the day of scnttifiy is at hand, in which 
 our elect may be divinely instructed," i. e. the candidates 
 for baptism. When the candidates were brought out for 
 this rite, the deacon said to them, " Ye elect males, 
 kneel down aud pray." He pauses, and then says to 
 them, " Rise, finish your prayers together, and say amen." 
 They all obey. He then said the same to the elect fe 
 males.*' See Robinson's History of Baptism, pp. 77, 78, 
 & 86. 
 
 That these were the children of professors, and not of 
 pagans, cannot be doubted. They are said to be those, 
 whom the church once hrovght forth, and fed with food, 
 and had instructed from their infancy. And that these 
 children were to be baptized on the ground of their own 
 profession and desire, is evident from the whole Lent ser- 
 vice. They were scrutinized, or examined, from time 
 to time, during seven days. They were directed to pray, 
 to observe their orders, and to profess their faith in the 
 creed of the c'hurch. But how could all this happen, if 
 professors then baptized ail their ipfants ? 
 
104 iETTERS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 In the year 381, Gregory, Bishop of Constantinople, 
 gave his opinion on the pf^^riety of baptizing chil- 
 dren, and the absolute need of baptizing even babes, 
 in case of danger of death. His words are ; " But say 
 some, what is your opinion of infants, who are not capa- 
 ble of judging of the damage sustained by the want of it? 
 Shall we baptize them ? By all means, if there he any ap' 
 parent danger. For it were better they were sanctified 
 without their knowing it, than that they should die with- 
 out being sealed." See Robinson, p. 230. 
 
 Gregory, the metropolitan of all Greece, the oracle of 
 the catholic world, gave it as his opinion^ that infants 
 should be baptized, ijf the prospect of their death made 
 it necessary. When there was no such necessity, he 
 maintained they ought not to be baptized, till they were 
 old enough to hear and understand for themselves. All 
 this is clear proof that infant baptism was then a new af- 
 fair, and not settled by law, human or divine. If it had 
 been, Gregory would have supported it by arguments 
 much better than his private opinion. If he knew that 
 the church had all along baptized infants, on the law of 
 circumcision and covenant right, why then did he not 
 plead this ground, and not give his private opinion ? 
 Christians were eaHy settled on the island of Great Brit- 
 ain. Here they flourished till the year 448, when they 
 were invaded by the Saxons, and driven into Wales. 
 There they remained in quietude, till 596, when Aus- 
 tin visited the island. But he found that these ancient 
 christians were Baptists. With these christians, Aus- 
 tin wished to form a union, and to bring them within the 
 pale of the Catholic Church. For this object, he propos- 
 ed to them several articles of agreement. One was, 
 " That they should give Christendom (or baptism) to 
 their children." But they refused to depart from the 
 primitive practice of believer's baptism.* 
 
 I am, kc, 
 ♦ See Ivimey, v. 1, p. 42. 
 
•s/^ h(t^i.U- 
 
 CONCLUSION, 
 
 Thus, my Brethren, I have submitted for j^our 
 candid perusal, the various arguments, which mov- 
 ed me to take those important steps, of which you 
 are fully apprized. As soon as^ these arguments 
 had settled my mind, you certainly could expect 
 nothing less of me, than an honest and frank avow- 
 al of my belief. If I am deluded, I need your ten- 
 derest commiseration. But if I am right, the errors 
 of the opposite scheme are by no means trivial. 
 They effect the whole fabric of the church of God. 
 By my change, I had nothing of this world to gain, 
 but much, very much to lose.. The sacrifice was 
 great indeed, and before my selfish heart could be 
 willing, the surrender cost me much deep anguish 
 of soul. But long experience has taught me to say 
 with Sir Walter Kaleigh, " That a good conscience 
 is the best estate ;" or with the Psalmist, " In keep- 
 ing them, (commands of God,) there, is great re- 
 ward." 
 
 To my former connexions in religion, I am un- 
 der many obligations of gratitude, and for them I 
 hope to carry down to my grave an affectionate re- 
 membrance. I trust you w ill bear jiie w itness, my 
 brethren, that I have not " dipped my pen in gall." 
 1 have honestly, and with freedom, spoken what 
 was deemed the truth, but w ith love. I can assure 
 you that my trials have been much aggravated by 
 the fear of diverting-, in a small circle, the public 
 mind from the great and good things of the present 
 day. I must, however, indulge the hope that my 
 labours will ultimately subserve the interests of 
 truth. 
 
106 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Our time for action, my brethren, is short and fleet- 
 ing. Years roll round and steal away, and will soon 
 bring us to the impassable boundary of death. Till 
 then let us be diligent in business, fervent in spirit, 
 serving the Lord. Let it be our daily and united 
 prayer, that God would continue to accomplish his 
 designs of mercy, and hasten the introduction of 
 that day of seven fold light, when the watchmen 
 shall see eye to eye, and there be nothing to hurt, 
 or destroy, throughout God's holy mountain. 
 
 I am, dear Brethren, your's in sentiments of 
 Christian affection. 
 
 STEPHEN CHAPIN. 
 
AN 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 STRICTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 Rev» Mr. Moore's Reply. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE REV. MR. MOORE, IN 
 ANSWER TO HIS REPLY TO THE FOREGO- 
 ING LETTERS. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 The relation which once existed between us was en- 
 dearing and important. For a series of years we laboured 
 in the same part of the gospel vineyard, and in the same de- 
 nomination, as the professed ministers of Christ, To dis- 
 solve a union so deeply interesting to ourselves, and to 
 the cause of Zion, demanded clear and substantial argu- 
 ments. Such arguments, I firmly believe, were discovered 
 after long, painful and prayerful examination of the ground 
 on which 1 formerly stood. These reasons, which pro- 
 duced such a revolution in my opinion and corresponding 
 change of practice, I deemed it my duty to declare to the 
 world. This I did in a Series of Letters, addressed to the 
 christian public. To these Letters you have been pleas- 
 ed to issue a reply. You have avowed with much frank- 
 ness, th'e reasons why they received your animadver- 
 sions. In your belief, there was an imperious calfto fur- 
 nish your readers with an early antidote to the poison of 
 error. If you viewed yourself attacked, you had a right 
 to stand on the defensive, and to employ such means, as 
 you deemed most proper to repel aggression. The con- 
 troversy now pending between us excites, to a considera- 
 ble extent, the attention of the surrounding churches. 
 Better judges than ourselves will convass and decide on 
 the weapons and the spirit, which we may employ and 
 discover. Itbecomes us, therefore, to look well to our feel- 
 ings and to the manner in which we manage this debate. I 
 regret that I cannot pronounce my unqualified approbation 
 on the spirit of your publication. It is spiced, as some would 
 say, pretty generously with wit and laconism. It exhib- 
 K 
 
^ STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLV 
 
 its such strong marks of family likeness to your othel* 
 productions, that it is at once recognized as your own le- 
 gitimate offspring. For a dry and sarcastic style you 
 have long borne away the palm. Nor do I regret that I 
 possess little talent to rob you of this glory. 
 
 I have confined myself to the most prominent things 
 in your pamphlet. Many things of minor consequence 
 have been passed in silence. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Rev and Dear Sir, 
 
 In your advertisement, you are pleased to assign three 
 ireasons why you laboured to invalidate my arguments 
 against the sprinkling of infants, rather than to prove the 
 correctness of the practice. They are, First.^ " It appear- 
 ed most pertinent. Second^ Because an answer was de- 
 sired diS soon as possible. Third. Because the author cal- 
 culates to write a treatise on the subject." 
 
 Certainly you had a right to select your own mode of 
 ?eply. You are sensible, however, that it is much more 
 difficult to frame and complete a building, than it is to at- 
 tempt its demolition. What your promised work will 
 contain, time will disclose. Perhaps it will not be very 
 hazardous to predict, that your present Reply furnishes 
 us with all the principal materials of your intended build- 
 ing. Your intimation may subserve your interest by 
 amusing the publick mind, and by retarding the decision 
 «f some, until they learn what farther aid they can obtain 
 from your promised publication. 
 
 You also inform us, that " care has been taken not to 
 misrepresent the meaning of the author of the letters." 
 
 Whether care were the constant companion of your 
 pen, I am willing to refer to the better judgment of thosei 
 who shall peruse both your writings and mine. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER in. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 You remark in your introduction that, " 'There can be 
 no doubt then, that Christ has given specific rules for the 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. It 
 
 formation and regulation of his church, and it is equally 
 evident that his rules should be observed and applied. 
 He, who is light and truth, has communicated the divine 
 will in a luminous manner." Please, sir, to compare these 
 words with what you have said at the close of your fourth 
 letter- There you assert that Christ is just as unintelli- 
 gible, respecting the mode of admission into his kingdom, 
 as he would have been, had he studied to be obscure. Yea, 
 in another place you have told us, " If Christ was in- 
 definite on the mode of baptism, /te chose to be so.''^ If a. 
 number of believers were about to be embodied for re- 
 ligious privileges, J suppose you would saj^, that the ad- 
 ministration of baptism upon them would be necessary 
 to form them into a regular church. The ceremony of 
 baptism then is one of the specific rules for the formation 
 of a church. But, sir, will you specify what this specific 
 rule means ? You contend that Christ did not require any 
 particular mode ; but he required baptism. I ask you to 
 tell us what baptism is. You are not invited to define 
 the mode, but baptism itself If the manner of using 
 water be only a circumstance attending baptism, it is 
 not baptism, because mere circumstances are ever con- 
 sidered distinct from the thing about which they stand. 
 You have said that baptism is a positive institution, and 
 that Christ was explicit in all its parts. It seems, then, 
 that sprinkling, pouring, bathing and immersion, are no 
 part of baptism, because you say, that he was, upon all 
 these ways, perfectly inexplicit. If then all these ways, 
 and every other imaginable way of applying water, form 
 no part of baptism, we leave it to you, sir, to define this 
 ordinance, and to find parts, or materials, to give it being. 
 You cannot with any consistency say that Christ required 
 any of these ways of application, because you have main- 
 tained, that he meant to hide the mode of baptism in 
 perfect darkness. The specification, therefore, of any 
 mode, would have been inconsistent with his chosen con- 
 cealment. 
 
 Ifyou will say that baptism is an unknown application 
 of water in the name of the Trinity, we ask you to pro- 
 duce authority. Did the Apostles believe, that Christ, 
 when he said to them, " Go preach the gospel to every 
 creature, — baptizing them in the name of the Father," &c. 
 meant to say, Go apply water to your subjects just as you 
 and they shall please ? How will you reconcile this vague 
 sepse of the word with your declaration, that '^ baptisn*^ 
 
4 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE^S REPLY 
 
 is a positive institute ; that the ordinance is explicit in all 
 its parts ;'^'' that Christ hath in a luminous manner deliv- 
 ered specific rules to regulate the admission of members 
 into his kingdom ? But yet according to your language ia 
 other places this specific rule specifies an unknown somethings 
 this luminous law is still involved in impenetrable darkness. 
 It seems that your various modes and circumstances of bap- 
 tism are left in the predicament of the fabled tortoise, on 
 whose back the Indians have placed the earth, but forgot 
 to furnish the poor animal with any pedestal to enable 
 Jier to sustain her ponderous load. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 In your second letter you admit the correctness of my 
 general principles respecting positive institutions. The 
 only fallacy of which you complain is this : Mr. C. " takes 
 it for granted, that positive institutions are positive in all 
 their parts, and in all that pertains to them, and that no cir- 
 cumstance, form, or manner, is left discretionary." I did 
 suppose, and do still, that every part of a positive institu- 
 tion is positive. But there are many circumstances, attend- 
 ing such an institution, which form, as you say, no part of 
 the positive law. The quantity of water, provided it be 
 sufficient for the specified purpose, the place where, the 
 time, when, and the position of the subject of baptism, and 
 many other things, are left discretionary. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sh-, 
 
 In your third letter you inform us that " From the 
 lime they, (the Baptists) practised trine immersion, till 
 they appeared in Munster, there is no want of variety of 
 opinion" amongst them. 
 
 When did the Baptists begin to exist, as a denomination ? 
 You have told us in the 75th page of your Reply on the 
 authority of Wall, that for the first eleven hundred years 
 only two individuals can be found in the whole history of 
 the church J who leaned towards our particular views. 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. ^ 
 
 You doubt whether these two were thorough Baptists^ 
 All the rest of the christian world were, in your belief,^ 
 Pedobaptists. According to your calculation the Baptists? 
 had no existence till after the beginning of the twelfth 
 century. You have informed us that the Baptists have 
 used and have advocated the use of baptisteries, and trine 
 immersion. Will you, sir, undertake " the small task," 
 and prove, that in or after the 1 2th century, the Baptists 
 built and advocated the use of baptisteries ? This you 
 must do to support your quotation from Wall. But I 
 believe you will find some difficulty to prove that bap-^ 
 tisteries were built, so late as the 12th century, either by 
 Catholicks or Dissenters. After infant baptism was 
 established by law, these large buildings were not much 
 needed. They theretbre gradually decayed and disap- 
 peared, and little fonts for babes within the walls of 
 churches occupied their place. 
 
 Or will you contradict Wall, and grant that there wera 
 Baptists before the 12th century ? Let any one read your 
 29th page, and he would naturally suppose, that you meant 
 to concede they existed long before that period. You 
 there say, that, baptisteries began to be built about tha 
 middle of the third century ; — and that those who built 
 and used them, were exceedingly corrupt in doctrine and 
 in practice. You then in tlse next paragraph ask the 
 Baptists, who use and advocate the use of baptisteries, 
 why they have departed from the ancient simple manner 
 of baptism ? Will any of your readers suppose, that you 
 meant this question should relate to Baptists, who existed 
 in, or after the 12th century? I believe, sir, you will 
 find on a revision of your Reply, that your own language 
 and your quotation from W^ail are quite contradictory. 
 But perhaps when you have leisure, and do not write 
 under an imperious call, you will be able to exonerate 
 yourself from this contradiction. 
 
 1 am, &c. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 I had said that if Christ had intended to conceal th^ 
 mode of applying water, he might have chosen for thi^ 
 [purpose kathairo^ or agnizci.^ both of whick are^ as j^ 
 
6 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE's REPLV 
 
 grant, indefinite, as to the way of application. To these 
 words you object, because they contain a specific mean- 
 ing, viz. that of cleansing the filth of the flesh. This 
 specific sense you say is " inconsistent with the nature 
 and design of the ordinance ;" might you not just as well 
 object to the word sprinkle ? This word in scripture most 
 certainly conveys the idea of cleansing. Consult all the 
 purifications of the law, and you will find that sprinkling 
 was one important way of cleansing the filthiness of the 
 flesh. Besides, will not your objection to these words 
 lie equally strong against emhapto^ which you think would 
 have answered better, than haptizo^ if he had intended 
 immersion ? Emhapto means to dip in^ to steep^ to dye^ to 
 colour. See Schre. and Ains. This word then means to 
 immerse for a specific purpose, viz. to dye, to stain, or to 
 colour. Have you not, then, by your objection to kathairo^ 
 on account of its specific character, forever ruined your 
 favourite word, emhapto ? This means to dip, but most 
 generally for the purpose of coloring, or that the thing 
 dipped may be in some way affected by the liquid into 
 which it is immersed. So it is used in John xiii. 26, 
 '^^ Jesus answered, he it is to whom I shall give a sop, 
 when I have dipped it, and when he had dipped the sop." 
 So in Mark xiv. 20, " One of the twelve that dippeth with 
 me in the dish." This sop was a small piece of bread, 
 dipped in some broth or liquid to render it the more 
 palatable. May we not say in your own language, " If 
 the design of baptism were'' to imbue, or to leave a stain 
 on the flesh, " the word emhapto^ which you have chosen 
 to express" immersion, is well selected ? But as this is 
 not the design of the ordinance, your proposed word, 
 though definite as to the manner of applying water, 
 contains a specific meaning, viz. djang or coloring, 
 »' which is inconsistent with the nature and design of the 
 ordinance." 
 
 You have made much use of my quotation, from Dr. 
 Heed. When I cited the Dr's words, I meant to reason 
 ''• argumentum ad hominem." As you did not take me 
 thus, I regret that I did not apprize my reader of my de- 
 sign. I meant to say, that admitting this word has as many 
 meanings, as the Dr. has given it, it would fairly follow 
 that Christ required immersion, if his words were ex- 
 plained according to the common rules of interpreting 
 statute laws. Its first and most obvious and common 
 sense wQuid be taken in settling" the meaning of the com" 
 
TO THB FOREGOING LETTERS. 7 
 
 mission, and not its most obscure and rare signification. 
 The dispute between us is not, as you saj, whether this 
 word in all its uses msans nothing but immersion ; but 
 whether Christ has not given us sufficient proof in his 
 word, that he requires immersion, as the only appointed 
 ordinance. When he compared his sufferings to a bap- 
 tism, he showed that the word means an overwhelming. 
 Because between a light sprinkling and his heavy suffer- 
 ings there were no points of resemblance. And wlien the 
 Apostle tells believers, that they are buried in baptism, 
 he gives irrefragable proof, that primitive christians were 
 immersed. If they were not, such a phrase, in relation 
 to this rite, would never have been used, either in a figu- 
 rative, or literal sense. Dr. Reed seems to have been fully 
 apprized, i^t the sense of words varies with the progress 
 of time. He says, " the original sense of A'ords is, by cus- 
 tom, very frequently altered by being enlarged, or restrict- 
 ed. To bathe, in the primitive sense of the word, seems to 
 imply immersion, and yet it is now commonly used to signi- 
 fy any kind of wetting. The word Baptist, primarily sig- 
 nified a baptizer," (or dipper,) " but it now is commonly 
 used to signify any person, who denies infant baptism, 
 and holds to immersion."" It seems, then, according to 
 the doctor, the word baptisth^s in modern times departed 
 very materially from its ancient signification. So we say 
 the word baptizo has senses now atfixed to it, which it did 
 did not primarily contain. Hence the unsafe ty of settling 
 the ancient meaning of this word by its modern construc- 
 tion. Let any one read the history of this word, and he 
 will find, that it has been made a leaden rule, bending 
 and turning to suit all the varieties of opinion on the 
 mode of baptism. Some have told us, that the 
 
 flexible character of this word, is a grateful quality, 
 because it leaves to each individual the liberty of making 
 his own election, and because it accommodates the word 
 to ail the diversities of custom and climate. But this 
 word possesses a firmer texture, than to be changed by 
 the ever various and forever varying opinions of men. 
 
 We admit -that baptizo implies cleansing, dying and 
 washing. If you dip a thing in water, it is o^ course wash- 
 ed and cleansed more or less. If you dip cloth in dye, 
 it, of consequence, is colored more or less. I am aware 
 that you have said that '•'' baptism is a generic term." 
 Now this is so far from being correct, that directly the 
 reverse is true. Baptism or immersion is not a genus or 
 generic ternij but a species, You weU ki^ow that the 
 
6f STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 " species includes the genus and all that is in it, but th^ 
 genus does not include the species." Washing "is a 
 generic term, but dipping, pouring and bathing ar6 
 species, or kinds of washing. It is hoped the reader will 
 bear with me. if I briefly show what is meant by genus 
 and species. Genus is a comprehensive word or name^ 
 given to a number of classes of beings, possessing some 
 pr( minent trait, common to them all. Thus the proper- 
 ty of ^\alking on four feet is common to a great variety of 
 animals. Hence we apply to all such animals, the name 
 quadruped, which means a four footed beast. Quadruped 
 then is the genus, and horse, lion, dog, elephant, are so many 
 species of four footed animals. So washing is the genus^ 
 but dipping is a species of washing. Hence when you? 
 say that baptizo means to wash, to dye, to cleanse, &c. you 
 do nothing towards proving that this word means any 
 thing less than dipping, because all these may be only the- 
 cjonseqiiences of immersion. 
 
 I am, &e. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 You have now come to attempt more directly the in- 
 validation of my arguments, in favour of immersion. The 
 arguments which v\^ere employed in favour of this prac- 
 tice, were the following: 1st. The obvious meaning of 
 the word, employed to express this ordinance. 2nd, 
 Many scri]3ture passages, taken both from the practice of 
 John and of the Apostles, after the resurrection of Christ. 
 3d, The places chosen for the administration of this rite. 
 4th, The language employed in its description. 5th,^ 
 The practice of the Greek church. 6th, The authority 
 of the translators, who have rendered the word baptizo- 
 in various languages, into a word which means to dip, 
 7th, Confessions of failh in large bodies of christians. 
 8th, The concessions of many Pedobaptists. 9th, The- 
 authority of church history. 10th, The design of chris- 
 tian baptism. 
 
 The manner in which these several arguments were 
 illustrated and sustained, the reader may see by turning' 
 back to my Series of Letters, and reading under the sev- 
 eral heads, where these topicks are discussed. Tfeese 
 places he is desired to peruse* 
 
Tk3 the foregoing LETTERS. ^ 
 
 1 have already attended to your remarks on my defini- 
 tion of the word baptizo. I will therefore consider your 
 objections to my reasonings from numerous texts of scrip- 
 ture. I quoted many passages, which relate to John's 
 baptism. All arguments, drawn from this source, you at- 
 tempt to nullify. But what are your objections to tak- 
 ing John's baptism for our guide in administering this or- 
 dinance ? They are, 1st, It was instituted under the law. 
 2nd, It was essentially different from that instituted by 
 Christ. 3d, It was designed for a different purpose, viz. to 
 prepare the minds of the Jews for the approaching dispen- 
 sation. 4th, Some of John's disciples were, as you say, re- 
 baptized. See pp. 22, 23. Seeing these two rites are thus 
 distinct, and under two distinct dispensations, j'^ou tell us 
 that" of course we cannot argue from one to the other." 
 This, to be sure, is doing the business offhand. But, sir, 
 were you apprized, that the blow which you aimed at 
 others, fall exclusively on your own head. For all these 
 objections lie with all their force against proselyte bap- 
 tism, which you maintain the apostles took for their guide. 
 This, too, if it existed in the days of Christ, was, 1st, In- 
 stituted under the law, and that too by the authority of 
 Jewish Rabbins, and not by Jehovah. 2nd, It was essen- 
 tially different in its nature from christian baptism, od, 
 It was designed for a different purpose, viz. to denote the 
 washing of all profane and heathenish practices. 4th5 
 Many, who received it were rebaptized by the apostles. 
 Mr. Scott says, the Eunuch '•' was a Proselyte to the 
 whole Jewish religion." Many who were converted on 
 the day of Tentecost, were Proselytes to the same relig- 
 ion ; but yet they were all rebaptized, if they had been 
 the subjects of Proselyte baptism. Seeing then these 
 two rites, Proselyte and Christian Baptism, existed under 
 two distinct dispensations, and were essentially different 
 in nature and design ; " of course we- cannot argue from 
 one to the other." Show me, will you, sir, why the 
 above objections do not as fully ruin proselyte baptism 
 for our example, as they do that of John's ordinance? 
 Will not your above objections destroy all your inferen- 
 tial arguments from circumcision ? That also was under 
 the law, and designed for a different purpose from chris- 
 tian baptism. Can you then argue from one to the oth- 
 er? Further, will not your mode of reasoning prove 
 that the Lord's supper was not a christian ordinance, but 
 belonged to the Levitical ceremonies ? You deny a cnris- 
 
iO STRICTURES ON MR. 
 
 tian character to John's baptism, because it was instituted 
 under the law. Now the Eucharist was as truly institut- 
 ed before the legal dispensation closed, as was the bap- 
 tism of John. The gospel dispensation did not begin, in 
 your opinion, till after the resurrection of Christ. When 
 the supper was first celebrated, the whole ritual law was 
 in force. Though this institution was first observed near 
 the close of the ritual law, yet this affects not the argu- 
 ment. It was as much under the law, as though it had 
 been appointed a thousand years before its abrogation. If 
 a ceremony is necessarily legal, because observed while 
 that dispensation was in force, why did not Christ sus- 
 pend the establishment, till after his resurrection ? Un- 
 less 3-0U relinquish your objection io John's baptism, as a 
 gospel rite, i believe you will find it an herculean task to 
 prove that the Lord's supper is a christian ordinance. 
 
 Though you had in your opinion laid John to rest as an 
 exemplar, yei you resolve to try your skill in explaining 
 a few texts, taken from his administration. This you do 
 lest any one should doubt the genuineness of your cour- 
 age '' in shrinking from a hard task." 
 
 You then proceed to the consideration of texts, which 
 relate to the baptisms administered after the resurrection 
 of Christ. 
 
 You first quote, and then expound. 
 
 ''And he came into all the country about Jordan 
 preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of 
 sins." People from all quarters of Judea flocked to him 
 to hear his preaching. They were convinced by his in- 
 structions ; and they were persuaded to receive the bap- 
 tism of repentance. Novv, considering the place where 
 they were, near Jordan ; considering the vast numbers 
 to be baptized ; considering the improbabilit}'- that John, 
 or the multitude had vessels with them for the purpose 
 of carrying water; and considering that they could have 
 here a more commodious and refreshing situation than 
 any where else ; where would he and they most prob- 
 ably resort for baptism ? without any regard to the mode, 
 where would they be so likely to repair, for this ordi- 
 nance as to Jordan." 
 
 But why did they baptize in Jordan ? why did they go 
 down to, and then come up out of the water? The rea- 
 sons why all this took place, you have assigned. They 
 are the following. 1. The water was lower than the 
 banks of the river, and 2d. the improbability that either 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 11 
 
 John or any of the multitude, had vessels with them for 
 the purpose of carrying water. Now the number to be 
 baptized, the length of time employed by John in 
 preaching and administering the ordinance in that place, 
 the inconvenience of going down and climbing up the 
 banks of Jordan every time they sprinkled, render it in^ 
 credible, that neither John, nor any of the multitude 
 were not provident enough to take with them some ves- 
 sel, or, if they were thus improvident when they assem- 
 bled, that they should not have sent for one, rather than 
 endure for months so much inconvenience. Besides if, 
 as you insinuate, this vast multitude chose to repair to 
 Jordan to have a " commodious and refreshing situation," 
 would not this forethought of theirs in selecting a spot to 
 allay their thirst, naturally have led them to think of 
 some " vessel for the purpose of carrying water?" Or 
 did this multitude, when they concluded to repair to this 
 refreshing stream, without having any regard to the 
 mode of baptism, imagine that they must lie down and 
 take their drink in the manner of Gideon's army ? Enon, 
 another place where John baptized, you suppose was 
 chosen, not for immersion, but because it was wefi 
 watered to accommodate thirsty men and animals. You 
 maintain, that the phrase, " much water there," means 
 that in Enon there were many separate streams. In con- 
 firmation of this, you suppose that '•'' polla udata^*'* here 
 rendered much ivater^ me?{n '■'"many waters.''^ You also 
 suppose, that if John did immerse his subjects, there 
 .would have been a '''•gross impropriety in using these 
 'words to convey the idea of this mode," because you say 
 that " a little bath, a little rivulet, checked for an hour, 
 is abundantly sufficient for" immersion. But you imagine 
 that the multitudes, who assembled around John, would 
 so obviously require many brooks and rivers to cool their 
 burning thirst, that there was a '* manifest propriety in 
 John's selecting Enon, a place well watered for their 
 accommodation." You maintain that when a large body 
 of men and animals are about to assemble, the consump- 
 tion of water will be so great for their refreshment, that 
 it is manifestly proper to select a spot, for their rendez- 
 vous, well watered with many brooks and rivers ; but at 
 the same time you contend, that it would be grossly im- 
 proper to choose a stream oi much water for the purpose 
 of baptizing by immersion ! I am perfectly willing td 
 
H STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE's REPLY 
 
 risque the strength and soundness of such reasoning to TCidM& 
 converts to your favourite views. 
 
 The Bible teaches that the much water of Enon was 
 chosen for the convenience of baptizing^ but you believe 
 that these many waters were selected for the purpose of 
 drinking. 
 
 You also suppose that when " polla udata'*'' are used 
 to express quantity of water, they signify very much^ and 
 that, when thus used, they should be rendered much 
 water. You and our translators are not agreed upon this 
 point, as you may see by reading the following texts. 
 " The Lord is upon many zcaters.'''' Psalm xxix. 3. " The 
 Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many 
 waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea." " His 
 noise was like the noise of many waters."" Ezek. 43. 2. 
 Cant. viii. 7. '•''Many 'waters cannot quench love." Rev. i. 15. 
 His voice, as the sound oi many waters." See the Sep- 
 tuagint and the Testament on these texts. 
 
 Will you say that the translation in all these instances 
 ■is not correct ? Or that the polla udata in these texts 
 does not express quantity, but many divided streams? 
 If so, then the voice of the Lord, which roars like the 
 mighty waves of the sea, at the same time sounds like 
 the gentle murmurings of little brooks and rivers. 
 
 In the 28th page you quote these words : '' And Jesus, 
 when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the 
 water," and then observes, " if Mr. C. will apply here his 
 rule of understanding words, according to their natural 
 and primary meaning, and not be guided by the eighth 
 or tenth meaning, he will understand the word apo., to 
 signify /rom, not out of.'''^ Such a rule, sir, I never adopted 
 in defining the Greek prepositions c^, m, apo., fin, &c. But 
 in defining them I assumed this rule, viz " The general 
 construction of the period, in which they are used, must 
 determine their signification." 
 
 This rule led me to render apo., out o/", rather than, 
 fro7n the water. It was employed to describe the motion 
 of Christ, immediately after he had been baptized in the 
 river Jordan. 
 
 Take, sir, if you please, the rule by which you think 
 I ought to have been guided, and define these preposi- 
 tions, not according to their construction, but according 
 to their first signification, in the following passages. 
 Luke 8. 29, &c, and Mark 5. 13. " For he had commanded 
 the unclean spirit to come {apd)frojn the man, — and "he" 
 was driven of the devils {eis) at the wilderness— many 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 13 
 
 devils were entered (eis) at him. And they besought 
 him that he would not command them to go out [eis) at 
 the deep. And there was there a herd of many swine, 
 feeding (en) at the mount, and they besought him that he 
 would suffer them to enter, {eis) at them. Then went 
 the devils (apo) from the man, and entered (^eis) at the 
 swine, and the herd ran violently down a steep place 
 (ew) at the sea, and were choaked (e?s) at the sea." 
 But, sir, how were they suffocated ? as, by this read- 
 ing, there is no evidence that one of the two thousand 
 ever went i7ito the lake. 
 
 " The place where Philip baptized the Eunuch," you 
 say, " affords no evidence of the mode of his baptism." I 
 never supposed, that it gave positive proof of the man- 
 ner of his baptism, but corroborating evidence. You 
 grant that they stopped at some river or pond. But why 
 so, if sprinkling were the mode ? Why go down to, and 
 come up from the water ? You are pleased to give the 
 following reasons. 1st, No evidence that he had a ser- 
 vant with him. 2nd, No vessel by which water could be 
 brought. And, 3d, the water was lower than the chariot. 
 But, sir, is it not rather strange, 'that a man of his charac- 
 ter, having the control of all the treasures of Queen Can- 
 dice, should travel in a chariot without a servant or driver? 
 When he spoke and commanded his carriage to stand still, 
 whom did he address but his postillion ? Beside, must he 
 not have been a very dexterous charioteer to have driven 
 two or four horses himself, and yet at the same time 
 have been deeply engaged in reading the prophet Isaiah ? 
 This criticism, sir, I believe is purely original, and all the 
 praise which it demands is certainly yours. You ask, 
 *' does going into the water imply total immersion? Then 
 Philip was immersed as well as the Eunuch." It is 
 strange that you should bring forward this stale, this 
 childish objection. Who reasons at this loose rate ? Did 
 I infer, as you say, that he was put wholly under >\'^ter, 
 merely because he went into it ? My words are, ' It is 
 true that the phrases, into and out of the water, will not 
 of themselves prove immersion. But they are strong 
 corroborating evidence. It is not simply said that they 
 went into the water, but while in the water Philip ir/i- 
 mcrsed the Eunuch.' 
 
 I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the mean- 
 ing of the particle ei>, and believe that those who are 
 conversant with the original language of the New Tes- 
 
 Li 
 
14 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE's REPLY 
 
 tament, will generally admit that it signifies iiiio. When 
 used in a local sense, it seldom means any thing else. 
 When it is connected with udor^ Jordanus^ potamos^ or pur, 
 it never has, so far as I recollect, any other signification. 
 See Matt. xvii. 15. Mark i. 9, and ix. 22. Acts viii. 38. 
 Rev. xvi. 4. 
 
 You suppose, sir, eis andefc, translated into and out of^ in 
 other places mean to and/rom ; and you wish to know by 
 what authority I gave to them the sense of into and out 
 of In this place. As you will not allow me to make much 
 use of the authority of our translators, I will bring my 
 support from the context of the passage. If the inspired 
 penman had understood the preposition eis to mean the 
 same as to, why did he not use it, when he would express 
 *' their arrival at a certain water ?" But now he says 
 "when they came epi ti udor, that is, to or unto a certain 
 water. But when he describes them as alighting from 
 their carriage, and using the water, he doth not use the 
 preposition epi, but eis, " they went down eis both into the 
 water. They came epi, to the water before baptism is 
 mentioned. Why is not this motion enough ? It certain- 
 ly is upon your principle. But Luke did not think so ; he 
 therefore describes another motion, {eis) into the water, 
 before baptism was administered. Here we have the 
 most decisive proof, that the inspired penman meant that 
 the preposition eis signified something more than to the 
 water, because he had gotten them to the water Avhen he 
 used the other preposition, epi. As this particle is evi- 
 dently used with the most explicit reference to baptism, 
 and being obviously employed to express a different i(iea 
 from that of epi, it must consequently signify into, in this 
 passage. A similar opposition in the sense of these two pre- 
 positions may be seen in John vi. 16, 17. '' His disciples 
 went down {epi) to the sea, and entered {eis) into a ship. 
 So Mark xvi. 2, 5. They came {epi) to the sepulchre, and 
 entering {eis) into the sepulchre. Acts xvi 1 9. They caught 
 Paul and Silas and drew them {eis) into them into the mar- 
 ket place, {epi) to the rulers." See Matt. xiii. 48. 
 
 Eis is also opposed to the preposition ek, as you may 
 see by consulting Matt. xv. 11. "Not that which goeth 
 into the mouth defileth a man ; but that which cometh {ck) 
 tut of the mouth." Mark vi. 51, 54. Luke ii. 4. John 
 iv. 47, 54. And many other passages. 
 
 That the preposition apo is frequently used to signify 
 mit of is evident from Matt. vii. 4, 5, and xiv, 29. Luke 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 15 
 
 viii. 2, 12, 33, 35, 38. In Luke ii. 4, and viii. 33, it is di- 
 rectly opposed to eis. 
 
 Another argument in favour of our mode we drew 
 from the practice of the Greek church. The early 
 members of this church, we maintained, were the best 
 judges of their own language in which the New Testa- 
 ment was written. This argument you first deny and 
 then confirm, as the reader may see by what follows. 
 You say, '' There is no evidence that they are better qual- 
 ified, than any other nation to judge which meaning the 
 word baptizo has, when it is used to express the action 
 of baptism. We have as much authority as they to select 
 a meaning of the word and apply it to the ordinance." 
 
 Here we are taught, that the members of the Greek 
 church, though some of them lived at an early period, and 
 though they spoke and wrote in that language, are no 
 better qualified to judge of the meaning of the word, 6ap- 
 tizo^ when applied to the ordinance of baptism, than are 
 the present French or English. The members of this 
 Greek church existed long before their separation from 
 the Roman church. And in all their societies, and from 
 their earliest days, they have uniformly practised immer- 
 sion. Yet you tell us that they are no better qualified to 
 say in what sense the word baptizo should be taken, when 
 applied to the ordinance than men of any other nation. 
 But when you wished to settle the meaning of the 
 Greek word, for disciple, you contradict all this, and 
 maintain, that a Grecian must be best qualified to use 
 this word in its true sense, and to make a just application 
 of it. Towards the bottom of the 71st page, you quote 
 Justin Martyr as saying, " several persons among us of 60 
 and 70 years old of both sexes, who were discipled to 
 Christ in their childhood, do continue uncorrupted." 
 The word discipled here you sa}^, '<• is radically the same, 
 which St. Matthew employed in recording Christ's com- 
 mission." This word Justin applied to children. You 
 conclude, that his " knowledge of the Greek language, 
 for he wrote in Greek, and his proximity to the Apostles, 
 qualified him to use the word disciple^ in its true sensc^ and 
 make a just application ofit^ Why then were not the fa- 
 thers of the Greek church, who spake and wrote in that 
 language, equally well qualified to use the word baptizo in 
 its true sense, and to make a just application of it to this 
 ordinance ? 
 
 The arguments, which I drew from the authority of 
 translators, from confessions of faith, from the concea- 
 
16 
 
 sions of numerous individuals and bodies of men, togeth- 
 er with a brief account how immersion was dropped, 
 and sprinkling adopted in its room, you pass over very 
 hastily, as if you felt conscious, that you could not well 
 invalidate their testimony. You think, however, that 
 if '^ Wall were left to dispose of himself,- he would throw 
 his weight into your scale." 
 
 That Mr. Wail was a strong" advocate for infant i?n- 
 7nersion is well known. And it is equally well known that 
 he strongly reprobated infant sprinkling, when neither 
 sickness nor danger of death required that practice. He 
 commends the Baptists for adhering to immersion, but 
 blames Pedobaptists for dropping it, and sprinkling on all 
 occasions. He blames us for not admitting the validity 
 of sprinkling in urgent cases. So far as the mode is con- 
 cerned, and for this only was he quoted, let him dispose 
 of himself, and he will throw his influence decidedly in 
 our favour. 
 
 Another argument v.hich we employed was taken 
 from the testimony of ecclesiastical historians. This 
 proof you first attempt to invalidate, but at last you give 
 it full sanction by your own broad concessions. So that 
 I have nothing to do, but to repeat my testimonies, and 
 to quote your acknowledgments. 
 
 In my Letters I made the following selections, '' How 
 can we be placed in a condition of likeness to his death ? 
 Answer, by being buried with him in baptism. How are 
 we to go down with him into the grave ? By imitating the 
 burial of Christ in baptism ; for the bodies of the baptized 
 are in a sense buried in water. By three immersions Ave 
 administer this important ceremony of baptism, that death 
 may be represented in a figure.*' Arch. Bishop Basil. 
 Eusebius, speaking of Novatian, says, "he received bap- 
 tism, being besprinkled with water on the bed where he 
 lay, if that can be called baptism.''^ Du Pin says, in the three 
 first centuries, they plunged those three times in the wa- 
 ter, whom they baptized. The author of the History of the 
 Church by an impartial hand, says, speaking of the three 
 first centuries, to me it seems evident, that their usual 
 custom was to immerse, or to dip the whole body. Greg- 
 ory informs us that baptism in the primitive times Avas 
 administered by immersion. 
 
 Says Mosheim, those who had formed the resolution 
 of mending their lives, were initiated by John into 
 the kingdom of ih.^ Redeemer by immersion. The 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 11 
 
 sacrament of baptism was administered in the second cen- 
 tury without the publick assemblies in places appointed 
 and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by 
 immersion. Those adult persons that desired to be bap- 
 tized received the sacrament of baptism, according to 
 the ancient primitive manner of celebrating that institu- 
 tion, even by immersion. 
 
 Dr. Cave, in his primitive Christianity, says, the action 
 having proceeded thus far, the body to be baptized was 
 wholly immersed or put under water, which was almost 
 the universal custom of those times. 
 
 Eusebius, in his life of Constantine the Great, records 
 the following speech of trie dying Emperor. " This is 
 the hour, i. e. the hour of baptism, wherein we may also 
 enjoy that seal which confers immortality. I had hereto- 
 fore taken the resolution of doing this in the stream of 
 the river Jordan, %vhere our Saviour himself, in likeness 
 to us, is recorded to have partaken of the laver.'' 
 
 Gregory, speaking of the fourth century, says, " many 
 were so desirous of receiving this initiatory rite in the 
 same place with Christ, that they delayed baptism, till 
 they could travel into Judea. The Emperor Constantine 
 was among the number, and earnestly desired to receive 
 baptismal rite in the waters of Jordan." 
 
 When you had read all this, you add, " We are ready to 
 admit all that these historians have said in these quotations^ 
 Certainly this is a sweeping concession. It is truly sur- 
 prising that it should come from you after you had labour- 
 ed so hard to prove, that there is no certain evidence, 
 that either John or the Apostles, or primitive fathers of 
 the three first centuries, practised immersion ! 
 
 But here you grant that they almost universally im- 
 mersed, or dipped the whole body. How far this ac- 
 knowledgment differs from yielding the debate on the 
 mode, the reader will judge. VVe know that in the third 
 century they admitted the validity of sprinkling only in 
 cases of necessity. These are the few exceptions to 
 which Dr. Cave alludes. But this opinion of the fathers 
 is not supported by scripture. It was an error which 
 grew out of their notion, that baptism was necessary for 
 salvation. It furnishes no rule for us to sprinkle the dying, 
 who cannot be baptized, according to the command of 
 Christ. Much less will it sanction sprinkling in all cases 
 whether in sickness or health, in warm climates or cold, 
 L2 
 
LQ STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE'S RtitLY 
 
 where no such necessity exists, which the ancients belief- 
 ed would justify and sanction such a departure from the di- 
 vine institute. If these ancients were now on the earth, it 
 is presumed they would raise a loud voice against the gen- 
 eral practice of sprinkling, where no necessity can be plead 
 in its favour. But further, you in this concession im- 
 plicitly admit that the primitive church did almost uni- 
 versally understand haptizo^ to mean to immerse ; unless 
 you mean to say, that they did that almost universally, 
 which they knew this word did not require. This, it is 
 presumed, you will not pretend. Without doubt you will 
 say, that they were as much agreed in the meaning of that 
 word, as they were in immersion. Here then you grant 
 that this word did among the primitive christians mean 
 to dip. But in page 19th you contradict all this, and say, 
 '' It is evident the word baptize in Christ's and the 
 Apostles day did not invariably, nor does it appear that 
 it did generally signify to immerse." 
 
 Before I leave this subject, I would make some re- 
 marks on your words taken from BIr. Enoch Pond. You 
 quote him thus. '•'' Constantino the great, being clothed 
 with white garments, and laid upon his bed, was baptized 
 in a solemn manner by Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomidia. 
 Bu Pin's Hist. Eu. vol. 2nd. p. 84." I had said, ' he was 
 baptized in the usual wa3^' As you had no copy of Du 
 Pin, you could not tell, who was correct, Mr. P. or my- 
 self. I had and still have Du Pin, and have turned to the 
 page he mentions, and do not there, nor any where else, 
 iind a single word which Mr. Pond has quoted ! I have 
 a London edition, printed 1 724. What edition Mr. Pond us- 
 ed I know not. 
 
 The last argument which we employed was taken from 
 the design of baptism. This " was designed to be a sym- 
 bolical representation of our spiritual death, burial, and 
 resurrection to newness of life." From this design we 
 inferred that this ordinance must be performed by immer- 
 sion. Change this rite into sprinkling, and this design 
 vanishes from the view ; because sprinkling is no symbol- 
 ical representation of our burial and resurrection with 
 Christ. You, sir, and your brethren, would at once feel 
 the force of this reasoning- if it were applied to the other 
 ordinance, the Lord's Supper. Mr. Scott maintains that 
 Papists in withholding the cup from the laity, and by giv- 
 ing an unbroken wafer instead of broken bread^ have chang- 
 ed the Lord's Supper, till it has become quite another 
 
TO TFIE FOREGOING LETTERS. 19 
 
 thing, from its original design. He believed that this or- 
 dinance should be observed in such manner as to give a 
 symbolical representation of the shedding of Christ's blood, 
 and the breaking of his body on the tree of the cross. But in 
 the Catholic church, this rite is so observed, that of these 
 there is no representation. Paul says, '• for as often as 
 ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do sAory forth the 
 Lord's death.'''' Whenever therefore this ordinance is so 
 observed that the suiferings and death of Christ are not 
 shown, it is changed from its primitive purpose. " We, 
 being many, are one bread, and one body : for we are all 
 partakers of that one bread." Whitby in commenting on 
 this verse, says, these words, 'the loal or bread is one, and 
 we ail partake of one loaf, and therefore are one body,' 
 show how grossly the church of Rome has varied from 
 Christ's -institution, in distributing to the communicants 
 severally an unbroken wafer ; so that they are neither 
 partakers of one loaf, or bread, or of bread broken. But, 
 sir, is there a greater difference between eating an un- 
 broken wafer, and eating broken bread, than there is be- 
 tween sprinkling and immersion ? Is it not just as evi- 
 dent from scripture, that baptism ^sas designed to be a 
 symbolical representation of burial and resurrection, as 
 it is, that the Eucharist should show the Lord's 
 death? Paul says in the sixth of Ptom. "'• therefore we 
 are buried with him by baptism ;" and in Col. ii. 12, he 
 says, wherein, i. e. in baptism, ye are risen with him. 
 Here Paul treats of the nature of baptism. It is a burial. 
 How are saints buried with Christ ? '•'' by baptism." In 
 what have they risen with Christ ? in baptism. He next 
 treats of the design of baptism. If any one had asked the 
 Apostle, ^'hy or for what purpose saints were buried and 
 raised with Christ in baptism, he would hav e told him it 
 was done, "' that like as Christ was raised up from the 
 dead by the gloiy ofthe I'ather, even so also we shoidd 
 'walk in newness of life.'''' Doth not the Apostle, sir, in 
 this place teach us with great clearness, that believers 
 were buried in the water, and then raised up out of it in 
 baptism, to represent by outward signs that they by pro- 
 fession were dead to sin, and that their soul had been 
 quickened and raised from their moral grave, to live a 
 new and holy life ? In the manner, in v/hich you cele- 
 brate this rite, there is an entire departure from its orig- 
 inal design. Sprinkling is no symbol of suffering, burial, 
 or resurrection, any more than an unbroken wafer i> a 
 
26 
 
 symbol of the broken body of Christ. Have you not then 
 as grossly varied from the primitive design of baptism, as 
 the Papists have from the design of the Lord's Supper ? 
 With you, sprinkling is designed to be the sign of an oath 
 between God and believing parents, and a sign of inward 
 pollution, and of the need of the cleansing of the Holy 
 Ghost. But Paul viewed baptism as intended for very 
 different ends. 
 
 Let us now attend a little to your efforts to prove that 
 the design of baptism furnishes no proof in support of our 
 mode. You ask, ••' what resemblance is there between 
 hatred and renouncing of sin, and immersion or baptism 
 in any mode ? ^y resurrection to newness of life, I un- 
 derstand spiritual life or devotedness of heart and life to 
 God. /perceive no resemblance between this and a per- 
 son being raised out of the water. If there be no resem- 
 blance between two things, one cannot be a symbolical 
 representation of the other." In this last remark you are 
 perfectly correct. Says Mr. Blake, " Sacraments are an- 
 alogical signs, such as carry analogy and proportion with 
 the thing signiiied ; they have ever an aptness in them, 
 for resemblance." Says Austin, '-'• If sacraments carry no 
 resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments^ 
 they are no sacraments at all." If then you can per- 
 ceive no resemblance between hatred and renunciation of 
 sin and baptism in any mode, we would ask, what resem- 
 blance you perceive between sprinkling a few drops of 
 water on the face of an adult, and his dying to and renun- 
 ciation of sin ? Or, when you sprinkle an infant, what re- 
 semblance canyon discover between that ceremony and the 
 necessity of an inward cleansing ? If, as you say, there 
 be no resemblance between baptism in any mode, and 
 death to and resurrection from sin, what then does it re- 
 semble ? And why do you use water in any mode ? Can 
 you discover a resemblance between sprinkling an infant 
 and the duty of its parents to pray for and to train it up ia 
 (he nurture and admonition of the Lord ? You grant, 
 that I am '' not alone in the belief that baptism by immer- 
 sion is a designed representation of the death, burial and 
 resurrection of Christ. Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12, are 
 brought in support of this opinion. But / can perceive 
 no similarity between Christ suspended on a cross, breath- 
 ing out his life, and a person put under water. / can per- 
 ceive no similarity between the interment of the dead 
 body of Jesus m a tomb hewn out of a rock, and a mo- 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 21 
 
 mentary immersion of a living person in water. / can 
 perceive no similarity between Christ rising* to life from 
 the tomb, and a person rising out of the water, as he Avas 
 put in. Suppose the apostle was speaking of spiritual 
 baptism, and there is similarity and consistency. '''* 
 
 Spiritual baptism, you correctly define to be a "hatred 
 and renouncing of sin." But between this, and water 
 baptism in any mode, you say there is no resemblance. 
 You have also told us, that between water baptism, and 
 the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, there is no 
 resemblance. The two things, then, between which you 
 discover a resemblance, are spiritual baptism, and the 
 literal death, burial and resurrection of Christ. What, 
 sir, can you discover no resemblance between dying to 
 sin and baptism in any mode, and yet discover a strong 
 resemblance between dying to sin and Christ's dying on 
 the cross ? Can you perceive no resemblance between 
 burying the old man of sin, and burial under Avater in bap- 
 tism ? And yet perceive a resemblance between bury- 
 ing the old man of sin and Christ's burial in the tomb ? 
 Can you discover no resemblance between rising to new- 
 ness of life and rising out of the water, and yet discover 
 a resemblance in rising to newness of life and the resur- 
 rection of Christ from the grave ? 
 
 It is well, sir, that you have mentioned your blindness 
 so repeatedly, when you wrote the above paragraphs. 
 If you had not, I should have been utterly astonished that 
 they should have dropped from your pen. You employ 
 the phrase, / can perceive^ no \ess than five times in the 
 compass ofa few lines. I believe this ample testimony, 
 which you have given of your want of perception. But 
 you did not expect that the blur, which was upon your 
 sight, would open the eyes of others. What if you could 
 not discern this resemblance, will this prove that others 
 cannot ? Thousands of saints and martyrs have seen and 
 rejoiced in this resemblance. But after all that you have 
 here declared, you nevertheless say, even before you 
 leave this page, that " water is an emblem of purity, and 
 the application of it well represents the purifying influ- 
 ences of the Holy Ghost. And in the next page but one, 
 you say, " baptism with water represents the baptism of 
 the Hol}'^ Ghost." If you had a clear perception of your 
 subject, why should you so frequently have been guilty 
 of such flagrant contradictions ? 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
522 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 In this letter my observations will t)e somewhat mis- 
 Gellaneous. 
 
 You have grossly perverted my comment on the 7th 
 of Mark; my exposition of the 4th verse, you have taken 
 and applied to the 3d verse. The washing in these verses 
 I considered were of two kinds, one referring to the 
 hands, and the other to the body. Did I suppose that 
 Christ had been to the market, bought provision, brought 
 them to the pharisee's house, and that the pharisee mar- 
 velled because he did not wash these provisions before 
 he ate ? Certainly not. And had you discovered how 
 palpably you had misrepresented my language, you would 
 have suppressed your string of interrogatives, which, it 
 seems, you uttered with much self-complacency. 
 
 In page 21st you say, "It appears the Jews expected 
 from their prophecies, that when John, the predicted 
 Elias, and the Messiah should come, they would administer 
 baptism." In the 22nd page you say, " from these re- 
 marks it appears, that christian baptism was taught or 
 foretold by the prophets." By christian baptism here 
 you certainly mean that, which John administered. Bu£ 
 on the next page you adduce many arguments to prove 
 that John's baptism was not a christian rite. 
 
 You wonder wh}'^ I passed over the famous text in 
 1 Cor. X. 1,2. You seem to imagine I was apprized, 
 that the passage would be refractory in my hands, if I 
 attempted to shape it into an argument in my favour. 
 No such fears were entertained. It is here said the Jews 
 were all baptized ijithe cloud and in the sea. Between 
 the passage of the Israelites through the sea, and bap- 
 tism, there are some points of resemblance. The text 
 must be taken figuratively by whomsoever employed. 
 They went down into the sea, were quite surrounded by 
 water, and then they came up out of the sea. So can- 
 didates for baptism go down into the water, and then come 
 up out of the water. But between sprinkling and this 
 march into the sea, and emerging from it, there are no 
 points of resemblance. I know you say that it is highly 
 probable they were sprinkled by the sprays, or fine par- 
 ticles of water, wliich flew from the breaking waves, and 
 ))j mist from the cloud. We are told by the inspired pen- 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. ^3 
 
 man, that " the depths were congealed in the heart of 
 the sea," Exo. xv. 8, and that they stood up like walls 
 on each hand. How could sprays be blown from congeal* 
 ed walls of water? 
 
 Is there any more probability, that they were sprinkled 
 from the cloud ? This was not then over them, but be- 
 tween them and the Egyptians. Beside, the face of the 
 cloud towards the Jews was red, like a pillar of fire, and 
 there was not the least appearance of rain or mist about 
 it. Moreover, the distance of this cloud from the van of 
 the army of Israel must have been considerable. More 
 than half a million marched into the sea. We are not 
 told how wide was the channel, nor how broad their col* 
 umn. But it is likely that their line of march stretched 
 over several miles. Now on your plan, a rain or mist 
 must proceed from this fery cloud, and then be driven by 
 winds a number of miles so as to sprinkle the distant front 
 of the army. 
 
 Perhaps you may think, that if I pass your submitted 
 journal, I shall shrink from a hard task. I am not con- 
 scious of any fear to meet this or any other portion of your 
 reasoning. Upon your journal I will just observe, that it 
 doth not contain one word of scripture which was ever 
 intended to describe your mode of administering this 
 christian ordinance ! 
 
 In page 37, yon inform us that, " the ancient christians, 
 when they baptized by immersion, were all baptized 
 naked. As it might be expected, these baptisms were 
 sometimes attended with great confusion and tumult. 
 Some of the outrages, committed on these occasions, are 
 too bad for description." 
 
 You do not I suppose mean to insinuate by your empha- 
 sis on the word immersion, that this was rarely practised in 
 those primitive times ? Because you have granted that im- 
 mersion was the almost universal mode in the earliest ages. 
 Neither could you mean that these naked folks, and this 
 confusion and tumult, and these outrages^ which '' might 
 be expected from" this zvay of baptizing^ belong to 
 the Baptists, because, according to your chronology^ they 
 did not exist till after the commencement of the 12th 
 century. Wall mentions immediately after the passage 
 you have quoted from him, an outrage, which took place 
 in the great baptistery of Constantinople. See him, page 
 479. But this outrage was a military assault, which took 
 place in consequence of hostilities between two contending 
 
24 STRICTURES ON Mil. MOORE'S REPLY 
 
 bishops, and which would have occurred, if sprinkling 
 had been the practice. Was this passage in your eye, 
 when you insinuated, that this outrage was the offspring 
 of immersion ? Was the contention of two ecclesiasticks, 
 or immersion^ the cause of this outrage ? 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 Having finished your observations on the mode, you 
 proceed to the more important particular, the subject 
 of baptism. 
 
 You begin by quoting the great apostolical commis-,? 
 sion. I had maintained, that this commission does not- 
 contain infant baptism. This opinion of mine you viewed 
 as a material error, and it was your object to refute this, 
 as you thought, false sentiment. But, sir, you certainly 
 appear in this in a very inconsistent attitude. You first 
 labour at considerable length to prove that infant baptism 
 is not contained in this commission. And you assign the 
 reasons why it is not embraced. Infants, you contend, were 
 baptized with proselyted parents, when they were admitted 
 into the Jewish church. This practice, you say, the Apos- 
 tles well knew, and therefore there was no need that infant 
 baptism should be specifically mentioned in the commission. 
 After this you tell us that " infant baptism appears to be 
 contained in the commission, as penned by one evangelist." 
 But, sir, if it were so evidently contained in this commis- 
 sion, or any where else in the Bible, why did you not pro- 
 ceed to show directly where it is expressly enjoined. 
 Why did you not show book, chapter and verse, in which 
 God had commanded believing parents to sprinkle their 
 children ? If infant baptism be contained in any part of 
 scripture, you could have found the places where it is 
 mentioned, and exhibited them, as easily as you could find 
 proof of this practice in the Talmudic writings. If the 
 Bible would furnish you with proof, why do you leave 
 this, and resort to the doubtful testimonies of the rabbins? 
 Yourself aad Wall, and Lightfoot, and many others, sup- 
 port pedobaptism by arguments drawn from the Talmud 
 or Misnah of Jewish doctors. By this conduct you pro- 
 claim to the world in the loudest manner your painful 
 conviction, that infant baptism is not to be found in the 
 oracles of truth. 
 
TO TftE FOREGOING LETTERS. 2b 
 
 For if you believed it was, why did you not bring your 
 support from this infallible source, and not resort to the 
 corrupt writings of superstitious Jews ? This question 
 I wish you seriously to consider. 
 
 You, and other learned men, can read the ponderous 
 volumes of the traditionary writings of the Jews. And 
 after tumbling over many pages, you may find what you 
 think is proof of infant baptism. But what are private 
 and common christians to do, who can have no access to 
 these volumes ? and if they had, they could not understand 
 the language in which they are written. Can you believe 
 that Christ left his church to gain their main proof for a 
 positive institution from a source, which he himself point- 
 edly condemned ? How severely did he rebuke the Jews 
 for holding to traditionary washings ! See Mark vii. 3, 4, 
 7 and 8. " For the pharisees and all the Jews, except 
 they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of 
 the elders. And when they come from the market, ex- 
 cept they wash, they eat not. And many other things 
 there be, which they have received to hold, as the wash- 
 ing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels and tables. How- 
 beit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines, 
 the commandments of men. For laying aside the com- 
 mandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, ajs the 
 washing of pots and cups ; and many other such like things 
 ye do." If proselyte baptism then existed, it was but a 
 tradition of men. And how can you tell but that Christ 
 meant to put it down by this sweeping anathema ? That 
 the reader may see the ground you take, we present the 
 following extracts from your Reply. " But it doth not fol- 
 low from this, that they had no knowledge of baptism be- 
 fore this time. Had they been entirely ignorant of this 
 rite, it seems that the commission given them would have 
 been explicit, as to mode and subject, if it were designed 
 that only one mode should be practised. But if they 
 knew any thing about the rite of baptism, what they knew 
 and what was in familiar use, needed not to be contained 
 specifically in the commission. 
 
 '• This principle is observed in civil laws. Legislators, 
 when they pass an act, do not recapitulate the laws, which 
 they had enacted, and with which the present one was 
 connected. They presume that the people are ac- 
 quainted with the laws existing ; and of course they 
 need not specify in one act what was contained in another^ 
 M 
 
^G STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE^S REPLY 
 
 with which it was intimately connected." Yon then pro- 
 ceeds to inquire what the Apostles knew, and what was 
 the practice of baptism, when they received their com- 
 mission. " The Apostles wereJews. They were well ac- 
 quainted with the method of converting", or proselyting 
 Gentiles, and of bringing" them under the discipline of their 
 religion. It is evident that the custom of the Jews before 
 our Saviour's time (and as they themselves affirm, from the 
 beginning of their law) was to baptize, as well as circum- 
 cise any proselyte that came over to them from the nations. 
 This does fully appear both from the books of the Jews 
 themselves, and also of others that understood the Jewish 
 customs, and have written of them. They reckoned all 
 mankind beside themselves to be in an unclean state, and 
 not capable of being entered into the covenant of Israelites 
 without a washing or baptism, to denote their purification 
 from uncleanness. — And so in all ages when an Ethnic is 
 willing to enter into covenant and gather himself under 
 the wings of the Majesty of God, and take upon him 
 the yoke of the law, he must be circumcised, and bap- 
 tized, and bring a sacrifice ; or if it be a woman, be bap- 
 tized, and bring a sacrifice. As it is written ; as you are, 
 so shall the stranger be. How are you ? By circumcision, 
 and baptism, and bringing of a sacrifice. — It is to be ob- 
 served, that if any such proselyte, who came over to the 
 Jewish religion and was baptized into it, had any infant 
 children then born to him ; they also were at the Father's 
 desire circumcised and baptized, and admitted as Prose- 
 lytes. The child's inability to declare or promise for him- 
 self was not looked on as a bar against his reception into 
 the covenant; but the desire of his father to dedicate him 
 to the true God, was counted available and sufficient to 
 justify his admission. 
 
 "This is also plainly proved and agreed by all the learn- 
 <^d men aforesaid,and by all others, to have been the custom 
 of the Jews ; that if they found any child that had been ex- 
 posed in the fields, woods, or highways by the Heathens ; 
 or if they took in war any infant children, whom they 
 brought home as booty, and intended to bring them up 
 in their religion, they baptized them in infancy and ac- 
 counted Ihem as proselytes. — These cases were very fre- 
 quent. — So that Dr. Lightfoot says, the baptizing of in- 
 fants was a thing as well known in the church of the Jews^ 
 MS ever it has been in the Christian church. Wall's Hist* 
 TrS. Bap. pt. 1. pp. 3,9, 13. . 
 
TO THE FOREGOING l^ETTERS. 21 
 
 "From these quotations, which are well substantiated^ 
 we see the Jews' method of making- proselytes from the 
 heathen. The Apostles were Jews converted to Chris- 
 tianity. Christ, when he gave them a commission, author- 
 ized them to proselyte heathen, not to the Jewish, but to 
 the christian religion, if he had designed that tliey should 
 have proselyted them in precisely the same manner, in 
 which they had before proselyted them, he would, un- 
 doubtedly, have required his Apostles in general terms 
 (not expressing the particulars of the method) to prose- 
 lyte them, or he would have expressed all the particulars 
 to which they were accustomed. Instead of this he com- 
 mands his Apostles to baptize the Heathen, whom they 
 should proselyte or convert. As he particularized bap- 
 tism, and that only, it is a faij' conclusion that he designed 
 that circumcision and sacrifice should not be used at the 
 initiation of Heathen into the christian church. Had 
 he designed that any alteration should be made in respect 
 to subjects, he would as probably have particularized in 
 respect to them, as in respect to the method of admit- 
 ting them. Had he particularized adults, and them only, 
 it would be as fair conclusion that infants should be left 
 out of the number of subjects to be proselyted, as that 
 circumcision and sacrifice should be left out of the method 
 of initiating them. But as he particularized nothing in 
 respect to subjects, it is a fair conclusion that he designed 
 that the same description of persons should be proselyted 
 and baptized under the Christian dispensation, which had 
 been under the Jewish dispensation." pp. 41, 42, 43. 
 
 Here you lay down your first principles, your strong 
 foundation, on which you rear your structure of Pedo- 
 baptism. For the present I will admit, for argument's 
 sake, your grand basis, and proceed to show that the 
 broad principles, which you have adopted, will in their 
 legitimate consequences overturn your whole theory. 
 
 1 . If proselyte baptism be the origin of infant baptism, 
 then this latter rests for its support, not on the Bible, 
 but upon mere human tradition. See Wall, p. 53d, Istpt. 
 Ed. 2nd. No such institution is found in the law of God ; 
 or that any such ceremony was ever observed cannot be 
 learned from the whole history of the Bible. At best 
 it is only an invention of man. 
 
 2. You must hold to immersion. All the authorities 
 on which you rely, teach you that proselytes were dip- 
 ped when taken into the church. Of this, I can bring 
 
28 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 the most direct and ample proof. But for brevity's 
 sake, I shall only refer to the places where it may be 
 found. I presume that neither you nor any of your 
 brethren will dispute this, or ever wish to see it 
 exhibited. Such proof is directly against your prac- 
 tice. See Wall, pp. 44, 45, 59. Now let us take 
 for our guide one of your grand rules. " What the 
 Apostles knew, and what was in familiar use respecting 
 baptism needed not to be specifically contained in the 
 commission." W^henthey considered that Gentiles and their 
 children were received into the Jewish church by im- 
 mersion^ they would rationally conclude, that when they 
 were admitted into the christian church, they would be 
 received the same way," i. e. by immersion. " For Christ 
 made no alteration as to the mode of baptism." All 
 this you farther confirm, when you say, p. 41, ''• If such a 
 commission were given to a Baptist minister, he would 
 undoubtedly conclude, that he was authorized to baptize 
 according to the method, which he had before practised." 
 The Apostles understood Christ to require dipping, and 
 they immersed in obedience to his commands. All this 
 you must admit, or deny your own sentiments. AH your 
 laboured remarks about the studied ambiguity of Christ 
 vanish into air. 
 
 3. When you receive a believing man, you must bap- 
 tize him, his wife, his children, and all his servants, wheth- 
 er Ihey give evidence of grace or not. Says Wall, p. 48, 
 "• As Abraham of 99 years old, and Ishmael his son, of 13 
 years old, and ail the males in his house that were eight 
 days old or upward, were circumcised at the same time, 
 so such a proselyte, with all his, were both baptized, (and 
 circumcised if they were males) but if they were females, 
 they were baptized." Now as the Apostles had been ac- 
 customed to see a man, when proselyted to the law of 
 Moses, bring his wife, children and servants to baptism, 
 would they not rationally conclude, that they must do 
 the same in admitting members into the christian church ? 
 '' For Christ gave no intimation to them, that he meant 
 they should make any alteration either in the mode or 
 the subjects." 
 
 4. Baptism must not be applied to those children, who 
 are born after the conversion of their parents. See Wall, 
 pp. 50 and 51. " What has been said of the baptism of 
 children of proselytes, is to be understood of such child- 
 ren as were born before the parents themselves were 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 29 
 
 baptized ; for all the children that were born to them 
 afterwards, they reckoned, were clean by their birth ; for 
 he that is born of a baptized parent, is accounted as bap- 
 tized. And Dr. Lightfoot gives this as their rule. The 
 sons of Proselytes^ in follorving generations^ were circumcis- 
 ed indeed ; hut not baptized — as being already Israelites. "^"^ 
 
 As they employed this baptism to wash away the filth 
 of heathenism, so they viewed it as improper to apply it 
 to those, who were born in their church, and had never 
 been polluted with paganism. The Apostles knew very 
 well the design of proselyte baptism, and the extent of 
 its application. Would they not then rationally conclude 
 that it must be used for the same purpose and employed 
 to the same extent in the christian church, seeing Christ 
 gave them no intimation to the contrary ? You consider 
 the infants of believers as members of the kingdom of 
 heaven, by which, you mean the church. From their 
 membership you infer, that they ought to be baptized. 
 See p. 58. But the ancient Jews from iheir membership 
 inferred that they ought not to be baptized. 
 
 [ know that you have endeavored to prove the perpe- 
 tuity of christian baptism by the words of Christ : '' Ex- 
 cept a man (tis, any one) be born of water and of thq 
 spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." But 
 this is a direction to those, who are out of the kingdom ; 
 and not to those, who are in the kingdom. The word, 
 tis, any one, doth not embrace church members, but non- 
 professors. Hence this text on your plan will not prove 
 the perpetuity of baptism. 
 
 5. You must say, that baptism is no mark of parental 
 and divine obligation, or no sign of a covenant between 
 God anti believing parents, respecting their children. 
 The apostles well knew, that proselyte baptism was de- 
 signed " to denote their forsaking and washing off from 
 them all their former profane and heathen practices." 
 Again you say, by citing Wall, '• They reckoned all man- 
 kind, beside themselves, to be in an unclean state, and 
 not capable of being entered into the covenant of Israel, 
 without a cleansing or baptism, to denote their purifica- 
 tion from their uncleanness." This design of baptism 
 the apostles well knew, and there was ^'tio need of its 
 being specifically mentioned in their commission." They 
 would therefore " rationally conclude, that when con- 
 verts were made to c hristiani ty," baptism must be em- 
 M 2 
 
30 STRICTURES ON MR. KIOORE's RfiPLV 
 
 ployed upon them for the same purpose, as it was on 
 Jewish proselytes : viz. *' to denote their washing off 
 the uncleanness of paganism," to be fit members of the 
 fihurch of God. As Christ, the great legislator of Zion, 
 gave no intimations, when he issued the apostolic com-* 
 mission, that he intended any change in the design and 
 extent of baptism, so, as you reason, they would fairly 
 infer from this silence, that no alteration was meant, and 
 of course they would continue the practice without any 
 alteration in its design or extent of application. All this 
 is confirmed by your own words. " When Christ re- 
 quired his apostles to proselyte the heathen to Chris- 
 tianity, they would proselyte, as they understood the 
 method of proselyting, and as they had been accustomed, 
 and Christ, unless he taught them to the contrary, would 
 expect it of them." " From these remarks it appears 
 that the reasonings of some Socinians, Quakers, and Mr." 
 M's, will all equally conclude against the design and per-' 
 petuity of Christian baptism. 
 
 6. If you will maintain, that christian baptism succeeds 
 to proselyte baptism, you cannot then, without gross ab- 
 surdity, say that it comes in the lieu of circumcision. 
 That you do infer infant baptism from these two opposite- 
 sources is abundantly evident. See p. 57. Circumcision 
 and proselyte baptism were different in their nature and 
 design. Now to say that infant baptism is a substitute for 
 circumcision, and yet the successor of proselyte baptism, 
 is as incorrect, as to say, that two fountains o£»opposite 
 natures, salt and fresh, should nevertheless both send forth 
 streams which perfectly resemble each other, though they 
 jflow from springs of dissimilar qualities. While you rea- 
 son from both of those different topics in favour of the same 
 rite, you appear like a man, who rears with one hand, 
 and demolishes with the other. Says Mr. Hill, a pres- 
 byter of Bath and Wells, England : " Those who say 
 baptism succeeds circumcision, virtually confess the Jews 
 had no such baptism, as that of Proselytes, for if there 
 was such a rite among them, and our Lord took this or- 
 dinance from it, they ought to say our baptism succeeds 
 to that, and not circumcision. These same persons, it is 
 true, at other times, derive it from the Jewish baptism 
 too ; which plainly discovers their great prejudices and 
 partiality, and how inconsistent they are with them- 
 selves." See Gale, p. 379, 
 
to THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 
 
 ii 
 
 7. You must advocate the use of God-fathers and 
 mothers. According to Mr. Wall, the Apostles had, be- 
 fore they received their commission, been familiarly ac- 
 quainted with the use of sponsors in favour of infants of 
 proselytes. " As the Jews required that for an infant 
 proselyte, either his father, or else the consistory, (or 
 church) of the place, or at least three grave persons, 
 should answer or undertake at his baptism ; so the chris- 
 tians did the same ; putting the several interrogatories 
 of the creed, and of the renunciation and requiring the 
 child's answer by his parents or other sponsors." Wall, 
 p. 59. Introduction. 
 
 This author, it seems, traces the origin of sponsors in 
 the christian church to their use in the introduction of 
 the children of proselytes into the Jewish church. 
 
 8. If this be the foundation of infant baptism, then per^ 
 sons baptizing themselves, without any administrator at 
 all, will be supported by it, as this was unquestionably 
 the way in which the baptisms referred to were some- 
 times observed. 
 
 Thus we have shown some of the inevitable conse- 
 quences of your theory. If it were reduced to general 
 practice, all our churches would at once be changed into 
 Jewish synagogues, and this rite of initiation would be 
 attended with all the ceremonies of their superstitious 
 rabbins. 
 
 We will conclude this examination in your own words 
 with a little variation. '•' He lays down his arguments, 
 respecting- pagans, converted to Judaism, and draws his 
 conclusions, respecting Gentiles converted to Christianity. 
 This is a species of reasoning which does not well agree 
 with the rules of logic." 
 
 The reader will bear in mind that thus far I have only 
 granted, for argument's sake, what I do not believe to be 
 true ; viz. That proselyte baptism existed in the davs 
 of Christ and the Apostles. That it existed some time 
 after, I do not deny. The reasons of my belief 1 will 
 briefly assign. 
 
 I. The Old Testament no where mentions or alludes 
 to such a ceremony as proselyte baptism. It tells how 
 proselytes were to be admitted, and how they were ac- 
 tually received. There was only one law for the stran- 
 ger and for the home born Israelite. See Exod. xii. 48, 49. 
 The particular ceremonies to be observed at the marriage 
 
32 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE's REPLY 
 
 of a Jew to a pagan woman, taken in war, are mentioned 
 in Deut. xxi. 10, but nothing is here said of her being bap- 
 tized. When Ezra returned from Babylon many pagans 
 separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of 
 the heathen, and united with the Jews in eating the pass- 
 over, but no mention is here made of their baptism. 
 
 2. There is no mention of this kind of baptism in the 
 New Testament. Proselytes are mentioned, Matt, xxiii. 
 15. Acts, ii. 10, and vi. 5, and xiii. 43. But nothing is 
 here said respecting their mode of admission. If it then 
 prevailed, why no mention of it in the baptisms of John, 
 of Christ, and the Apostles ? 
 
 3. Gill, in his dissertation on this subject, shows that 
 there is no mention made of proselyte baptism, by any 
 authors who wrote before the days of Christ, nor by any, 
 who wrote for some time after the days of the Apostles. 
 It is not mentioned by Philo, the Jew, who lived in the 
 first century ; nor in the rabbinical books of this time, 
 nor by Josephus who wrote a little after Philo ; though 
 he treats of the religious ceremonies and customs of 
 the Jews and speaks of many Gentiles, nay, of whole 
 nations, coming over to Judaism; and speaks of their 
 being circumcised, but nothing of their baptism. He par- 
 ticularly mentions Helena, queen of Adiabone, but says 
 nothing of her baptism, though he mentioned the circum- 
 cision of her son, nor in the Chaldee paraphrases, nor 
 in the Misnah, or book of Jewish traditions, nor in the 
 commentaries on the pentateuch written, A. D. 300, nor 
 by any of the christian fathers of the tirst thrc-a or four 
 centuries. 
 
 The two Talmuds, the Jerusalem and Babylonish, 
 were compiled, the first about A. D. 230, and the latter 
 about 500. The last was abridged by Maimonedes in 
 A. D. 1100. The authority which Wall brings from 
 them in support of his theory is of such a doubtful char- 
 acter, that to it I would make no reply. 
 
 4. Proselytes to the Jewish religion were baptized 
 when admitted into the christian church. There were 
 proselytes among the three thousand, who were baptized 
 on the day of Pentecost. The Eunuch Avas a proselyte j 
 but yet he was baptized when he embraced Christianity. 
 But if he had been baptized before, would not this look 
 like rebaptization ? 
 
 The doctor concludes his dissertation then with boldly 
 asserting, after the most minute inquiry, that this custom 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTER?. 33' 
 
 of baptizing" children was so far from being common in 
 all ag-es, foregoing the times of John, Christ, and his 
 Apostles, that nol a single instance can be given of aay 
 one that ever was then baptized." And adds, in the 
 words of Dr. Owen, " that the opinion of some learned 
 men concerning transferring the rite of Jewish baptism 
 by the Lord Jesus, which indeed did not then exist, for 
 the use of his disciples, is destitute of all probability." 
 To these names I could add those of Lardner, Jennings, 
 Buddeus, Danzius, and many others. Whoever wishes to 
 read on this subject may consult Gill and Innes. In p. 43, 
 you say, " As he particularized baptism and that only, it 
 is Si fair conclusion that he designed that circumcision and 
 sacrifice, should not be used at the initiation of heathen 
 into the Christian church." Here you tell us, that the si- 
 lence of Christ, respecting circumcision^ furnished a fair con- 
 clusion, that he meant it should be dropped. This is 
 certainly your meaning, as will appear to any one, who 
 will read the period and the whole paragraph. Now let 
 us turn to the 62ad page. Here you say, " When Paul 
 was charged with denying circumcision to the children of 
 the Jews, Mr. C. wonders why he did not exonerate him- 
 self by saying," ' You know that I sprinkle them as a sub- 
 stitute,' "and brings in Dr. Baldwin to help him wonder, 
 and to help him out. Suppose the Apostle had told the 
 Jews, that the law of circumcision was abrogated, and 
 that he administered baptism in its place, would this have 
 satisfied them ? They were accustomed to circumcise and 
 baptize those who were proselyted to their religion. When 
 they were proselyted to Christianity, and they knew that 
 baptism was a rite of introduction into the church, they 
 'would naturally infer^ till they xn-ere taught otherzvise^ that 
 circumcision would also be used.'''' 
 
 Here, when you would overthrow my reasoning, you 
 maintain, that from the silence of Christ about circum- 
 cision, the Jews would naturally infer that he meant it 
 should be continued ; but in page 43 you maintain, that 
 the silence of Christ, about circumcision in his commission 
 to the Apostles, would lead them " fairly to conclude, 
 that he meant it should be dropped.'"' What a potent argu- 
 ment is silence^ to what ditlerent purposes it may be 
 turned? I wonder, sir, who helped you into this deep 
 contradiction, and I wonder who will help you out. 
 
 Beside, who taught the Apostles, previous to the coun- 
 cil at Jesusalem, " to do othenvis^'^'' than to circ(jmcise aad 
 
34 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE'S REPLY 
 
 baptize their converts ? And how happened they to drop. 
 this rite, when they had a natural reason to infer from 
 the silence of Christ, that he meant it should be continu- 
 ed ? And how came the complaint of its discontinuance 
 to arise in the church? Moreover, if, as you say, the 
 church at Jerusalem would naturally infer, that Christ 
 meant that both circumcision and baptism should be con- 
 tinued, side by side, when did Christ teach them their 
 mistake, and that he meant they should substitute the lat- 
 ter for the former ? 
 
 You remark that the Greek word in the commission to 
 teach, '^ signifies, to convert, to proselyte, to disciple, or 
 make disciples." If it be asked, can any be converted, 
 or be made disciples, without instruction, or without acapa- 
 bility of it ? We reply, it seems to be implied in what 
 Peter said that discipleship extended to children. Peter 
 said, " why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of 
 the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able 
 to bear?" Acts xv. 10. This is your seeming proof that 
 infants are disciples, or that persons may be discipled 
 without instruction. But all the strength of your argu- 
 ment, and at best it has but little, lies in the meaning of 
 the word yoke. Did the Apostle mean by it, circumci- 
 sion simply ? Or did he not mean the whole ritual law ? 
 That he did mean the ceremonial law is the opinion of 
 Scott, Gill, and other expositors. 
 
 The observance of this law formed a heavy yoke. By 
 putting the yoke on the neck, is meant the imposing of 
 the obligation to observe the Mosaic law. Certainly 
 then the Apostles did not debate, whether it were duty 
 to impose this yoke, this obligation to keep the typical 
 law, on helpless infants. In order to retort upon me 
 the charge of inconsistency, you represent me, as hold- 
 ing that John's ministry and that of the Apostles, after 
 the resurrection, formed two distinct dispensations. In p. 
 46, you quote me thus : Mr. C. " by way of inference 
 from the preceding dispensation," says, " under these 
 circumstances the Apostles would naturally continue to 
 use water in the same manner, and upon the same sub- 
 jects as before." ' Here we see Mr. C. who adheres so 
 closely to the commission, come down from the moun- 
 tain where it was given, and plunge himself in Jordan, to 
 discover what is the mode, and who are the proper sub* 
 jects of baptism.' 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 38 
 
 Did I, sir, consider Johns's ministry as forming a dispen- 
 sation, distinct from that of the Apostles after Christ's as- 
 cension ? No, sir, you have twice granted before, that I 
 viewed John's ministry as the beginning of the gospel dis- 
 pensation. How could you then say that I enforced the 
 mode and the subject of baptism from John''s ministry, as 
 from a preceding and separate dispensation ? With en- 
 tire consistency I could refer back to the ministry of 
 John, and not argue from one dispensation to another. 
 I am sorry to see so much evidence, that your propensity 
 to wit leads you to violate the laws of candor. Certainly 
 the above remarks " come with great infelicity" from 
 you, after your concessions and formal assurance, that 
 " care has been used not to misrepresent the meaning of 
 the author of the Letters." 
 
 In the last paragraph of this letter, you observe, Mr. C. 
 ^ first takes us according to our understanding of the 
 commission, as it is recorded by Matthew, and says, we 
 are sanguine that it embraces infants. He then takes us 
 according to our understanding of a part of the commis- 
 sion, as it was recorded by Mark, and says, we seem to be 
 equally sure that it doth not embrace them. Because 
 we say, that infant baptism appears to be contained in the 
 commission *as penned by one evangelist, and that it does 
 not appear to be contained in a detached part of the com- 
 mission as it is penned by another evangelist, he repre- 
 sent us grossly inconsistent, and contradicting ourselves.'* 
 
 The detached part of the commission, to which you here 
 allude is this : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved, but he that believeth not," &c. In this detached 
 part of the commission, as recorded by Mark, you grant 
 that infant baptism " does not appear to be contained," but 
 3'qu suppose it is contained in the other part of the commis- 
 sion, for the commissions in Matthew and Mark "are notcon- 
 trariant." Let us then quote the other part of Mark's com- 
 mission, that the reader may see, whether infant baptism is 
 contained in this part. *'Goye into all the world, and preach 
 the gospel to every creature." This is the other part of 
 the commission in which you maintain that infant baptism is 
 to be found. Here is a command to preach the gospel to ev- 
 ery creature. You will, 1 presume, go with me some distance 
 in limiting the phrase, every creature. You will not say that 
 Christ meant to command the Apostles to preach the gospel 
 to babes, or to the deaf and insane. If you say that the com- 
 mand to preach the gospel be limited to adults and those 
 
36 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLt 
 
 capable of hearing it, then you must show, how the coi>v 
 mand to preach the gospel to a specified class of beings, 18 
 at the same time a command to baptize a different and un- 
 specified class of beings. But though you laboured so 
 long to prove that infant baptism is contained in the com- 
 mission, yet after all, do you not mean to maintain that it 
 is not contained ? AVhat was in familiar use about bap- 
 tism, '' needed not to be specifically contained in the coni' 
 mission.^' Your meaning is certainly this : that as the 
 Apostles had been accustomed to see proselytes and their 
 infants baptized, when taken into the Jewish church, this 
 well known custom was a sufficient guide ; therefore in- 
 fant baptism needed not to be specified in the commission. 
 If I understand you, you mean to support infant baptism, 
 not because it is contained in the commission, but because 
 it is not prohibited. It is because Christ is perfectly 
 silent on this subject, because he particularizes nothing 
 in respect to subject, whether adult or infant ; from all 
 this silence you conclude, that Christ meant we should 
 baptize infants. You illustrate yourself by an appeal to 
 the conduct of legislators. So you maintain that the law 
 of infant baptism was in force before the commission was 
 issued, and as Christ in it was perfectly silent respecting 
 the repeal of this previous law, the conclusion is fair that 
 he meant it should remain. The utter silence of Christ 
 in this commission about infant baptism is your argument 
 in favour of its perpetuity. After all, then, doth it not ap- 
 pear that you agree with the Baptists, that infant bap- 
 tism is not contained in tlie apostolic commission ? 
 
 Remarking on the Jailer, you say, " Whatever this sal- 
 vation was, which was promised to his house, it was to 
 Gome upon them in consequence of his faith." This is 
 a very extraordinary expression. You are in this opinion, I 
 believe, quite alone. No commentator that I have ever 
 consulted agrees with you. I had supposed that Pedobap- 
 tists maintain that converting grace comes on their child- 
 ren to a greater or less extent in consequence of their 
 fidelity in fulfilling the conditions of a peculiar covenant, 
 existing between them and God in relation to their child- 
 ren ; and not that their children are to be saved in con- 
 sequence of their common faith in Christ. The jailer in 
 exhorted to believe in Christ, and not in this particular 
 covenant, and this his faith in Christ, you say, was to save 
 his family. If this be true, then the children of be- 
 ireving Baptists in Christ are as sure of salvation as those 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. o7 
 
 of Pedobaptists. "If," say you, " it be admitted Ac re-, 
 joiced and believed with all his house, it docs not follow, 
 that they rejoiced and believed xs^ith him. But a short time 
 ago Mr. C. believed -xith the people of his charge, that 
 immersion of believers was the only christian baptism. 
 But they did not believe the same with him. He rejoic- 
 ed "izith them at the new light, which was poured in upon 
 his mind. But they wept -mth him." This wit, sir, may 
 tickle the ears of superficial readers, but it will carry no 
 conviction to the honest inquirer after truth. Are you 
 satisfied of this childish quibble ? Will you say the word 
 "Biith., in the following passages expresses a union in spot^ 
 but no similarity of feeling ? " Remember them that are 
 in bonds, as bound -with them. Rejoice with them, that 
 do rejoice, and weep '<jDith them that weep. Rejoice is)ith 
 me, for I have found the piece, which was lost. Whether 
 one member suffer, all the members suffer with it ; or if 
 one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." 
 Does the word -anth in all these places express a union 
 of spot, or a union of joy and sorrow ? 
 
 You express your belief, that there were no males 
 present when Ljdia was converted. Hence you infer 
 that the brethren, whom Paul found in her house, were 
 not members of her family, when she was baptized. 
 That there were men, who assembled at that place of 
 worship is highl}^ probable. Mr. Scott says, " It seems 
 that the Jews, in this city, had no synagogue with rulers ; 
 but there was a small oratory without the city by the 
 river's side, where a few people were accustomed to 
 assemble for the worship of God on the Sabbath day." 
 To this house Paul and Silas resorted on tlie Sabbath da}^, 
 probably to have an opportunity to preach the Gospel to 
 the Jew^s, who might then assemble. It seems that before 
 public service commenced, they sat down and conversed 
 on religious subjects in a free manner with some women, 
 who had early convened. Without doubt this house of 
 prayer was built for the united public worship of both 
 sexes. Will you say that these public services were to 
 be conducted wholly by female speakers ? 
 
 In page 51 you say, if it be improbable that Lydia had 
 young children with her, " it is not improbable she might 
 take servants with her, who composed her household." 
 The word doulos, servant, when it is used as the correlate 
 to master, means the same as slave. Such slaves then 
 N 
 
38 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 existed both among Jews and Gentiles, To such Paul 
 says, " art ihou called, being a servant? care not for it; 
 but if thou majest be made free use it rather." Christ 
 asks, " V hicli of 3^ou having a servant ploughing, &;c. 
 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters." 
 1 Cor. vii. f^l, Luke xvii. 7, Eph. vi. 5. Such were the 
 servants of Ljdia, if she possessed any. These servants, 
 you maintain, Paul would have baptized solely on the 
 ground of her faith. Here then you exhibit Paul as 
 teaching, that converted masters ought to bring to bap- 
 tism all their unconverted servants, or slaves. It seems 
 then, that the free spirit of the gospel was no objection 
 in the Apostle's mind against the baptism of slaves on 
 their master's faith. But in the 63d page, you maintain, 
 that christian masters ought not to bring their slaves to 
 baptism, because " the slave trade and the holding of 
 slaves are" not " agreeable to the laws and regulations 
 of Christ." How then happened Paul to cherish an 
 opinion, so hostile to the very genius of the gospel, as 
 to be willing to baptize all the servants of Lydia, and 
 thus to sanction their bondage ? Did he not understand 
 the nature of Christ's religion as well as yourself? If he 
 were now on the earth, would he contradict the proprie- 
 ty of his ancient practice, and forbid believing masters to 
 bring their slaves to this ordinance, but command them to 
 manumit all their servants, because their slavery was a- 
 gainst the laws and regulations of Christ ? How can it be 
 wrong to baptize servants now^ on the profession of their 
 holders, if such a practice were right in the days of Paul? 
 The nature of the gospel, and the laws and regulations 
 of Christ, have suffered no change. I had said that if 
 Pedobaptism should universally prevail, then the com- 
 mission must be read in this reversed order : He that is 
 baptized and belicveth after his baptism shall be saved. 
 To this you reply, " If this serious difficulty should oc- 
 cur, they might recite, without reversing their order, 
 these words : '' Except a man be born of rvater and of 
 the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," 
 and " they will answer just as well." For what will it 
 answer just as well ? Not to support, but to ruin your 
 ivhole Pedobaptist theory. For in these words Christ 
 makes evidence of the spiritual birth essential for en- 
 trance into the kingdom of God, But in direct opposition 
 to this you maintain, that it what you deem to be truth, 
 were universally believed and loved, then all parents 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 39 
 
 would bring their infants to baptism, and consequently, 
 that every addition to the visible kingdom of God ought 
 to be of those, who, on account of age, could give no evi- 
 dence, that they had been born of the spirit. If then 
 your plan were carried out, the difference between you 
 and Christ would be this : Our Saviour says, " Except a 
 man be born of the spirit^ he cannot enter the kingdom 
 of God." No one should enter this kingdom without ev- 
 idence of this birth. But you believe that were it not 
 for the error of some, and the unbelief of others, all 
 would and ought to be united, or annexed to Ihis king- 
 dom without any evidence, that they have been born of 
 the spirit. 
 
 In your fifteenth letter, page 56, j'ou grant, that the 
 primary and most important design of circumcision was to 
 show the want of a new heart, and not its actual posses- 
 sion. Its principal use was typical. Now if infant sprink- 
 ling be its substitute, then the primary and most impor- 
 tant use of this ceremony must be typical. You say, 
 '' When it is applied to infants, it signifies, that they need 
 the sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit." To con- 
 sider baptism as typical, I must view as a great error. 
 One grand difference between the ceremonies of the two 
 dispensations, I conceive to be this : those of the former 
 were shadows of good things to come; but those of the 
 latter, signs of good things already come. You remark, 
 when it is applied to adults, it is a sign, that they have 
 been purified. But where can you find proof that bap- 
 tism is a sign of present good, and also the shadoiv of future 
 good ? '' Baptism," say you, " is a seal or token on the 
 part of believers, that they have faith in Christ. When 
 they cohsecrate themselves, or their offspring to God in 
 baptism, this act is an expression or token of their belief 
 in him, who has promised ; and a seal which they set to 
 the covenant into which they have entered, that they 
 will fulfil all their covenant engagements. On the part 
 of God, it is a seal, or pledge of the same covenant that 
 lie will fulfil the promises, which he has made to 
 them and to their children." These lines without doubt 
 contain the stamina of your whole system, when you rea- 
 son from circumcision. But as these are round asser- 
 tions, unsustained by any scripture proof, I conclude, that 
 your want of time, and your intention to publish on this 
 subject, moved you to reserve your support of them to 
 appear in your promised treatise. So that I shall look 
 
40 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE'S REPLY 
 
 to find substantial evidence to vindicate the opinion, that 
 infant-sprinkling is the sign or seal of a solemn vow or 
 promise, both on the part of God and on that of parents, 
 respecting their children. This supposed design of in- 
 fant baptism, you never fail to state and press as one of 
 the most powerful arguments to enforce on parents and 
 their baptized children the performance of their recip- 
 rocal duties. If the children of professors are notorious 
 for their impiety, the conclusion is, that their parents 
 have failed to fulfil their vows. For you maintain that if 
 the conditions of the covenant are kept, then " thej'- will 
 receive the promises." Hence when the children of be- 
 lievers are distinguished for their piety, the inference is, 
 that baptismal vows have been faithfully observed. Do 
 you not frequently in your prayers and exhortations, re^ 
 mind parents, that the vows they make at the font in fa- 
 vour of their children, are solemn and of the highest mo- 
 ment, and that fidelity on their part will save their pos- 
 terity, while a breach of covenant will expose them to 
 endless ruin. And when you expostulate with these chil- 
 dren, do you ever fail to tell them, that they were conse- 
 crated to God in their infancy, and brought under the 
 covenant which they are now bound to acknowledge by 
 their own public profession, and if they refuse, they are 
 exposed to the pains of excision from the people of God. 
 Pedobaptism in your view and in that of your brethren is 
 the most popular and powerful argument to enforce the 
 relative duties of parents and children. Now if the apos- 
 tles had the same view of baptism, it is utterly unac- 
 countable, that they never on any occasion should have 
 employed it for the same practical purposes. The apos- 
 tle Paul was a man of rare powers, and had a mind high- 
 ly enriched and embellished with science and literature. 
 He was master of the various topics which he discussed. 
 He displayed much adroitness, in availing himself of the 
 most natural and popular arguments in his favour. Why 
 did he and all the rest, while inculcating the mutual 
 duties of parents and their children, omit, at all times, to 
 mention the oath of parents and the dedication of children 
 hy the sacred rite of baptism ? 
 
 The inspired penmen were conscious that they were 
 writing for posterity, and that the sacred Canon was de- 
 signed to form a complete body of theoretical and prac- 
 tical divinity for the guidance of all future generations. 
 If then Pedobaptism held in their view, as conspicuous a 
 place in religious education, as it does in the view of its 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTER?. 41 
 
 modern advocates, they without doubt would have given 
 it a prominent place among the appropriate arguments to 
 persuade parents to train up their children in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord. But on this argument they 
 preserve a profound silence throughout all their writing*. 
 If, as some say, there were no reasons for a particular 
 command for infant baptism, yet it is truly surprising, 
 that they should never on any occasion have mentioned 
 it incidentally for the purpose of argument and illustra- 
 tion. They informed believers that they had been 
 buried and raised with Christ in baptism, and hence they 
 encouraged their hope of the future resurrection of their 
 bodies. They assured believers, that they had been 
 buried with Christ by baptism. Hence they urged upon 
 them their obligations to walk in newness of life. If any, 
 after he had symbolically put oS and buried the old man 
 of sin in the watery grave, apostatized, he should be 
 viewed as an apparition, or ghost, who had risen from the 
 dead, to mingle again with the wicked world. Paul rea- 
 sons from baptism, when he reproved the disorderly walk 
 of professors, who by that rite had engaged to lead a god- 
 iy life. But where has he ever employed Pedobaptism 
 in administering reproof or commendation to professing 
 parents for their neglect or fidehty in the religious edu- 
 cation of their children ? He exhorts parents to be faith- 
 ful to their offspring ; but he never enforces his exhor- 
 tation by reminding them of their baptismal vows. And 
 he often exhorts children to be obedient to their parents 
 and to early repentance ; but he never gathers arguments 
 from their infant sprinkling to enforce his exhortations. 
 Now, sir, peruse the treatises, the sermons and addresses 
 of modern Pedobaptists on religious education, and you 
 will find, that infant baptism holds the first rank in all 
 their arguments to enforce parental and filial duties. 
 But consult the inspired penmen on this same subject, and 
 you will find that they are perfect strangers to arguments 
 of this kind. In the sacred records the duties and advan- 
 tages of baptism are exclusively confined to adult believ- 
 ers. But in the writings of the moderns, its advantages 
 are almost wholly confined to infants and children. This 
 difference in the practical uses of baptism between the 
 Apostles and our opponents, is perfectly unaccountable, 
 unless we grant that their views of the nature and design 
 of this ordinance are correspondingly different. 
 
 I aiD> &.c> 
 
STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE'S REPLY 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 In your sixteenth letter you criticise my reasoninofs on 
 various passages of scripture, which have been viewed 
 as favouriDg Pedobaptism. 
 
 I shall pass a number of texts, and beg-in with your ob- 
 servations on 1 Cor. vii. 14, "For the unbelieving hus- 
 band is sanctified by the Avife ; and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctified by the husband, else were your children un- 
 clean, but now are they holy." 
 
 On my exposition of this verse, you remark, " Let 
 him produce another instance in the scriptures, in which 
 sanctified and holj'^ are used to express legitimacy^ and we 
 will grant there is some plausibility, for his interpreta- 
 tion." Your own comment, sir, on this text furnishes au- 
 thority to say, that to sanctify, means in this text, the 
 same as to legitimate, or to make lawful. Your expo- 
 sition of this verse is this : " For the unbelieving husband 
 is sanctified to (en) the wife ; and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctified to (en) the husband ; that is, these unbeliev- 
 ers are set apart to their believing partners, agreeably to 
 the original institution of marriage." The verb, to le- 
 j^iiimaie, means, according to Johnson, to make lawful. 
 The unbelieving wife, you justly say, is sanctified to the 
 husband, i. e. she is, according to the original institution 
 of marriage, rendered lawful to be possessed in the connu- 
 bial state. From this sanctified or legitimated marriage 
 proceeds the holiness of the children of such wedlock. 
 According to you, sir, this matrimonial legitimacy pro- 
 duces religious^ or ceremonial sanctity. If so, then infant 
 baptism is founded upon the sanctification of marriage, 
 and all the children of Pagans, begotten in holy wedlock, 
 are proper subjects of this ordinance. 
 
 At Corinth there were some, who doubted the pro- 
 priety of marriage under any circumstances. They 
 doubted, whether it were proper for the unmarried to 
 enter wedlock, and whether it were proper to ci>ntinue 
 in it, even when 602:/* parties were believers. Their 
 scruples were not confined to the propriety of the co- 
 habitation of a believer and unbeliever. There is no 
 evidence that they had any allusion to the prohibition of 
 marriage, between Jews and Pagans, in Exod. xxxiv. 16. 
 and Ezra x, 3. But it appears, as ScQtt gn the place j says, 
 
TO THE FOFEGOING LETTERS. 43 
 
 that "Some of them pleaded for the lawfuhiess offorni- 
 c'ation ; others seem to have imuihed the sentiments of 
 the Pylhag-oriaus, and 'to have deemed ?iiarriag'a, itself, 
 inconsistent with christian purity, or at least inimical to 
 intellectual improvement."* It seems that they wrote to 
 the Apostle to have him solve this general question : 
 whether marriage under any circumstances was consis- 
 tent with that purity of life and intellectual improve- 
 ment, which ought to be sought by every pious individu- 
 al. On this question the Apostle kept his eye, and to it 
 he meant to give a direct answer. In doing which he 
 first took up the case of the unmarried, and granted that 
 for those, who had tli€ gift of continency, it was best to 
 remain in a single state. But those, who had not this gift, 
 he exhorted to marry, to escape temptations to lewdness. 
 He then took up the case of the married, where both 
 parties were believers ; and exhorted the wife not to 
 part from her husband, and the husband not to put away 
 his wife. See ver. 10, 11. He next went to the case, 
 where the parties were unequally yoked ; one a believ- 
 er, the other an unbeliever. Neither did he allow these 
 to part, and violate the marriage vow. They doubted 
 the propriety of continuing in marriage, not simply on 
 account of the opposition in their religion, but for the 
 same reasons, which led two believers to doubt, whether 
 they should remain together. They did not doubt but the 
 ceremony of marriage had been correctly performed, nor 
 whether their marriage were agreeable to the laws of 
 their country ; but whether marriage at any time and un- 
 der any circumstances was consistent with great purity of 
 life. That this was their question appears from Paul's an- 
 swer. A*fter exhorting them to remain together, he gave 
 his reason why they should. " For the unbelieving hus- 
 band is sanctified by the wife ; and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctified by the husband : else were your children 
 unclean, but now are they holv." Their being" thus set 
 apart or sanctified for each others matrimonial use at the 
 time of their marriage, is the reason, which Paul gives, 
 why they should still cohabit. But what does this 
 prove ? Simply this, that marriage was consistent with 
 purity of life, and that the Pythagorian philosophy, 
 which they had imbibed, was, in this particular, incor- 
 rect. And this was just what they wished to know, and 
 the reasoning of Paul exactly met their question. But 
 if their question were simply, whether a christian and 
 
44 S.TIlICTUaES ON MR. MOORE^S REPLY 
 
 an idolater should live together in the connubial state ; 
 then Paul's reply would have been irrelative. This may 
 be illustrated. Suppose in the days of Ezra, a /etsy, who 
 had a Pagan wife, had come to the high priest, and asked 
 him, whether his continuance with his companion were 
 consistent with the laws of the nation. But the priest 
 in answer goes on to prove that in Pagan countries, 
 when a Pagan marries a Pagan, they are mutually set 
 apart, or sanctified for each other's use, agreeably to the 
 original institution of marriage, and therefore marriage 
 among them was consistent with the laws of purity. 
 Would noM; the Jew have said to him, " your answer, sir, 
 does not apply to my case. I do not doubt all that you 
 have said respecting the propriety of marriage among 
 Pagans^ but I wish to know, whether the Jewish laws 
 will allow me to retain my Pagan companion ?" If then 
 the question v/hich these persons put to Paul were vir- 
 tually the same with that of the above Jew, then the 
 answer, which he gave them, would have been as wide 
 from the point, as that of the high priest. But if we 
 take their question to be, whether marriage under any 
 circumstances was proper, then the Apostle's answer is 
 direct and satisfactory. It was virtually this : you need 
 not scruple the propriety of continuing together, be- 
 cause, when you were first united, you were then set 
 apart or sanctified for each other, agreeable to the di- 
 vine and original institution of marriage. But if it were 
 net so, i. e. if your opinion respecting the lawfulness of 
 marriage in any state is correct, then it would follow that 
 all your children, v.^hether begotten before or since one 
 of you have been converted, would be unclean, or illegit- 
 imate ; but now, seeing your marriage all along from 
 your day ol' espousals has been proper or lawful, your 
 children are holy, or begotten in lawful wedlock. The 
 more this text is examined, the less aid will it afford 
 Pedobaptism. It was once one of my main pillars. But 
 after reasoning upon it in a great variety of ways to make 
 it, if possible, conclude in my favour, I was obliged to 
 leave it out of the debate, as affording me no support. 
 
 1 will conclude in the words of Musculus. ^' Formerly 
 I have abused this place against the Baptists, thinking 
 the meaning was, that the children were holy for their 
 parents' faith, which the present place makes nothing 
 for the purpose. And I hope that upon reading this, that 
 every one that has abused it to such a purpose will make. 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 45 
 
 the like acknowledgments; for I am sure they' ought." 
 You seem to imagine, that my opinion, that the good 
 olive tree was a symbol of Christ, is attended with diffi- 
 culties and inconsistencies. According to my theory, 
 Tou say, the unbelieving Jews were broken oif from 
 Christ. You ask, ''Were these deniers, these persecu- 
 tors of Christ, ever united with him ? If they were unit- 
 ed with him, it was either spiritually, or professionally. 
 He will not say, that unbelievers were united with him 
 by faith. Neither will he say that they, who denied 
 him, professed his name. How then were they united 
 with him ? If they were not united with him, how could 
 they be broken otl? — Let it be admitted that the olive 
 tree represents the^Jewish church, and these difficulties 
 vanish." I would just observe, that I do not see any 
 particular difficulty in accounting lor the removal of the 
 unbelieving Jews, whether we consider them, as stand- 
 ing merely by profession in Christ, or in the Jewish 
 church. But we wish the reader to notice that your 
 reasonings against my views of the olive tree, apply 
 with all their point against yourself Permit me, in my 
 turn to ask, how were these unbelieving Jews united to 
 the church? and from what were they broken off? 
 Upon your theory, they were broken off from the church 
 of God. Were then these deniers, these persecutors of 
 Christ, ever united with his church ? If they were unit- 
 ed with the church, it was either spiritually, or profes- 
 sionally. You will not say, that unbelievers were united 
 with the church by faiih. How then were they united 
 with the church? If they were not united with the 
 church, how then could they be broken off? If you will 
 answer these questions, we shall be able to answer yours. 
 After you had given a description of the kingdom of a 
 certain prince, and of an invasion of his dominions, and of 
 the enrolment of his subjects, you say, " this kingdom is 
 the church ; these little ones, enrolled for discipline, for 
 future service, are children, consecrated to God by bap- 
 tism. In them we behold miniatures of a future soldiery, 
 who will quit themselves like men under the Captain of 
 their salvation." 
 
 The word miniature, means a representation in a small 
 compass, less than the reality-. Do you then see in these 
 little infants and children, little friends to God ? little 
 saints, little soldiers d$, the cross ? who have that love 
 to Christ and to his kingdom, which will move them, a?? 
 
4G STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE's REPLY 
 
 soon as they can wield the weapons of the spiritual armorj, 
 to join " the sacramental hosts of God's" elect, to fight the 
 battles of the Lord ? Do you not at other times tell them, 
 that they are the children of wrath, that they come into 
 the world with a propensity to sin, which, if grace do not 
 prevent, will soon disclose itself in open hostility to the 
 righteous government of God ? Do you not exhort them 
 to cease from their rebellion, lest, by delay, they provoke 
 this Prince of peace, and they perish from the way, when 
 his wrath is kindled but a little ? Yet these children are 
 little saints, little friends to Christ and to his cause. 
 
 On p. 67th you quote me thus, " that Paul did not 
 take the law of circumcision for his guide in applying the 
 rite of baptism, is evident from the fact that he required a 
 christian believer to dispense with baptism in relation to 
 his unbelieving wife." See 1 Cor. vii. 12. My argument 
 here you say is this : " parents wer^ required to circum- 
 cise their male children and servai;its." These words, 
 sir, you must have known, did not fully state my argu- 
 ment. Had you possessed the candolir to have stated it 
 fairly, you would have found no room to amuse yourself 
 with your witty inferences, which you drew from prem- 
 ises of your own fabrication. You deal in this place 
 very freely in points of exclamation. But I see nothing 
 to excite surprise, but your own ungenerous manage- 
 ment. In this place you say, " The law of circumcision 
 was explicit, and specified maZes." This positive law, you 
 contend, will not grant the liberty to baptize females. 
 Tell me then, will you, sir, by what authority you sprin- 
 kle ferPMle infants ? For them you cannot plead scrip- 
 ture, example, law, or precept. Will you say that the 
 proselyte law is your guide in baptizing females, but the 
 law of circumcision your guide in relation to males ? If 
 so, what, after all, will you do with female infants of Jew- 
 ish parents ? You cannot say the baptism of such Gen- 
 tile children will authorize you to baptize Jewish female 
 children. Because you inform us, that the baptism of a 
 Gentile woman gave no license to baptize a Jewish wo- 
 man. Hence you sa}'^, it was proper that Jewish women 
 should be particularly mentioned^ as having a right to 
 this ordinance. If then the baptism of a Gentile woman 
 will not justify the baptism of a Jewish woman, neither 
 will the baptism of a female Gentile infant justify the bap- 
 tism of Jewish female children. If you were now invit- 
 ed to baptize such a child, would you comply ? And by 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 47 
 
 what authority would you proceed? You attach great 
 importance to your supposed proof, that John's ministry 
 and baptism did not belong to the gospel dispensation, 
 which, you say, did not begin till after the death of Christ. 
 Your principal argument is, " that the Jewish ritual con- 
 tinued in force till the passion of Christ." To this I an- 
 swer ; the introduction of the gospel dispensation, and the 
 gradual formation of the gospel church, were never intend- 
 ed to infringe the regular observance of the ceremonial 
 law, till the crucifixion. Mr. Scott says. " This new 
 dispensation would not interfere with the law of Moses." 
 See him on Luke IGth. This, your argument, therefore, 
 is by no means conclusive. In farther proof that the gos- 
 pel dispensation did not commence till the death of Christ, 
 you adduce these words : " the kingdom of heaveir is at 
 hand." If it were come^ you think such language would 
 not be used. But this argument will lose its force, when 
 we reflect, that this phrase generally expresses an event, 
 as very near^ and also events already in existence. Hence, 
 if the gospel church or dispensation did not commence 
 exactly at the opening of John's ministry, it will not fol- 
 low, that it did not begin till after the ascension. You 
 very justly remark, that in your quotations and observa- 
 tions, it is immaterial whether we take the words, king- 
 dom of heaven, to mean the gospel church, or the gos- 
 pel dispensation, because they were cotemporary. If 
 then we can prove that the kingdom of heaven existed 
 during the ministry of John, our point is gained. The 
 first text which we shall bring, is Matt. xi. 12. "And 
 from the days of John the Baptist until now, the king- 
 dom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take 
 it by forca." But how could it suffer violence during 
 this specified?period, if it had no existence ? Luke xvi. 16. 
 " The law and the prophets were until John : since that 
 time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
 presseth into it." Matt, xxiii. 13. " Wo unto you, scribes 
 and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye shut up the kingdom of 
 heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, 
 neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." 
 They refused to go in themselves, and obstructed the 
 entrance of others. But how could they shut up the 
 doors of a kingdom, which was not then in being ? See 
 Matt. xii. 28. " The kingdom of God is come nigh unto 
 you." But how could it come nigh, if it didnot then ex- 
 ist? See Matt. xxi. 31, aad 43. It is abundajj^^lj^ evident 
 
48 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE S REPLY 
 
 that John and Christ acted in harmony. Christ was the 
 bridegroom and John the friend of the bridegroom. The 
 disciples whom they collected, formed but one body of 
 visible believers. This body Christ called the salt of 
 the earth, the light of the world, a city set on an hill. 
 Between this body and the Jewish church, there was no 
 fellowship, but steady opposition. When one of these 
 brethren was oifended bj^ another brother, he was direct- 
 ed, as the last resort, '' to tell it to the church." What 
 church ? The Jewish church with their high priests and 
 rulers, who were the most deadly enemies to Christ and 
 his followers ? ft is not very probable that he would di- 
 rect them to lay their grievances before this unfriendly 
 tribunal. Who then composed this church ? Mr. Scott 
 says it was composed of " the teachers and professors of 
 the gospel." See him on the place. Here then we have 
 pretty strong proof, that a church existed, distinct from 
 that of the Jews and before the death of Christ, which 
 formed an ecclesiastical tribunal. 
 
 Schluesner says, that the verb engizd, translated is at 
 hand^ means, in some cases, an event already come. For 
 instances in which engike is used to express time, already 
 Gome, we quote Matt. xxi. 34, "And when the time of the 
 fruit, {engizen) drew near, he sent," &c. That the time 
 of gathering fruit had actually come^ is evident from the 
 parallel texts in Mark xii. 2, &c. and Luke xx. 10, which 
 see. Mark i. 15, " The time isfuljiUed^ and the kingdom 
 of God, engiken^is at hand." • Here the phrase is at hand, 
 or the yerh ,ingiken, means, that the kingdom of God had 
 actually come. Luke x. 9 and 11, " The kingdom of God 
 engiken^ is come nigh unto you." Who can doubt but 
 Christ meant to assert, that the kingdom of God had then 
 actually come, and that the peculiar aggravation of the 
 sin of those inhabitants, consisted in their rejection of this 
 kingdom ? 
 
 You seem to rely most on the words, '' he that is least 
 in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he." Hence 
 you infer, that John was not in the kingdom of heaven. 
 l^ we can ascertain the two things, between which the 
 comparison is m.ade, we shall then see the force of this 
 argument. Did Christ then mean to make a comparison 
 between different degrees of intellectual power ? If so, 
 then it will follow, that the person who possesses the 
 weakest mental powers in the christian church is endow- 
 ed with greater mental powers than John. This no one 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 49 
 
 will admit. Is the comparison between different degrees 
 of grace or holiness in the soul? Will you say that you 
 have the least share of grace of any in the church, and 
 yet maintain, that you have more holiness, than the har- 
 binger of Christ, and, in this respect, are greater than 
 John ? Is the comparison between different degrees of 
 spiritual light, then it will follow, that the saint, who 
 now has the most obscure and limited views of divine 
 things, has more knowledge of the plan of redemption, than 
 John, so that the least in the kingdom of heaven is great 
 er than he ! No one, I apprehend, will admit that John's 
 views of divine things were more obscure, than are the 
 views of the most benighted believer, in the gospel 
 church. 
 
 But if the comparison lie between the grace of humili- 
 ty and extraordinary prophetic endowments and honours^ 
 we shall be free from the above difficulties. The com- 
 parison now only proves, that while John in his prophet- 
 ic office and honours in pointing out and baptizing the 
 Lamb of God, was greater than any of his predecessors ; 
 yet that man who has the graces of humility and meek- 
 ness, and thinks himself the least, the most unv/orthy ; in 
 the kingdom of heaven, is more highly favoured and 
 honored than John, so far as his prophetical office and 
 honors were concerned. This will not prove that he was 
 out of the kingdom of heaven, or destitute of humility. 
 It only proves that grace in the soul is more honorable 
 and important than prophetic light and external honors. 
 The view that we have taken of this passage is, as we 
 believe, supported by Matt, xviii. 4. " Whosoever there- 
 fore humbleth himself as this little child, the same is the 
 greatest in the kingdom of heaven." "As this is the spirit 
 of the kingdom, they who are most lowly and indifferent 
 about consequence and preeminence, and most willing to 
 be little, inferior, and neglected, must be the greatest; 
 and not they who have the greatest abilities, most splen- 
 did gifts, or most exalted stations in the church." See 
 Scott on the verse. See Luke ix. 48. 
 
 John had correct and pretty enlarged views of the gos- 
 pel. He understood the design of Christ's advent, and the 
 vicarious character of his sufferings and death. " Behold, 
 saith he, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of 
 the world." He understood the difference between the 
 two dispensations. " The law was given by Moses, but 
 grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." He had an en- 
 O 
 
50 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE'S REPLV 
 
 larged views of the rising glories of Chris! and his king- 
 dom. See John, iii. 28 — 36. " Ye yourselves bear me 
 witness that I said, I am not the Christ, butthat I am sent 
 before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom : 
 but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and 
 heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bride- 
 groom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. He 
 must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh 
 from above is above all; he that is of the earth is earth- 
 ly, and speaketh of the earth ; he that cometh from 
 heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, 
 that he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony. 
 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal 
 that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh 
 the words of God : for God giveth not the spirit by 
 measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and 
 hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on 
 the Son hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not 
 the Son shall not see life : but the wrath of God abideth 
 on him." These are some of the clear and evangelical 
 sentiments of the forerunner of Christ. 
 
 Can you believe, sir, that the least saint at this day in 
 the kingdom of God, has greater and more correct ideas 
 of Christ and his kingdom, than John, or than Isaiah, for 
 John was as great as he ? 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Rev. affd. dear Sir, 
 
 In your eighteenth letter you examine my arguments 
 against infant baptism, taken from ecclesiastical history. 
 
 I had said, "no mention is made of infant baptism in the 
 second century, unless it be just at its close." In reply to 
 this, you proceed to bring forward your opposing testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Your first witness is Justin Martyr, who, you say, was 
 about forty years after the Apostles ; i. e. about 140 years 
 from the birth of Christ. The passage, which you have 
 quoted from him, was not written, till about A. D. 150, so 
 that his testimony is confined to the last half of the second 
 century. But let us hear what it is : " We also who by 
 him have had access to God, have not received this carnal 
 circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision, which Enoch 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 61 
 
 and others like him observed. And we have received 
 it by baptism. And it is enjoined to all persons to receive 
 it in the same way." This is your tirst historic proof. 
 You suppose that Justin here meant to teach, that baptism 
 is a substitute for circumcision, and from analogy inferred 
 the right to apply the former to infants. What does this 
 father mean by spiritcal circumcision? Certainly the 
 same as regeneration b}'' the Holy Ghost, because, he says 
 it -vas received by Enoch and others like him, who were 
 not subjects of either ordinance. And this renovation of 
 soul, he says, we receive by baptism, and all are enjoined 
 to receive it, conversion, the same way. Now will 
 you say that Justin meant by the word «//, to include in- 
 fants, and that it was enjoined upon them to be regenerated 
 by baptism, ? 
 
 Your next proof from this father is in these words : 
 *• Many persons among us of 60 or 70 years old, of both 
 sexes, who were discipled, or made disciples, in their 
 childhood, do continue uncorrupted, or virgins." If these 
 persons continued through all this period uncorrupted, or 
 virgins, without doubt Justin believed, that they were 
 puriiied, or converted in their childhood. What evidence 
 have you, sir, that this purity, which they preserved for 
 so many years, was nothing more than an outward, or 
 ceremonial cleanness? If in their childhood they became 
 the disciples of Christ, they became so by receiving in- 
 struction. You have exhibited no evidence, and we pre- 
 sume you can offer no argument, to show titat any one can 
 be made a disciple without instruction. If then tiiese chil- 
 dren were taught, and gave evidence that they were re- 
 generated, they were fit subjects for baptism. 
 
 You next quote Irenasus thus: '•' For he came to save 
 all persons by himself; all, I mean, who by him are re- 
 generated unto God, infants and little ones and children 
 an^ youths and elder persons." Wall grants that he 
 wrote about 180 years after Christ. This passage is so 
 generally viewed as spurious, that it is entitled to no au- 
 thority in this debate. If you wish to see proofs of its 
 spuriousness, consult Du Pin, Vol. 1, pp. 67, 68, and 71 
 in a note. Gale, p. 464. 
 
 But if it were genuine, your quotation is partial. The 
 whole of the passage is this : Speaking of Christ, he says : 
 "sanctifying every age, by that likeness it hath to him ; 
 for he came to save all by himself; all, I say, who by him 
 £ire born again unto God, infants, and little ones and chiK 
 
52 
 
 dren, and young men, and old men ; therefore he went 
 through every age, and became an infant to infants, sancti- 
 fying infants ; and to little ones, a little one, sanctifying 
 those of that age; and likewise became an example of 
 piety, righteousness and subjection." Now the question 
 is about the word renascuntur^ whether it is to be render- 
 ed horn again, \vhich is the literal sense of the word, or 
 baptized. That it does not mean baptized^ is evident 
 from the fact, that this regeneration was performed by 
 Christ. " Who by him," i. e. by Christ, are born again, 
 &c. But Chrkt baptized none. The true sense of Ire- 
 nasus seems to be this, that Christ came to save all, who 
 are renewed by his power, and no others ; and that by as- 
 suming human nature, and passini,^ through the several 
 stages of life, he has sanctified it, and set an example to 
 men of every age. Infant baptism is not mentioned or 
 fairly implied in any of your quotations. How then could 
 you intimate that it was mentioned in the former part of 
 the second century ? Certainly, sir, you must be hard 
 pressed indeed to rest your cause for the two first centu- 
 ries on testimonies so conjectural, and which do not even 
 mention, or involve the pending question. 
 
 Your next author is Origen. It is affirmed by those, 
 who have access to the original Greek of this father, that 
 nothing can be found in his writings, that favours infant 
 baptism. The quotations, which you have made from 
 him, are taken from the corrupt translations of his works, 
 by Rufinus and St. Hierom. In these translations, there 
 are such changes, omissions, and interpolations, as to ruin 
 iheir authority in points of controversy. Your proofs 
 from this source will not be admitted as having any 
 weight. I have read Wall, Mosheim, Du Pin, Gale and 
 others, and find ample proof that the translations of the 
 writings of Origen are challenged as too corrupt to fur- 
 nish any ground of reliance. 
 
 Your next proof is taken from the famous African coun- 
 cil of 66 bishops, in A. D. 253. As the result of this 
 council is generally produced with much assurance, it 
 may not be amiss to quote it entire. The result is sent 
 to one Fidus, who could not tell at what age infants 
 should be baptized. He could find no law in the Bible, 
 "nor any examples in the church, to solve his scruples. 
 But if infant baptism had been in use from the days of 
 Christ, and supported on plain scripture, is it not very 
 strange that Fi(Jus should not have Iqarned by the unin- 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 53 
 
 terrupted practice of the church, that the age of the in- 
 fant was not essential as it respected the due reception of 
 this rite ? But let us see how this enlightened council re- 
 lieve his conscience. " As for the matter of infants, 
 whom you said were not to be baptized within the second 
 or third day after their nativity, or according to the law 
 of circumcision within the eighth day thereof ; it hath 
 appeared to us, in our council, quite contrary ; no one 
 maintaining your opinion ; but we all judged, that the 
 mercy and grace of God was to be denied to no man ; 
 for since the Lord said in the gospel, the Son of Man came 
 not to destroy, but to save the souls of men ; therefore as 
 much as lies in our power, no soul is to be lost ; for what 
 is there defective in him, who has once been formed in 
 the womb by the hand of God ? To us indeed it seems 
 that children increase as they advance in years ; but yet, 
 whatever things are made by God, are perfected by 
 the v/ork and majesty of God, their Maker. Besides, the 
 holy scriptures declare, that both infants and adult per- 
 sons have the same equality in the divine workmanship. 
 When Eiisha prayed over the dead child of the Shuma- 
 nitish widow, he lay upon the child, and put his head up- 
 on his head, and his face upon his face, and his body upon 
 his body, and his feet upon his i^eet This may be thought 
 improbable, how the small members of an infant should 
 equal the big ones of a gr.own man ; but herein is ex- 
 pressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are 
 equal and alike when they are made by God ; that though 
 the increase of our bodies may cause an inequality with 
 respect to man, yet not with respect to God, unless that 
 that grace, which is given to baptized persons, be more 
 or less according to the age of the receivers ; but the 
 Holy Ghost is given equally to all, not according to meas- 
 ure, but according to God's mercy and indulgence ; for as 
 God is no respecter of persons, so neither of years ; he 
 equally offers to ail, the obtaining of his heavenly grace. 
 And whereas you say, that an infant for the first days after 
 his oirth is unclean, so that every one is afraid to kiss him, 
 this can be no impedimeuL to his obtainment of heavenly 
 grace ; for it is written, to the pure all things are pure, 
 and none of us should dread that which God hath made ; 
 for although an infant be newly born, y.et he is not so, as 
 that we should dread to kiss him ; since in the kissing of 
 an infant, we ought to think upon the fresh marks of God, 
 O 2 
 
64 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE'S ItEPLY 
 
 which, in a manner, we kiss in an infant newly born, when 
 we embrace that which God hath made. And whereas 
 the carnal Jewish circumcision was performed on the 
 eighth day, that was a type and shadow of some future 
 good thing, which, Christ the truth being now come, is 
 done away ; because the eighth day, or the first day af- 
 ter the Sabbath, was to be the day on which our Lord 
 should rise and quicken us, and give us the spiritual cir- 
 cumcision, therefore was the carnal circumcision on the 
 eighth day, which type is now abolished, Christ the truth 
 being come, and having given us the spiritual circumcis- 
 ion. Wherefore it is our judgment, that no one ought to 
 be debarred from God's grace by that law, or that the 
 spiritual circumcision should be hindered by the carnal 
 one ; but all men ought to be admitted to the grace of 
 Christ, as Peter saith in the Acts of the apostles. That 
 the Lord said unto him, that he should call no man com- 
 mon or unclean. But if any thing can hinder men from 
 baptism, it wiilj^be heinous sins, that will debar the adult 
 and mature therefrom ; and if those who have sinned ex- 
 tremely against God, yet if afterwards they believe, 
 are baptized, and no man is prohibited from this grace, 
 how much more ought not an infant to be prohibited, who 
 being but just born, is guilty of no sin but of original, 
 which he contracted from Adam ? Who ought the more 
 readily to be received to the remission of sins, because 
 not his ov/n, but other's are remitted to him. Where- 
 fore, dearly beloved, it is our opinion, that from baptism, 
 and the grace of God, who is merciful, kind and benign to 
 all, none ought to be prohibited by us, which as it is to 
 be observed, and followed with respect to all ; so espec- 
 ially with respect to infants, and those that are but just 
 born, who deserve our help, and the divine mercy, be- 
 cause at the first instant of their nativity they beg it by 
 their cries and tears." 
 
 The arguments which are found in this result, are 
 the following ; 1, The merciful design of Christ's ad- 
 vent. £', Infants, in the eye of God, are as big as men. 
 
 3, Impartiality of God in his offers of grace to all. 
 
 4, Ceremonial cleanness of infants. 5, Their freedom 
 from actual transgression. 6, The necessity of infant 
 baptism. And to close this climax of arguments, infiants 
 must receive this rite, because they come into the 
 world begging and crying for baptism. But, sir, if infant- 
 baptism had been the universal practice of the church, 
 why did this 9age council offer so many sage argunaeiats in 
 
TO TilK FOREGOTNG LETTERS. 55 
 
 ita support ? and why did they not confirm their opinion 
 respecting the time of baptism by pointing Fidus to the 
 universal usage of the ciiurch ? 
 
 You farther support yourself by quotations from 
 Tertullian, St. Amorose, St. Cnrysostom, St. Austin, 
 and the Pelagians. These men you have introduc- 
 ed, to prove the opinions and practices of the earliest 
 days of the christian church. But unhappily for 
 yourself you have ruined the reputation of your own 
 "witnesses. In p. 29th, you say, '- iJaptisteries began 
 to be built about the middle of the third century," and 
 that *' it is well kno.vn, that those, who built and used 
 them, were exceedingly corrupt in doctrine and in prac- 
 tice. It is very extraordinary, if we muat iooii to them to 
 learn primitive and apostolic practice.'' And m p. 7a 
 you observe, " St. Augustine lived in the latter part of the 
 fourth, and in the beginning of the fifth century. It is 
 well known that, at this period, great innovations had 
 been made in cnristian doctrine ; that great corruption 
 existed in the christian church ; and jna/iy additions were 
 made to the christian ordinances. I would almost as soon 
 look into almost any succeeding period of the church for 
 apostolic faith, practice and purity of the church, as into 
 the fourtri and riftii century.'' After you had thus free- 
 ly expressed your surprise, that any should resort to this 
 period, so exceedingly corrupt and full of additions and 
 innovations, it is much more extraordinary that you should 
 have drawn nearly all your historic support for infant 
 baptism from this very corrupt fountai.i ! Se ven out of 
 nine of your witnesses are taken from this very repudiat- 
 ed source. Tertullian and Origen wrote at the com- 
 mencement of the third century; Cyprian in A. D. 252. 
 Ambrose in 374 ; St. Chrysostom in J3J ; St. Austin ia 
 388, Pelagius in 415. It is observaoie, that when yoa 
 cited these authors in proof of inlant baptism, you reckon 
 from the death of John the evangelist. This you did to 
 give weight to their testimony. But when you wisned 
 to destroy their testimony in favor of infant communion, 
 you reckon from the birth of Christ. Look at your dif- 
 ferent modes of expression and calculation. ^' St. Austin, 
 233 years after the apostles, says, '•which the whole 
 body of the church holds, as delivered to 'ein la the case 
 of little infants baptized." Here yoa say, 288 years after 
 th3 apostles. John died, according to the best chronoio- 
 gists, in tlie year 10 J, after the christian era began This 
 100 years, added to the 2SQ years, wiii give 388, the 
 
66 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 period in which Austin began to write. But 288 sounds 
 quite differently from 388, and the incautious reader is in 
 danger of overlooking a whole century. But when you 
 had a different object in view, you say, " St Austin lived 
 in the latter part of the fourth and in the beginning of the 
 fifth century," a period, as you affirm, of great innova- 
 tions, corruptions and additions. It is obvious, that 3''0U 
 wished to place Austin, so far from the birth of Christ, and 
 in such a corrupt age, that his opinion in favour of infant 
 communion should furnish but little proof, that the prac- 
 tice was apostolic. But, sir, was he not just as remote from 
 the birth of Christy and in precisely the same corrupt age^ 
 when you quoted him in support of pedohaptism ? It is curi- 
 ous to see how you have amused yourself with mere 
 sounds. 
 
 You reason with much confidence from the concessions 
 of the Pelagians in favor of infant baptism ; because you 
 suppose that Peiagias, in his controversy with Austin, was 
 strongly tempted to deny the practice. But he did not 
 feel himself so very much pressed with the argument ia 
 support of original sin, drawn from infant baptism ; be- 
 cause he could account for its prevalence on different 
 grounds. The Pelagians held, that " the sins of our 
 first parents were imputed to them alone, and not to 
 their posterity ; that we derive no corruption from their 
 fall, but are born as pure, and unspotted, as Adam came 
 out the forming hand of his Creator.'-* Pelagius, in his 
 views of original depravity, resembled very much mod- 
 ern Arminians, and, like them, was an advocate for infant 
 baptism, not to wash away a sinful nature, derived from 
 Adam. He maintained, '• that infant baptism was not a 
 sign or seal of the remission of sins, but a mark of admis- 
 sion to the kingdom of heaven, which was only open to 
 the pure in heart. j 
 
 In page 75th you have quoted the Pelagians as saying, 
 •' that no christian, no, not even any sectary, did ever de- 
 ny it." You here, without doubt, have reference to the 
 letter of Pelagius to pope Innocent. The word it^ in 
 your quotation, you suppose refers to infant baptism. 
 Whether it refer to this phrase, or to the promise that 
 some, (meaning infants without doubt) could be saved 
 without the redemption of Christ, we cheerfully leave to 
 the candid reader to decide, after he has seen the original 
 
 • Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 84. f Ibid, p. 84. 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 57 
 
 Latin and the translation. The Latin is as follows : " Se 
 ab horninibus infamari quod negat parvulisbaptismi sacra- 
 mentum, et absque redemptione Christi aliquibus negna 
 coelorum promittat." In these words, Pelagias com- 
 plains of two slanders, viz. 1, Denying hBLpiistn to infants ; 
 and, 2nd, promising them the kingdom of heaven, without 
 the redemption of Christ. To both of which he replies, 
 but to the second charge he answers tirst, and says, 
 *• that men do slander him, as if he denied the sacrament 
 of baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of 
 teaven to any persons, without the redemption of 
 Christ.*' By the word, aliquibus^ rendered any persons^ 
 he meant infants, because no one ever accused Pelagius 
 of promising the kingdom of heaven to adults, without 
 the redemption of Christ. But as he denied original sin 
 in inlants, his antagonists drew for him the inference, 
 that he must not only deny infant baptism, but also prom- 
 ise them the kingdom of heaven without atonement, be- 
 cause, in his view, they had no sin to atone for. This 
 slander he repels by saying, " Nunquam se vel impium 
 aliquem hereticum audisse, qui hoc^ quod proposuit de 
 parvulis, diceret.''^ Here he adirms that he had never 
 heard, no, not even any impious heretic, or sectary, who 
 would declare or promise, hoc^ this thing, quod, which, 
 he had mentioned of infants, (namely, that infants could 
 enter the kingdom of heaven without the redemption of 
 Christ.) He then goes on to express his surprise that 
 any could be so ignorant of the gospel as to declare such 
 a thing, or even entertain such a thought. The reader 
 will observe that he employs the singular number; but if 
 he meant.in these words to reply to both slanders, why 
 does he not say, which are things that, &c. But now he 
 uses the singular, hoc, this things referring, as I believe, to' 
 the nearest slander, or to the one last mentioned. That 
 Austin understood Pelagius as replying to both these slan- 
 ders separately, and to the second hrst, seems evident 
 from his own animadversions on this letter. He say?, 
 '* And let us see what he says next. After reciting that 
 testimony of the gospel, that ' Nisi renatus ex aqua et 
 spiritu sancto regnum coelorum nuUus possit entrare.' 
 None can enter into tlie kingdom of heaven, that is not 
 born again of water and the holy spirit : about which 
 there is no question : he goes on and says : "Who is there 
 90 impious as to refuse to an infant of what age soever, 
 the common redemption of mankind?" The very struc- 
 
&8 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 ture of this period intimates that Pelagius intended it fov 
 a refutation of the first slander, of which he complained : 
 viz. that he denied baptism to infants. In reply to the 
 charge he quotes the passage, which, as he thought, 
 proved the necessity of baptism to all of every age ; and 
 then to express his wonder that any should accuse him of 
 denymg this to infants, he asks, '•'• Who is there so impious, 
 as to forbid to infants," baptism, or '' the common re- 
 demption of mankind." I know, sir, that Wall supposes 
 that the pronoun hoc^ refers to infant baptism ; and that 
 Pelagius meant to say Ihat he never heard any person, 
 whether Heretic or CathoHc, deny infant baptism. But 
 did he mean thus ? Did not both he and Austin know 
 that there were then some, who denied infant baptism ? 
 Why were laws made to enforce infant baptism, if there 
 were none who denied it ? His meaning seems to have 
 been, as Ivimey says, " that he had never heard, no, not 
 even any impious heretic or sectary say, that the king- 
 dom of heaven could be obtained without the redemp- 
 tion of Christ." This passage, when correctly under- 
 stood, furnishes no proof that Pelagius, whose learning 
 and travels are much extolled, ever did say, or meant to 
 say, "that he never heard any one, no, not even an im- 
 pious heretic, deny infant baptism." This main pillar in 
 the historic proof for Pedobaptism will be found, when 
 its strength is fully tried, to crumble away, and afford no 
 support.' See Wall, Part I. p. 209, kc. 
 
 The controversy between Pelagius and Austin, res- 
 pected native depravity, and not infant baptism. The lat- 
 ter maintained that infants should be baptized, to purge 
 them from original guilt, while the former plead for this 
 rite, because they were pure. When all this is duly con- 
 sidered, we should no sooner expect that Pelagius would 
 deny infant baptism, than that he would reason against 
 his own faith and practice. 
 
 Your next paragraph has given us much surprise. It 
 contains a palpable contradiction against yourself, and a 
 flagrant violation of historic facts. " As these evidences 
 are for the first four hundred years, in which there ap- 
 pears to be only one man, Tertullian, that advised the 
 delay of infant baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, 
 that did, perhaps, practise such delay in the case of his 
 children ; but no society of men so thinking, or so prac- 
 tising ; nor no one man saying it was unlawful to baptize 
 infants : so in the next seven hundred year^^, there is not 
 so much as one man to be found, that either spoke for, or 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTBHS. 59 
 
 practised any such delay. But all the contrary." Wall, 
 Part II. pp. 367, 369." That this quotation is exceed- 
 ingly false, will appear by comparing it with the follow- 
 ing* selections. 
 
 " Many Pedobaptists, it is well known, have endeav- 
 oured to render our practice odious, by exhibiting in 
 frightful colours the conduct of some German Baptists 
 in the sixteenth century ; and by representing our distin- 
 guishing sentiments as derived from those obnoxious 
 characters. To that evidence, therefore, of the high an- 
 tiquity and heavenly origin of our baptismal practice, 
 which arises from the concessions and reasonings of Pe- 
 dobaptists, I will now produce two testimonies from 
 among many of our learned opposers, more directly fitted 
 to free us from all suspicion of being descended from 
 the Munster Baptists. Thus, for example, Venema, af- 
 ter assigning various reasons against considering the Men- 
 nonites as descended from the Baptists at Munster, pro- 
 ceeds : ' The nearest origin of the Mennonites, in my 
 judgment, is better derived from the Waldenses, and 
 from them also that of the Anabaptists. The Mennon- 
 ites desired to have the innocence and purity of the 
 primitive church restored, and to carry on the Reforma- 
 tion further than Luther and Calvin intended. Certain- 
 ly the Waldenses held the principal articles of religion 
 almost in common with the Mennonites. They have so 
 cleared and justified themselves, both as to life and doc- 
 trine, that they cannot any longer be confounded with 
 those at Munster, without notorious injustice and signal 
 injury.' Such is the language of this impartial historian. 
 I will here add the following testimony from Cardinal 
 i/o5iw5, who was President of the Council of Trent. 'The 
 Anabaptists are a pernicious sect : of which kind the 
 Waldensian Brethren seem to have been. Concerning 
 whom it appears, that not very long ago they r€baptized 
 persons: though some of them lately, as they testify in 
 their apology, have ceased to repeat baptism. Certain 
 it is, however, that in many things they agree with the 
 Anabaptists : nor is this heresy a modern thing ; for it 
 existed in the i'yme of Austin !^ Thus it appears that these 
 eminent authors consider the Baptists as deriving their 
 pedigree, not from the Munster enthusiasts, but from the 
 Waldensian confessors; which is a line of descent that wc 
 j{r^ not ashamed to own." Booth, p. 296, &c. 
 
60 
 
 " The true origin of that sect, which acquired the de- 
 nomination of Anabaptists, by their administering anew 
 the rite of baptism to those, who came over to their 
 communion, and derived that of Mennonites from the fa- 
 mous man, to whom they owe the greatest part of their 
 present felicity, is hid in the remotest depths of antiquity^ 
 and is of consequence extremely difficult to be ascertain- 
 ed. The modern Mennonites not only consider them- 
 selves as the descendants of the Waldenses who were so 
 grievously oppressed and persecuted by the despotic 
 heads of the Reman church ; but pretend, moreover, 
 to be the purest offspring of these respectable sufferers ; 
 being equally averse to all principles of rebellion on the 
 one hand, and all suggestions of fanaticism on the other.'* 
 " Their adversaries^ on the contrary, represent them as 
 the descendants of those turbulent and furious Anabap- 
 tists, who, in the sixteenth century, involved Germanjv 
 Holland, Switzerland, and more especially the province 
 of Westphalia, in such scenes of blood, perplexity and 
 distress.'' 
 
 " After having examined these two different accounts, 
 of the origin of the Anabaptists with the utmost attention 
 and impartiality, I have found that neither of them is ex- 
 actly conformable to truth." " It may be observed in 
 the first place, that the Mennonites, (or Baptists) are 
 not entirely mistaken when they boast of their descent 
 from the Waldenses^ Petrobrussians^ and other ancient 
 sects, who are usually considered as witnesses of the truth 
 in times of iiniversal darkness and superstition. Before 
 the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in al- 
 most all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia^ 
 Moravia, Switzerland, and Germany, many persons, who 
 adhered tenaciously to the following doctrine, which the 
 Waldenses, Wickiiffites, and Hussites had maintained, 
 some in a more disguised, and some in a more open man- 
 ner, viz. that the kingdom of Christ, or the visible 
 church he had established upon earth, was an assembly 
 of true and real saints, and ought, therefore, to be inacces- 
 sible to the wicked and unrightoous, and also exempt 
 from all those institutions, which human prudence sug- 
 gests, to oppose the progress of iniquity, or to correct 
 and reform transgressors. This n(axim is the true 
 source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in the 
 TeVigions doctrine and discipline of Qx^ Mennonites,'''' Mosh. 
 vol. 4. 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 61 
 
 '• If there were none who opposed infant baptism from 
 the fourth to the eleventh century, how shall we ac- 
 count for the repeated decrees of councils during this pe- 
 riod, against such opposers ? One article of the council 
 of Mela, held in the fifth century, is in the following 
 words : " Also it is the pleasure of the bishops to order, 
 that whosoever denieth that infants newly born of their 
 mothers are to be baptized ; or saith that baptism is ad- 
 ministered for the remission of their own sins, but not on 
 account of original sin, derived from Adam, and to be ex- 
 piated by the laver of regeneration, be (anathema) curs- 
 ed !" The first part of this decree clearly supposes that 
 some denied that infants newly born were to be baptiz- 
 ed. And the latter, that others, as the Pelagians, denied 
 that baptism could wash away original sin. Again, in the 
 sixth century, by the council of L^rida, in the archbish- 
 oprick of Tarragona, it was decreed, " that such as had 
 fallen into the prevarication of anabaptism^ if they should 
 return to the church, should be received as the council 
 of Nice had enacted." Indeed the first ecclesiastical ca- 
 non in Europe for the baptism of babes, I believe was 
 passed in the y^ar 514, by a council composed of a few 
 Spanish bishops, " who met at Girona in Catalonia, and 
 framed and subscribed ten rules of discipline." The 
 fourth is " an agreement to baptize catechumens only at 
 Easter and Pentecqst, except in cases of sickness." In 
 the fifth, they agreed, " in case infants were ill, and 
 would not suck their mother's milk, if they were offered, 
 to baptize them, even though it were the day they were 
 born." This agreement was binding only on such as as 
 sented to it. 
 
 '' But Gharlemagne carried the subject still further, and 
 in A. D. 789, passed a law to compel his subjects, on pain 
 of death, to be baptized themselves ! And •• by heavy 
 fines obliged them to baptize their children within the 
 year of their birth." 
 
 " It is abundantly evident, that many persons who were 
 born of christian parents, and educated in the christian 
 faith, were not baptized until they came to adult years, 
 and made a personal profession. Helena, tlie mother of 
 Constantino, was a very devout and zealous Christian, 
 yet he was not baptized upon her faith. Nor did he ded- 
 icate his own children to God in baptism, by virtue of his 
 faith. For we are informed by Socrates, that his son 
 Constantius, who succeeded his father in the empire, was 
 P 
 
02 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 baptized by Euzoius when he was preparing for his ex- 
 pedition against Julianus, and immediately after ended 
 his life at Mopsucrenia, twenty-five years after the death 
 of his father. Eccl. History, lib. ii. chap. 47. 
 
 " Basil, son of Basil, bishop of Nicene, was baptized in 
 .Tordan when far advanced in years. 
 
 "Gregory the great, the son of Gregory, bishop of ISTa- 
 zianzen, was born while his father was bishop, and yet 
 not baptized until he was twenty, some say thirty years 
 ©Id. See Osiander's Book, Cent. iv. 1. 3, and Robinson's 
 History, p. 250. 
 
 " Grotius says, that Chrysostom was born of believing 
 parents, and was educated by Melitius, a bishop, yet not 
 baptized till the age of twenty-one." Dr. Baldwin on 
 Baptism, p. 97. 
 
 Cardinal Hosius, president of the council of Trent. " If 
 the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readi- 
 ness and cheerfulness, which a man of any sect shows in 
 suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can 
 be truer or surer, than that of the Anabaptists ; since 
 there have been none, for these twelve hundred years 
 past, that have been more grievously punished, or that 
 have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and 
 even offered themselves to, the most cruel sorts of pun- 
 isment, than these people. Nor is this heresy a modern 
 thing ; it existed in the time of Austin,." Judson, p. 61. 
 
 In view of these quotations, the reader will judge how^ 
 much credit is due to your assertion, that for 1100 
 years, only two Baptists can be found. 
 
 In p. 75th, 3^ou remark, that I have " not given St. 
 Austin's authority in the case," i. e. of infant communion. 
 " He has made no quotation from him. He has only given 
 us Chillingwortirs opinion of his opinion, respecting the 
 communicating of infants ; and this he takes from Jud- 
 son. The amount of this authority is this. Mr. C, says, 
 that Judson says, that Chillingvvorth says, that he is sure 
 that St. Austin held the communicating of infants as much 
 apostolic tradition, as the baptizing them." It would be 
 easy, sir, to retort : " Mr. Moore says., that Wall says^ 
 that Austin 5az/5, ' It is reasonably believed that infant 
 baptism was apostolic/'' 411 therefore that Austin and oth- 
 ers have said on this subject, amounts to nothing more 
 than opinion., or belief and supposition. 
 
 But, sir, did I not quote Austin in the case ? How then 
 did it come to pass, that you, within a few lines, should 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 63 
 
 say, " Mr. C. quotes St. Austin to the follow ng effect, 
 that baptism and the Lord's supper are necessary for the 
 salvation of infants ." As you have thus early corrected 
 yourself, I have nothing further to say respecting your 
 mistake. 
 
 In another place you quote Austin thus : " Which the 
 whole body of the church holds as delivered to 'em in 
 the case of little infants baptized." 
 
 If infant baptism was ever in use and practised by the 
 whole church, how did it happen, that Austin was not 
 baptized till about 30 years old ? " Had he, who pre- 
 tended he had been a Manichean, never heard they did 
 not baptize infants ? Had all other heretics escaped his 
 notice ? Had he forgot himself when he taxed the Pela- 
 gians with denying inlant baptism, and when he com- 
 plained in another book of people who opposed it ?" 
 Robinson, p. 202. 
 
 You wish your reader to compare the testimony of 
 Austin in favor of infant communion with the testimony of 
 Justin Martyr in favor of infant baptism. Speaking of 
 baptism, he says, ' it is enjoined on all to receive it in the 
 same way.' Justin, in the passage to which you allude, 
 was not speaking, as 3'ou say, of baptism, but of spiritual 
 circumcision. Speaking of this, he says, ' It is enjoined 
 on all to receive i/, i. e. spiritual circumcision, or regen- 
 eration by the same way, i. e. by baptism.' But you refer 
 the word it to water baptism, and so according to your 
 criticism, Justin reasons in this tautological manner; " It 
 is enjoined on all to receive water baptism by receiving 
 Zi-atcr baptism .'" 
 
 You next attempt to show that my quotation from 
 Basil, archbishop of Cesarea, proves nothing against the 
 prevalence of infant baptism. After we have quoted the 
 passage and the reply, the reader will be prepared to 
 make his own comments on your candor and promised 
 care, not to misrepresent. The words of Basil are : 
 '• What time for baptism so proper as Easter ? For this 
 the church lifts up her voice, and calls from far her sons, 
 that those, whom she once brought forth, she may now 
 bring forth again ; and feed with substantial food, them 
 whom she hath hitherto fed with the milk of the first el- 
 ements of religion. To you, (i, e. the children of pro- 
 fessors, who were the candidates for baptism) the Apostle 
 says, repent and be baptized every one of you — Why do 
 you delay ? Why do you deliberate ? What do you wait 
 
64 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORE's REPLY 
 
 for ? Instructed in the doctrine of Christ from your in- 
 fancy, are you not yet acquainted with it ? Will you con- 
 tinue your trials to old age ? Last year you deferred it 
 till this ; do you now intend to put it off, (baptism) till 
 the next?*' That these were the children of professors 
 and not of pagans, cannot be doubted. They are said to 
 be those, whom the church once brought forth, and had 
 fed with the milk of the first elements of religion, and 
 had instructed them from their infancy. And for their 
 repentance, faith and baptism, the church lifted her voice 
 and called from far her sons. And the bishop plied these 
 children with various arguments to persuade them to 
 come to the laver of baptism. 
 
 To all this you reply, " In this quotation, he, the bish- 
 op, upbraids his audience for their neglect of baptism ; 
 and exhorts them to receive it. But this proves nothing 
 against the general or even uni-versal practice of the bap- 
 tism of believers' children. Did Mr. C. never exhort his 
 people to attend upon the ordinance of baptism, and re- 
 prove them for their too great neglect of it ? Would he in- 
 fer from his own preaching that infant baptism was not the 
 general practice among his people ? Or that it was not gen- 
 erally considered established on divine authority ? As well 
 might he infer this, as make his inference against the prev- 
 alence of infant baptism from the exhortations of Basil." 
 
 You would make your readers believe that in my quo- 
 tation, Basil upbraided the parents in his auditory for 
 their neglect to attend upon the ordinance of baptism, 
 while directly the reverse of all this was true. Instead 
 of upbraiding professors for neglecting this rite, he rep- 
 resents them as crying aloud that it might be performed 
 on their repenting children ; and confines his upbraidings 
 to the c/iiZc?ren of believing parents. These c^i'Wreri he 
 blames for delaying their baptism, seeing they had been 
 taught from their infancy the doctrines of Christ ; and 
 seeing their parents were then lifting up their voice in 
 prayer that they might come to their duty. If a minister 
 should address in the same way the children^ not the par- 
 ents in your church, and exhort them to come to baptism, 
 on the ground of their own faith, and so gratify the ar- 
 dent desires of their parents, would not this be decisive 
 proof that they were not in the habit of baptizing their 
 infants ? 
 
 The history of catechumens furnishes strong proof 
 against the antiquity of infant baptism. Catechumens 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 65 
 
 were the lowest order of christians in the primitive 
 church. They had some title to the common name 
 of christians, being a degree above pagans, and not her- 
 iticks, though not consummated by baptism. Among this 
 class none were admitted, who had been washed in the 
 sacred laver. But Mr. Buck and the Cyclopedia tell us 
 that, '^ The children of ancient believing parents were 
 admitted catechumens^ as soon as they were capable of in- 
 struction. But at what age those of heathen parents 
 might be admitted is not so clear." See Buck^s Theol. 
 Diet. After these children of believers had passed 
 through several stages of instruction, and had a com- 
 petency of knowledge and faith, they were scrutinized, 
 or examined in the strictest manner, and then with various 
 ceremonies they were admitted to baptism on the ground 
 of their faith and confession. But if believing parents did 
 in the primitive church, baptize all their children in m^ 
 fancy, why did they send them to the school of the cate- 
 chumens to receive that education, which was to qualify 
 them for that ordinance ? ^ 
 
 You wonder why I did not trace infant communion as far 
 back, as you have infant baptism. You insinuate, that if I 
 had made the attempt, I should have found a hard task. You 
 may rest assured, sir, that we can, with ease, trace infant 
 communion even higher^ than you have infant baptism. For 
 the lirst two centuries you have brought no evidence for in- 
 fant baptism. Your proofs from Origen, if they were gen- 
 uine, carry you no farther than the early part of the third 
 century. 
 
 Dr. John Edwards says, " Infant communicating was 
 a catholic doctrine. Herein all the fathers agreed. 
 They, misunderstanding and misapplying Christ's words, 
 .John vi. 53, held that the sacrament of the Lord's supper 
 was to be administered to infants and children, and that it 
 was necessary for their salvation ; accordingly they made 
 them partakers of that ordinance." Booth 286. Venema 
 says, ''in the ancient church, those two sacraments, in re- 
 spect of the subjects^ were never separated the one from 
 the other." 
 
 Buddoeus. '• It is manifest, that in the ancient church, 
 it was usual to give the eucharist to infants, which cus- 
 tom arose about the third century." Judson, p. 67. 
 
 The history of the church, written by an impartial 
 hand, says, " In the time of Cyprian (254) it was usual for 
 
66 STRICTURES ON MR. MOORe's REPLY 
 
 children and sucking infants to receive the sacrament. 
 And therefore when a little sucking girl refused to taste 
 the sacramental wine, the deacon violently force d it down 
 her throat." Page 112. 
 
 From these testimonies we trust that you will admit 
 thai we have shown infant communion ohtained as early, 
 and was as extensive as infant baptism. 
 
 If intant baptism be inferred from infant circumcision, 
 hence consistency requires that infant communion should 
 be deduced from the communicating of children at the 
 paschal feast. This inference you deny ; because, say 
 you, Jewish children did not partake of the passover, till 
 they were 12 years old. In proof of this, you adduce 
 Luke ii. 41, 42. "And when he was twelve years old 
 they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." 
 If your exposition of this text were true, it would not 
 prove but what children partook at its institution, and ever 
 after, till it was located at Jerusalem. After this location 
 they were not prohibited, but admitted, whenever their 
 parents took pains to bring them to the ordinance. That 
 children did partake is evident from Exodus xii. 3, 4. 
 Mr. Scott says, "• Every person in each household, in- 
 cluding women and children^ ate this first passover. — The 
 women and children were not indeed commanded to go up 
 to the tabernacle — but when they did, they joined in this 
 sacred feast." See him on Exo. xii. 43 — 45. 
 
 Says Witsius, " In those companies" (that partook of the 
 passover) " men and women sat down together, old men 
 and young, whole and sick, masters and servants, in fine, 
 every Jew that could eat a morsel of flesh, not excluding 
 even young children.''^ See (Econ. Foed, L. 4, Chap. 9th. 
 §14. 
 
 We never supposed, that infants at the breast ate of 
 the passover. But they were brought to partake as early 
 as their physical inability was removed. 
 
 " If Mr. C." say you, ''were commanded to make pro- 
 vision for his family for a single meal, (and of meat too) 
 according to the number of the souls of his household, ac- 
 cording to their eating, would he count his infant, who 
 lays cradled in his mother's arms, or would he provide 
 more or less on its account ?" In our turn we ask you, 
 sir. If you were commanded to make provision for your 
 family, for a single meal, and of meat too, according to the 
 number of the souls of your household, according to thei? 
 eatings would you leave out of your calculation all your 
 
TO THE FOREGOING LETTERS. 67 
 
 children under twelve years old ? or would you provide 
 more or less on their account? All this number you sup 
 pose the Jews left out in their preparations for the pass- 
 over. But all above, they brought to this feast. Why 
 then do you not imitate this Jewish example, and bring 
 to the Lord's table all your sprinkled children, above this 
 specified age ; seeing you have told us, '' the Apostles, as 
 they had not been commanded to the contrary, would 
 bring the same subjects under the christian religion, which 
 they had been accustomed- to bring under the Jewish re- 
 ligion." 
 
 To be consistent with yourself, you must retain both 
 infant communion and sprinkling, or reject both. Pierce, 
 the champion for infant communion, says, " While there- 
 fore the title of infants to baptism is loudly pleaded, but 
 their access to the Lord's table utterly denied, it is nat- 
 ural for us to conclude, the conduct of our brethren, in 
 this respect, is not reconcilable to the necessary conse- 
 quences of their own principles. No : for it does appear 
 that infant baptism and infant cofnmuoion are twin sisters ; 
 they were adopted and cherished as such by their ancient 
 advocates through a course of ages ; that they are now 
 fostered, as bearing that strict relation, one to the other, 
 by half the christian world, (the Greek church.) Are not 
 the same reasons, which are brought for infant baptism, 
 in the like manner applicable to infant communion ? \nd 
 will not the objections against the latter, admit the same 
 answer as those against the former ? Nor do I see how 
 this reasoning can be evaded, by a consistent Pedobaptist. 
 Consequently, they should either lire together, and be 
 supported, or die of the same disease, and be discarded at 
 once and on equal grounds." Pierce and Williams, as 
 quoted by Booth, pp. 286, 288, 299. 
 
 I have now, dear sir, closed my Strictures on your Reply. I 
 retire without any consciousness of retainitig any of those unhal- 
 lowed feelings, which may have been excited by collisions in the 
 rugged field of controversy All that is reprehensible in your 
 Lrlters, I can heartily forgive : '\n(i I hope to be made duly 
 sensible for all instances in which I may have disclosed an un- 
 christian spirit, or have trespassed the settled laws of fa;r dispu- 
 tation. 
 
68 CONCLUSION, &c. 
 
 It only remains that I should leave my work with alMts im- 
 perfections before the tribunal of an impartial publick, and irn* 
 ploie upon it the blessing of that God, who can employ every 
 event in hastening" the completion of all his counsels of mercy. 
 You and I are rapidly moving on to the unknown world, and must 
 shortly appear at the bar of our common Jtidge. The reckoning 
 day I anticipate with the combined emotions of hope and fear. 
 We shall then be weighed in the balance of eternal truth. If 
 while passing through this state of sorrow, we must be separated 
 both by space and sentiment, let it be our steady and fervent 
 prayer that we may live in such manner, that we may meet be- 
 fore the throne of the Lamb, where our only emulation will be, 
 who shall shout the highest note of praise. 
 
 I am, dear sir, yours in sentiments 
 of esteem and affection. 
 
 Rev. H. MooRE. STEPHEN CHAPIN. 
 
 North Yarmouth, {Me.) 
 March 1, 1820. ^ 
 
 Errata. 
 
 Page 48, for n^nn, read TW 
 „ 6?. 8th lii.e from bottom, for ?Ae, read their. 
 „ 66, for affusion.^ read effusion. 
 ,, 7^y 18lh line from bottom, dele of. 
 „ 90, line 1st, dele the. 
 
 Appendix. 
 Page 12, line 26th, for observes., read observe. 
 
 „ 14, line 9th. dele the7n into ; — next line, for to read unto. 
 „ 22, Letter VII, to be noted Letter [VII.] 
 „ 30, for M*s read M 
 ,, 35, line 5th, for enforced, re&d. inferred. 
 „ 37, llr.c llth, fo. of, read luith. 
 ■ „ 39, after the word /ooy^, in the last line, add the words, h 
 thai. 
 
^^ 
 
 v^ 
 
 ■■^<