^ 
 
 % 
 
 \ 
 
 ^•. 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -fi. 
 
 \ 
 
 A 
 
 

 N I N^ E 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Mr. JOHN H O R S E Yj 
 
 ^ OR, AN ANSWER TO HIS 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 O F 
 
 INFANT B A PTISM. 
 
 By J o h n ;/m a r t r n. 
 
 The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth 
 came by Jesus Christ. John i. 17. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 Printed by T. Wilkins, No. 23, Aldermanbury. 
 
 And Sold by Mr. Bucklai^dj Pater- nofler-Row j Mr. 
 
 SocKETT, RadclifFe hfgh-wayj and by Mr.. 
 
 Murray, Princes-ftreet, Soho, 
 
 M DCC LXXXVI. 
 
LETT E*%§, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Mr JOHN HORSEY. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 WHEN you publifhed your Defence of In* 
 font baptifmy you well knew that you wrote 
 on a much controverted fubje£l. You could not 
 fuppofe, that your Defence would be decifive. You 
 could not imagine, that your pamphlet would clofe 
 the controverfy. Such vanity you never indulged. 
 Yet you enter the lift of controverfial writers 
 B and 
 
C 2 ] 
 
 and attack the fentiments of your opponents, with- 
 out making any apology. I commend you for it. 
 No apology was expeded. You have a right to 
 ftate and defend your own opinion when you pleafe. 
 Have not we the fame right ? If you may thus 
 attack, may we not reply ? Shall I, then, folicit 
 your pardon, becaufe I make that attempt ? I will 
 not thus abafe my own fentiments. I will not thus 
 affront your underflanding. 
 
 I have not, Sir, the pleafure of your acquaint- 
 ance. All I know of you is by report ; and by the 
 printed paper before me. Report has not brought 
 me any tidings of you, but what are in your favour: 
 The controverfy between us alone excepted* I am, 
 therefore, under no temptation to treat you with 
 perfonal difrefpeft. As an opponent, I may pof- 
 fibly make you feel. And I fuppofe I {hall. For 
 who can be oppofed without feeling the leafl emo- 
 tion ? But you will recolleft, our feelings were not 
 confulted, when you publifhed your Defence of /w- 
 fant baptifm. If, however, you only feel what I 
 have felt, you will deep in peace, and wake with- 
 out vexation. 
 
 What you have now given to the public, was I 
 find, delivered in the Meeting-Houfe of the Rev. 
 William Bennet, on the pavement, Moorfields, 
 London, at the baptifm of his child ; and after- 
 wards printed at the requeft of many who heard it. 
 When you delivered what you are content to call, 
 this plain Difcourfe, Mr. Bennet, as a paftor and 
 
t 3 J 
 
 a parent, was difpofed to devote his child to God 
 by the ordinance of chriftian baptifm : fo you fpeak 
 of the 3(3: of that day; which Sir, you had the ho- 
 nour to perform. The reafon aihgned for Mr. 
 Bennet's appearance in public on this occafion, is, 
 that he might be " a model for the imitation of his 
 " friends and ftated hearers." In a fituation fo 
 refpeclable, on a bufmefs of fuch importance, de- 
 corum demanded a foft addrefs. Attentive to the 
 feelings of others, you thus availed yourfelf of Mn 
 Bennet's partiality in your favour. " Nothing 
 ** could reconcile me to engage in this fervice, but 
 " his own immediate requeil:, upon the ground of 
 " particular intimacy and friendfhip : an apology, 
 " which I certainly ought to make to venerable 
 ** Fathers and refpe61:ed brethren in the mi- 
 " niftry." (P. i.) 
 
 Why fhould either our fmcerity or underflanding 
 be called in queftion when we happen to make a 
 polite apology ? Yet even you. Sir, are not wholly 
 exempted from cenfure. For fome will have it, that 
 a man of Mr. Bennet's prudence, adling as he was 
 then difpofed to acl, would never have requefted Mr 
 Horfcy to (land up in favour of Infant baptifm, and 
 as a public Defender of that practice, merely on the 
 ground of private friendfhip. They fay, a regard 
 to a numerous audience, to venerable fathers and 
 refpe«5led brethren, would not permit him to facri- 
 hce to private friendfliip what was only due to a man 
 of diilinguiihed abilities. They add. That you liad 
 B 2 tried 
 
C 4 ] 
 
 tried your talents on this controverted fubje6l in a 
 courfe of Ledures at Northampton, for the edifi- 
 cation of yoLir own people. And they fcruple not 
 to affert, That had you not acquitted yourfelf with 
 diftinguiflied applaufe on that trial, you would not 
 have been placed in that painful flate of pre-emi- 
 nence which made the preceding apology your 
 <juty. — But to all this, I reply, That modefty forbade 
 yourbcirg moreexplicit. And I fee net how you could, 
 have a£led, in this matter, more prudently : unlefs, 
 indeed, you h?d made no apology at all. And 
 fince thefe exordiums are of djbbtful iiTue, I beg 
 leave to afl--, Whether, as minifters of the gofpel, it 
 would not better become us to commend ourfelves 
 to every mar/s confcience in the fight of God, and 
 to leave fuch apologies to thofe preachers who are 
 not fo employed ? 
 
 Your Defence of Infant baptlfm is confined to three 
 Propofitions. In th^firjiy you propofe to (late your 
 views of the nature of chriftian baptifm. In the 
 Jeccndy to juftify the adminiftration of it to infants. 
 In the third, to vindicate the mode of adminiftering 
 of it, by fprinkling or pouring water on the fub- 
 jea. (P. I.) 
 
 To each of your Proportions, and the arguments 
 by which you attempt to fupport them, I have 
 given repeated attention. The refult of which, 
 without flattery, and without unmanly fear, I pur- 
 pofe to lay before you infeven letters That purpofe 
 I nowpurfuc. 
 
 Before 
 
C 5 ] 
 
 Before you Indulge us with your defimtlon of 
 Infant baptifm, that we may give it I prefume, due 
 reception, we are entertained with previous hints. 
 But ere I make any quotations from your Defence 
 on that fubjeft, let me, once for all, obferve, That 
 when I quote any thing from your Difcourfe ab- 
 ruptly, without due form of introduction, I have 
 not any other view in this than to cut off thofe 
 fuperfluous words, which in controverfy would be 
 tedious. And, Sir, to you, a circuitous form of 
 expreflion is the more unnecefTary, as you will eafdy 
 diflinguifh, by the marks which I have ufed, your 
 own words for mine. Whenever thofe marks are 
 omitted, and I only give the fenfe of what you have 
 faid, do me the juftice to believe, I ftill have the 
 fame end in view ; namely, to avoid a multiplicity 
 of words where a few are found fufficient. And if, 
 by fo doing, I fhould miftake your meaning, (which 
 I have done my beft to prevent) you may be con- 
 fident, that I have never defigned to mifreprefent it. 
 
 You begin. Sir, this controverfy by faying, " It 
 ** appears, indeed, that baptifm, or v/afliing with 
 " water, was pra6lifed as a religious rite, before 
 " the commencement of chriflianity." (P. 2.) — To 
 whom does this appear ? One would imagine, by 
 your mode of exprelTion, that what you have aflerted 
 is felf evident. I wifh. Sir, with all my heart, 
 that they who fancy they are quick fighted, were 
 conftantly cautious. Then, when any thing not 
 B 3 vifible 
 
C 6 ] 
 
 v>ilble to others, occurred, they would not content 
 therarelves with faying, " It appears, indeed ;" but 
 would eijher be filent, or labour to inform us how 
 we might fee, what they had difcovered. But, I 
 am afraid, Sir, what follows, will do no credit to 
 your fagacity. When our Lord fubmitted to bap- 
 tifm at the hands of John, he " fignificantly ob- 
 ferved, that he did it, in order to fulfil all righte- 
 oufnefs." (P. 2.) He did fo. But whether you 
 know the meaning of that fignificant exprefTion, I 
 muft, at prefent, be allowed to doubt. Of all that 
 were under the law, " there was none righteous, no, 
 " not one." Chrifl alone excepted.. The moral 
 law requires perfonal, perfect and perpetual obedi- 
 ence. And, in.cafe of difobedience, it alfo requires 
 the blood of the traufgreiTor. It became Jefus, in 
 faving his people from their fms, to fulfil all righ- 
 teoufnefs. And he did every thing which it became 
 him to do. Neither the remonifrance of friends, 
 nor the reproach of his enemies, diverted his atten- 
 tion from it a fmde moment. He became obedient 
 
 o 
 
 to death. To the' death of the Crofs. He went 
 on without intermiffion till he bowed his head, and 
 f^d, // is finijhed ! Such was the righteoufnefs of 
 the Mediator. In one. thing, however, the righte- 
 oufnefs of John ,and of Jefus Chrifl, perfedlly cor- 
 refponded. Each confifled in perfonal obedience to 
 the will of the Father in the diflincSi:, but very op- 
 pofite charudlcrs which they fuflained. But what 
 has all this to do with fubjeds that cannot be obe- 
 dient ? 
 
I 7 J 
 
 dlcnt? or with an ad which is no where com- 
 manded ? 
 
 That our Lord fubmitted to be baptifed at the 
 hands of John, in order to fulfil all righteoufnefs, 
 (it being a part of that righteoufnefs which he came 
 to fulfil) is admitted. That this ad of our Re- 
 deemer's fubmiffion, was « in conformity to a cuftom 
 ALREADY IN USE." (P. 2.) is denied. What you 
 affirm, you attempt to fupport by critical authority. 
 Critics, it feems, have faid, that the Greek word 
 <sx%v,^a}c7C6i conveys this meaning. But can you 
 imagine, that Critics, not fo much as named, nor 
 any paiTage produced from thefe namelefs Authors 
 to confirm the propriety of their remark, can you 
 Sir, imagine, that fuch a hint fhould ever produce 
 the defired conviction ? For my own part, when 
 any word of fcripture occurs in controverfy, on 
 which the ftrength of any argument is fuppofcd to 
 depend, I care not v/hat meaning Critics or Com- 
 mentators have conveyed by that wor<l; unlefs the text 
 and context, (being attentively confidered,) wuU fairly 
 fupport their opinion. 
 
 Lexicons, Dictionaries and Expofitions, though of 
 great advantage, when we know how to ufe them, arc 
 often ufelefsto menof underftanding. Itis wellknown» 
 that the fame word in different fituations, may convey 
 not only different, but oppofite ideas. The intention, 
 therefore, of the writer, or of him that fpeaks, muft be 
 conftantly regarded, if we wifh to obtain his mean- 
 ing. And if we do not, w^hat have we to do with 
 B 4 his 
 
C 8 ] 
 
 his words ? What is it to me, in what fenfe Homer 
 or Hefiod, Ariflotle or Demofthenes, ufed fuch a 
 Greek term, when I want to know in what fenfe 
 it was ufed by Matthew or Mark, by Luke or John? 
 Unlefs, indeed, they are fpeaking of the fame fub- 
 je6t, and have the fame defign in view. — A father 
 gives a particular order tohisfon. I hear the fon pro- 
 mife to fulfil it. But am I to confult Johnfon*s 
 Dictionary, to know what the fon meant by the 
 word fulfil f I had much rather refledl on the nature 
 of the given order, and confider the ability and dif- 
 pofition of the young man, if it be worth my while 
 to obtain further fatisfadiion. He who is duly at- 
 tentive to thefe principles, will be wifer than the 
 learned can be without fimiliar attention. For a 
 proper application of common fenfe, without learn- 
 ing, is of greater value than what is commonly call- 
 ed learning ever is, when it is not exercifed on the 
 principles of common fenfe. 
 
 The word 'm'Kn^uaui which you have quoted 
 from Matt. iii. 15. occurs again Matt. v. 17. That 
 verfe is thus tranflated. " Think not that I am 
 " come to deitroy the law or the prophets ; I came 
 not to deftroy, but, ^Arjp^jo-at to fulfil.'*— On this 
 text Mr. Parkhurfl: obferves. That iff^yt^utrxi muft 
 '* be here taken in its moft extenfive fenfe, as denot- 
 " ing, that Chrift came not only Xo fulfil the types 
 " and prophecies^ by his a6lions and fufFerings, but 
 *' alfo to perform perfect obedience to the law of God, 
 " in his own perfon, 2iwd fully to enforce and explain 
 
 " it 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 " it by his doarine." See Mr. Parlvhiirfl's Greek 
 and Englifh Lexicon under the word Hx-n^ow. 
 
 But is the fulfilment of types and prophecies the 
 fame thing as complying with a cujiom already in ufe ? 
 Befides, out of many cuftoms, you leave us to guefs 
 which it was the Redeemer fele6led, and how far 
 his conformity to that cullom was carried. But it 
 was not convenient, I believe, that in this part of 
 the controverfy you fliould be too particular. Vagiie 
 and general aflertions are the borrowed garments of 
 error. Clothed in particular and proper expreHion, 
 fhe would appear like herfelf j and when fhe does, 
 ihe excites difguft. 
 
 To fulfil, is to fill up ; to complete ; which in- 
 cludes the idea of punctual and perfect obedience. 
 Now, if Chrift fulfilled the ceremonial law, it is 
 by him abolilhled. If he fulfilled the moral law for 
 juftification, in him only who fulfilled it, can %ve 
 be juftified. We are, then, complete in him. To 
 what end ? That we might have communion with 
 him, and be obedient to him. On thefe principles, 
 we reje£l idle and endlefs conje£tures on jewifh cuf- 
 toms, and fay, One is our Majier^ even Chrijl. The 
 voice of the Shepherd we wilh to hear. The voice 
 of a ftranger, we will not follow. And are we, 
 think you, to be blamed for this refolution r 
 
 You admit, Sir, that when Chrift was baptized, 
 " it was in obedience to the authority of a divine 
 " inlfitution.*' (P. 2.) Should we not, then, iji tiiis 
 xefped, be followers ofChrill? Is your C4jitom al- 
 ready 
 
[ 10 ] 
 
 ready in ufe olfuch authority ? Do not trifle with iis. 
 Tell us plainly, fince you fpeak of « particular cuf- 
 tom, which among the many you have in view. 
 
 " The deputies from the Jewifli Sanhedrim ex- 
 " preffed no furprize at John's baptizing, as though 
 ** the practice itfelf was new or unprecedented, 
 ** but only enquired into the qualifications of the 
 " adminiftrator ; why doft thou in particular bap- 
 '* tiz€?" (P. 2.) To this conjecture, the beft 
 name I can beftow on fuch a proof, I beg leave to 
 obferve, That if John's practice was- not new or 
 unprecedented, it could neither have excited curiofity 
 or jealoL^fy among the Rabbies. For John was not 
 only a Levite, but of the houfe of Aaron ; and in 
 the eighth clafs of the twenty four, which David 
 had fettled in that illuftrious family. -Let it be alfo 
 obferved, that as there were many Levites called by 
 the name of 'John^ to diftinguifn the fon of Zacha- 
 rias from the reft, he was called, yohn the Baptijiy be- 
 ing they?r/?and only Levite who baptized. I add, had 
 profelyte baptifm been common, or fo much asknow^n 
 among the Jews, it is abfurd to fuppofe, that when 
 John baptized, they fliould have imagined, that the 
 adminiftrator ought to be iorr.z extraordinary perfon. 
 Yet their queftion to John, ftrongly fliews they were 
 fixed in that opinion. For they faid to him, *' Why 
 '* baptizcft thou then, if thou be not that Chrift, 
 " nor Elias, neither that prophet ? John i. 25.** 
 Obferve, They aft:, *' Why baptizeft thou r" inde- 
 finitely^ Not, why baptizeft %\\ou the feed of Ah'a^ 
 
 ham? 
 
[II.] 
 
 ham? Now, any religious a6l that put the pof- 
 terity of Abraham, on a level with any other peni- 
 tent, was certainly novel, and had it not been from 
 heaven, and not of man, it muft have met with uni- 
 verfal rejection IVom Jev/i(h Zealots. But we are 
 told, thofe who did rejefl: it, rejeded the counfel 
 of God againft themfelves. When our Lord afked 
 this queftion, " The baptifm of John, was it from 
 " heaven or of men ?" he muft have expofed him- 
 felf to cenfure, had he not known it was impofTil^le 
 for them to deny the divinity of John's mrffion. 
 This left them without excufe. And indeed, what 
 excufe to make for you, who have ailerted in the 
 face of this remarkable pafTage fuch ftrange things, 
 I cannot im.agine. On this queftion, the Chief 
 Prieftsand Scribes, and theElders, reafoned with them- 
 felves, faying, " If we fhall fay from heaven,*' (that 
 is, if we fhall admit the baptifm. of John is evidently 
 or immediately founded on Divine Authority) " he 
 *< will fay. Why then did ye n^t believe him ? But if 
 ** we fhall fay, of men, they feared the people : for 
 '* all men counted John that he was a prophet in- 
 " deed, Mark xi. 31, 32." How is it, Sir, that 
 you have lefs fear of the people than thofe Chief 
 Priefts, Scribes and Elders ? Jolm is yet a prophet 
 indeed, in the eyes of thoudmds. Nor will they 
 hear of his taking up a cuftom already in ufe, or 
 admit that Chrift commanded him thus to dignify a 
 Rabbinical tradition. 
 
 " Divers 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 " Divers wafhings, or baptlfms, every one know?, 
 were ufed in the Jewifh Church," (P. 2.) On this 
 fubjeft, Sir, our knowledge, perhaps, exceeds your 
 approbation. We know, that what you feem to- 
 refer to, were " carnal ordinances, impofed on 
 " them until the time of reformation, Heb. ix. 10." 
 We know, that while thefe carnal ordinances were 
 in force, and even complained of as a burden, that 
 vain and almoft endlefs traditions were added by 
 fuperftitious and kU righteous Pharifees. Whether 
 that ctiflom for which you contend be of the former, 
 or of the latter kind, w'ho can determine r If of the 
 latter, it is contemptible. If of the former, it is abro- 
 gated. For the ceremiOnial law was unto Chrift. 
 After his deceafe it vaniflied away. On a different 
 ground, however, there yet remains One Baptifm, 
 And founded, as it is, not on indefinite cuftom, but 
 on his authority, who has " All power in heaven 
 " and in earth," it will remain, as it is declared it 
 lliall, to the end of the world. Nor can it be faid, 
 that by the end of the world, we are to underftand 
 the end of the Jewiili difpenfation. That period 
 paiTed away on the Afcenfion of the Son of God. 
 And fmce the demolition of the Temple, and the 
 final difperfion ot the Jews, it is but a faint fliadow 
 of former fhadows that now remains, or indeed that 
 can remain, with the fcattered remnants of that un- 
 happy people. Their yet remaining fondnefs for 
 fleeting fhadows, childilli ceremonies and, carnal 
 
 cuftoms. 
 
[ 13 ] 
 
 cuftoms, we can well account for. But Sir, that 
 you, a minifter of the gofpel, in the eighteenth cen- 
 tury, that you Ihould indulge a judaizing difpofition 
 fo far as you have in this difpute, is much to be 
 lamented. 
 
 Particular cuRoms, in a law fenfe, are, all of 
 them, of uncertain origin. So that, if any one can 
 fhew the beginning of any cuftom, it Is not a good 
 one. It is not fo in the church of Chrift. Pofitivc 
 inftitutions may be well accounted for. Your cuftom, 
 is not of this caft. For when, or where, or how it 
 firft prevailed, I prefume, you cannot tell. On the 
 contrary. Believer's baptifm is founded, if I may fo 
 exprefs it, on the ftatute law of heaven. It is a 
 plain and pofitive inflitute of Divine appointment. 
 Its commencement is not, like fi6lion, concealed 
 in clouds. We can tell from whence it is. Where 
 and by whom it w^as firft adminiftered. To what 
 fubje^ls, and for what end. See Matt. iii. and 
 Matt, xxviii. 
 
 Mr. Henry, when he did not recollect the con- 
 fequence of his own argument, wrote well on the 
 nature of pofitive inftltutes. He fays, " Corrup- 
 " tions that are crept into any ordinance of God, rauft 
 " be purged out by having recourfe to the primitive 
 *' inftitution." " If," fays he, " the copy be vi- 
 " cious, it muft be examined and correded by the 
 ** original. Thus v/hen St. Paul would redrefs the 
 
 '* griev- 
 
I H ] 
 
 " grievances in the church * of Corinth, about the 
 " Lord's Supper, he appealed to the appointment, 
 ** I Cor. xi. 23. So and Co I received it from the 
 " Lord, Truth was from the beginning ; we muft 
 " therefore inquire for Z/:?^ ^5^^ i^/^w^Ty, J er. vi. 16. 
 ** and mufl reform, not by later patterns, but by 
 " ancient rules'*. So fpeaks Mr Henry, in his com- 
 ment on Matt. xix. 8. Feeling the force of truth, 
 and not fufpefting that the confequence of his own 
 argument would flrongly militate againft a favorite 
 fentiment, thus he fpake. But to you, Sir, he 
 fpeaks in vain. For, however the ordinance of 
 baptifm may be, and a6lually is, by feme, corrupted, 
 it is in vain to fay to you, From the beginning it was 
 not Jo. Since when it began, or where, by what 
 perfon, or for what end, who can difcover, by any 
 thing you have been pleafed to fay on this facred 
 fubje6l r 
 
 Your tiioughts of an ancient cuftom, abftra(3:- 
 edly confidered, might amufe me. When, with- 
 out any proof, you make " the Governor of the 
 " chriilian church," adopt and dignify your fa- 
 vorite 
 
 * Mr Henry ought to have faid In the Church at 
 Corinth. Every particular Church mentioned in the . 
 New Teilament, is congregational, and was at fuch a 
 place as is there mt-ntioned. We fpeak with propriety 
 when we fpeak of the church of Chrift. But the church 
 of Ccrinih, of Rome, of England, of Scotland, or of any 
 other dtjy or countrj, is an improper and injurious mode 
 of exprclTion, 
 
C IS ] 
 
 vorite ciiftom, without informing us what cuftom 
 in particular he thus revered, I am difpleafed* 
 When you contend, we are thus to underftand his 
 language in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. (P. 2.) I am fur- 
 prized and offended. Believe me — That which is 
 flraight can no more be made crooked, than that 
 which is crooked can be made ilraight. 
 
 Perhaps, Sir, what a Commentator, fo juflly 
 celebrated as Vitringa, has faid of carnal ordinances 
 under the Sinai covenant, may claim your attention. 
 Confult him on the 6th, 7th and 8th verfes of the 
 40th chapter of the prophecy of Ifaiah. On thefe 
 memorable words, " All fiefli is grafs, and all the 
 " goodlinefs thereof is as the flower of the field. 
 " The grafs withereth, the flovv-er fadeth ; becaufe 
 " the fpirit of the Lord bloweth upon it : furely the 
 " people is grafs." Vitringa obferves, that thefe 
 words contain, not only a prediction of bringing 
 into a ftate of contempt ail the unliable, frail and 
 pernicious wifdom of the flefh in the Gentile world, 
 but alio, of the utter abolition of the carnal ordi- 
 nances in the JewiOi Church. 
 
 . This, I think, is a fact : and therefore, I can- 
 not believe, that the Governor of the chriftian Church 
 would revive a cuftom of carnal complexion. Be- 
 lieving this fact, I think, with Vitringa, that the 
 following padages refer to this important event. 
 " What fhall we then fay, that Abraham, our fa- 
 " ther, as pertaining to \.\\Q flejh, hath found, Rom. 
 iv. I r" *' Wherefore, henceforth, know we 
 
 no 
 
C «6 3 
 
 RO matt after 'the y?*?/?', 2 Cor. v. 16." " Are ye 
 ** fo fooliih, having begun in the fpirit, are ye now 
 " n>ade perfea by the/c/^ .^ Gal. iii. 3/' " Though 
 ** I might alfo have confidence in th&flejh. Cir- 
 ** cumcifed the eighth day," — and fo on. " But 
 *' what things were gain to me, thofe I counted 
 « lofs for Chrift, Philip, iii. 4—7." " There 
 " arifeth another prieft -—Who is made, not after 
 " the law of a f«r«(7/ commandment, but after the 
 «* power of an endiefs life, Heb. vii'. 15, 16.'* — If 
 thofe quotations, Sir, fhould flrike you, as they do 
 me, you, will rejoice. That though " the grafs 
 " withereth, and the flower fadeth,*' yet, " the 
 " word of our God fhall fland for ever." Of this 
 joy the Apoftle partook when he faid, " For we are 
 " the circumcifion, which worfhip God in the fpi- 
 " rit, and rejoice in Chrifl Jefus, and have nocon- 
 " fidence in they?^7y?>, Philip, iii. 3." — Of this joy, 
 may you drink deeply, with increafmg fatisfa6lion ! 
 So with fmcerity prays, your refpecSlful humble 
 fervant, 
 
 March 24, 1786. John Martin. 
 
 LETTER 
 
C n 
 
 LETT 
 
 Rev. Sir. 
 
 TURNING from fhadows to fubftance, from 
 flelh to fpirlt, from the Mofaic law to the 
 gofpel of the Son of God, I clofed my laft letter 
 with chriftian benevolence ; and with tranfient re- 
 li(if from that toil, which your Dtfcourfe and my 
 inclination to review it, have impofed upon me. 
 But again, I perceive, I muft enter into the fhades, 
 if I perfevere in my intended reply. Safely how- 
 ever, at laft, may I, and you too, emerge from 
 every fhade, and rife fuperior to every ceremony, 
 which has any tendency to obfcure the glory of the 
 gofpel from us, or to prevent our entire dependence 
 on Jefus Chrift ! 
 
 From feeble hints you proceed to full defcription. 
 Thus you defcribe the fubjedl in debate : " Chriftian 
 " Baptifm thus circumftanced, then, appears to be, 
 
 " A SACRED ORDINANCE, WHEREBY THE SUB- 
 " JECT IS DEDICATED TO THE GOD of THE 
 " CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AND REGULARLY SET 
 " APART TO THE HONORS AND OBLIGATIONS 
 " of THAT DISPENSATION." (P. 3.) 
 
 C Ou 
 
i: i8 ] 
 
 On this definition, or defcription rather, of bap- 
 tifm, I would in general obferve, That only is a facre'd 
 ordinance, which is exprefsly revealed In the word of 
 God; and revealed under that decoh'omy in which 
 it is to be adminiftered. Who are to officiate, and 
 who are to fubmit to a facred ordinance, are not 
 left to conjecture: a deviation from this written 
 rule, and from the praflice of thofe intelligent and 
 faithful fervants, whom it is our duty to follow, is not 
 to be defended. A chriftian minifter has no autho- 
 rity from Chrift to dedicate children to God. We 
 are priefts to God, to offer fpiritual facrifices; and, 
 that " fupplications, prayers, interceffions, and g*- 
 " ing of thanks might be made for all men :" but it 
 does not appear to me, that we have either authority 
 or ability, to dedicate or devote any perfon to the Al- 
 mighty ; if by fo doing, fomething diftin6l from fup- 
 plication, and -which prayer does not include, be in- 
 tended. The God of the chriftian religion fome will 
 think an odd mode of expreffion. Becaufe the God 
 of Abraham and our God, is undoubtedly, the fame 
 Jehovah. Regularly fetting an infant apart, to the 
 honors and obligations of the prefent difpenfation, 
 is, I fear, prefumptuous. Who that reflefts on the 
 fpirituality of thofe honours, and of thofe obligations, 
 would talk of regularity in this irregular and rafh pro- 
 ceeding ? 
 
 In every controveVfy where truth is oppofed, there 
 is, -what the acute Stapferus has called a »rpwTor-4/£y^or, 
 a primary error. In that part of the debate between 
 
 us, 
 
[ 19 3 
 
 us, which relates to the proper fubje<^s of baptifm, 
 your leading error, to which the reft may be reduced, 
 leems to be, a mifapprehenfion of the vtfible kingdom of 
 Jefus Chrijt. You are ever in queft of fome analogy 
 between the external appearances of the prefent dif- 
 penfation, and that of the Sinai Covenant. You 
 feem continually to forget, that the middle wall of 
 partition is thrown down, and are perpetually run- 
 ning back to Horeb for divers wafhings, running 
 water, and fprinkling priefts ; or to avail yourfelf of 
 circumcifion, or of fome antient cuftom, which you 
 ar^ folicitous to eftablifh; becaufe you think it has 
 been adopted and improved by the governor of the 
 chriftian church. (P. 2.) But let me intreat you to 
 recoiled the following declarations of our Lord and 
 Mafter: "My kingdom is not of this world. John 
 " 1 8. 36." " Believe me the hour cometh, when 
 " ye fhall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jeru- 
 ** falem, worfhip the Father. But the hour cometh 
 " and now is, when the true worfhippers (hali wor- 
 " fhip the Father in fpirit, and in truth : for the Fa- 
 " ther feeketh fuch to worfhip him. God is a Spi- 
 " rit ; and they that worfhip him, muft worfhip 
 " him in fpirit, and in truth. John iv. 21, 23, 
 " 24." — Were thefe declarations treated with du$ 
 deference, our difpute would be decided. When 
 this controverfy is out of fight, who can furpafs 
 many of the brethren, of your own denomination, 
 in their excellent comments on thefe important ex- 
 prellions ? But, when baptifm is the principle fub- 
 C 2 jea 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 jecl: of their clifcourfe, what a change ! Clouds " and 
 fhadov/5 then obfcure their comment, and if we 
 are not difgufled, we are fure to be difappointed. 
 
 After your defcription of Infant baptifm, thus 
 you proceed. <* It, [baptifm] is the firft formal rite 
 ** enjoined by that religion to which it belongs, and 
 " therefore called an ordinance of initiation. 
 " The fubje6t is dedicated thereby to God, under 
 " the diflin6l characters of Father, Son, and Holy 
 " Spirit. And it farther appears, from the lan- 
 " guage of the commiflion, to be the formal badge, 
 " or appointed token, of the chriftian religion, 
 " whereby the fiibje(5ls of it are difcriminated or 
 " dillinguiflied from others; entitled to the HO- 
 ** NORs of the chriftian difpenfation ; and obli- 
 ** gated to OBEY its rules. Hence we read of thofe 
 " who were baptized into Chrift, and are therefore 
 ** faid to have put on Chrift: i. e. they are for- 
 " mally invefted w^ith the chriftian name, and are 
 " under the regulations of the chriftian religion. A 
 " perfon baptized is thereby regularly fet a part, 
 " under a determinate name or title. He is> in an 
 " external fenfe, chri/Hanized or chrifiened. — By 
 ** this ceremony, however, he is not admitted into 
 " any particular church, or religious fociety ; but 
 " fet apart as a vifible fubjed of Chrift's king- 
 " dom at large. And farther, this rite by no means 
 " afcertains to the fubjeft spiritual and saving 
 " bleftings ; he is hereby marked out, only as a child 
 
 " of 
 
[ 21 ] 
 
 ** of the kingdom; not, in the higheft fenfe, a child 
 " of God." (P. 3.4.) 
 
 I thought it a pity, Sir, to difunite what you 
 have thus united. Ideas more oddly aflbciated, 
 furely are feldom feen. Inftead of a grave reply ; 
 for who can be grave in reading the preceding pa- 
 ragraph ? permit me to indulge the following fup- 
 pofitions. Firft, let me fuppofe that Mafter Bennet 
 will live to read your Difcourfe. While he is yet 
 young, and has read nothing better on baptlfm, let 
 me further fuppofe, that I {liould be permitted to 
 afk him the following queftions, and fhocld receive 
 from your pupil, the anfwers which I am going to 
 introduce. — 1 confefs fuch an interview is improba- 
 ble. But were it to take place, at a certain period, 
 and had the child nofufpicion ofmydefign, it is pro- 
 bable we fhould thus chat together. — You have read, 
 Mafter Bennet, Mr. Horfey's pamphlet on Infant 
 baptifm. " Yes, Sir, often." — Then you can tell 
 me what he means by Infant baptifm. " Yes, I 
 " can. By Infant baptifm, Mr. Horfey means In- 
 fant fprinkling, or the fprinklingof Infants."— And 
 what is infant fprinkling ? " It is chriilian baptifm.'*- 
 —And what elfe do you call it ? " It is a formal 
 " rite. The firft formal rite, Sir."— And what elfe ? 
 *' It is an ordinance of initiation."— And what elfe r 
 " It is a formal badre."— And what elfe ? ' " It is 
 '* an appointed token." — And what elfe? *' It is 
 " a ceremony." — Well my dear, you have not a bad 
 memory. Perhaps, you can alfo tell me wiiat In- 
 C 3 fant 
 
C 22 3 
 
 fant rprinkling, or your being fprinkled when an in- 
 fant, did for you. "Yes, lean."— Do, then. "Why, 
 *• by it, I was chrtjilanized." — Then you were not 
 born a chriftian, though born of chriftian parents ? 
 " No, Sir, I w^as not a chriftian *till I was chrijlenedy 
 —Very good. But what elfe did this chrijlening do 
 for you ? " Why, Sir, I was thereby dedicated to 
 .* God."— By whom? "By Mr. Horfey."— In- 
 deed! — Wasany thing elfe done for you. " Yes, I 
 " was thereby difcriminated or diftinguiflied from 
 " others." — How fo ? Did it leave any mark on 
 your body ? " No, I believe not. But what it 
 " might do at firft, I cannot tell." — Is this all ? — 
 *' No, it entitled me to the honors of the chrif- 
 " tian difpenfation." — Ah! my dear, take care how 
 you admit that fentiment. The real honours of the 
 chriftian difenfation, are fpiritual and eternal. Nor 
 can we have any title to thofe honours, but by the 
 fpecial donation of the Son of God. — But go on. — 
 " It laid me under an obligation to obey its rules." 
 —Then you were fomeihing after being fprinkled^ 
 which you were not before. " Yes; Before I was 
 " fprinkled, I was not a chriftian. But after that 
 *' aft, I was chrijiianized. Before I was fprinkled, 
 " I was not baptized into Chriji. After that a£l I 
 " was. Before I was fprinkled, I had not put on 
 " Chrtfl, In that aa, I put on the Lord."— Why,. 
 my dear, how can this be, fmce when you were 
 /prinkled, you did nothing, nor even knew what was 
 done to you ? " O Sir, the meaning is this. I was 
 
 " formally 
 
C «3 ] 
 
 *' formally invefled with the chrlftlan name, and 
 ** brought under the regulations of the chriftian reli- 
 " gion : for, I was regularly fet apart, under a de- 
 " terminate name or title." — Are you then a mem- 
 ber of any particular church ? " No, Sir.'* — ^Or 
 of any religious fociety ?. " No.*' — Where are you 
 then ? In what is commonly called the world? " No, 
 *' Sir, I am a vifible fubje6l of Chrifl's kingdom at 
 •' large." — At large, indeed! But if a ^^T^/^/^ fub- 
 je£lof the kingdom ofChrift, does not that, and all 
 you have mentioned, give you fome right to fpiri- 
 tual and faving bleflings ? " No, Sir, none of thefe 
 " things do by any means, afcertain to me thofe 
 " bleflings. For, I am marked out, only as a child of 
 " the kingdom; I am not. Sir, in the higheft fenfe, 
 " 2i child of God y — God grant, my dear, you may 
 live to be horn again^ and to furmount the prejudices 
 and perplexities of your prefent education, on what 
 you are taught to call Infant baptifm ! 
 
 What can you mean Brother Horfey, by teaching 
 a poor child to talk in this manner? what can you 
 mean by what you have faid, and unfaid, of Infant 
 baptifm ? You feem to play with It, as a boy fome- 
 times plays with a tenifball. He throws it down 
 with force, on purpofe to make it mount on high. 
 Yet he knows it cannot long continue there. Down 
 again it falls. Only by force it is made to rife for a 
 few moments from its original fituation. I wonder 
 you are not wearied with fimilar diverfion. — You 
 know, Sir, that the kingdom of our Lord, is a fpi- 
 C 4 ritual 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 tual kingdom. You know, that its nature, promi- 
 fes, honors and obligations, are fpiritual. You 
 know, that its fubjedls, worfhip, weapons of war- 
 fare, prefent and future bleffings, in fhort, every 
 thing, that is a real part of this admirable kingdom, 
 is truly fpiritual. Why then, is this concealed to 
 ferve fo poor a purpofe, as you have ventured to pur- 
 ine. Of the kingdom or church of Chrift, you mud 
 permit me to introduce occafional remarks. In tak- 
 ing this liberty, I keep two ends in view. One is, 
 touniteifpoffible, edification with contention. The 
 other inducement is this. That as mifapprehenfions 
 of the kingdom of our Lord, lie at the core of this con- 
 troverfy, thefe remarks may be ufeful ; they cannot 
 be deem.ed digreflions from the fubje6l in debate. 
 
 Dr. Erfkine*, though a pasdobaptifl, fpeaks with 
 peculiar freedom of the fpirituality of the kingdom 
 of Chrift : nor does he feem to care how much it mi- 
 litates againft his own pra6lice, in refpecl of Infant 
 baptifm. His words are, " The church and the body 
 " of Chrift are fynonimous expreffions, i Cor. xii. 
 " 12, 13. Eph. i. 23. iv. 16. Col. i. 24. It is 
 ** evident, that, in thefe palfages, the apoflle fpeaks of 
 ** the true myftical body of Chrift. For we are told 
 *' I Cor. xii. 13. that by one fpirit we are all hap^ 
 ** ti%ed into one body. And that from Chrift, the 
 ** whole body fitly joined together, and compared 
 " by that which every joint fupplieth, according to 
 " the efFcftual working in the meafure of every part, 
 " maketh increafe of tlie body, unto the edifying 
 
 " of 
 
 * See his Theological DiiTertation?, P. 75* 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 " of itfelf In love, Eph. iv. i6. It is equally 
 " plain, that the apoftle fpeaks of particular vifible 
 " churches, reaping benefit from the various gifts of 
 " their teachers. Therefore, every particular vifible 
 *• church, was confidered by the apoftles, as com- 
 " pofed only of true believers : and thofe not 
 " baptized with the holy Ghoft, were accounted by 
 " them, no members of Chrift's myftical body. 
 " What then fhall we fay of thofe, who in all their 
 '* a(5lions are animated and influenced by the devil, 
 " who live after the flefh, and retain nothing of 
 " the chriftian, fave the empty name ? Chriftians are 
 " as lively ftones, built up a fpiritual houfe, an 
 " holy priefthood, to offer up fpiritual facrifices, 
 ** acceptable to God, by Jefus Chrift, i Pet. ii. 5. 
 ** And is that, think you, the character of men dead 
 ** in trefpaffes and fins ?" So far the Doftor. Suf- 
 fer me to afk, (That if every particular church, was 
 confidered by the apoiiles, as compofed only of true 
 believers ; and if thofe that were not baptized with 
 the holy Ghoft, were accounted by them,, no mem- 
 bers of Chrift's myftical body) whether it can be faid 
 with truth, that Infants are lifible fubjeds of 
 Chrifl's kingdom at large ? 
 
 Thefe expreflions, ** baptized into Chrifl:, put on 
 " Chrift," I acknowledge we read of in the New 
 Tefl:ament. But with your hencey and therefore^ 
 (P. 3.) how is the apoflle's meaning perverted. 
 Can you believe that he fpake of children when h.c 
 made ufe of thofe cxprejjions F You make an Infant's 
 
 bcin&" 
 
C 26 ] 
 
 being ehrtflianized, and it's being chrljlened^ the 
 fame thing. (P. 3.) And by fo doing, you remind 
 me of a late a6t of parliament, in which we Dif- 
 fenters, have the honor to lay a tax upon ourfelves 
 and on our pofterity. In that a(fl:, the term chrij-- 
 tening IS/ hy choice, inferted. I confefs till then, 
 I thought, I fhould have offended any proteftant 
 minifter, (not of the church of England,) to have 
 faid that he chrijiened children. That offence has 
 now ceafed. But the meaning of the term, I was 
 yet to learn, till I read your Difcourfe. I now find, 
 that, with you, to cJrriflen is to chrifiianize. If fo, 
 what a pity, fome may fay, that every child in 
 Great Britain is not chrijUanized \ feeing though this 
 favor is not of bh'thy nor of bloodj it is by the will 
 of man. Should fuch pity be excited in any, a 
 defer attention to your {lender meaning, will caufe 
 it perhaps, to fubfide. For he will find, it is only 
 '* in an external fcnfe," that you chri/lianizehj chrif- 
 tening. And that when the deed is done, whether, 
 (to ufe your own flrange words,) whether the chrif- 
 tened Infant be *• an embrio-angel, or an em- 
 brio-fiend,'* you cannot tell. (P. 23.) 
 
 Dr. Erfkine, when fpeaking of an external king- 
 dom under the prefent Difpenfation, fays, "If 
 " there is an external church, eifentially different 
 " from the internal, and confifting of different mem- 
 " bers, then, Chrifl has two churches in the world, 
 ** and is the head of two myftical bodies.— Of old, 
 ** indeed, God had two difi^ercnt kinds of people, 
 
 " the 
 
[ 27 3 
 
 ** the natural defcendants of Abraham, and h,is 
 '* fpiritual feed : Jews outwardly, and Jews in- 
 ** wardly : thofe born after the flefh, and thefe by 
 " the promife. But now, the flaves of fin, are no 
 " more a part of God*s family, John vili. 35. Thofe 
 " born after the flelh, are caft out of the church, 
 ** Gal. iv. 23 — 30 : And he only is Abraham's 
 ** feed, and a Jew, in the New Teftament fenfe of 
 ** the word, who is one inwardly ; walking in the 
 ** fteps of the faith of Abraham, arid doing his 
 " works, John viii. 39. Heb. ii. 16. Rom. ii. 
 " 28, 29. iv. 12. ix. 6, 8." — How, Sir, you 
 will be able to confute this acute writer in the pre- 
 ceding quotation, or how, either he, or you, can 
 reconcile thefe remarks with Infant fprinkling, as 
 an a£l of divine worfhip, you, perhaps, may guefs, 
 but I cannot. 
 
 You invite your reader to review the commiflion 
 in Matt, xxviii. 19. 20. and to obferve, whether 
 it does not agree with that account which I have 
 quoted from the 3d and 4th page of your Defence. 
 1 accept. Sir, your invitation. And having fo done, 
 " I defire you to confider, that if any law or com- 
 ** million, does enjoin, and particularly mention 
 ** two or more things to be done, the faid law or 
 " commillion, does equally oblige to the perform- 
 " ance oieach of thofe things, and render one as ne- 
 ** ceffary and indifpenfible as the other ; unlefs there 
 " be fome particular exception to the contrary. 
 '' Thus Judges, for inftance, are empowered and 
 
 obliged 
 
[ 28 ] 
 
 " obliged to try and give judgment, in fuch and 
 " fuch caufes. If they only hear them, they don't 
 " difcharge their duty ; but are equally obliged to 
 " determine and give fentence according to law. 
 *' For the authority which obliges to one, is equal 
 " in its obligation with refpecEl to the other. — Now, 
 " fmce the commiflion to baptize, mentions teach- 
 ** ing as well as baptizing, without making any dif- 
 " tindtion, or faying any thing oi one, which is not 
 " faid of the other ; therefore, this commiflion does 
 " equally oblige both to teach and to baptize. And 
 " upon this principle, the commiflion under con- 
 " fideration, cannot comprehend Infants. For the 
 " words do neceflarily oblige to teach all whom they 
 " intend fliould be baptized. And this teaching, 
 " mult always as n^ct^L^^kiWy precede their bemg bap- 
 ** tized. Both which articles do very plainly ex- 
 " elude Infants ; becaufe they are not capable of 
 «* being taught at all. — Let it be farther obferved, 
 •' that the only fubje(5l:s fpoken of, are all Nations. 
 »* The things faid of thefe fubjeds are, that they 
 " mufl be taught, and that they mufl be baptized. 
 " Now, both thefe being faid of the fame fubje6ts, 
 *♦ we may form the words into thefe two propofi- 
 ** tions \ for they are virtually two ; viz. Teach 
 " all Nations, and Baptize all Nations —How, then, 
 " can you perfuadc yourfelf, contrary to the exprcfs 
 ** words of the fcripture, that fome only are to be 
 .** taught, whilfl others may as well be baptized 
 " without any in(lru(Slion at all ? Since, then, the 
 
 com- 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 ** commlflion, leaves no room, in the leaft, for any 
 ** din:In6lions, but fpeaks indifferently and univer- 
 *' fally of all^ what it enjoins on one, it equally en- 
 ** joins on all; there remains only one of thefe two 
 " extremes to be chofen; either that teaching muft 
 " always, or that it mull never precede baptifm." — 
 ** Nobody dare fay, that none are to be taught before 
 " they are baptized: this would fhock every rational 
 " enquirer, it is fo grofs and palpable an error, as 
 " might be fhewn from the nature of the thing, and 
 " the order obferved in the commiilion. — We fee 
 " therefore, that the pasdobaptifts themfelves, will 
 " not pretend they muft never teach any before they 
 " baptize them ; but on the contrary, make it ne- 
 " ceflary, atleaft in fome cafes, to teach firjl , But 
 " if it muft be fo mfome cafes, then, as I have be- 
 " fore demonftrated, it muft be fo in all. 
 
 " To evade the force of all this, it has been an- 
 " fvvered, and I muft needs fay ridiculoufly enough, 
 " That Infants are to be taught likewife, viz. when 
 ** they come to age, and are capable of it ; fo that, 
 ** though the commiftion does require all who are 
 " baptized, to be taught alfo, yet that does not ex- 
 ** elude Infants.'* 
 
 " But, in the firft place, I have juft now fliewn, 
 " that all muft be taught before they can be re- 
 " gularly baptized; and this unavoidably excludes 
 *' Infants. Secondly, fuppofmg the commiffion 
 " could allow of this comment, then it may run 
 " thus : Go teach all Nations, even Infants too %vhcn 
 " they are grown up, 6cc. i. e. when they cenfe to 
 
 ** be 
 
[ 3° ] 
 
 «• be Infants. This fhift can be of no fervicc. For 
 *« if the term all Nations^ only means Adult-per- 
 " fons, and Infants when grown up, the queftion 
 " will be at an end, and we are agreed. ^Tis a 
 " pretty odd diftIn£lion, indeed, but you fhall have 
 ** it, if you pleafe, and we wdll allow that Infants 
 " when they are grown up, (that is, when they 
 " come out of that ignorant ftate, and are no lon- 
 " ger Infants, but Adult-perfons,) may be bap- 
 ** tized. And if this will reconcile us, let us in- 
 ** flead of didurbing each other, unite hencefor- 
 " w^ard in a common oppofition of thofe enemies 
 " to the facraments of our mofi: holy religion, 
 " who dare wholly cafhier and reject the ordi- 
 " nance.*' — See Dr. Gale's Refledlions, on Mr. 
 Wall's Hiftory of Infant Baptifm, P. 247 — 255. 
 But obferve, I have both abridged, and given a 
 different turn to fome of the Dodor's words in this 
 long quotation. 
 
 Such, Sir, are my fentiments of the commiflion you 
 have invited me to review, with the reft of your 
 readers: fentiments which I embraced long before I 
 faw Dr. Gale's Reflexions. Whether thefe remarks, 
 or your's beft agree with the fenfe of that facred paf- 
 fage, I ill all only fay, Canftder. 
 
 " Let it be obferved, that the word which is 
 " here tranQated teaching (^i^ao-xo^lH?) is different 
 " from what was fo rendered before [y^oi^rHivaxls) ; 
 " plainly intimating, that the fame idea is not in- 
 ♦* tended ; but, that the firfl word means, as I have 
 
 ** faid 
 
r 3' ] 
 
 " faid difciphy and this properly fignifies, inJirvSf- 
 ** ing, like a parent or mafter his children or fcho- 
 " lars; evidently referring to the fubfequent dif- 
 " coiirfes of the Apoftles, to be delivered in confe- 
 " quence of their baptifm, to thofe who had been 
 " by that rite admitted into the fchool of Chrift, 
 « or difcipled to him." (P. 4.) 
 
 In my turn, let me intreat you to recolle6l, how 
 many padobapiiftsj learned as yourfelf, you venture 
 to contradiiSl by what you have faid in the preced- 
 ing quotation. Of what weight, then, can your 
 aflertion be, fo deftitute of proof, even with your 
 own people ? Out of the many to whom I have re- 
 ferred, I take the liberty to mention two. The firll 
 is Dr. Whitby, in his note on Matt, xxviii. 19. 
 He, though fully aware, it would be faid, he had 
 yielded too much to the Antipadobaptijist obferves, 
 " that ftuMivnf here, is to preach the Gofpel to all 
 ** NationSy and to engage them to believe it, in order 
 ** to their profeiTion of that faith by baptifm." This, 
 fays the Do6lor, feems apparent i.) From the pa- 
 " rallel commiflion, Mark xvi. 15. Go preach the 
 " Gofpel to every creature^—he that hellevethy and is 
 ** baptized y Jhall he faved. 2.) From the fcripture 
 " notion of a difdpky that being ftill the fame as a 
 •* believer.'* Of which the learned Do6lor produces 
 ftriking inftances, among the difciples of Mofes, of 
 John the Baptijly and of Jefus Chrijl\ both before 
 and after his refurre(5lion. After his refurredion, 
 heobferves, ** all that believed on him, had no other 
 
 " name, 
 
r 32 ] 
 
 * name, for a feafoii, but that of his dif dp les, Acls ix. 
 
 * I, to, 19, 21, 38. As when it is faid, the dif- 
 
 * ciples were multipUedy Avfls vi. i, 2, 7. Though 
 
 * afterwards, at Jntiochy the difciples began to be 
 ' called Chrijiians, Ads xi. 26.'* — And what fort 
 
 of difciples they were, the context fully determines. 
 They were fiich as believed and turned unto the 
 Lord. Such as were exhorted, that with />ttr/>(?y^ ^ 
 heart they would cleave unto him. Infants, how- 
 ever, were not calleti Chrijiians at Anttoch. To a 
 diftant city, and a darker day, we mull have recourfe 
 for the origin of that injurious invention.— The 
 other learned pa^dobaptift, I would quote on this 
 occafion, is the venerable Venema. See Mr. Booth's 
 paedobaptifm examined, P. 319. Venema having 
 produced the commiffion to baptize, from Matt. 
 xxviii. 19, 20. fays, " This is an excellent paffage, 
 " and explains the whole nature of baptifm. Before 
 " perfons were baptized, it was necelTary for them 
 " to believe the preaching of the Apoftles ; which 
 ** faith they Vv'ere to profefs in baptifm. For the 
 " word f^.a^>3TJ!,f^)', in the ftile of the New Tefta- 
 " meat, does not fignify barely to admit into afchool 
 *' and inJh'Uotion ;" (which you have ventured to in- 
 *' finuate it does, (P. 4.) but to admit, after the 
 ** doctrine is believed, and after a previous fubjec- 
 " tion to the fundamental laws of the fchool. 
 " Ma9)?Tst;«y Tiva, is to teach a perfon efFe£lually, fo 
 " that he may learn, obey, and receive the doc- 
 " trine by faith. It includes, therefore uk^v^v koh f/^Sen, 
 
 to 
 
[ 33 ] 
 
 " to heart to under/land^ and to ad?mt for true \ 
 " for (ActvBaveiVi to leam, fignifies an idea diftin^l from 
 " ftxoycrai, to hear. Vid. Raphelius, ad. John vi. 
 
 " 45-" 
 
 To thefe learned brethren of your own, I beg 
 leave to add, that if you have, and why fhould I 
 doubt it, a difpofition to confult the learned and 
 laborious Dr. Gale, on the word in queftion, I 
 thmk you will obtain complete fatisfaflion of the 
 full meaning of that term, which, I take it for 
 granted, you have not yet attentively confidered. But 
 as you may not have his Reflexions at hand, I take 
 the liberty to fubjoin the following remarks. " Th.c 
 " word [f*aS>jT£!;w, tsachl in the baptifmal commlflion 
 " of Matthew, is ufed only three times more in all the 
 <* New Teftament. Every fcr'ibe which is in- 
 ** STRUCTED[/*=''^'5T£t;SHK] itito the kingdom of heaven, 
 *' Matt.xiii. 52. Jofephwho alfo him/elf was Jesus' s 
 "DISCIPLE. Matt. XXvii. 57. [s(^cc^yirBva-s ru Jna-ii] 
 " When they had preached ihe gofpel to that city ^ and 
 ** HAD TAUGHT many \_\»'Oi.'^mivaa.\\i{\ Acls xiv. 21. 
 «* They did not \i2,x^Vj preach the gofpeU but taught 
 *♦ fo efFeftually as to prevail on many to become dif- 
 ** ciplei, or believers. This is the plain import of 
 " the original.— So that whereas f^a^yirsvu implies 
 •• teachings full as much as the more common word 
 *' [J'tJacrxw] the difference is, that the former has a 
 " more precife and determinate meaning ; conveying 
 *' to the Apoflles this idea, viz. So teach the people, as 
 D *' to 
 
[ 34 ] 
 
 " to perfnade them to become my difciples." See a 
 courfe of Letters to Bp. Hoadly, P. 78, 79. 
 
 That they who were baptized by the apoRles^ 
 " were afterwards gradually inftrufted in the grand 
 " truths of chriftianity — encouraged and fortified 
 " by its declarations and promifes — and urged to a 
 " confiftent performance of all its important duties/* 
 (P. 4, 5.) we admit. And with us, from the day of 
 baptifm to the day of death, this practice is ftill 
 continued. But that any perfon was ever baptized 
 by any apoflle of Jefus Chrift, uninfl:ru£led in the 
 leading truths of cliriftianity, or not profefling to 
 believe them, this, Sir, is not admiflible.— The 
 gofpel was publifned by the apoftles to all nations, 
 for the obedience oi faith, Rom xvi. 26. Not to 
 all, in all nations \ But to all that were able to hear 
 it. And as any, through grace, believed, he became 
 obedient to the gofpel. But where that divine re- 
 port was not received, v/hether it was from a per- 
 verfe difpofition, or from natural incapacity, there 
 neither was, nor indeed could be, that obedience 
 which the gofpel was publiflied to promote.—" If 
 " ye love me, keep my commandments, John xiv. 
 •' 15." This is the order that Chrift has eftabliflied. 
 " If any man love me, he will keep my words, 
 " John xiv. 23." This is a fa5f which our Lord 
 aflerts. But, in Infant fprinkling, you are un- 
 mindful of thefe things. — Review, Sir, what you 
 have written on this fubje<5l, and deliberately con- 
 fider, whether, with all the applaufe which it is 
 
 faid 
 
f 35 ] 
 
 faid you have obtained from fome, you have obtain- 
 ed it with unfuUied fatisfa6lIon In your own con- 
 fcience. 
 
 A traveller nnay be fo fituated on his journey, that, 
 of three or four feparating paths before him, he 
 knows not which to choofe. Xravellers are of dif- 
 ferent difpofitions. Some are full of conceit. Others 
 are full of conjefture. Some are full of prejudice. 
 Others are witholit any peculiar prejudice, in fa- 
 vor of any path ; they only wifh to find the right. 
 And when they do, are determined though they fhould 
 walk alone, to purfue it. In a mental and moral 
 fenfe we are pilgrims and ftrangers. And in every 
 thing that Is praftical, m.uch depends on our difpo^ 
 fit'ion. We cannot go forward with fafety, unlefs 
 we are refolved to let the v/ord of God be a lamp 
 unto om feet^ and a light unto our path. Long 
 fmce I fou-ght and obtained this refolution, in re- 
 fpedl of believers baptifm. 
 
 I faw much was faid of baptifm in the New- 
 Teftament. I heard different opinions relative to 
 this pofitive inftitution. But it was indifferent to 
 me, whether infants or adults were the proper fub- 
 je6ls ; whether fprinkling or imm.erfion was the 
 only mode. I believed, however, that truth was 
 immutable ; and that it could only be with one of 
 the oppofmg parties. I read without prejudice ; at 
 leaft, in favor of my prefent praftice. I prayed that 
 I might know and difcharge my duty. You know 
 the confequence. But though I have been baptized, 
 D 2 on 
 
[ 36 ] 
 
 on a profelTion of my faith, more than three and 
 twenty years, I have never written any thing pro- 
 feiTedly on this fubje^t. Bear wdth me, then, if I 
 make hade flowly. Who can anfwer as concifely 
 as others can affert ? Be not offended with my free- 
 dom. For, notwithftanding the liberty I take as 
 a difputant, you will find it is reftrifted to the nature 
 and manner of your Defence. I do not doubt, were 
 I to fee fome other produdlion of yours, detached 
 from this controverfy, I fhould have as much to 
 applaud as I have now to cenfure. I wifh I may 
 enjoy that pleafure. But if I never fhould, believe 
 me to be, what I fmcerely am, your refpedlful hum- 
 ble fervant. 
 
 March 29, 1786. John Martin, 
 
 LETTER 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 WHEN I call to mind the nature and the 
 number of thofe contradidlions which 
 learned psedobaptft minders have piiblifhed in this 
 controverfy, I am at a lofs to determine whether 
 the condu£l of the people among whom you labour, 
 is to be cenfured or commended. Are your friends 
 fo intelligent, that however you, and other learned 
 paedobaptifts may contradict yourfelves, by what 
 you preach and by what you publifh, they can, un- 
 der every difadvantage, perceive what is duty ? Or 
 do they hear fo much of rites and ceremonies, of 
 antient cuftoms and modern conjectures, that they 
 prefer their own quiet to clofe inveftigation ? Be 
 which it may, your peace is conr.efled with their 
 patience. For fhould they once perceive, as with 
 due fearch they would, that there is hardly one ar- 
 gument or one text, which you urge in favor of 
 Infant fprinkling, which fonne of your brethren in 
 the miniiliry, of equal learning and of equal repu- 
 tation with yourfelf, does not abandon, the confc- 
 i^uence would be unpleafmg, If you value your 
 
 prefent 
 
[ 36 ] 
 
 on a profeflion of my faith, more than three and 
 twenty years, I have never written any thing pro- 
 feffedly on this fubjeft. Bear with me, then, if I 
 make hafte flowly. Who can anfwer as concifely 
 as others can alTert ? Be not offended with my free- 
 dom. For, notwithftanding the liberty I take as 
 a difputant, you will^nd it is reftrided to the nature 
 and manner of your Defence. I do not doubt, were 
 I to fee fome other production of yours, detached 
 from this controverfy, I fhould have as much to 
 applaud as I have now to cenfure. I wifh I may 
 enjoy that pleafure. But if I never fhould, believe 
 me to be, what I fmcerely am, your refpedful hum- 
 ble fervant. 
 
 March 29, 1786. John Martin. 
 
 LETTER 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 LETTER IIL 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 WHEN I call to mind the nature and the 
 number of thofe contradiftions which 
 learned pasdobaptd minders have publifhed in this 
 controverfy, I am at a lofs to determine whether 
 the conduft of the people among whom you labour, 
 is to be cenfured or commended. Are your friends 
 fo intelligent, that however you, and other learned 
 paedobaptifts may contradi6l yourfelves, by what 
 you preach and by what you publifh, they can, un- 
 <ler every difadvantage, perceive what is duty ? Or 
 do they hear fo much of rites and ceremonies, of 
 antient cuftoms and modern conjedlures, that they 
 prefer their own quiet to clofe inveftigation ? Be 
 which it may, your peace is conr.efled with their 
 patience. For fhould they once perceive, as with 
 due fearch they would, that there is hardly one ar- 
 gument or one text, which you urge in favor of 
 Infant fprinkling, which fome of your brethren in 
 the miniilry, of equal learning and of equal repu- 
 tation with yourfelf, does not abandon, the confe- 
 ijuence would be unpleafmg, If you value your 
 
 prefent 
 
[ 38 ] 
 
 prefent peace, filence on this fubje6l, will be your 
 advantage. You have 'thought otherwife. What 
 you may think in future, when you and your friends 
 have purfued a little longer the method that now 
 feems to be adopted, the effects of thofe united 
 efforts will ere long determine. 
 
 Your fecond propofition is thus introduced. — 
 " Having ftated m.y views of the nature of chridian 
 <* baptifm, I am, fecondly, Tojuftify the admini- 
 «' flration of it to infants." (P. 5.) 
 
 Our errors are feldom fingle. Becaufe, we fel- 
 dom afiert what is erroneous, without attempting 
 to juftify that error. But what do you urge in jufti- 
 fication of Infant baptifm ? That we do not read 
 of the baptifm of adult perfons in the AB.s of the 
 Apoftles ? No, you admit of this fa£i:, and that they 
 required of fome, " previous to the ceremony, a 
 " profeffion of their faith and repentance." (P. 5.) 
 But you are " apprehenfive, that fufficient reafons 
 " may be given, why their baptizing the adult is 
 *' difiin(5\ly mentioned, in perfe6l confiftency with 
 " their baptizing children, and a com.parative 
 " filence refpeding them." (P. 5.) Had the hiftory 
 of the Acts been written, as you conftantly fuppofe 
 it was, by pxdobaptids, whence is it, that there is 
 fuch a filence of Infant fprinkling, as even you are 
 compelled to confefs there is ? Would a modern 
 pa:dobaptill: have written, think you, as Luke has 
 on the pofitive inftitution now in debate ? To folve 
 this difficulty, you fay, " The cafe of the Apoftles 
 
 *' at 
 
[ 39 ] 
 
 <* at that period was peculiar.** And you add, '* I 
 ** will endeavour to ftate it vrith all pofTible honefty 
 " and plainnefs." 
 
 Your prejudices confidered, you have done, I 
 believe, what you propofed. But all the " poflible 
 " honefty," of a man under the influence of preju- 
 dice, is frequently unable to fatisfy an impartial 
 reader. That I have read what you have ftated 
 without any prejudice, I will not affirm. That I 
 wifhed and endeavoured to do it, is a fa6l. Yet, 
 that I am diifatisfied you v> ill be convinced. And 
 that I have fome reafon to com.plain of your ftate- 
 ment, after you have read the following remarks, 
 you will not, I prefume, deny. ' 
 
 " The Apoftles preached a religion which had 
 " never been profejjed hefore.** (P. 5.) They were 
 " authorized by Chrift, to teach a new religion." 
 (P. 6.) A religion which till then had not been re^ 
 vealed. (P. 6.) Thcfe and other exprciTions which 
 tend to give the reader a ftrong idea of the novelty 
 of the chriftian religion, I cannot approve. Was 
 not the gofpel preached to others in the earlieft ages, 
 as well as to us in the prefent r How then were 
 fmners faved ? We have, and let us be thankful for 
 it, both a clearer and a ftronger manifeilatlofi of the 
 Divine mercy than the ancient Jews, in general, 
 obtained. But the mercy manifefled in falvation, 
 is in every age the fame. When it is convenient, 
 you too are of the fame opinion. For, in (P. 13,) 
 you fay, •* We Gentiles, as a wild olive tree, are 
 D 4 graffcd 
 
[ 40 ] 
 
 " grafFed in among them^ [namely, the Jews,] and 
 *' with them partake of the root and fatnefs of the 
 " olive tree.'* So you quote and apply Rom. xi. 
 i6, 17. But, by fo doing, you wifh to prove, 
 " There is not a word in the New Teftament, 
 " which intimates an abridgment of our priviledges : 
 " or, that the chriftian difpenfation of religion is 
 *' inferior to any preceding." — And what then ? 
 ErgOy Infants are to be fprinkled. In a fubfequent 
 letter we will weigh the force of this inference. 
 
 " The chriftian difpenfation was not completed 
 " till Chrift rcfe from the dead." (P. 5.)— I fhould 
 imagine you meant to fay, that till then it did not 
 commence. Though from what follows, it is not 
 eafy to collect your meaning. For you add, " The 
 -" Apoflles therefore, went forth authorized by 
 ** Chrift, to teach a new religion ; while John, 
 ** the forerunner of our Lord, had a little prepared 
 *♦ his hearers for it ; proclaiming the kingdom of 
 " God is at hand.*' (P. 6.) The obfcurity of this 
 paOfage, and of others, ought to have been remsved 
 in youry^^^W Edition. But what you have faid of 
 a new religion, unrevealed and unknown till the 
 Apofties Vv^ere fent forth to preach it, if you have 
 any meaning that is worth notice, many will be un- 
 able to perceive it, and to fome, your mode of ex- 
 preiTion mull be ofFenfive. Let us confider this 
 matter more attentively. 
 
 The father of John the Baptlft, w^hen filled with 
 the Holy Ghoft, faid, " Blefied be the Lord God 
 
 Qf 
 
[ 41 ] 
 
 " of Ifrael, for he liath vifited and redeemed his 
 ** people, and hath raifed up a horn of falvation for 
 " us in the houfe of David ; as he fpake by the 
 " mouth of his holy prophets which have been 
 " fince the world began. Luke i. 68 — 70." Chrift, 
 himfelf, when contending with the Jews, appealed 
 to their own records to confirm the truth of his mif- 
 fion and the dignity of his charader : " Search the 
 " fcriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal 
 ** life, and they arc they which teftify of me. John 
 *' V. 39.*' He appealed to the fame teftimony when 
 he corrected thofe mifapprehenfions which his firil 
 followers had formed of him and of his conduct. 
 " O fools, and How of heart to believe all that the 
 *' prophets have fpoken ! Ought not Chrift to have 
 " fufFered thefe things, and to enter into his glory ? 
 " And beginning at Mofes, and all the prophets, 
 " he expounded unto them in all the fcriptures, the 
 " things concerning himfelf. Luke xxiv. 25 — 27.'* 
 The Apcftles alfo conftantly purfued the fame chain 
 of argument. Paul, as his manner was, in a fyna- 
 goguc of the Jews, reafoned with them out of the 
 fcriptures : opening and alledging, that Chrift mull 
 needs have fuffered, and rifen again fi'om the dead; 
 and that, that Jefiis whom he preached unto them 
 was the promifed Mediah. Sec A61:s xvii. 3. And 
 when he was brought before Agrippa,--he faid, 
 " Having therefore obtained help of God, I conti- 
 " nue to this day, witneffmg both to fmall and 
 " great, faying none other things than thofe which 
 
 *• tb*e 
 
[ 42 J 
 
 " the prophets and Mofes, did (ay fliould come : 
 «* That Chrift fliould fuffcr, and that he fhould be 
 " the firft that fliould rife from the dead, and fhould 
 " fliow light unto the people and to the Gentiles. 
 " A6ls xxvi. 22, 23. 
 
 So much, Sir, for your new religion ; which 
 you have ftated as unknown till the Apofl:olic age : 
 an idea which the preceding quotations exprefsly 
 contradi£l. " Judaifm at the time of Chrifl:'s 
 " coming, was the famxC with chriftianity ; and not 
 ." in oppofition to it; fo that there was no fuch 
 " thing as converfion from Judaifm to Chriftianity. 
 " — judaifm," (as repugnant to the gofpel) *' not 
 " exifting until the oppofition to Jefus being the 
 ** Mefiiah became general and national ; after that, 
 " indeed, thofe of the Jewifli nation who believed 
 " in Chrift, may be faid to be profelytes from 
 " Judaifm to Chriftianity, as the Apoftle Paul and 
 " others." See Dr. Gill on Baptlfm, in his Prac- 
 tical Body of Divinity, P. 329, 330. 
 
 Your inference from the fuppofed novelty of 
 chriftianity is this : " Under thefe circumftances, 
 " then, you fee, the perfons who attended upon the 
 •* preaching of the y\poftles, had never received 
 " chriftian baptifm at all : they cou/d not, for the 
 ** reafon juft mentioned, the chriftian religion hav- 
 '* ing never been till then revealed." (P. 6.) What 
 follows is to this purpofe ; That as the perfons who 
 attendedupon the preacliingof the Apoftles, had never 
 received criftlan baptifm ni all, they confiftently ad- 
 
 miniibrcd 
 
[ 43 ] 
 
 miniftered this ordiancetosucH converts "upon 
 " a profefHon of their repentance and faith — But 
 " who can juftiHably infer from hence, that the 
 '* CHILDREN of thefe profelytes were rejeSled?''* 
 
 (P. 6. 70 , 
 
 I anfwer ; Either the children of thefe profelytes, 
 had as you exprefs it, never received baptifm at all 
 before they were fprinkled, or, in fome fenfe, they 
 had received it. If not at alU then, according to 
 your own views of what is conft/lent^ a profeffion of 
 their repentancf and faith Ihouid precede their fub- 
 mifiion tothis duty. But, if you fay, that the chil- 
 dren of thefe profelytes had received baptifm before 
 they were fprinkled, I afl<, how F vras it as Levi 
 payed tithes in Abraham ? For he was yet in the 
 loins of his father when Melchizedec met him. 
 Heb. vii. 9, lo. But if thefe children were bap- 
 tized in their parents, why do you contend that the 
 children of fuch profelytes, fhould be fprinkled r Is 
 it, that they might be baptized more completely ? 
 Are you then, at laft, what I am not, an ana-bapttjlf 
 I am not difpofed to cavil. I am ferious in this re- 
 mark. It appears to me, that you believe, if any 
 perfon has not received chriftian baptifm at alU he 
 ought not to receive it, but upon, a profefficn of his 
 repentance iiudi faith. But if he be the child of a 
 profelyte to chriftianity, he is fuppofed, in fome 
 profound fenfe I cannnot reach, to be baptized iti 
 or with^ or by, liis parent ; at lea/}^ fome how or 
 other, he is not like other children ; and therefore, 
 
 vour 
 
[ 4+ ] 
 
 your opinion Is, he ought to htfprinkled, and not to 
 be rejeSied, 
 
 Children as fiich, whether they are the children 
 of profelytes or Pagans, are not rejected by us. It 
 is the imprudent requeft of a fond and thoughtlefs, 
 or mifguided parent, that we reject ; and not the 
 petition of a child. I have baptized fome in a date 
 of childhood. I do not repent. And if it pleafed 
 God to call any to the knowledge of himfelf in a 
 {late of infancy, and to give him power to make 
 that evident, with ability to requeft a pcrfonal fub- 
 miiTion to this duty, who could forbid water that he, 
 though an infant, fhould not be baptized ? But if a 
 parent of any defcription, fhould requeft us to do 
 that, as a religious ail, which the Lord has not 
 commanded, which his moft faithful and intelligent 
 fervants, the Apoftles, never performed, nor in- 
 itrufted us to perform, are we therefore to comply ? 
 God forbid ! — ** Our pra6lice is not at all concerned 
 ** with the parents of the perfons baptized by us, 
 " whether they be Chriftians, Jews, Turks, or 
 ** Pagans ; but with the perfons themfelves, whe- 
 " ther they are believers in Chrift or no ; if they are 
 " the adult offspring of Chriftians, yet unbaptized, 
 *' it is no objeilion to us ; and if they are not, it is 
 " no bar in the way of admitting them to baptifm, 
 *' if they themfelves are believers ; many, and it 
 ** may be the greater part of fucli baptized by us, 
 " are the adult OfFforiiig: of thofe who, without 
 ** breach of charity, cannot be conftdered as chrif- 
 
 *♦ tiaus." 
 
[ 45 ] 
 
 " tians.*' See Dr. Gill on Baptlfm, in his Prac- 
 tical Body of Divinity. P. 329. 
 
 " Pagan nations,'* you inform us, " had been 
 ** accuftomed to rites, introductory to their own 
 " religions.'* (P. 6.) No doubt. And Dr. Gill 
 thought, that the pasdobaptifts would derive more 
 materials for Infant baptifm, in confulting what 
 is faid of the baptifm of the ancient heathens, and 
 its rites, than that of the Jews. A learned writer, 
 it feems, fays. It is a fort oi preamble to it. Sper- 
 lingius de baptifmo veterum Ethnicorum. See Dr. 
 Gill's Diflertation concerning the Baptifm of Jev/ifli 
 Profelytes, at the clofe of his Pra6lical Body of Di- 
 vinity. You add, " The Jewiili people and their 
 *' children, had been introduced into the religion of 
 " Mofes by circumcifion." (P. 6.) And what of all 
 this ? Does it therefore follow, that fome cuftom 
 already in ufe, though of doubtful difputation, mull 
 be adopted, that neither Jews nor Pagans may be 
 offended ? But I obferve, Sir, you are much more 
 concerned to remove a ftumbling block out of the 
 way of the Jews, than from the Gentile nations. 
 (P. II. 12.) Yet you muft ov/n, that from the 
 period you mention to this day, God hath vifited 
 the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his 
 Name. " And to this agree the words of the pro- 
 " phets ; as it is written. After this, I will return 
 " and will build again the tabernacle of David, 
 " which is fallen down : and I will build again the 
 " ruins thereof, and I will fet it up : That the re- 
 
 " fidue 
 
[ 48 ] 
 
 " minority ? No ; they received the fame rite in 
 ** their infancy." (P. 7.) 
 
 Lawyers are well aware how difficult it is to pro- 
 duce a cafe in point. I wifh we had more of their 
 Ihgacity. It would be a means of guarding us 
 againil vicious analogy and feeming fimilitude. But 
 uuhen was Abraham circumcifed ? Not when he was 
 cdled from Ur, of the Chaldees. Not when the 
 Lord faid unto him, '^ And I will blefs thee, and 
 " make thy name great, and thou (halt be a bleffing.'* 
 Not when Mekhifedec met him and faid, *' Blefied 
 *' be Abram of the Mod-High God, PoffeiTor of 
 " Heaven and Earth !'* Not when the Almighty 
 faid, " Fear not, Abram, I am thy fhield and ex- 
 *' ceeding great reward." Not Vs'hen Ifhmael was 
 born, though Abraham then was " fourfcore and 
 ** fix years old." But at the advanced age of 
 " ninety years old and nine, he was circumcifed in 
 ** the flefli of his fore ikin. Gen. xvii. i, 24." And 
 why was that venerable man then circumcifed ? That 
 thofe born in his houfe, and thofe bought with his 
 money, of any J} ranger, which was not of his 
 SERD, Gen. xvii. 12. might be a feparated people \ 
 dwell alone and not be reckoned am.ong the nations. 
 That the multiplication of his legimate feed, as the 
 iti^rs in heaven for multitude ; and that, the manifold 
 mercies and judgments of God towards them, might 
 be confpicuous. And alfo, that the peculiarity of 
 the Sinai Covenant, afterv/ards to be eflablilhed 
 with his decendants, might be properly obferved ; 
 
 till 
 
[ 49 ] 
 
 till he who is cur peace fhould break down the mid- 
 dle wall of partition between us and them, and 
 make oi foreigners fellow citizens with the faintSy and 
 ofthe hoiifehold of God. Ephes. ii. 14, 19. If then, 
 this illuftrious family, were, for a feafon, to be 
 thus a feparate people, it was by exprefs appoint- 
 ment. The fubjefts of circumcifion are mentioned 
 wath precifion. The very day on which that ope- 
 ration was to be performed on male infants is fpe- 
 cified. The fex is diflinguifhed. The penalty for 
 difobedience is openly announced. See Gen. xvii. 
 — The minutiae of that appointment, you fee, was 
 laid down with great exa6lnefs. Not any thing is 
 left to conjedlure. Is it credibie, Sir, that fo much, 
 care fliould have been taken of a rite which was to 
 be abolifhed, and yet, that we fhould fearch in vain 
 to find any fimilar attention paid to that ceremony 
 which you conceive to be adopted and perpetuated 
 by the governor of the Chriflian church ? Was 
 Mofes, the fervant, either more faithful, or more 
 explicit in the houfe of God than Chrifl, as a Son, 
 over his own Houfe ? Are Infant fprinkling and cir- 
 cumcifion exa5ily alike? In what then, are we to 
 find difparity ? See, Sir, how your very fimilar va- 
 nifhes away when fads appear. Inftead oi confor- 
 mity y behold, what a contraft ! 
 
 But you go forward wath your defign, and fay, 
 
 ** When that religion was fully eftablifhed and pro- 
 
 " feffcd, all the male infants born under that dif- 
 
 " penfation, as ivell as adult profelytes ftill, were 
 
 E ♦' enrolled 
 
C 50 ] 
 
 ** enrolled among the faithful, and diftinguifhed as 
 " Jews by the fame rite. (P. 7.)'* All the male in- 
 fants born under that difpenfation, enrolled among 
 the faithful ! By whom ? Did not John the Bap- 
 tijl treat this idea with contempt ? Did he not fay 
 to the circiimcifed, to many of them, to perfons 
 of the greateft authority among them, " O genera- 
 " tion of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from 
 " the v/rath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits 
 " meet for repentance ; and think not to fay within 
 " yourfelves, we have Abraham to our father r 
 *' Matt. iii. 7, 8, 9." Enrolled among the faithful! 
 When ? when they were circumcifed ? Perhaps 
 rhey might by the Pharifees. But who gave them 
 that authority ? — Circumcifion was a fign fignificant 
 of the fidelity of God to Abraham and his family 
 according to the flefli ; but it was not a mark of in- 
 herent rectitude in the male infants born under that 
 difpenfation. All the male infants enrolled among 
 the faithful ? Had x\\QfemaleSy then, no place in that 
 regifler ? Yet both were by birth, even as others. 
 Your enrollment, and the prefent cuftom with ma- 
 liV of regiftering the births and chrijlenings of their 
 children on llamped paper, are alike incompetent 
 to convey piety, or to prove that fuch are, or ever 
 will be pious. In Mount Sion, the City of the liv- 
 ing God, there is a different and a better enroll- 
 ment. The general afTembly and church of the firfl 
 born are v/ritten in heaven, in characters everlafting. 
 But into that City there is no pallage for the uncon^ 
 
 vtrted. 
 
C 51 ] 
 
 verted. Neither their defcent, their profeflion, their 
 faith, nor their obedience, can make them meet to 
 be partakers of the inheritance of the faints in light. 
 ** Except a man be born again, he cannot fee the 
 " kingdom of God. John iii. 4." 
 
 The male children of Abraham were not only en- 
 rolled among the faithful, but they were alfo " diftin- 
 " guifhed as Jews by the fame rite** of circumcifion, 
 (P. 7.) You have read, Sir, I prefume, repeatedly, 
 the two laft verfes of the fecond chapter of Romans. 
 In thofe verfes, the Apoftle affirms. That " he is 
 " not a Jew which is one outwardly ;** (for the 
 Jewifh nation had then reje6led Jefus Chrift,) " nei- 
 " ther is that circumcifion which is outwardly in the 
 " flefti i'* (for that duty ceafed when Chrift arofe 
 from the dead,) ** but he is a Jew, which is one in- 
 ** wardly ; and circumcifion is that of the heart, in 
 " the fpirit, and not in the letter, whofe praife," 
 (alluding perhaps, to the name Judah,) " is not of 
 " men, but of God.'* The defign of the Apoftle 
 in thefe verfes, and in general, in the whole of thia 
 chapter, is to demonftrate, that the Jews were as 
 criminal as the Gentiles ; and therefore, they could 
 not be juftified by works in the fight of God \ but on 
 the contrary, refting in a violated law, they mufl 
 expe6l deferved condemnation : from which, no 
 external advantage would be any protection . 
 
 Circumcifion was of no avail for juftification to 
 
 the tranfgreflbrs of the moral law. Becaufe, when 
 
 they appeared before God the Judge of all, and 
 
 E 2 pleaded 
 
[ 52 ] 
 
 pleaded they were Jews by birth, and that by cir- 
 cumcifion they entered into covenant with him, God 
 was not to be contented with thefe vain appearances. 
 He demanded the efTence and reality. But the ef- 
 fence and reality of thefe things did not confift in 
 names or external figns. Thefe formed only the 
 fhadow and pi6liire : Such circumcifion was only 
 figurative. — Circumcifion, therefore, fhould either 
 be confidered as pertaining to the legal oeconomy, 
 in which it was an ordinance of Divine Appoint- 
 ment ; or it fhould be confidered as having refpe6l 
 to the covenant of grace ; and in this view, it was 
 typical of the circumcifion of the heart. As a fo- 
 lemn appointment under the legal oeconomy, it re- 
 prefented the entire and perfect accompliftiment of 
 the law ; which confided, not fimply in external 
 purity, but in perfed innocence or rectitude of 
 mind. In this fenfe, it reprefented what man had 
 not ; but what he ought to have, if he would be 
 juftified by the works of the law. Gal. v. 2, 3, 4. 
 As a typey circumcifion reprefented evangelical pu- 
 rity; which confifts in renovation of mind and re- 
 formation of conduit:, arifing from repentance of all 
 falfe ways of accefs to God, and from faith in our 
 I<ord Jefus Chrift, as the only way by whom we can 
 ccme unto God as Our Father ^ and have fellowfliip 
 with him in the fpirit of adoption. See feveral of 
 the preceding remarks, in Les Veuvres Pofthumes 
 de M. Claude; Tome Quartrieme fur Rom. ii. 
 28, 29. — Thefe remarks throw fome light on the 
 
 pro- 
 
[ 53 ] 
 
 propriety of the Apoftle's afTertion, That they "are 
 " the circumcifion, which worfhip God in the fpi- 
 " rit, and rejoice in Chrift Jefus, and have no con- 
 " fidence in the flefli. Phil. iii. 3.'* I may then, 
 in allufion to the paffage you have produced from 
 Exod. xii. 49. fay, In this refpe6l, " One law 
 " fhall be to him that is home born, and unto the 
 ** ftranger that fojourneth among you.** For there 
 is, One Lord^ one faith ^ one baptif?n, Eph. iv. 5." 
 
 " Had we been informed, that the Apoftles bap- 
 " tized perfons of an adult age, who v.ere born of 
 " BAPTIZED CHRISTIAN parents, the cafe would 
 " have been materially different, (P. 7.)" How fo ? 
 Was Mr Bennet's child any thing the better for 
 being born according to your wifh ? You do not ad- 
 mit that he was chriftianized by birth. Yet you do 
 not think, as I do, that the parents of that child are 
 unbaptized. — " But it had a right to be baptized.'* 
 On what ground ? That fome of its remote ancef- 
 tors were baptized on a perfonal profefHon of their re- 
 pentance and faith r Strange right, indeed. Yet, I 
 cannot perceive that you are able to produce any 
 better. For of them who " never received chriilian 
 " baptifm at all^ you fay, the Apoftles •' con- 
 " fiftently adminiftered this ordinance to such con- 
 " VERTS upon a profe/Iion of their repentance and 
 ''faith, (P. 6.)'* 
 
 " Had we been informed, that the Apoflles bap. 
 
 " tized perfons at an adult age, who were born of 
 
 " BAPTIZED CHRISTIAN parents,— that would 
 
 E 3 have 
 
[ 54 3 
 
 '* have furniflied a precedent for doing fo now." 
 (P. 7.) This, Sir, is at leaft to confefs, thzt pre- 
 cedents are of importance in this bufmefs. Take 
 care, Sir; this is a tender point on your fide the 
 queftion. Your brethren may grant the fmile of 
 approbation while you reft your plea on confequences 
 and conjedures ; but you will certainly alarm them 
 if you appeal to precedents. That you may be more 
 guarded in future. See the repeated and remarkable- 
 Conceflions Mr. Booth has produced in his Psedo- 
 baptifm Examined, on the Principles, ConcefTions 
 and Reafonings of the moft learned Pasdobaptifts, 
 Chap. 8. wdth the Refleaions. 
 
 Having mentioned Mr. Booth, and his irrefraga- 
 ble Treatife, fuffer me to fay, I think it rather hard, 
 that he fliould be cenfured for not having done that 
 which he never attempted ; that which neither made, 
 nor could make any part of his plan. All the Con- 
 cefTions which he has produced, are faid by fome of 
 your brethren, to be of no weight ; becaufe, fay they, 
 thofe learned men, of whofe Conceftions Mr. Booth 
 has given fo great a number, ftill continued pado- 
 baptijis. And does not the ftrength of Mr. Booth's 
 argument reft, profefledly reft, on that idea ? A dif- 
 a^reement between the ConcelTions and Condu£lof 
 thofe great men, may afFed,fo far as it goes, their own 
 reputation ; but it cannot affect the force of his ar- 
 gument. — It is well known, that in the yir^^^/, fome 
 j^agan Philofophers afferted the unity of the Divine 
 Being; while at the fame time, in public, they 
 
 wor- 
 
[ 55 ] 
 
 • worflilpped with the multitude. Popular applaufe, 
 fear of the people, and other motives not to their 
 credit, will well enough account for their criminal 
 conformity to a current, and almoft univerfalcuftom. 
 But after all, the Conceflions of men are either col- 
 lufive or fmcere. Now, there is not the appear- 
 ance of any coUuJlon in the Conceflions of thofe au- 
 thors which Mr. Booth has produced. They had 
 ftrong temptations to fupprefs what the force of con- 
 vi£lion would not fuffer them to conceal. They 
 were, then, ftncere. If they were not confiflent, let 
 us not, on that account, attempt to diminifh the 
 weight of an argument which is properly drawn from 
 their being what they were : nor let us be too cenfo- 
 rious on fuch authors, though they were, as who 
 is not, in fome things inconfiftent. Let us rather 
 infpe£t our own condu6l ; and by fo doing, we 
 fhall, perhaps, foon find, that what has difgraced 
 our betters is, to this day, in too many inftances, our 
 own difgrace. — To be unreafonably fevere on the 
 imperfedlions of good and great men, and blind, by 
 choice, to their parts and piety, lead inevitably to 
 confirmed contempt : yet to vindicate, or to follow 
 what is wrong in the beft of men, is the fource of 
 much evil i and it is alfo injurious to their repu- 
 tation. 
 
 I return. You feemed to lament the want of a 
 
 particular precedent. But why fhould you r Fir(l 
 
 treat what we have with due attention. But if you 
 
 may judge, even John did not baptize, that is, he 
 
 E 4 he 
 
[ 56 } 
 
 he did not immerfe in Jordan. They who came to 
 him, " poflibly might go into the water, and come 
 ** up out of it.'* (P. 1 8.) Gracious grant! Yet, 
 " does that prove that the lubjec^s baptized were 
 " phmged all under water?" (P. i8.) No Jure. 
 " 'Tis true indeed, that John accommodated the 
 " multitude in a place where there were many water s^ 
 " (t^ala 'CTo^Xa) John iii. 23. But, might not this 
 " be from confiderations totally diflincSl from the 
 " mode of baptizing ? — Will this determine the ne- 
 ** ceility of immerfion?" — Surely not ! But to be 
 fericus. Of what ufe would any precedent be 
 to you, while you indulge a difpofition to trifle 
 with thofe fa£ls that demand a different attention ? 
 In fuch a temper, w^ere precedents multiplied, fome 
 ingenious evafion would prompt you to treat them 
 as you have treated thofe before us. I do not mean 
 by what I have faid to impeach your integrity. 
 Could you fee believer's baptifm to be your duty, 
 I fuppofe you would be baptized. I only mean to 
 fay, that while fuch prejudice prevails, the evidence 
 cf truth w^ill remain obfcure. 
 
 Of the baptifm of perfons at an adult age, who 
 Avcrc born of baptized chrillian parents, " there is 
 " not a SINGLE INSTANCE of this kind to be met 
 ** with in the account." (P. 7,) By the account^ 
 von feem. to m.ean the A£ls of the JpojUes. But what 
 is that hiftory ? Does it contain a narrative of the 
 tranfadions of any one church for any number of 
 years ? Is it a regiller of births and burials ; of 
 
C 57 ] 
 
 chriftenlngs, or of the reception of children born of 
 baptized chridian parents into the communion of 
 faints ? Ts there in that account, a fmgle inflance of 
 an infant who was '* fet apart as a vifible fubjecl 
 " of Chrifl's kingdom at large," not by births but 
 by htmg fprinkhd ? Is there in that account, a fin- 
 gle inflance of the tranilation of fuch a child, from 
 being a fubjeft at large, into communion with any 
 particular church ? Let me then repeat the thought, 
 to fix it upon the memory ; (you fee, Sir, how ready 
 I am to adopt your manner of fpeaking,) that though 
 the Apoftles baptized perfons at an adult age, and 
 though fuch were added to the church ; as recorded 
 in the hiflory of their a(51:s ; yet in thofe records, we 
 find an entire omiffion of any the leaft report of 
 Infant Baptifm : never reading that Infants were ti- 
 i\\tr fprinkled or immerfed. The reafon is, becaufe 
 the Apoftles publilhed the gofpel to all nations for 
 the obedience of faith ^ and becaufe they well knew, 
 that thofe who had not faith could not, in any fenfe, 
 obey the gofpel. 
 
 The filence, or fuppofed filence, of fcripture, on 
 any fubjecl, is too apt to pleafe us, when we imagine 
 if any thing be faid, it is not what we could wilh. 
 You admit, there is ** a comparative filence*' in re- 
 fpe6l of the baptifm of infants in the A£ls of the 
 Apoftles. But I, Sir, contend, the filence is not 
 comparative, but abfolute. Had the Apoftles known 
 -any thing oi fprinkling^ or of chrifleyiing infants, (of 
 which, I believe, they were as ignorant as they were 
 
 of 
 
C 58 ] 
 
 of tranfubdantiation,) could they have been filent 
 when they met together to give their united 
 judgment, and to fay what feemed good to the 
 Holy Ghojl and to theniy on the litigated fubjedl of 
 circumcifion ? 
 
 ** Certain men which came down from Judea, 
 " taught the brethren, and faid. Except ye be cir- 
 " cumcifed, after the manner of Mofes, ye cannot 
 «* be faved. A6ls xv. i." Surely, Sir, thefe ** Cer- 
 <• tain men," though teachers, did not apprehend 
 that Infant fprinkling was the well known fubftitute 
 of circumcifion. Nor did the Apoflles. Had they 
 been aware of fuch fubftitution, when they wrote 
 their pacific letter to the brethren in Antiochy Syria 
 and Cilida, they might have faid, 
 
 ♦* Ye know, brethren, we have relinquifhed y«- 
 " daifm and embraced Chrijiiatiity. Ye know, that 
 " the former ceremony among us Jews, hemg fevsre, 
 *' is now exchanged for one that is eafy^ndi familiar. 
 ** (P. 12.) Ye know, that as one pofitive inftitute 
 ** fucceeds another, baptifm now fucceeds circum- 
 " cifion : thi:i is abolifhed, that is retained and per- 
 " petuated. (P. 9.) We fiy retainedy becaufe it is 
 " Jimiiar to antient cuftom ; (P. 12.) we fay it is 
 ** perpeiuaiedy becaufe the Governor of the Chrif- 
 ** tian church has only perpetuated a rite which had 
 " been in praftice, an4 determined its ufe in the 
 «* evangelical difpenfation. (P. 2.) Infant fprink- 
 •' ling being thus eflabliflied, if you regard that ce- 
 
 " remonyy 
 
[ 59 ] 
 
 '* remonyt with ^mq formality ^ and christianize your 
 ** children by christening them, ye fhall do well.** 
 
 " Fare ye well." 
 
 Thus the Apoflles might have written on your 
 principles. Thus they muft have written, had one 
 of your difpofition been allowed to di£late. But 
 th^y were better taught. Their arguments againft 
 thofe Judaizing teachers who ftrenuoufly contended 
 for the continuance of circumcifion, I fhall have oc- 
 cafion to introduce in a following Letter. 
 
 That the want of particular precedents of any 
 kind for adult baptifm may not make you uneafy, 
 I will endeavour to give you additional ground for 
 fatisfa^lion. One of the churches mentioned in the 
 Adls of the Apoftles, was at Corinth. We have 
 two Epiflles to that church written by St. Paul. In 
 the firft, he fays, to the members of the church at 
 Corinth, " Be ye followers of me, even as I alfo am 
 " of Chrift. I Cor. xi. i.'* Did he mean to fay, 
 Except in the Ordinances of Baptifm and of the 
 Supper of our Lord ? That is not credible ; fmce in 
 this chapter he treats largely of the Lord's Supper, 
 and fays, " Now I praife you, brethren, that ye re- 
 " member me in all things, and keep the ordinances 
 ** as I delivered them to you. (v. 2.) But what 
 " he delivered to them, he " received of the 
 *' Lord." (v. 23.) Can we, however, fuppofe, that 
 he was either more cautious, or more confcientious, 
 in refpeft of the y^^^«/i pofitive inftitute than of the 
 Jirji ? In what manner then, did he receive and pcr- 
 
 fonally 
 
[ 6o ] 
 
 ibnally fiibmif to haptifm f Was he not taught Be/ore 
 he was baptized ? Yes : He not only received his 
 fight and heard who Jefiis was, but he was alfo fil- 
 led with the Holy Ghoft. A(^ls ix. 17. Was he 
 not baptized with his own conjent ? Yes : He arofe 
 2nd was baptized. A^ls ix. 18. And was he not 
 taught to confider it as an a6^ of faith and devotion ? 
 Certainly he was. For, Ananias faid to him, " And 
 ** now why tarrieft thou ? arife and be baptized, 
 ** and wafh away thy fins, calling on the name of 
 «* the Lord. Ac^s xxii. 16." What he thus received 
 kimfelf, he recommended to others. And, (which 
 is much againft what fome call a catholic temper,) 
 he praifed or difpraifed other profefibrs of chrifti- 
 anity, as his own example in following the Lord 
 faithfully, was either regarded or difregarded. He 
 iifed to fay, when fpeaking of kimfelf and other 
 Apoflles, " Now we command you y brethren, in the 
 " Name of the Lord Jefus Chrift, that you with- 
 " draw yourfelves from every brother that walketh 
 " diforderlyy and not after the traditions which he 
 " hath received of us. iThelf. iii. 6." I conclude, then, 
 that either none of the children of baptized parents were 
 baptized at Corinth, within the time referred to in the 
 hiltory of the AftsjOr within the period mentioned in the 
 two Epiftles that were written to that church, or, that 
 they were baptized as their parents had been bapti- 
 zed before them ; upon a perfonal profelfion of their 
 iaith, by irumcrfion, and, in every other refpecf, 
 
 with 
 
[ 6i ] 
 
 with deference to the commiflion and command of 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Will you, in order to weaken the force of this 
 conclufion, affert, That by the Ordinances or Tra^ 
 ditions, mentioned i Cor. xi. 2. the Apoftle had 
 no reference to the pofitive Inftitutions of Chrif- 
 tianity ? Confider the context, ^ and what is 
 there faid of the Supper of our Lord, before you 
 form fuch a refolution. Will you fay, his reafon- 
 ing applies to tliat ordinance only r I think not. 
 Will you fay, that wapa^oo-t? has refpeft only to un- 
 written traditions f Confult ^ Suicerus on that word, 
 and you will, I believe, be prevented. But without 
 confulting that learned Author, we may be convinc- 
 ed that there are divine as well as human traditions. 
 " Stand faft, and hold the traditions which ye have 
 " been taught whether by word, or by our Epiftle.** 
 So the Apoftle exhorted the members of the church 
 at Theffalonica. 2 Epift. ii. 15. And how he com- 
 manded the brethren, in the Name of our Lord Je- 
 fus Chrift, to withdraw themfelves from every bro- 
 ther that walked diforderly, and not after the tradi- 
 iions which he received from him and other Apof- 
 
 tlesof Chrift, we have already obferved. 
 
 Ilhall 
 
 * " Ux^a.'^offxq eadem eft cum verba \y^fa^a^ nihilque 
 " aliud quam ipfara Scripturam, S. fignificat. — Re^e 
 " -arapaJocrt? & h^aaKx>,ict conjunguntur. nafa^ocrK eft 
 ** refpe6lu Chrifti, qui apoftolis dodlrinam Evangelicara 
 " tradidit : ^i^acrxaXia eft refpe6lu apoftolorum, qui ea, 
 " qua? a Chrifto acceperunt, alios deinceps docuerunt." 
 
r 62 ] 
 
 I fhall only add, That fo much is fald of the fpi- 
 rituality of the Kingdom of Chrift, in various forms 
 of fpeech, in the New Teftament, that we may be 
 confident where there is not the obedience of faiths 
 there is not any obedience which the gofpel was pub- 
 lifhed to promote. Rom. xvi. 26. Without faith it 
 is impojfible to pleafe God. But the Apoftle, in the 
 text to which I now refer, is fpeaking of the perfo- 
 nal faith of individuals, and not of any man's be- 
 lieving for another. For he that cometh to God, in 
 sny a6l of worfhip, mujft believe that he is, and that 
 he is a Rewarder of them that diligently feek him. 
 Heb. xi. 6. But you apprehend. Sir, that infants 
 may be brought to God by baptifniy though you muft 
 admit, they cannot come to him, in, what you fo of- 
 ten call, that ceremony. Are you, however, ahley are 
 you required. Sir, thus to bring an Infant to God? 
 As a miniftery you had better pray for them, and in- 
 ftru6l them as they are able to bear it. As a parent, 
 your daily duty is enjoined you in Eph. vi. 4. " And 
 " ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath ; 
 " but bring them up in the nurture and admonition 
 ** of the Lord." May we have grace to regard the 
 exhortation, and to leave the iflue with our heavenly 
 Father ! 
 
 The term profelyte feems to have been very per- 
 plexing to you. Otherwife you would not, I be- 
 lieve, have fo perplexed your Readers when that 
 teazing term happened to fall in your way. For 
 my part, I labour in vain to reach your meaning. 
 
 That 
 
[ 63 ] 
 
 That you may not fay, this is owing to my ftupi- 
 dity, I fhall adduce the following fayings and un- 
 fayings of yours, on this entangling fubje(5l. " Pro- 
 ** felyte or difciple all nations ; — how ? — baptizing 
 ** them." (P. 4.) " The Apoftles were commanded 
 " to profelyte the Jews, and all other nations, from 
 " their /^rw^r profefTions of religion, into the pro- 
 " felTion of CHRISTIANITY; and they were ordered 
 " by their Mafter to do this by baptizing them." (P. 
 6.) Here, to baptize is to profelyte. Yet you make the 
 converted Jews fay, " We underftand that profe- 
 " lytes are to be admitted to its inftitutions", { i.e, 
 to the pofitive inftitutions of chrlftianity,) " by a 
 " formal rite, wafhing or baptizing," (P. 12.) Here, 
 Sir, your formal right makes no profelyte. Your 
 Jews were profelyted prior to their fubmiiTion to 
 any pofitive inftitute of Chriftianity. You fpeak to 
 the fame purpofe in P. 13, and 14. of your Defence. 
 What can I fay to all this ? All this is faid of profe- 
 lytes. But with you, to teachy to difciple, to baptize ; 
 nay, to baptize fuch as cannot be taught ; all this, 
 nay, any of thefe things, is to profelyte to Chriftia^ 
 nity. Yet after all, you choofe to fay, " we have 
 ** no profelytes here to make." (P. 8.) 
 
 Can you wonder, Sir, if I, or a more fagacious 
 Reader, fhould be perplexed with thefe contradic- 
 tions ? — But how am I to underftand you, when you 
 fay, *' We have no profelytes here to make ?" I fup- 
 pofe you mean in this Country. What, no profelytes 
 to make to Chriftianity ? Are we all, then, in this 
 
 happy 
 
f 64 ] 
 
 happy Ifland horn chriflians ? No, Mafter Bennet, 
 himfelf, was not fo born. He has already told us, 
 as tutored by you, That till he was chriftenedf he was 
 not a chriftlan. For fo, with your afliftance, we 
 have made him fpeak in a preceding Letter. Confider, 
 Sir, the confequences of your aflertion. If we have 
 no profelytes to make to chriilianity, then, even Maf- 
 ter Bennet is not profe-yted ; though he has been re- 
 gularly fet apart to I know not what honours and obli- 
 gations. Yes, Sir, we mufi: grant, he is, at leaft, 
 your profelyte. And if he be, I can prove, from 
 your own teftimony, that fo far from having no pro- 
 felytes to make, in this Country y our children muft be 
 profelyted again and again^ before you will admit 
 they are chriftians in reality. For, though Mafter 
 Bennet is profelyted hy fprinkling^ though a chriftian 
 in an external fenfe, he is not admitted, and to be 
 fure ought not to be admitted, into any particular 
 church, or religious fociety ; becanfe, (fuch is your 
 conceflion,) he is not, in the higheft fenfe, a child of 
 God. (P. 4.) 
 
 And now. Sir, after all this labour in defence of 
 your own practice, you begin to triumph. " If we 
 *• are afked then, why we do not baptize adult per- 
 " fons as the Apoftles did ? — the proper anfwer is, 
 ** We will, when our fituation is the fame as theirs 
 " then was.'* (P. 8.) Circumftances may differ, 
 but. Sir, our general fituation is, I believe, the fame. 
 ** Behold, the days come, faith the Lord, that I will 
 " make a new covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, and 
 
 " with 
 
[ 65 ] 
 
 *' with the houfe of Judah. Not according to the 
 *♦ covenant I made with their fathers in the day that 
 " I took them hy the hand to bring them out of the 
 " land of Egypt, (which my covenant they break, 
 " although I was a hufband unto ihem, faith the 
 " Lord :) but this 7^^// be my covenant that I will 
 *• make wath the houfe of Ifrael : Jfter thofe days^ 
 *' faith the Lord, I will put my law into their in- 
 " w^ard parts, and write it in their hearts, and will 
 " be their God, and they fhall be my people. Jer. 
 " xxxi. 31, 32, 33.*' 
 
 Were not the Apoftles under this new covenant P 
 And are we not under the fame covenant ? and if 
 believers, partakers wdth them of the fame fpiritual 
 bleffings, and called to perform the fame fpiritual 
 worfliip ? But according to this covenant, regenera- 
 tion and faith, of neceiTity precede gofpel obedience. 
 According to it, and fo it w^as foretold, the language 
 of Jehovah is, " I will put myy/j/V// within you, and 
 " cauje you to w alk in my ftatutes ; and ye (hall keep 
 " my judgments and do them. Ezek. xxxvi. 27.*' 
 Here obferve, that gofpel obedience is fo ftated, as 
 to be fubfequent to the efFeclual teaching of the 
 fpirit ; who is faid to be the cau/e of that effe^. We 
 may alfo obferve, that this obedience does not con- 
 fift in paying attention either to uncertain, or, to vain 
 traditions ; (from fuch we are redeemed,) but in 
 walking in thofe ftatutes and judgments which are 
 of divine appointment, and which properly belong 
 to the prefent difpenfation. Thcfs ftatutes and 
 
[ 66 ] 
 
 judgments therefore, of which the prophets fpake 
 in predifting future events, were to be thus re- 
 garded when their predictions fhould be accomplifh- 
 ed. We are not by thefe exprefTions to be carried 
 back again to Mount Sinai ; but by the language of 
 a period which is palled away, believers are con- 
 dueled to Mount Sion, and receive from legal terms 
 the mod evangelical ideas. If thefe remarks be juft, 
 thofe ftatutes and judgments, of which the prophets 
 fpake, include every thing which an afcended Me- 
 diator has now made the rule of worfhip, or of duty, 
 in his kingdom to the end of the world : for we 
 have received a kingdom that cannot be moved. 
 Heb. xii. 28. In what connexion, in what man- 
 ner, and with what difpofition, thofe duties are now 
 to be difcharged, See Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, 33, 34. 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26, 27. Heb. viii. 6 — 13. 
 
 If fuch be the new obedience of the gofpel, 
 ^(which is not according to the external obedience of 
 the Sinai Covenant) we can eafily account, not only 
 for the perfedl filence of Infant baptifm in the New 
 Teilament, but for a fimilar filence of every aCl of 
 v/orfnip, confidered as chriftian worlhip, which is 
 not connected with repentance towards God, and 
 faith in cur Lord Jefus Chrifl: : fmce fuch alone as 
 repent and believe the gofpel can worfliip God in 
 fpirit and in truth. 
 
 And I am perfuaded, Sir, were you but fully 
 convinced, that you really could not chrijUanlze an 
 Infant, even in an external fenfe, by Jprinkling, (a 
 
 power 
 
C 67 ] 
 
 power "which the Apoftles never imagined they had, 
 nor ever pretended to polTefs) you would do as they 
 did ; wait with prayer and patience, till it pleafed 
 the Lord to add to the number of his difciples, by 
 means which he has appointed, and by the manifef- 
 tation of that mercy which he alone is able to dif- 
 play. Then, as any believed with the heart, and 
 with the mouth made confeflion of their faith, at 
 their requeft, you would baptize them in the Name 
 of the Lord, and teach them to obferve all things 
 which he has commanded. 
 
 Thus, Sir, in future, may you have the honor to 
 be employed ! In every difficulty deriving fubftantial 
 confolation from thofe gracious words, "And lo, 
 " I am with you alway, even to the end of the 
 " world 1 Amen. Matt, xxviii. 29." With this 
 wifh I conclude the prefent letter ; who am, with 
 real refpe^l, your fellow fervant in the Gofpel of 
 our I/ord Jefus Chrift. 
 
 April 5th, 1786. John Martin. 
 
 F2 LETTER 
 
[ 68 ] 
 
 LETTER IV, 
 
 Rev. Sir. 
 
 HITHERTO, I find, but half your ftrength 
 has been exerttd. You have only drawn 
 back your hand to ftrike with double force : or, as 
 you exprefs it, *' To proceed more dire6lly to the 
 " cafe of Infants." (P. 8.) We hope, however, to 
 repel the meditated blow. 
 
 In the firft place, you will have it, " There is 
 " nothing in the nature of baptifm to exclude in- 
 " fants from its adminiftration.*' (P. 8.) To make 
 this feem the more probable you indulge a change of 
 terms, and fay, " There appears nothing in the na- 
 " ture of the ceremony to exclude them." — What 
 ceremony ? Believer's baptifm is more than a cere- 
 mony. It is " the anfwer of a good confcience 
 ** towards God, by the refurre6lion of Jefus Chrift. 
 " I Pet. iii. 21." 
 
 Had you faid, there was not any thing in the na- 
 ture of circumc'tfion to exclude an infant of the feed 
 of Abraham from being circumcifed, you would 
 have faid the truth. Male infants as well as adults, 
 were eqiiuUy competent to that appointment ; be- 
 
 caufe 
 
f 69 ] 
 
 caiife, no fpirltual difpofitions were required in any 
 perfon, as a prerequifite for circumcifion. That 
 rite was not intended to difcriminate the juft from 
 the unjuft. The external priviledges attendant on 
 circumcifion, belonged equally to the carnal and 
 ungodly of the feed of Abraham, as to thofe who 
 truly feared God. And, as to fpirltual bleflings, 
 " Cometh this blelTednefs then, upon the circum- 
 " cifion only^ or on the uncircumcifion alfo? For 
 " we fay, that faith was reckoned to Abraham for 
 " righteoufnefs. How was it then reckoned? when 
 " he was in circumcifion, or in uncircumcifion ? not 
 " in circumcifion, but in uncircumcifion Rom. iv. 9, 
 " 10.'* And the cafe of thofe patriarchs who enjoyed 
 true bleffednefs from Adam to Abraham, who were 
 not commanded to be circumcifed, abundantly con- 
 firms the Apoflle's declaration. But baptifm is not 
 the fubftitute of circumcifion. It requires v/hat that 
 did not. It requires thaty which in the very nature 
 of the a6l, excludes every creature who cannot make 
 it the anfwer of a good confcience towards God. 
 
 Will you fay. Sir, That the words of Peter, are 
 only to be applied to the Adminiftrator of this ordi- 
 nance? If fo, I ihould anfvver, what he does who 
 baptizes or fprinkles an infant, is either cornmandedy 
 or it is not. If it he commanded, why are we 
 told, " no FRESH DIRECT COMMAND was needed?'* 
 (P. II.) And why are we not informed where an old 
 ctmmandmtnt may be found ? If it be not command- 
 F 3 ed 
 
[ 70 ] 
 
 ed the pra£^icc is prefumptious ; and how can that 
 which is prefumptuous be to any, the anfwer of a 
 good confcience r As to the poor infant, a good con- 
 fcience in this a6l is quite out of queftion. " Not fo," 
 fay fome. " For an infant, if fpared, as it grows 
 " up, may attend to the moral defign of baptifm, 
 " and gain great advantage by repeated meditation 
 . ** on that pofitive inftitution.'* This is to confefs, 
 that baptifm is of no immediate ufe to an infant ; 
 and fmce more infants die than live, ih this view, it 
 muft be ufelefs to moft. But may not a ^aker at- 
 tend to the moral defign of baptifm as well as he 
 who was fprinkled by Mr. Horfcy r Better, I fhould 
 think. Becaufe a Qiiaker has not any occafion for 
 painful refieftion upon the pervcrfion of this ordi- 
 nance refpeding himfelf, by any external additions 
 or alterations, whatever he may have on a wilful 
 neglecl to enquire into the genuine meaning of that 
 d'lty. On the other hand, can a due attention to 
 the commxand of ChriH:, I mean that attention which 
 ilTues in perfonal obedience to his will ; can this pre- 
 vent, or perplex our meditations on the moral de- 
 fign of that command be what it may ? God forbid ! 
 But you think, Sir, that infant baptifm " cannot 
 " furely be exceptionable as an initiatory rite.'* 
 ''P. 8.) I am forry to difappoint you when you are fo 
 fmguine in your expe£lation. Yet fafFer me to alk, 
 Into what doflrine, into what duty, into what dif- 
 pofition, does this uncommanded rite initiate in- 
 fants : May they not be brought up in the nurture 
 
 and 
 
[ 71 1 
 and admonition of the Lord, without it? But with 
 it, into what prejudices are not many initiated ? See 
 the Catechifm introduced in a former Letter. 
 
 " Who can deny that Lifants are capable of be- 
 " ing dedicated to God ?'* (P. 8.)--Who can un- 
 derftand what fome good and great men intend by 
 the dedication of infants r If you mean fomething 
 by this a£l no way included in prayer, who can prove 
 from the New Teflament, that fuch an afl is now 
 enjoiricda minifter of Jefus ChriH ? Yet, ** Where is 
 " the impoffibility, or impropriety, of their being 
 " thus formally feparated to the honors and obligations 
 *' of the chriftlan difpenfation." (P. 9.) The im- 
 poJfiblUtyy Sir, is as great as the nature of the cafe 
 will admit. It is acling without authority. It is 
 a£ting againft the higheft authority. The impropri- 
 ety of this a£l I have already noticed. It is injuri- 
 ous to many. It prevents a free and unprejudiced 
 enquiry at years of difcretion. It rivets the atten- 
 tion of children to the tradition of meny and to thofe 
 rudiments which are not after Chrifl:. But as to the 
 impropriety of this acl, you (hall anfwer yoiu- own 
 queftion. You contend, that infants fliould be for- 
 mally feparated to the honours and obligations of 
 the chriftian difpenfation by baptifm. Yet you fay, 
 " By this ceremony, however, he is not admitted, 
 *' (that is, not any infant is admitted; into any par- 
 " iicular church, or religious fociety.'* (P. 3,} Do 
 you not perceive the impropriety of thefe jarring 
 proportions ? Do not chuicii-fcllowfliip and com- 
 F 4 munion 
 
r 72 ] 
 
 miinion at the table of the Lord, make a part oi 
 the honours of the chriftian difpenfation r And, Sir, 
 will you exchide infants from thefe honours ? Yes, 
 you will, and do. But what I would complain of 
 is this, you give them a name and title, and claim 
 to great honours, without the leaft right. Or do 
 you mean to fay, (for in the midil of conjectures I 
 muil conjeclure,) That Infants are thus formally 
 feparated to the honours of the chrillian difpenfa^ 
 iioUi providing, they fhouid ever be converted P Iffo, 
 I would farther afK, when converted, would they 
 not have an equal right to thofe honours, and an 
 equal capacity to enjoy them, unincum.bered with 
 your formal feparation ? 
 
 ** What are the covenant blefTmgs that belong to the 
 " unconverted," (even though they fhouid live to be) 
 " profeilbrs of chriftianity r Surely, not the fpiritual 
 " blefHngs infallibly conneCled with falvation ; for 
 " in thefe, believers only have an intereft. Not 
 ^* outward profperity ; that being no where promif- 
 " ed in the- covenant of grace, either to the 
 " vifible, or to the invifible church. Not the fa- 
 " craments, which, unlefs as figns and feals offpi- 
 " ritual bleffings, are of little value. Not the call 
 *' of the gofpel, for they have no more benefit by it, 
 ** than infidels, and the openly profane. A Itrange 
 *• covenant indeed, which confers only an empty 
 " unmeaning title, but from which the perfons in 
 *' covenant derive no advantage !" See Dr. Erfkine's 
 Theological DilTertations. (P. 86.) 
 
 If 
 
[ 73 1 
 
 If Dr. Erflrine meant to fay, that the bleflings of 
 the covenant of Grace were not fettled on the Ele6l 
 in Jefiis Chrift, prior to their converfion, I differ 
 from him in opinion. But when he afk^, " What 
 " then are the covenant bleflincrs that beion;^ to the 
 " unconverted r" I apprehend, he means to demand, 
 what evidence have we that fpiritual bleflings be- 
 long to any unconverted perfon in particular ? If 
 this be his meaning, I agree with this able writer 
 we have none. We ought, therefore, to affirm con- 
 ftantly, That, in regard to the " new man, which is 
 '* renewed in knowledge after the image of him 
 ** that created him, there is neither Greek nor Jew, 
 '* circumcifion or iincirciimcifion, barbarian, Scy- 
 " thian, bond, or free : br.t Chrift is all, and in all.'* 
 Col. iii. lo, II. As to bapiifm and the Supper of 
 Our Lord, being ** figns a^id fcals of fpiritual blef- 
 ** fings," it is obvious, that if theyfr/?be a fign and 
 a feal, fo is the fecond^ and if they be fo to one 
 child, they are io to every child ; unlefs thefe ordi- 
 nances are enclofed by a v/all of partition to the le- 
 gitimate of^'rprlng of fome illuftrious progenitor, as 
 circumcifion and the paiTover formerly were to the 
 progeny of Abraham. 
 
 It is true. Sir, you feem to hnve abandoned that 
 path which inany have pacc^d, 'till, I believe, they 
 arc weary. I now allude to the old plea of the in- 
 fants of believing parents being in the covenant, and 
 their having, on that ground, a right to fpiritual 
 bleffings. E'Jt; I prefume that you might not of- 
 fend 
 
[ 74 1 
 
 fend yonr Brethren, you Hill give the infants of bap- 
 tized chriftian parents, a deternninate name or title. 
 And, if I may judge between you, your brethren 
 need not be offended : for there is not any difference 
 between your Defence of Infant baptlfm, and theirs, 
 for which you can be envied, either as a Difputant, 
 or as giving, on your own arguments, a word of 
 Exhortation. 
 
 " This is pra6licable, and frequently done refpe6t- 
 " ing civil communities." (P. 9.) What is ? You 
 cannot mean a formal feparation to the honours and 
 obligations of the chriftian difpenfation. What 
 then ? The preceding fentence is, " Who can deny 
 " that infants are capable of being dedicated to 
 " God :" Is this practicable, and frequently done 
 rerpe6Ling civil communities ? " And was formerly, 
 *' as a religious ceremony, we all know, of divine 
 .«' appointment." What was ? I am afhamed to 
 afk thcle queftions on a fubje»5l that all know ; but 
 J cannot reach your meaning : becaufe you feem to 
 have fomething in view v/hich was frequently dorie 
 in ctvll communities. 
 
 Whither we are to be fent at Lift for proof of the 
 propriety of Infant fprinkllng ? Far and wide we 
 have been compelled to wnnder already. Now we 
 are caiifd to civil communities to countenance a 
 part of this ceremony. But, Sir, if there was any 
 thing like it to be found in fuch comimiunities, are 
 they to be a model for that kingdom which is not of 
 this world ? Our Lord forefavv that his followers 
 
 would 
 
[ 75 ] 
 
 would be acidified to a criminal imitation of world- 
 ly policy. He cautioned them againfl: It. He faid, 
 " Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercife 
 " dominion over them, and they that are great, ex- 
 " ercife authority upon them. But it fhall not be 
 " fo among yon. Matt. xx. 25, 26." One h your 
 MafleVj even Chrlft. Matt, xxiii. 8, 10. 
 
 " Jewifh children were fet apart by circumcifion 
 " to the honours and obligations of that difpen- 
 " fation.'* (P. 9.) What if they were ? — But let me 
 alk, Did you never read of a wheel within a wheel ? 
 Did it never occur to your mind, that there was a 
 covenant within a covenant ? Odd as this may feem, It 
 was a fafl. For the law of Mofes was net agalnll 
 the promifes ; it was, for a feafon, fnbfervlent to 
 the Covenant of promife enjoyed by Abraham ; but 
 made with, and confir?ned by cur Lord Jefus Chrijl. 
 That national and tranfitory covenant, made at Ho- 
 reb, is long fmce aboliihed. Why then, do you 
 infer, that what the Jews did with their children un- 
 der a limited covenant, broken and dilfolved, that, 
 or fomething like it, muft now be done with ours ? 
 — I am, I own, wearied with thefe allufions ; be- 
 caufe tliey are both ilh;rive and injurious. But I 
 muft have patience. For I perceive you have not 
 yet done with fuch analogy. 
 
 It was hardly to be expelled, that while you were 
 thus engaged, a certain pallage in Coloifiaiis would 
 be overlooked. On this text you aik, " Does not 
 •'-'* Paul int;;r»ate, that clu-iilian baptifm, in this 
 
 ** rcfpea 
 
[ 76 ] 
 " refpea, fiiccecds that rite r" (P. 9.) That is, 
 Does not Paul iji Coloflians ii. 11. intimate, that 
 chriftian baptifm fucceeds circiimclfion ? But why 
 you make ufe of thofe reliraining terms, " in this re- 
 fped,'* I am not certain. As, however, you con- 
 nect the whole with baptifm, you lead chriftian 
 parents to fiippofe. That if feme perfon, called a mi- 
 nifter, does not dedicate and feparate their children to 
 thofe honors and obligations which you repeatedly 
 mention, their infants mufl fuflain the lofs. With 
 the NewTeftament in your hand, is this either ge- 
 nerous or juitr — But "whatreafon fo natural and 
 " evident for his calling it,*' (i. e. baptifm) " the 
 " circumcifion of Chrill:, as this. That chriftian bap- 
 " tifm incorporates the fubje£ls of it among thofe 
 " denominated christians, being the badge or 
 ** token of the chriuian religion, as circumcifion 
 " incorporated the fubjed on whom that was per- 
 " formied, among thofe denominated Jews ; being 
 " the badge or token of the Jewilli religion ? This, 
 " if I mjilake not, is the fcrlptural conne6lion be- 
 ** tween circumcifion and baptifm; as one pofitlve 
 *' inftitute fucceeds another : that is aboliflied, this 
 *' retained and perpetuated." {P. 9.) 
 
 Sucli, Sir, is your comment on Coloflians ii. 11. 
 Let me lay before you the words of the text, and 
 endeavour to refute your unfair remarks on this im- 
 p."»rtant paifage. ** In whom ye alfo are circum- 
 *' ciled, with the circumcifion made without hands, 
 " in puttinc^ off the bjdv of the fins of the fledi 
 
 ♦• by 
 
 I 
 
[ 77 ] 
 
 " by the clrcumcifion of Chrifl." Of whom is 
 the Apoftle fpeaking ? Of him in whom the Co- 
 lolfians were complete. What does he affirm, That 
 the members of the church at CololTe, whom he calls 
 faints, faithful brethren, that knew the grace of God 
 in truth ; he affirms, that they were alfo circumcifed 
 in him, with the circumcifion made without hands. 
 He is not fpeaking of any a£l of theirs, but of their 
 being circumcifed in Chrift. There is not any men- 
 tion made of baptifm in this text. There is not any 
 allufion to it. There can be none : for that is never 
 faid to be mide. Nor is this ordinance, even by you, 
 who, in my apprehenfion, corrupt it, adminirtered 
 without hands. I own, the word baptifm occurs in 
 the following verfe. You thought it convenient, it 
 feems, to introduce it in your remarks on this. But 
 every thing is beft in its own place. As, however, 
 that term was fo near, why did you not extend your 
 remarks to the twelfth verfe. The reafon is plain* 
 It contains, indeed, the wanted term, but in a con- 
 nexion unpleafmg, if not ofFenfive, to fome. The 
 words are, " Buried with him by baptifm, wherein 
 " alfo ye are rifen with him, through the faith of the 
 " operation of God, who hath raifed him from the 
 " dead." — This burial and rcfurreclion through 
 faith, " by baptifm into death," Rom. vi. 4. will 
 never be acceptable to any, on gofpel motives, who 
 are not dead to thecullomsof this world, mid alive to 
 the command of Jefus ChrilL 
 
 Have 
 
Have you forgotten that antlent promlfe, ** And 
 ** the Lord thy God will circumcife thine heart, and 
 •* the heart of thy {eed, to love the I,ord thy God 
 " with all thine heart, and v^^ith all thy foul, that 
 *■* thou mayeft live ?" Deut. xxx. 6. This circum- 
 cifion is made without hanch. It is eifential to our 
 enjoyment of the atonement of Chrift, and to that 
 obedience whicli he requires. " If ye love me 
 " keep my commandments." Without it, we can 
 neither put oiF the body of the fins of the flefh, nor 
 tell what to make of the circumcifion of Jefus Chrift. 
 Without it, baptifm, even by immerfion, is not the 
 anfwer of a good confcience towards God. Is not 
 this circumcifion of the heart, of which fo much is 
 faid in fcripture, in different modes of expreffion, 
 is not this elfential to the exiftence of real chriftia- 
 nity ? If it be, can the evidence of chriftianity pre- 
 cede its exiftence ? Farther ; if the heart of any 
 perfon becircumcifed to love the Lord, will that fa- 
 cred operation make him relu»5lant to yield external 
 obedience r Abraham was circumcifed in heart and 
 in the forejkin of his fiejh. They who were bap- 
 tized with the Holy Ghoji , were baptized in watery 
 in the name of the Lord. A6ls x. 47. 48. 
 
 Dodor Gale, on the paifage before us, (Col. ii. 
 II.) has juftly obferved, " The circumcifion here 
 " called chriftian, muft be either wholly inter- 
 •* nal or wZ'c//); extern ^^ or partly both. It cannot 
 " he partly internal, and partly external, becaufe, 
 " if it confifts of thtfe tvv^o parts, one whereof 
 
 may 
 
[ 79 ] 
 
 *' may be performed without hands ^ and the other 
 " notf it cannot be called circumclfion without }xinds\ 
 *' for, in order to make it compleat, another part 
 " is neceffary which muft be performed hy handi ; 
 " and what is true of any one part, cannot be de- 
 " nied of the whole. And therefore, if the chriftian 
 ** circumcifion does but partly confift of what muft 
 ** be performed with hands, it is not a circumcifion 
 " without hands \ which is diredlly contrary to St, 
 " Paul's affertion. And our adverfaries will grant, 
 ** this circumcifion cannot be wholly external. It 
 ** remains, therefore, that it mull be a circumcifion 
 *^ wholly internal \ and confequently, it cannot be 
 " baptifm/* — See Dr. Gale's Refle6tions on Mr. 
 Wall's hiftory of Infant baptifm. P. 450, 451. — I 
 only add. That though the circumcifion without 
 hands is not baptiftnj yet it is connedled with it, and 
 qualifies for a due fubmlffion to that foleran appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Unweariedly you purfue your almoft conftant 
 mode of argument analogy. Infants though inca- 
 pable of comprehending the intent of circumciiion, 
 when they were clrcumcifed, yet they underwent 
 that operation. On this fa6l, you alk, " Why then 
 " fhould not chriftian baptifm be adminiftered to 
 *' infants?" (P.io.) How often, Sir, muft you be- 
 told, Becaufe the one was appointed, but the other 
 is not. "If circumcifion was omitted, it was ex- 
 *' prefly declared of that fubje6l, by thebleficd God, 
 *• he bath broken my covenant j and wherein is 
 
 " the 
 
[ 8o ] 
 
 " the difference if "baptlfm fyou mean if the bap- 
 " tifm of infants) now be omitted r" Mull: I again 
 fay, Infant baptifm is not commanded ? There is 
 no declaration of divine difpleafure againd them who 
 rejeft it. We have no precept, no promife, no ex- 
 ample in the word of God to engage us to comply 
 with this ceremony. Could all this be faid of cir- 
 cumcifion under the Mofaic GEconomy ? From 
 covenants fo different as that which is abolifhed and 
 that which abides, ever to argue for external analogy, 
 is not this to confound what God has taken care to 
 diflinguilh ? Is it not to make the fliadow a fub- 
 ftance, and the fubftance a fhadow ? Perpetually 
 to have recourfe to fuch argument, is not this to con- 
 fefs, you are not acquainted with any thing which 
 is better calculated to fupport your leading propofi- 
 tion, laid down in the Jifih page of your Defence? 
 
 From the fuppofed advantages of circumcifion, 
 vou conclude, if Infant baptifm had not been the 
 fubftitute of that ceremony, the Jews would have 
 been violently offended. And their total fdence on 
 this head, is to you, ** the cleared proof in the 
 " world, that the dream of mercy to them and 
 " theirs, flowed on in the ancient channel.^* (P. n.) 
 The advantages of circumcifion are by you over- 
 fated. When fom*e pleaded for the continuance of 
 that painful operation, Peter faid, " Why tempt ye 
 " God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the difciples, 
 " whi-:h neither our father , nor we were able to 
 *' bear r A<its xv. ic." Let circumcifion and its 
 
 attendant 
 
[ 8i j 
 
 attendant priviledges be compared with Pagan (u- 
 perftltion, and, in various views, it had, I confefs, 
 "the advantage much every way.*' But if com- 
 pared with the prefent ftate of the kingdom of Chrift, 
 where is the glory ? In it, God puts fio difference 
 between Jews and Gentiles, purifying their hearts 
 alike by faith. In this kingdom, " there is neither 
 ** Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, 
 " there is neither male nor female : for," (fays the 
 " Apoftle,) " Ye arc all one in Chrift Jefus. And 
 " if ye be Chrift's, then are ye Abraham's feed, and 
 *' heirs according to the promife. Gal. iii. 28, 29.'* 
 Now,, if between Jews and Gentiles, God puts 
 no difference, why do you ? And why are you alarm- 
 ed left the Jews fhould be irreconciliable to the gof- 
 pel, unlefs fome cuftom of theirs, already in ufe, 
 be adopted ? Did not Jehovah fay, by Mofes, 
 " They have moved me to jealoufy, with that w^hich 
 ** is not God ; they have provoked me to anger 
 ** with their vanities: and I will move them to jea- 
 ** loufy with thofe which are not a people, / will 
 " provoke them to anger with a foolijh nation? Deut. 
 *' xxxii. 10." You will fay, this prediction has 
 refpeft to the f^r«^/ Jews, who rejected and cru, 
 cified the Meffiah. I admit it. But did not thofe 
 Jews Vv'ho were fpiritualj receive him whom their 
 nation rejeded ; and, like Paul, count all things 
 but lofs for the excellency of Chrift Jefus their Lord? 
 Phil. iii. 4 — II, 
 
 G How 
 
[ 82 ] 
 
 How " a total filence" fhould be the cleareft 
 proof in the world, fome, perhaps, will not be able 
 to comprehend. And how " a total filence*' among 
 the Jews, (or their refigning an antient rite without 
 reliiclance) how any thing like this, is to be recon- 
 ciled with the repeated, and united efforts of Judai- 
 zing teachers to revive and eftablilh circumcifion, 
 I confefs, I cannot conceive. 
 
 It is well known, that *' in the Apoftles days, the 
 " chrillians converted from Judatfm were exceed- 
 " ingly inclined and zealous to incorporate circum- 
 " cilion with chriftianity. Their zeal in this mat- 
 " ter became very troublefome to the churches. 
 " What method do the Apoftles take to remedy 
 " this evil ? Do they ever inflruft them they need 
 " not be fo tenacious of one pofitive rite, fmce ano- 
 " ther was appointed in its Head ; to be adminif- 
 " tered to the fame perfons of the fame age ? Such 
 " an obfervation would have been very much to the 
 " purpofe ; and the mofi: likely that could be to 
 " give the judaizing chriftians fatisfa6lion ; and 
 *' therefore, I fuppofe the Apoftles would have 
 *' taken this method^, if the fa6l: were really fo, 
 ** that baptifm was fubftituted in the room of cir- 
 " cumcifion. But do they go this way to work ? 
 " Nothing is to be found of it in all their reafonings 
 " to diiliiade chriftians from circumcifion. They 
 *' warn chrillians that the zealots for circumcifion 
 " y^'CiL fubverters of men's fouls. Ads xv. 24. that 
 " circumcilioii availed not unto juftification ; whe- 
 
 " ther 
 
[ 83 ] ' 
 
 ** ther that rite be confidered as derived from Mo- 
 " fes or from Abraham. Rom. iv. But, that if 
 •< they were circumcifed Chrift Jhoiild profit them no- 
 " thing. Gal. v. 2. This is the way they treat that 
 ** Old Teftament rite : as a iifelefs, burdenfome, 
 " injurious ceremony. But they never go about to 
 " foften the Jews, by telling thern that chriflianity 
 " has another rite in its ftead. And yet this way of 
 ** dealing with them is not more foft than it was 
 " likely to have proved effedlual \ if it were fo that 
 ** baptifm is the fubftitute of circumcifion. Now, 
 " becaufe the Apoftles never talk in this ftrain, it 
 " feems natural to infer they never thought fo.** 
 See a courfe of Letters to Bp. Hoadly. P. I2i, I22. 
 " The ftream of mercy to them and theirs, flow- 
 " ed on in the ancient channel.''* (P. II.) You feem 
 to have in view a channel fwelled with thefe 
 dreams ; confecration, initiation, regular introduc- 
 tion and formal claim. Whatever impropriety there 
 may be in this figurative turn, your defign is plain. 
 For you add, " Thus confidered too, as an ancient ap- 
 *' pointment, no fresh direct command was 
 ** needed.** (P.ii.) So that. Infant baptifm being vir- 
 tually contained in fome pofitive appointment, there 
 was no need of any fresh direct command on 
 this bufmefs ; efpecially to the Jews. But how are 
 we of Gentile extraction to trace the dream of In- 
 fant bnptifm to its original fource r this is not fo eafy 
 to determine. Even you, Sir, to whom this dream 
 
 O 2 is 
 
[ 84 ] 
 
 IS fo refreihing, have yet made no difcovery of that 
 fountain from which it flows. 
 
 So far as your prefent remark has any reference to 
 pofitive inftitutions, I would obferve, That they are 
 of fuch a nature as to allow no room for conjecture. 
 We cannot infer from two pofitive inftitutes two • 
 more •, or from one, that another muft be its fubfti- 
 tute. Sacrifices were appointed long before circum- 
 cifion and the palTover. Yet what other pofitive in- 
 ftitute could the Patriarchs, or any other perfon, in- 
 fer from that appointment ? So far from this, they 
 never knew what to facrifice, nor whercy nor hoiu, 
 nor why, but as they were commanded and taught. 
 Every thing that is pendent on the will of God, can 
 only be known to us as he is pleafed to make it ma- 
 nifeft. And in any thing relative to religion, why 
 fhould we wander from his written word in order to 
 know his will r Or with it, ftill wander by indulg- 
 ing our fancy, inftead of increafmg our faith ? 
 Where fancy enters faith retires, where certain cuf- 
 toms prevail, the command of God is made of 
 none effefl. 
 
 But I rather wonder. Sir, lince you contend that 
 the Apoftles went forth, authorized by Chrifl, to 
 teach a new religion ; fo new^ that till then it 
 never had been revealed \ (P. 6.) in recolledionof what 
 you have faid on this fubject, I rather wonder, that 
 in this new religion, you fliould plead for an oldzw^- 
 torn ; the channel of which to you, is fo vifible, that 
 no FRESH DIRECT COMMAND was needed. I fhould 
 
 have 
 
C 8s 3 
 
 have thought, if this «^tt; religion admitted any po- 
 fitive inftitute, it would have been fomething as no- 
 vel as all the reft. So, Sir, perhaps, would )ou, 
 had you not undertaken the caufe you have ; w hich 
 being crooked, you are obliged to turn, as it turns 
 or elfe to leave it. 
 
 " The blefling of xAbraham is come on the Gen- 
 tiles through Jefus Chrift." (P. 13.) May we ever 
 admire this mercy ! But when did Abraham receive 
 that blefling ? In circumcifion, or in uncircumcifion ? 
 " And we, like Ifaac, are the children of pro- 
 mife." (P. 13.) Who are? The legitimate offspring 
 of believers ? No. " They which- are the children 
 ** of the flefli, thefe are not the children of 
 " God: but the children of the promife are ac- 
 " counted for the feed. Rom. ix. 8." — '' That I 
 " may fpeak more plainly, all thofe that are the 
 " children of Abraham according to the flefh, are 
 " not therefore the adopted children of God \ it is 
 *' not their bloody but their faith muft make them 
 ** fuch. There are fome of Abraham^ feed, that 
 ** are feleftcd from the reft, to whom the promife 
 ** was made ; who are therefore called children of 
 *' the promife : and of this fort arc all they, who are 
 ** born after the fpiritj (as Ifaac is faid to be. Gal. 
 " iv. 23.) whether Jews or Gentiles. The fenfc of 
 *' this verfe is fully exprefled. Gal. iii. 8, 14. and 
 *• iii. 29. vid. Gal. iv. 28." See Poole's Annota- 
 tions, on Rom. ix. 8. ---The children of promife^ 
 as the fame Author cb'erves, in his Synopfis Criti- 
 G 3 corum, 
 
f 86 ] 
 
 " conim, are " geniti per promifnonem Evangelii. 
 •* Vid. Galat. Cap. iv. 28.*' And of thefc children, 
 fo runs the ancient predi6lion : " A feed fliall ferve 
 " him ; it {hall be accounted to the Lord for a ge- 
 " Deration. Pf. xxii. 30." 
 
 " There is not a word in the New Teftamcnt, 
 ** which intimates an abridgment of our privileges : 
 " or, that the chriftian difpenfation of religionis in- 
 ** ferior to any preceding.'* (P. 13.) Right: Not 
 a fmgle word. But would you fo abufe this fafl, as 
 to infer, we ought, therefore, to have a fplendid 
 temple in an earthly Canaan ; that facrifices and al- 
 tars ought to be continued, and that new moons 
 and fefiivals ought to be obferved ; or that, fome- 
 thing f.milar to thofe appointments ./hould flill be 
 regarded. The fuperiority of the prefent difpenfa- 
 tiofi is cor.fpicuous and confeiTed. But in what 
 does its excelling glory confifl: r In exchangeing a fc- 
 vere rite for one that is eafy and familiar ? Is this 
 the only alteration that is mentioned ; even in rela- 
 tion to pofitive inftitutions ? (P. 12.) Impoverifhed 
 idea. Read, Sir, with attention the third chapter 
 of the fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians, and you 
 will renounce this poor opinion. You will inftantly 
 perceive, it is the miniflration ol the Spirit, that 
 conflitutes the comparative excellence of the gofpel 
 difpenfation^compared with the preceding oeconomy. 
 " Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.'* 
 And with the convi£lion and confolation of that 
 
 Spirit, 
 
[ 87 ] 
 
 Spirit, no commaml of Chrift is grievous : not even 
 baptifm by immerfion. 
 
 But are you accurate when you talk of an 
 " abridgement of our privileges?" Who arc we? 
 Are we of the pofterity of Abraham according to 
 the flefli ? Were not our Progenitors Pagans ? Are 
 we not of Gentile extraction ? " The people which 
 ** fat in darknefs faw great light : and to them which 
 "fat in the region of the Jhadow of deaths light is 
 " fprung up. Mat. iv. i6.'* And ^ve, fliall we talk 
 of an abridgement of our privileges ? 
 
 In fupport of the practice which you attempt to 
 defend, you produce i Cor. vii. 14. Yet you well 
 know, that feveral of your moft learned brethren 
 give up that pafTage as ufelefs in the prefent debate. 
 On a paflage fo fully explained by fome, and fo rea- 
 dily given up by others, I fliall only make the fol- 
 lowing remarks. 
 
 The Apoftle in this text fpeaks of a man and his 
 wife unequally yoked. The one a believer, the 
 other an unbeliever. The believer is fiippofed to 
 have received the gofpel fincej and not before the 
 conjugal relation commenced. The unbeliever pro- 
 bably, was a Pagan. The queflion is, Does not a 
 moral union with Jefus Chrift, diffolve, in fuch 
 circumflances, the matrimonial contra(5l ? The 
 anfwer is, no ; by no means. For though a moral 
 union with Chrift, makes it criminal in any to 
 marry an infidel, yet as the parties in queflion, were 
 G 4 ^^^ 
 
[ 88 3 
 
 fet apart * to each other for life, while they were 
 both of them unacquainted with the gofpel, their 
 civil connection, formed as it was, could not be 
 confidered as criminal. For marriage is honorable 
 in all, and the bed undefiled. Their children there- 
 fore, were legitimate, holy, and not unclean. Much 
 to the fame purpofe, Malachi fpake to the Jews of 
 a legitimate offspring. — " The Lord hath been 
 *' witnefs between thee and the wife of thy youth, 
 *' againfl whom thou hafl dealt treacherouily : yet 
 " fhe is thy companion and the wife of thy cove- 
 " nant. And did he not make one ? yet had he 
 '* the refidue of the Spirit : and wherefore one ? 
 " that he might feek a godly feed:'' (DNl'/S^ ^HT 
 Vi)'pyt2 quserens femen Dei \) " therefore take heed to, 
 ** your fpirit, and let none deal treacherouily againfl 
 " the wife of his youth. For the Lord the God 
 ** of Ifrael faith, that he Hateth putting away. Mai. 
 " ii. 14, 15, 16.** But what has this to do with 
 baptifm, or with church communion ? If by rea- 
 
 fon 
 
 * Even MrTowgood admits this idea. He fays, ** That 
 «* the unbelieving yoke-fellow was fo far landlified by 
 ^* (or to, or becaufe of.) the believing, as that their 
 *' children which would otherwife be unclean, are nonv 
 ** HOLY." His inference, I n^uft leave him to fupport. 
 It is, however, obvious, that he confiders the children of 
 fuch parents /jc/y before they are chriflened. You, who 
 followed him pretty clofely, feem to be of a different opi- 
 nion. See his Baptifm of Infants, a reafonable fervice, 
 {*a|je 29, 
 
C S9 ] 
 
 fon of the believing hufband or wife, the children 
 of both were holy, one would imagine the ftill un- 
 believing parent, fandified by, ox to the believing 
 parent, was as holy : yet who ever contended, that 
 fiich a parent, though thus fan6tified, ought td'have 
 been baptized? Further; if where but <?«^ parent 
 is a believer, the children are holy, will they be more 
 holy on being baptized in a ftate of infancy P But, 
 in a moral fenfe, we know that children, let their 
 parents be whom they may, are not holy, but unclean. 
 So much fo, that if ever they be holy, they muft be 
 born again. Names cannot alter the nature of 
 things. 
 
 " Soon as we draw our infant breath, 
 
 " The feeds of fm grow up for death ; 
 
 " Thy law demands a perfedl heart, 
 
 " But we're denl'd in ev'ry part.'* 
 
 Such is the language of a penitent, according t* 
 pr. Watts ; who adds, 
 
 " Behold, I fall before thy face ; 
 
 " My only refuge is thy grace : 
 
 ** No outward forms can make mc clean ; 
 
 " The leprofy lies deep within." 
 
 Having urged, what you thought argumentative 
 on the NATURE of baptifm, you feem to be con- 
 fcious more will be expeclicd. " To render the 
 " argument conclufive," which, by your own con- 
 
 ceflion 
 
[ 90 ] 
 
 ccfUon is not fo at prefent, you propofe to enter in- 
 to the HOUSEHOLDS of the faints. Thither I mean 
 fo follow you. Grant me, however, a little refpite 
 from additional remarks. Other and better employ 
 than difputation, is now approaching. May I bring 
 from it a fpirit and temper adequate to the talk I 
 have undertaken : fo much fo, that I may finifh my 
 jfnfwer to your Defence^ with fome degree of chrif- 
 tian reputation 1 Such is the unfeigned defire, and 
 (hail be the afliduous endeavour of your refpedlful 
 
 humble fervant, 
 April 7, 1786. 
 
 John Martin. 
 
 L ET- 
 
[ 91 ] 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Rev. Sir. 
 
 I Am now at leifure to attend you to the house- 
 holds of the faints. But why, as one of your 
 readers, do you invite me thither ? Is it to behold 
 their piety towards God, or their benevolence to- 
 wards men ; walking together as the heirs of the 
 grace of life ? Alas! no fuch thing. " This is 
 " not your fubje6l.'* True. What then ? In- 
 fant baptifm ? But what fhall we fee of that cere- 
 mony in the houfeholds of thofe faints to v/hich 
 you introduce us r Why, you are to prove that in 
 thofe houfeholds there were Infants ; * and fecond- 
 
 * Mr Theodore Huet, Palleur de T Egllfe Wailonne d* 
 Amfterdam, endeavours to avail himfeif of the baptifm of 
 houfeholds, in his Sermon du Bapteme des petits Enfants. 
 Yet, having faid «* There is every appearance that the 
 " Apoftles adminftered Baptifm to the infants of thofe 
 *' who embraced Chriftianity, in adminlftering it to their 
 ** parents ;" he is compelled, by the force of truth, to add, 
 ** We cannot, it is true, allege any example that is cer- 
 *^ tain, and that carries with it dernonji ration. If we couhU 
 *' we fhould not need an) thing more to put a period to 
 *' this controverfy." See Mr Huet's Sermons fur les Sec? 
 tions du Catechifme de Calvin. Tome Quatieme, P. 252, 
 
[ 92 3 
 
 1y, that tliofc Infants were baptized. This, if not 
 a matter of confcience, is certainly a curious fub- 
 je£l. And as I cannot perfevere in mv prefent in- 
 tention and refufe your invitation, I will endeavour 
 to pay due regard to your ingenious obfervations on 
 chriftian parents, and on the children committed to 
 their care. 
 
 Your leading remark is thi^, " That when the 
 ** mafter or head of a family was profelyted, and 
 ** embraced chriftianity, by profeffrng repentance 
 " and faith, the whole household were actually 
 " baptized, as the members of his or her fa- 
 " MiLY.*' (P. 13, 14.) — It is, true, Sir, we do read 
 of three or four houfeholds which were baptized 
 when the heads of thofe families fubmitted to that 
 ordinance. But, does it therefore follow, that thefe 
 houfeholds were baptized without their own confent\ 
 without either repentance or faith \ and as being 
 members only of thofe families in which their mailers 
 or parents were baptized r Does it follow, from the 
 few families mentioned in the New Teflament, that 
 whenever tlie Apoftles baptized any other parent or 
 rnafler, the children and fervants were baptized at 
 the fame time ? Did Jolm the Baptift baptize whole 
 houfeholds ? or was not that multitude which went 
 out to him as other multitudes in common are ? 
 " And all the people that heard him, and the pub-: 
 ** licans juftified God, being baptized with the bap- 
 " tifm of John. But tiie pharifees and lawyers re- 
 ** jected the counfel of God againft themfelves, be- 
 
[ 93 J 
 
 " ing not baptized with the baptifm of John. Luke 
 " vii. 29, 30.*' Here every thing appears to be per- 
 fonaU and not relative. They who rejected, rejedled 
 the counfel of God againft themfelves\ and they who 
 fubmitted and juftified God, did fo for the?nfehes. At 
 this period, the kingdom of heaven fiiffered violence, 
 and the violent took it by force. Matt xi. 12. I?i- 
 dividuals^ therefore, were thus addrefTed, ** He that 
 " hath ears to hear let him hear. Matt. xi. 15.'* 
 
 You have taken care. Sir, to place in con- 
 fpicuous capitals, the words whole house- 
 hold. And if great letters and great force of 
 argument w^ere infeparably connected, I (hould 
 not have dared to have written an Jnfwer to your 
 Defence. Children may be dazzled with fuch ap- 
 pearances ; men are not fo afTefted. You muft ad- 
 mit, that general terms are frequently of limitted 
 conftrudtion. Oi this fad, take the following in- 
 ftances. " Then went out unto him," [John the 
 Baptill:,] " Jerufalem and all Judea, and all the re- 
 " gion round about Jordan, and were baptized of 
 " him in Jordan, confeliing their fms. Matt. iii. 
 " 5, 6." Yet who doubts, that many, who dwelt in 
 thefe places, did not go out to him ? or that many 
 who did, were not baptized r In the Commiflion it 
 is faid, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations. '** 
 Yet who apprehends that Chrift, in this Commif- 
 fion, meant to fay. Teach all in all Jiaiions P Infants, 
 ideots, and thofe who were infane, were of courfe 
 excepted. In Samuel it is fiud, " And the man El- 
 " kanah, and all his houfe, vrent up to** offer to 
 
 " the 
 
[ 94 ] 
 
 '• the Lord the yearly facrifice, and his vow. But 
 ** Hannah went not up ; for fhe laid to her huf- 
 " band, I will not go up till the child be weaned, 
 •* and then I will bring him, that he may appear be- 
 " fore the Lord, and there abide for ever, i Sam. i. 
 " 21, 22." Here are Elkanah and all his houfe going 
 up to offer to the Lord, and yet we are told, that 
 Hannah and Samuel were left at home. 
 
 " It is certain the word houfe or houfeholdy is often 
 *' ufed where none are meant but fuch as are come 
 ** to years of underftanding. For example, Luke 
 ** xi. 17. A houfe divided againji a houfe. John iv. 
 " 53. Himjclf believed^ AND HIS whole house. 
 " Ads ii. 36. Let A 1.1. THE VLOUS.'E of Ifeael know 
 ** ajfuredly^ that Godhaih made that fame Jefus, whom 
 *' ye have crucified, both Lord and Chri/i. A6ts xviii. 
 ** 8. Crifpus J— believed en the Lordy with all 
 ** HIS HOUSE. Tit. i. ic, II. Deceivers^ who fub vert 
 ** wH'OLE HOUSES. Confcquently, to infer it as 
 ** fa£l, that infants were baptized, as being part of 
 ** the houfe, is fuppofing, and taking for granted, 
 ** not proving the matter in queftion. If all the 
 ** families in Great Britain were oblio;ed to take 
 " an oath of allegiance ; any man who fhould here- 
 ** after read our hiftory, would make a very wrong 
 ** inference, if he fhould, merely from the wordyii- 
 " miliesy or houfeholds, conclude, this oath was ad- 
 " mlniftered to children ; though they are very ca- 
 ** pablc of the outward and vifible fign, which is 
 " only kijfing the book. I think it unreafonable, fays 
 
 Dr, 
 
[ 95 ] 
 
 " Dr. Hammond y that the Apoflle's bare mention 
 " of baptizing his houfehold, i Cor. i. i6. fhould 
 " be thought competent to conclude, that infants 
 " were baptized by him, when it is uncertain whe- 
 " ther there were any fuch at all in his houfe.** See 
 a Courfe of Letters to Bp. Hoadly. p. 99, 100, loi. 
 
 " Paul baptized the houfehold of Stephanas." 
 fP. 14.) Admitted. But what I have juft quoted 
 from Dr. Hammond fhows, even in his opinion, 
 how unreafonable it is to adduce that facl to anfwer 
 your intention. Befides ; is it not faid of the houfe- 
 hold of Stephanas, " that it is the firft fruits of 
 Acha'iay and that they have addicted themfelvss to the 
 miniftry of the faints ? i Cor. xvi. 15. 
 
 Lydia and her houfehold were baptized." (P. 14.) 
 Admitted. But who were they ? She faid to Paul 
 and his companions, after {he and her houfehold had 
 been baptized, " If ye have judged me to be faith- 
 *' ful to the Lord, come into mine houfe and abide 
 '* there.'* They confented. " They entered into 
 " the houfe of Lydia : and v/hen they had feen the 
 ** brethren, they comforted them, and departed. 
 " Ac^s xvi. 15, 40."-— But, perhaps, thefe ^r^/^r^« 
 were not of her houfehold. It might be fo. I find, 
 however, none but brethren in her houfe. When 
 you are able to prove that Lydia had any children, 
 I will pay uncommon attention to the offspring of 
 that amiable woman. 
 
 ** Was not the cafe juft fimilar too refpecling the 
 *' Philippian Jailor ? (P. 14.) Yes, to the preced- 
 ing 
 
r 9^ 1 
 
 ing account, which I have laid before you, iti^as. Fof, 
 " they fpake to him the word of the Lord, and to 
 " all that were in his houfe ; and he rejoiced be- 
 " lieving in God, with all his houfe, A6ts xvi. 
 
 " 3^' 34- 
 
 You can Sir, be very attentive to circumftances 
 w^hen they fcem to afford you the lead advantage : 
 but here is one circumftance in the cafe of the Phi- 
 lippian Jailor which your brethren fometimes men- 
 tion, (and I am told has been lately mentioned) to 
 their difadvantage. " Can we believe," fay they, 
 " that the Jailor and his houfehold were immerfed 
 " at midnight?'^ Why not, when the fa6l refts on 
 ** fuch authority? But if a part of his houfehold was 
 not believers, but infants, were they to be taken 
 out of bed at midnight ^ in order to be baptized? At a 
 period when Philip faid to a well inftrufted Eunuch, 
 " If thou believcft Vv'ith all thine heart thou mayeft. 
 " A£ls viii. 37. Would Paul fay to a converted 
 Jailor, " Whetlier your children believe, or are 
 •* deftitute of faith, though it is midnighty they muft 
 ** immediately J be baptized r" Were this admitted, 
 would it not feem as if the baptifm of infants is 
 elfential to their falvation ? What elfe could juftity 
 fuch precipitate proceeding ? Under the law of Mo- 
 fes, the male children of the Jews were not to be 
 circumcifed till the eighth day. And as many chil- 
 dren died before that appointed period, may we not 
 infer, that the circumcifion of infants was not ef- 
 fential to their falvation ? Are chrillian parents to 
 
 be 
 
[ 97 ] 
 
 be brought into greater jeopardy than the father of 
 Sampfon, or of Solomon ? Let it not be faid then, 
 that infants were baptifed at midnight : left we again 
 open a door to that kind of fuperftition which, in 
 what is called the catholic church, has diftrelTed the 
 minds of many. But where perfecution prevails, 
 and God is pleafed to make his word triumphant ; 
 when any in fuch a fituation are converted, rejoice 
 in the Lord, and wifh to obey him, they may be 
 allowed to make uncommon hafte, in keeping his 
 commandments. 
 
 And now, Sir, after all that is faid in the Ads of 
 the houfehold of the Philippian Jailor, in fupport 
 of believer* baptifm, can you continue to fuppofe, 
 that the Greek word -zB-ETrirEyxw? being in the fmgular 
 number, is of fufficient force to fet afide that evi- 
 dence r I am apprehenfive, you will not long retain 
 that ftrange opinion. You may ftill contend, for 
 aught I know, that there were infants in his family; 
 but I hope you will vouchfafe to give us better fa- 
 tisfafbion on that article, if you expe6l that we 
 (hould give you credit. 
 
 " When Peter addrefled his awakened hearers, 
 ** exhorting them to be baptized, does he not place 
 '^ the argument in the fame form?*' (P. 14.) You 
 mean. Sir, in the fame form in which you have 
 placed it ; which is, " That when the mafter or 
 " head of a family was profelyted, and embraced 
 " chriftianity, by profefling repentance Ttnd^ faith, the 
 " WHOLE HOUSEHOLD were adually baptized, as 
 
 H " THE 
 
[ 98 ] 
 
 I4-) In order to fupport v/hat your queftion affirms, 
 you quote and obfcure thefe memorable words: *' Re- 
 '• pent and be baptized every one of you, in the 
 " name of Jefus Chrift for the remiffion of fms* 
 " and ye ihall receive the gift of ihe Holy Ghoft. 
 *• For the promife is to you and to your children, and 
 " to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 •' our God lliall Call. Ads ii. 38, 39." 
 
 , I perceive in running over your fourteenth page 
 again, that yon have not produced thefe verfes at full 
 length. But as every man as a right to adduce what 
 is convenient to his purpofe, either in the w^ords or 
 f^nfe of any writer, of that, I make no com.plaint. 
 Where meaning is neither perverted nor obfcured 
 there is no injury ; and to men of fenfe and candour 
 there will be no offence. But as I think you have 
 not given us the meaning of what you have pro- 
 duced, I will endeavour to convince you of this by 
 the following remarks: Peter fpake to the diftrefTed ; 
 to vAQn \v\\o yvcVQ p fie hd in their heart. His wifh 
 was to alleviate their forrows. It w^as more. It 
 \yas their conveirfion. ' They faid, " What fhall we 
 *\ dor'* Then Peter faid unto them, " Repent and 
 *1 be baptized every one of you," {that is one by one, 
 and one for one, as the perfonal duty of each) " in 
 " the Name," (that is by the authority, and accord- 
 ing to the command of Jefus Chrift, for the remif- 
 fion of fins ;) " and," [in io doing) •* ye (hall re- 
 '* ccive the gift of the Holy Ghoft. For the pro- 
 
 „ « i;);iife 
 
C 99 3 
 
 ** mlfe (fpolcen of by the Prophet Joel) Is to you and 
 ** to your children ; and to all that are afar off, even 
 " as many as the Lord our God fhall call." The 
 words which clofe the fecond chapter of Joel, are, 
 " And it fhall come to pafs, that whofoever fhall 
 •* call on the name of the Lord fhall be delivered : 
 " for in mount Zion and in Jerufalem fhall be de- ' 
 '* liverance, as the Lord hath faid, and in ther^;w- 
 " nant v^hom the Lord fhall call." " Even all 
 " the refl, whom Jehovah fhall any where call to 
 ** the knowledge and the worfhip of himfelf." See 
 Dr. Chandler's Paraphrafe on the text. 
 
 The purpofe of God to call and his efFe61:ual cal- 
 ling have been, are, and ever will be of equal ex- 
 tent. Till any perfon is thus called, what promife 
 replete with fpiritual blefTings, can he enjoy t But 
 whoever is the called according to the purpofe of 
 God, he not only underftands, but receives, em- 
 braces and pra^ically regards the promifes of the gof- 
 pel. Such were many who attended to the Addrefs 
 of Peter. " Then they that gladly received his 
 " word were baptized : and the fame day there were 
 " added to them about three thoufand fouls. And 
 ** they continued ftedfaftly in the Apof^les do6lrine 
 " and fellowfhip, and in breaking of bread, and in 
 " prayers. Ads ii. 41, 42.*' Can this text,' or 
 " context, be of any fervice to you ? Yes, when 
 you read it for your own edification, as a chrifllan, 
 it may : but when you attempt to prefs this palfage 
 in order to produce from it a proof that Infants ought 
 H 2 to 
 
[ loo ] 
 
 to be baptized, then, however prelted, it refufes to 
 eive vou the leafl: alTiftance. 
 
 " You and your children is nothing more than you 
 *' and your posterity, [rots rtKnoiq vi/,ov.~] So in 
 " John vili. 39. !f ye vjere AhrahanCs children 
 " [xExva] ye would do the works of Abraham, A£ls 
 " xiii. 32, 33. Tloe promife whifh was made unto 
 " the fathers^ God hath fulfilled the fatne unto us 
 
 " THEIR CHILDREN. [rs)<.voi<;.'\ Matt. XXvii. 25. 
 
 " His blood be upon us and on our children. 
 " [TExva ijfAoc.] An imprecation which has miracu- 
 " louflv relied on them, and on their defendants, 
 " for almoft feventeen hundred years. — So that the 
 " word children here, has no reference to the in- 
 " fantile ftate ; nor does the promife mean baptifn. 
 *« The learned Do£lors, Ha?nmond and Whitby, tho' 
 " they have both written in favor of Infant bap- 
 " tifm, conclude this text is nothing to the purpofe. 
 " The words of the yjry? are — If any have made ufe 
 " of that very unconcludent argument [the promife 
 " is made to you, and to your children'] I have noth- 
 " ing to fay in defence of them. I think the word 
 " children there, is really the po ferity of the Jews, 
 *♦ and not peculiarly their infant children.- -And 
 ** Whitby fays, Thefe words will not prove a right 
 " of infants to receive baptifm : the promife men- 
 ^ tioned here, being that only of the Holy Ghoft, 
 ** mentioned verfes i6, 17, 18, &c. See a Courfe 
 " of Letters to Bilhop Hoadly, p. 88, 89, 90. 
 *' The words of Dr Hammond are quoted from 
 
 *♦ Refol. 
 
C 101 ] 
 
 " Refol. 6 Qii. Edit. i2mo. p. 25:6. See^. 81. 
 " And the words of Dr Whitby, from his Annot. 
 «« in Ads ii. 38, 39." 
 
 From the palTage above produced from A^ls ii. 
 you argue thus, " Now, if, becaufe the divine pro- 
 ** mife reached the proftlyted parents, they were to 
 " be baptized, and he afferts the fame promife equ- 
 " ally belonged to their childreriy what fhould you 
 ** infer, but, that for the fame reafon thefe fhould 
 " be baptized too?" (p. 14.) 
 
 It is evident, that the divine promife fo reached 
 the profelyted parents, that it was received hy faith ; 
 then, and not till then, they who gladly received 
 the word were baptized. But unlefs it bey^ applied 
 to their children, and fo received by themy how 
 fhould there be the fame reafon for their being bap- 
 tized ? I would infer, therefore, that when the 
 children of believers obtain lih precious faith with 
 their parents, they will then obey the gofpel, and 
 become followers of them who through faith and 
 patience inherit the promifes. 
 
 You take a liberty in the following words which 
 
 I think is not to be commended. " And, fays the 
 
 " infpired writer, 'tis binding, not upon you Jews 
 
 ** only, but profelyted Gentiles too * ; thofe that 
 
 H 3 " are 
 
 * Dr Doddridge mentions a fa61: in relation to this claufe, 
 To all that are afar off^ which you do not feem to have re- 
 colleftcd. His words are, " Since Peter knew nothing as 
 •* yet of the intended calling of the Gentiks, he could only 
 
 <' mcj^n 
 
[ 102 J 
 
 *' are afar off, whom the Lord our God ihall call 
 " into the prcfelTion of this religion : the promife 
 ** will refpe6l them and their children, jiift as it does 
 " you and yows : All chriflians whether profelyted^ 
 " and fo brought nigh to God, or born under the 
 " difpenfation, lliall be feperated to its honors and 
 " obligations by the rite of baptifm.'* fp. 14, 15.) 
 
 " And, fays the infpired writer :*^ Is that which 
 follows, the language, or the fenfe of the language 
 of infpiration ? Such freedoms fhould be foreborne. 
 " ^Tis binding ;'* What is ? the divine promife ? If 
 that be your meaning, I afk, to whom is it binding ? 
 To him that made it ? or to them that receive it ? 
 If you mean the latter, are Infants fuch ? Will 
 you fay, that you reftrain the binding influence of 
 the divine promife, among us, to profelytes P This 
 gives me but little fatisfa£lion ; becaufe, I cannot 
 underftand you on that fubje6l. You contend that 
 infants may be profelyted, and yet fay, We have 
 no profelytes here to m^ake. Will you fay, the pro- 
 miife to which you refer, binds them only '* whom 
 ** the Lord our God (hall call into the profefTion of 
 " this," (i. e. the chriftian) ** religion ?'* But this 
 would be to conti-adi61 much that you have faid in 
 ^Q\.\X Defence of Infant Baptifm, " The promife," 
 
 you 
 
 << mean by this, that the go/pel fliould be preached to all 
 " tke d'lfferfed oflfrael, in dlilant nations : But the Spirit 
 *« of God, might have n farther 'vic^-vjf See Dr Dod- 
 deridge's Family Expofitor, in the Note d. on A^s ii. 39. 
 Oaavo Edit, 
 
[ i03 ] 
 
 you fay, " will refpe6l them,** the profelyted Gen- 
 tiles, " and their children, juft as it ^oqs you [Jews] 
 " and yours.** But, Sir, how had this promife any 
 refpe(5l to the Jews ? Was it applied to all with- 
 out din:in6lIon r Was it of ufe to any that reje6led 
 him in whom all the promifes of God ?re yea, and 
 in him amen, unto the glory of God r 2 Cor. i. 20. 
 " All chriftians, whether profelyted, and fo brought 
 " nigh to God, or born under the difpenfation, fliall 
 " be feperated to its honors and obligations by the 
 " rite of baptifm." To put thefe words in the 
 mouth of Peter, and to inform the reader this is the 
 language of the infpired writer, is difpleafmg. Was 
 Peter ever wont to fpeak as you have made him ? 
 Did he ever fay. All chriflians fliould be feperated 
 to the honors of the chriftian difpenfation by the 
 rite of baptifm ? But what are your criterions of 
 chriflianity ? Why, whether they are profelyted, 
 and fo brought nigh to God, or born under the 
 chriftian difpenfation, which is the common lot 
 of millions who are not brought nigh to God, 
 they are alike to be feperated to the honors of 
 chriftianity by the rite of baptifm ; you mean too, 
 by the rite of Infant baptifm. Is this the voice of 
 Peter ? Of what Peter ? 1 am confident, it is not 
 the language of that Peter who was an ApoflU of 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Regulate as you pleafe the channel of divine com- 
 
 paifion, G(xi continues to fay, •* 1 will have mer- 
 
 *' cy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have 
 
 H 4 ** com- 
 
[ 104 3 
 
 " compaflion on whom I will have compafTion, 
 " Rom. ix. 15." He ftill takes, " One of a city, 
 " and two of a family." He ftill afks, " Was not 
 " Efau Jacob's brother?'* And when he fpeaketh 
 of that favor which ifTues in falvation, he ftill affures 
 us, " The election hath obtained it, and the reft 
 " were blinded. Rom. xi. 7." " O the depth of 
 " the riches both of the wifdom and knowledge of 
 ^* God ! how unfearchable are his judgments, and 
 " his ways pad finding out ! For v/ho hath known 
 " the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been his 
 " his counfellor ? Or who hath firft given to him, 
 " and it fliall be recompenfed to him again ? For 
 " of him, and through him, and to him are all 
 " things : to whom be glory for ever. Amen. 
 f' Rom. xi. 33 — 36." 
 
 Before I quit the houfeholds of the faints, I wifh 
 you to obferve, That though there is an entire filence 
 V. ith refpe6l to children in the A61:s of the Apoftles, 
 whenever the writer of that hiftory treats of baptifrriy 
 yet " the writer of the J^s, is careful to make ex- 
 " prefs mention oi children in an hiftorical faci of 
 " much lefs confequence, when children were really 
 " a part of the company. Thus A(^sxxi. 5. They 
 ** all brought us on our way^ with wives and 
 " CHILDREN, //// we luere out of the city. We may 
 ** obferve in another inftance or two, how carefully 
 " the fcripture mentions children^ when they are 
 ** parties concerned. Matt. xiv. 21. They that 
 " had eaten were about five thoufand men^ befide 
 
 ^' VVOxMEN 
 
[ 105 ] 
 
 '* WOMEN AND CHILDREN: [Trat^twv, Utile child- 
 
 " ren."] And in the next chapter, which records 
 « another miracle of the like fort, Matt. xv. 38. 
 ** They that did eat were four thoufand meriy beside 
 '* WOMEN AND CHILDREN *. [jnuihuv^ little child- 
 
 " reriy infants.^ 
 
 " Thefe miracles, of feeding fo many thoufand 
 '* men, from fuch fcanty provifion, would have 
 ** been fufficiently great and illuftrious, without 
 *• the additional circumftance of women and child- 
 ** ren : but as they were parties concerned, they arc 
 " mentioned.'* 
 
 " And is it not a little ftrange,— that we no where 
 ** find J;;7ir^« mentioned, not d^//^^ mentioned, if it 
 «* were the Apoftles cuftom to baptize them with their 
 ** parents ? Thefe fervants and ApolHes of Chrid, 
 " we have already obferved, were no ftrangers to 
 " baptifm before the death of their mailer. They 
 " knew it, and pra6lifed it in John^s time. But to 
 ^* whom did they adminifter it ? To the adult only : 
 ** not to them and their infants. If afterwards they 
 '* were to underftand and pra6life this rite fo differ- 
 ** ently from what they hady«// before underftood and 
 ** pradifed ; if they were to baptize, not only the 
 ** profelTors of repentance and faith, but their olf- 
 ** fpring too ; may we not expefl to find fuch dif- 
 " ference exprejfedj either in their Lord's commif- 
 " fion, or in the authentic account of their praSfice^ 
 ** who baptized in obedience to his command ? But 
 " if neither Chriil nor his Apoflles have declared 
 
 ** Infant 
 
[ io6 ] 
 
 *' Infant baptifm, how fhall wc know it to be 
 " their mind r" See a Courfe of Letters to Bp. 
 Hoadly. P. 92, 93, 94. 
 
 Thus I quit, for the prefent, the houfeholds of 
 the faints mentioned in the AS:s of the Apoftles : 
 confirmed in my belief that thofe families were Gran- 
 gers to that praflice which you labor to promote. 
 As you take your leave of thefe families, you do it 
 no lefs confirmed in your conjectures ; you alfo do 
 it by making this formal conclufion : " Upon the 
 " whole, does it not appear, that, to baptize per- 
 " fons, in our circumidances, at an adult age, is 
 " without a SCRIPTURAL warrant; without a 
 " SINGLE example in the Apoftolic pra6lice ; 
 ** while, to baptize houfeholds or families, the pa- 
 <• rent or head of it being a cliriflian, is an exact 
 
 " AND literal imitation ofTHE CONDUCT 
 ** OF MEN DIVINELY INSPIRED? (P. I5.) 
 
 Let us lament the repeated and affefting inftances 
 we have of human weaknefs. I am carried by the 
 evidence before us, with all the fincerity you can 
 wifh me to poifefs, to every different conclufion. I 
 will exprefs it more fully in a parody of yours. 
 
 Upon the whole then, does it not appear, that to 
 baptize perfons, in our circumftances, at an adult 
 age, is with the warrant of scripture and 
 w^ith many EXAMPLES in the Apoftles pradice ; 
 feeing our circumftances have made no change either 
 in the nature, of the kingdom of Chrift, or in the 
 nature of gofpel obedience? But does it appear, 
 
 that 
 
[ I07 ] 
 
 that to baptize houfeholds or families, the parent or 
 head of it being a chriftian, is an exact and 
 
 LITERAL IMITATION OF THE CONDUCT OF MEN 
 
 DIVINELY INSPIRED? No : the rcvcrfe of this 
 bold aflertion, I flatter myfclf, I have proved in the 
 preceding pages. I am, Sir, with undiminifhed 
 refpeft for every thing in you that is refpe6lable, 
 notwithftanding thefe animadverfions on your jD/- 
 fence of Infant baptifniy 
 
 Your's in our Lord, 
 April II, 1786. 
 
 John Martin, 
 
 L E T- 
 
[ io8 ] 
 
 LETTER VL 
 
 Rev. Sir. 
 
 WHEN the fcene changes expectation is ex* 
 excited. Even thofe changes which we 
 at length regret, do frequently, at firft, produce a 
 tranfient fatisfa£lion. We now enter on a new to- 
 pick. TY,^ fuhje^s of baptifm have been confidered ; 
 we are now to confider what is the mode. But, Sir, 
 pennit me to obferve, " we run into a great mi/iake 
 " and confitfwn of language, when we talk o{fprink- 
 ** ling and immerfton as different mode^ of x\\t fame 
 " thing. Modern cujiom has reconciled us to this 
 ** abufe of language ; fo that we do not Humble at 
 " the inconfjflency, when we call fprinkling baptifin. 
 " But he that (hall confine himfelf unto the ideas 
 ** conveyed by fcripture language^ v/ill perceive that 
 ** to call fprinkling a mode of baptizing, is to call 
 " fprinkling a mode oi hathingj or oiwajhing the ho- 
 " dy in water, 'Tis to confound two rites as intirely 
 ** di{lin6l, as were wajhing the body, Vin6. /having off 
 " ths hair, in the purification of a leper.'* See a 
 Courfe of Letters to Bp. Hoadly. P. 24, 25. 
 
 The following remarks, produced by the fame 
 Author, from two Dignitaries in the Church of Eng- 
 
 iaad, 
 
[ 109 ] 
 
 land, deferve our notice. See his Courfe of Letters 
 
 P. 4. 5- 
 
 " A very few years make a great alteration in 
 *' mens notions, and language about fuch points of 
 " religion. And the diftance of many years makes 
 " a ftill greater alteration *, whilft men of various 
 " opinions, and ftrong imaginations, are continu- 
 " ally going on to comment and enlarge upon fuch 
 " fubje£ls ; the Neiv Teftament therefore, in this 
 " cafe, is alone to be depended on ; from which we 
 " ought, with the greateft care and honelly, to take 
 " all our notions of this duty." (Bp. Hoadly.) 
 
 " In procefs of time, the beft inftitutions are apt 
 ** to decliney and by infenfible degrees to fwerve, 
 " and depart from the perfe6lion of their firfl ftate ; 
 "and therefore it is a good rule, to preferve things 
 " from corruption and degeneracy, often to look 
 " back to the firft infutution, and by that to corre6l 
 " thofe imperfe»5lions and errors whicli will almoil 
 '* unavoidably creep in with time." (Abp. Til- 
 " lotfon.) 
 
 This part of the debate between us, you thus in- 
 troduce. " Allow me ftill to prefume on your pa- 
 *' tient attention, while, Thirdly, I vindicate 
 *• the mode of adminiftering baptifm by sprink- 
 " LING or POURING water on the fubject." (P. 15.) 
 An apology this, which you certainly ought to make 
 to men of common nnderftanding, who gre verfed 
 in this debate. You are pleafed to add, " And I 
 *♦ cannot but think, that very little may fuffice for 
 
 ** an 
 
■ [ "O ] 
 
 " an impartial intelligent hearer, on this part of 
 " the fubjeft.** (P. 15.) I am fure, Sir, if a 'very 
 little will not fatisfy, fuch hearers, or fuch readers, 
 they mud be greatly difappointed. 
 
 But before I attend to your arguments in favor of 
 " fprinkling, or pouring water on the fubjed," I 
 wifn to lay before you this general remark : That 
 from the beghm'ingy either the ordinance of baptifm 
 was fo ftated by John and by Jefus Chrift, and by 
 the Apoftles of our Lord, that it was eafy to be de- 
 termined by following Adminillrators, in what man- 
 ner it was to be adminiftered, or it was not. And 
 it is now fo ftated in the New Teftament, or it is 
 not. If it be not, whence. Sir, have you fufficient 
 fagacity to give your vote and practice in favor of 
 fprinkling ? Farther ; if this matter was not deter- 
 mined by proper authority, who can imagine that 
 baptifm, in any form ^ was meant to be continued? 
 But if, by fuch authority, it was determined that 
 baptifm fliould be adminiilercd by fprinkling^ can 
 you account how this ordinance was ever corrupted 
 by immerjion ? And remember. Sir, if this be a cor- 
 ruption, it has fo been from the commencement of this 
 pofitive inftitute to this day. The change from im- 
 inerfion to fprinkling is of cafy inveftigation. It is 
 only to confult^^ and blood to obtain a decifve 
 anfwer. But Yad fprinkling been eftablifhed by di- 
 vine authority, and confirmed by the conftant prac- 
 tice of the Apolllcs, it requires fomething more 
 than all your ingenuity to account for the antiquity 
 
 and 
 
[ I" 1 
 
 ^nd. prevalence oi immerfion, under 7i\\ \.\\o^c difficult 
 ties and dlfcouragements which fo many have been 
 obliged to furmount, who have endeavoured to ob- 
 tain the tefiimony of a good confcience in their per^ 
 fond fubmifTion to this duty. 
 
 I will now confider your attempt to " vindicate 
 " the mode of adminiftering baptifm by sprink- 
 " LING or POURING water on the fubjeft.'* 
 
 " The Greek word [^xTrn^u) which is iifed for 
 « baptizing, fignifies, according to the beft Lexico- 
 ** graphers and Grammarians, not only to dip or 
 ** plunge under water; but alfo, to wajh or wet in 
 ** any form." (P. 15.) How are we to judge 
 whether the Grammarians you have in view be the 
 beft or fecond beft ? You mention no names : you 
 quote no paiTage to confirm your afTertion. If they 
 be, what you call them, the beft, then it appears, 
 even from your concelTion, that the beft Lexicogra- 
 phers and Grammarians do admit the leading fenfe 
 of the word ^uTrri^u, is to dip or plunge in water. 
 And if it be, we are not at all affecled with its 
 having, on fome occafions, a fofter fignification. 
 Were the learned and laborious Authors whofe nu- 
 merous and ftriking conceilions Mr Booth has pro- 
 duced, on the meaning of the termxS Baptize and 
 Baptifuy unacquainted with the primary, native and 
 proper fenfe of thofe words ? Yet no lef&than fifty 
 feven PadohaptiftSy have been produced oy him, as 
 bearing witnefs againft their own pravftice and yours, 
 in giving their fuffrages in fuopoit of the leading 
 
 fenfe 
 
[ 112 ] 
 
 fenfe of thofe terms. See Mr Booth's Pasdobaptlfni 
 Examined, chap. 2. P. i6 — 28. 
 
 Mr Michaelis, has juftly obferved, " That a word 
 *' has often feveral fignifications, and we choofmg 
 " that which is not applicable to the fubje£t in 
 " queftion, are unawares drawn into errors.'* See 
 his DiiTertation on the Influence of Opinions on Lan- 
 guage, and of Language on Opinions. P. 20. 
 
 Leaving Lexicographers and Grammarians, you 
 advance to higher authority. You appeal to the 
 New Teilament. What you are pleafed to pro- 
 duce from that fafe fource of information fhall not 
 be overlooked. 
 
 " They pra6lifed, fays the Apoftle, ^Ja^o^otj /SaTr- 
 " ticyioUy different kinds of baptifms ; religious wafh- 
 " ings of various forts, or in different forms. Now, 
 " if the infpired Apoftle rightly underftood this 
 " word, and ufes it as an equivocal open term, in- 
 " eluding different kinds of wafhing, who can limit 
 ** it to one particular fenfe, or mode of application, 
 " confiftently with an impartial regard to the autho- 
 " rity of fcripture ?" (P. 15, 16.) So you quote from 
 Heb. ix 10, and fo you argue from two words in 
 that text. But let it be remembered, that the Apo- 
 ftle is there fpeaking of Jewifti baptifms ; and that, 
 though they were divers^ they were not diverfe. 
 " Thofe»*)a4)tifms were called divers, becaufe of the 
 " different perfons and things wafhed or dipped, 
 " as Grotius has obferved ; and not becaufe of dif- 
 " ferent forts of waihings, for there is but one way 
 
 " of 
 
[ "3 ] 
 
 ^* of wafhing, and that is by dipping ; what has a 
 " little water only fprinkled or poured on it, cannot 
 ** be faid to be wafhed ; the Jews had their fprink- . 
 " lings, which were din:in61; from wafliings or bath- 
 " ings, which were always performed by immerfion ;. . 
 '* it is a riile, vvith tliera, that wherever in the law. 
 *^ wafhing of the flefh, or of the clothes is menti' 
 ** oned, it means nothing elfe than ^^:i^} ^D nh'^2D 
 *' the dipping ^of the whole body in a laver — for if any 
 " man dips himfelf all over except the tip of his^ 
 ** little finger, he is flill in his iincleannefs, accord- 
 " ing to them/' See Dr. Gill on Baptifm, in his 
 pradlical body of Divinity. P. 335, 336. 
 
 "It may alfo defcrve to be confidcred, whether there 
 ** be in any part of the Bible any fuch religions cere- 
 " mony, 2,% JprinkUngw ater on the face ? If my read- 
 *' ing does not deceive me, there doesnot appear in 
 " all the five books of Mops any rite of fprinkling 
 " mere water. " There was a fprinkling of v/ater mix- 
 *^ ed with blood, and of water mixed with the afhes 
 ** of an heifer ; but I think no fuch thing as fprink- 
 " Ymg/imple water. It is faid, indeed, £"2;^^ .xxxvi. 25. 
 " Then will I fprinkle clea?i zuater upon you, and ye 
 *^ fhall be clean ; alluding, no doubt, to fome wa- 
 " tery purification in the law of Mofes. But I have 
 " not been able to find any Expofitor, who could 
 " point out any ceremony of unmixed water, to 
 " which this refers. The only probable account I 
 *' can find is, it refers to the ivater of feparatioJi^ 
 I " Numb. 
 
" Numb.xix. called, alfo water,, {imply ', but thi- 
 "was really zcompofition of various ingredients, viz. 
 **" the aihes of, a burrtC heifer,, cedar wood, and hyf- 
 " Top, and fcarlet, all mixed v/ith the water. And in 
 " 'thii care .tn^ .unclean perfon^was not only to be 
 '" fprln.kled with this mixtm-e, two feveral days, but, , 
 ''".moreover,' th^re YfSiS^ another q^ite diftin6l rite to 
 " be .perfarmeijl. even k bappfini verfe 19. A nd the 
 *^ clean perfon {hzllJprirJle [the watef of feparationj , 
 *'■ upon the uu<:lean, on the third day^ and on the. 
 "'.'feventh day. And on the feventh day hefhall, 
 '* purify himfelf, and walb- his clothes, and hathe. 
 *' himfelf in water. Twice fprinkledj. — and after that 
 " ojue baptized,'* See a Courfe of Letters to Bp. 
 Hoadley. P. 31, 32. 
 
 . If you are able to refute the remarks of this fen- 
 fible and difpaflionate Writer, fo do. Till then, in- 
 vefligate, at your leifure, tl e divers reafons which 
 fnade divers walhings proper to the preceding oeco- 
 nomy, and permit us quietly to fubmit to that One 
 haptifrn Vv'hich Chrift has comrnandedy and in which, 
 he, himfelf, has given us alfo the light and influence 
 of his own example. 
 
 "Is any thing farther determined than this,** (you 
 mean to fay in the Nev/ Tefcament) " that water 
 " fhould be applied to the fubjefl in forae form or 
 '* other?'* (P. 16.) Yes; and even Mr. Whitfield, 
 whofe ardour in the caufe of Chrift did not always 
 permit him to be accurate, was of this opinion. In 
 his fermoa on Rom. vi. 3, 4. he fays, ** It is cer- 
 
 *• tain, 
 
r "5 ] 
 
 " tain, that in the words of our text, there Is an al- 
 " liiiion to the manner of baptifm, which v/as by 
 " immerftony which our own church allows and in- 
 " ft/ls upon it, that children fhould be immerfed in 
 " watery unlefs thofe that bring the children to be 
 " baptized alTure the minifter that they cannot bear 
 *• the plunging." — See his Pofthumous Sermons, ta- 
 ken verbatim in Short Hand, and faithfully tranf- 
 cribed, by Jofeph Gurney. P. 297, 298. 
 
 If nothing farther be determined than you have 
 fuppofed, then, wafhing X\\t feet^ or elboWy or as the 
 cuftom is faid to be in Siuitzerlandy **'to pour water 
 ** on the back part of the head," might be fufficienti 
 But would this give you fatisfaflion ? If not any 
 thing more be determined than you have fuppofed, 
 why are believers faid to be " buried with Chrift by 
 " baptifm ?" and why is it faid to be alike figure with 
 the ark of Noah, ** wherein few, that is, eight fouls* 
 " were faved by water ?" Care is taken, by Peter, 
 to fhow that the believer's fafety is by the refurrec- 
 tion of Jefus Chrift : but in what manner baptifm 
 ought to be adminilfered, and to whom^ are abund- 
 antly evident to me, from this memorable pafiage^ 
 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, 22. May I not conclude, then, 
 that a little more is determined in the New Tefta- 
 ment concerning baptifm than you are willing to ad- 
 mit ? Is it not at leaft determined, that the proper 
 fubjedls fhall be applied to the water y and that wa- 
 ter ihall not be applied to fuchfubje^s P A6ls viii. 38. 
 I 2 " The 
 
[ ii6 ] 
 
 " The mode of ufe appears to me, to be only 
 *' the ceremonial part of a pofitlve inftltute." (P. i6.) 
 But, Sir, if there be any thing in your account of 
 Infant baptifm, which is not of a ceremonial com- 
 plexion, I fear it will obtain, from fome, a harfher 
 name. You wifh to countenance the prefent con- 
 jeclure from circumftances attending the Lord's Sup- 
 per ^ fuch as •* the time of the day, the number and 
 " poflure of communicants, the quality and quan- 
 ** tity of bread and wine." (P. i6.) 
 
 if tht-fe circumftances had been fettled by the 
 commr.nd of Jefus Chrift, as immerfion is, they 
 would have been as binding on us as that. But if 
 they are not thus fettled, why are they produced as 
 being of equal obligation i- It is evident, fo much 
 bread and wine mud be ufed at the Lord's Supper, 
 that they who commemorate his death, in that fa- 
 ded appointment, may each of them not only tafte, 
 but eat and drink with chriflian moderation. And 
 it is equally evident to me, that when a believer is 
 delirous of being baptized, under a convidlion that 
 the Lord has made it his duty, fo much water is ef- 
 foniial to the due admJniftration of that ordinance, 
 as will fuffice for the immerfion of him who means 
 to bow to the authority of his afcended Saviour. But 
 with fome, on tliis bufmefs, there is a continued 
 contiift between the force of cuftom and the com- 
 mand of Chrilt ; and, I am forry to fay, that the 
 former is frequently triumphant. 
 
 You 
 
\ 
 
 I 
 
 [ "7 ] 
 
 You obferve, Sir, that in the inftitntion of the 
 Lord's Supper, " the quality of the bread, urjlea- 
 ** venedy and the unity of the loaf, one bread or 
 '* loaf, are reprefented by the Apoftle as fignificant 
 " of fomethlng moral in the receivers : viz. The 
 *' fincerity of the communicants, and the unity of 
 " the church." (p. i6.) To confirm thefe remarks, 
 you refer us to i Cor. v. 8.^ and i Cor. x. i6, 17. 
 
 Perhaps, Sir, thefe palTages have been mifuvder- 
 ftood, and, confequently, ?nifapplied. In the fift, 
 it is faid, " Therefore let us keep the feall^ not with 
 " old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and 
 " wickednefs ; but with the unleavened bread of 
 " fincerity and truth." 
 
 " As the palluge is wholly figurative, (lyles Chrift 
 *' our pafTover, makes mention of his being facri- 
 " fied for us, and exhorts us to keep the feall in 
 " a paticul-'.r manner ; it may podibly, at firfl view, 
 " and while confidered merely bv itfelf, excite a 
 " confufed fafpicion that it relates to the Lord's 
 " Supper; and that it ^s founded on fomething in 
 ** the nature of that rite, which we have not yet 
 " difcovered. But if we confidcr it, as it Rands 
 " connected with v/hat goes before it, which is ab- 
 ** folutely necelfary to afcertain its true meaning, 
 " we fhall be fatisfadlorily convinced, that the Lord's 
 " Supper is not (o much as alluded to in it; and 
 *' that it is not even capable of being applied to 
 " that rite." 
 
 I 3 *' It 
 
[ ii8 ] 
 
 " It is as if the Apoftle had faid, in dire(^ and 
 
 " plain terms, That Chrift, who might very aptly 
 
 " be ftyled the paflbver of Chriflians, had been 
 
 " flain for them ; and therefore, as the Jews, in 
 
 " celebrating their deliverance by the Pafchal Sup- 
 
 ■' per, abftained from all unleavened bread, in obe- 
 
 " dience to the injunfti on of the kv/ of Mofes ; 
 
 " fo they, who profelled themfelves Chriflians, fliould 
 
 <* as it were celebrate their Redemption through 
 
 '* Chrift, by abftaining from all fm and wicked- 
 
 ** nefs, and praclifing fmcere holinefs and virtue, 
 
 " agreeably to the precepts of the law of Chrift. 
 
 " This appears fo manifeftly the Iruth, and the 
 
 ." whole meaning of St Paul in this paffage, that we 
 
 " may venture to affirm, in exhorting the Corin- 
 
 " thians to keep the feajl with the unleavened bread of 
 
 " fincerity and truth, it was their moral condudl in 
 
 *-* their whole life and converfation, not their man- 
 
 " ner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, that he 
 
 " had his thoughts upon ; and confequently, that 
 
 " no intelligence concerning the nature and defign 
 
 " of the Lord's Supper, can polTibly be derived from 
 
 .«* this palTage ; fnice in reality that rite is not even 
 
 «* fo much as alluded to in it.'* Sec Dr Bell's at- 
 
 tem_pt to afcertain and illuftrate the Authority, Na- • 
 
 tur.e irA Defign of the Lord's Supper. Appendix 
 
 Numb. IV. P. loi, 102, io8, 109. 
 
 T\\Q_ other pajfage to which you have referred us, 
 reads thus : " The cup of blelfing which we blefs, 
 =** is it not the communion of the blood of Chrift ? 
 
 a the 
 
[ "9 ] 
 
 ■ " the bread which we break, Is it not the commu- 
 " nion of the body of Chrifl r For we being ma- 
 *• ny are one bread, and one body : for we are all 
 " partakers of that one bread." 
 
 But let it be obferved, that the Apofllc " exprefs- 
 " ly addrelTes himfelf In this Epiflle, not only to the 
 ** Church of God which was at Corinth y but at tlie 
 " fame time to all that in every place called upon the 
 " Name of fefus Chrifl. i Cor I. 2. And he af- 
 ** firms, that becaufe the bread partaken of by all 
 ** univerfally is one, all are one body, fince they all 
 ** partake of the one bread. But it is by no means 
 " true, that the bread partaken of by all univerfally 
 " is one loaf\ fince in diiferent places it always is, 
 ** and even in the fame place fometimes may be, 
 " taken from dllFerent loaves; and in different coun- 
 " tries the loaves may often confift of very different 
 " kinds of bread \ and yet the rite is properly cele- 
 ** brated, and all Chriftlans become one body in the 
 *' fenfe of St. Paul, by celebrating It, notwithftand- 
 " ing thefe differences.'* See Dr. Bell's Attempt, 
 &c. Notes on P. 74. P. 163. 
 
 Your inference from }'our own remarks on the 
 Lord's Supper, fcem to mc incautious. For you 
 fay, " Now, if v/e paid a itricl regard to a fmgle 
 " mode of applying wati^r in b-iptifm, Vv-hile chrif- 
 " tians arc univerfally inattentive to thofe circum- 
 *' (lances in the other pofirive rite, llioidd we not 
 ** be manifeftly incor.filfent r" (P. t6.) But, ard 
 chriliians, or Is the v.ord of Cln-jft, the rule of our 
 I 4- con- 
 
[ 120 J 
 
 condu(5l in pofitive inftitutions ? Ought we to fol- 
 low any man farther than he follows Chrift r Ought 
 we even to follow a multitude to do evil ? If chrif- 
 tians were univerfally inattentive to any part of 
 their duty in one ordinance, mud we, to be confift- 
 ent, be fo in x\-\(t other ? Whither would this lead 
 us ? Whither, I am perfuaded, your piety would 
 not permit you to follow. But have you not fuf- 
 ficient penetration to perceive, that while you plead 
 for confiftency, you are hconftfient ? Should you fay, 
 In what ? I anfwer, in fuppofing that thofe cir- 
 cumflances which you mention in relation to the 
 Lord's Supper, and the mariner in which we are 
 commanded to be baptized, are of xhc faine nature. 
 But you alk, " Yea, are there not pofitive rites, 
 ** praclifed by Chrifi: and his Apoftles, which chrif- 
 <* tians, who differ upon this point, agree to alter, 
 " and even to reje6l ? — W^itnefs, anointing the fick 
 ** with oil, the holy kifs, wafhing the feet, and the 
 " tike." (P. 1 6.) But why again, are things unlike 
 each other, conndcred 2.sfwiilar f You are much 
 addi6led to this miflake. Could we well diftin^uifh 
 things that differ, and call every thing, which has 
 more names than one, by that name which is mofl 
 fignificant and proper, how many difputes would 
 fubfide ! And others, which are not logomachial, 
 would, by fuch precifion, be much abridged. 
 
 You know, Sir, the holy kifs was a fymbol of 
 chriftian friendfhip : fo was wafhing the feet of the 
 faints : thtrefore, thofe a£ls, at any time, would 
 
 have 
 
C 121 3 
 
 bave been contemptible without a correfponding 
 temper. Where that temper mutually fubfifts, and 
 where thofe a6ls, in any particular fituation, would 
 indicate, unequivocally, chriftian friendfhip, and be 
 fo received, are they to this day forbidden ? But 
 where any a6l of this kind deviates from its rule ; 
 w^here it is either mifunderflood, or would prove 
 injurious, would it be friendly to perform it? Even 
 in pofiiive inftitutes, commanded alike, to all na^ 
 tionSf and to continue to the end of the world, we 
 cannot do any thing to another without his own con- 
 feni. Is he baptized ? It was at his own requejl. 
 Is he received into a church of Chritl ? He fought 
 admijjion. Has he a feat at the Lord's Table ? It 
 is in compliance with his own inclination. 
 
 As to anointing the Tick with oil, this a6l feems 
 to have been confined to the Elders of the Church. 
 James v. 14, 15. and perhaps, it was ftill more 
 confined. For, as in thofe days^ fome only had faith 
 to be healed, A£ls xiv. 9. fo others had faith to heal 
 as 2i peculiar g\ky i Cor. xii, 9. which was fome- 
 times done by anointing with oil. Mark vi. 13, 16, 
 18. To anoint the fick with oil, without faith to 
 heal, was never the duty of any Elder. On the o- 
 ther hand, if any Elder now has faith to beli'sve that 
 a divine blelfmg will attend that act, let him make 
 the trial, and do it in the name of the Lord. 
 
 It appears, however, from the text in James, that 
 
 no common ficknefs was intended : but that fome 
 
 ' diforder was infiifted by the Lord as a chailifement 
 
 for 
 
[ 122 ] 
 
 for iniquity- Such chaftifemcnts v/erc predicted by 
 Mofes, Dcut. xxviii. 15—22. /i nd they are men- 
 tioned, as matters of fa6t, by our Lord, John v. 14. 
 and by St. Paul, i Cor. xi. 30. In the cafe men- 
 tioned by James, the penitent was to fend for the 
 Eiders of the Church, and was no doubt, as a peni- 
 tent, to fpeak before them that God might be jufti- 
 iied, and be cleared in his judgment : be-caufe it is 
 faid, " And the prayer oi faith (hall fave the fick, 
 " and the Lord fnall raife him. up : and if he have 
 " committedy;«j, tliey fliall be forgiven him." 
 
 But you fay, " Tims circumstanced, then, I afk: 
 " upon what principles, common to the followers 
 " of Jefus, could we juuify a rigid attachment to 
 ** any fmgle mode of baptizing?'* (P. 16, 17.) I 
 fear, Sir, it will found fevere, yet I think I am 
 almoft warranted to afk, that if two and two make 
 four^ on what principles, which accord with com- 
 mon fenfe, coidd we juPiify this inference, that 
 two and ens m.ake four, cr that two and two make 
 five? 
 
 I beg leave to add, to do whatChrill has command- 
 ed, and to imitate his exam.ple, thefe are princi- 
 ples com.mon to thofe that follow him ; nor can 
 any circumftance fet them afiJe. It is not for want 
 of common principles, nor for Vv'ant of faith in 
 thofe principles, in a general view,, that we are 
 divided in our practice in refpecl of baptifm ; but 
 for want of a proper application o{ thofe princi- 
 ples, cither by you, or me,, to that fubjecl which 
 
 is 
 
[ 123 ] 
 
 is now in debate. Yon believe, Sir, as well as I, 
 that you ought inflexibly to regard the commands 
 of our Lord. You alfo believe, as well as I, that 
 you ought to pay a due attention to his example. 
 Even your attempt to accommodate the language 
 of your Lord's Commiilion to Infant fprinkling, 
 and fo to explain his example, that it might not feem 
 to ftand in dire£l oppofition to your own prac- 
 tice ; this, though all your effort?; are but labor in 
 in vain, fuppofes your admifTion of the principles I 
 have mentioned. Let them be fairly applied, and 
 our contention, I believe, will ceafe to our mu- 
 tual fatisfadion. I am, Sir, whether our difpute 
 fo ends, or it does not, your refpeclful 
 
 humble fervant, 
 
 April 21, 1786. 
 
 John Martin. 
 
 L E T. 
 
C iH I 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Rev. Sir. 
 
 AS I wifli not merely to reply to your Defence 
 of Infant baptifm, but to touch t^e core of 
 this controverfy on each fide, I would obferve, that 
 your Tt^oTQi "Viv^oq, or leading error, on what you call 
 the ?node of baptizing, fecms to be this i Jfuppofed 
 dtfcretionary poiver in the AdminiftrGtors of that ordi- 
 nanccy to accommodate that ad as their prudence Jhall 
 dire^iy and as circumftances Jl)all make it expedient. 
 Wherein this differs, in principle, from that claim 
 which you and I do not admit,, " That the 
 ** CHURCH hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, 
 ** end authority in matters of faith y"* you will do 
 •well to CONSIDER. And how much your DifcQnrfe, 
 in any part of it, is calculated to give us " Anew 
 "* Edition of C H R I s T I a n it y , w i th corrections and 
 amendments y^* reflect. 
 
 7'he following qnellion is very ftngular, ** Are not 
 " fprinkling, pouring, and plunging, perfectly 
 
 EQJ.TIVALENT, EQ^TALLY VALID?" (P. I 7.) I have. 
 
 Sir, had frequent occaiion to remark, That as any 
 perfon departs from the truth, or from a {Qi\{it of the 
 importance of gofpcl truth, what is now called ca- 
 
 tholicifm. 
 
[ 125 ] 
 
 tholicifm, is commonly incrcafcd : That is, he will 
 allow others to be rights that he may receive, in re- 
 turn for his civility, the fame co?npUment. A man 
 who writes againft the Deity of the Son of God, will 
 allow that we, who confefs it, are good chriftians : 
 and he who reje£ls the atonement of Chrift, will 
 allow, that we who joy in God through that atone- 
 ment, are good chrillians. But he expects, in re- 
 turn for fentiments To liberal, that w^e fhould grant 
 that he is not a bad one. The farther any man de- 
 parts from thofe truths which are peculiar to the 
 gofpel, the more this kind of charity is extended. 
 A Deift of the grofTeft kind, to whom annihilation 
 is falvation, is more liberal, if to think a like of all 
 religious fentiments be liberality, than, the greateft 
 latitudinarian under any profeiTion of revealed reli- 
 gion. May you be guarded againft the firft ap- 
 proaches of this growing evil! 
 
 Your charity. Sir, expands in the preceding quo- 
 tation. But is it not in order to procure like charity 
 from us ? You admit, that plunging is perfc6ily equi- 
 valent y and equally valid \\i\h fprinkling and pouring : 
 and can we be fo uncharitable as not to admit, that 
 pouring znd fpr inkling are peffe£lly equivalent ^ and 
 squally validy with immerfion ? I would, with all 
 my heart, comply w-ith your wifh, if truth did not 
 forbid it. But truth is unceremonious, and knows 
 not how to yield. Stubborn as Mordecai : inflexible 
 as adamant. We may bow to it : it will not bow to 
 
 us. 
 
f 126 ] 
 
 lis. We may foeiik it in love ; but love without 
 the truth, neither tends topnrity nor peace. 
 
 If, Sir, you really think fprinkling, pouring and 
 
 plunging PERFECTLY EQJJIVALENT, EQ^TALLY 
 
 VALID, hov/ is it you fhould think, "that with 
 " regard to the mode of adminiftering baptifm by 
 " John, and Jefus Chrift, the probability feems 
 " in favor of sprinkling , and pouring, not 
 " plunging under water ?*' (P. 17.) How came you 
 to fay, that " we never read of one perfon's dip- 
 ** ping another under the water? (P. ly.) How 
 is it that you prefume John did not baptize by 
 immerfion at all ? ( P. 20. ) and that you have 
 reprefented immerfion to be either dangerous 
 or indelicate ; to be harlli or terrifying ? (P. 20.) 
 while on the contrary, you have told us that Infant 
 fprinkling is '* eafy and familiar ;" (P. 12.) and, 
 " a mode which beft agrees with the form in which 
 " the CPiiEF BLESSING figmfied by baptifm is pro- 
 " mifedr" (P. 20.) After faying all this, can you 
 really believe that fprinkling, pouring and plunging, 
 are perfectly eciiji valent, equally va.lid ? 
 If you expert to be believed you muft be more 
 confident : for as we never believe any propofition 
 which feems t^o.us abfurd, it fliould be remembered, 
 that what we imagine to be inconfiftcnt, we are dif- 
 pofed to reje£l : and whatfoever v/e rejedl, as not 
 being true, is unpleafmg ; becaufc, to difbelieve any 
 perfon, is either to impute folly to him Vv'hom we 
 cafi not credit, or to curfelves for difbeliefof that' 
 which was fo dated as to demand our affent. 
 
 I 
 
I am- forry to dwell on a remark fo unacceptable 
 to you. But if you do not corrcft thofe contradic- 
 tions which I have now noticed, either your integrity 
 or intelligence, or at leafi; your memory, will be CuC- 
 pe£led. Peradventure it was an overfight which 
 led you into this error. And as I do not mean to 
 charge you with duplicity, you will receive my ani- 
 madverfion, founded as it is , without offence : and 
 I-do not doubt but you v/iil prevent, in future, the 
 appearance of fuch incongruity. 
 
 In refpe£l of immerfion, Sir, " it falls out very 
 " remarkably, that the ojtly two words which the 
 " Greek of the Old Teftament makes ufe of to ex- 
 " prefs the rite of wafliing the whole body, as diflin6i. 
 " from all other rites of fprinkling, pouring, vrafhing 
 " the hands and feet ; both thefe words, and ordy 
 " thefe, are made ufe of in the Greek of the New- 
 " Tejlament, to fpecify and determine, with preciji" 
 " en, the aflion of baptizing. So that if the Evan- 
 '* geliils and Apodles had, on purpofe, fought words 
 " which fhould precifdy exprefs a bathing the whole 
 " body, and prevent all enquiry whether they meant 
 ** nothing Jhort of it \ they could not pojpbly have 
 " met with two fitter words than xea and * ^aorn^w 
 " Bu'Tirru would hardly have done fo well, becaufe, 
 " borrowing their Greek from the Old Teftament, 
 *' this laft word is never ufed there to exprefs the 
 
 " rite 
 
 * The New Teftament has alfo its compound ccTrohau, 
 A6ts xxii. 16. I Cor. vi. 11, 
 
C 1^8 ] 
 
 " rite of wafhing or dipping a perfon's whole bo(h'- 
 ** Let any learned perfon try to find out two better 
 " words, if he has a mind to exprefs a wajhing of 
 " the whole hodyJ*' See a Courfe of Letters to Bp; 
 " Hoadly. (P. 23, 24.. 
 
 It appears, Sir, that you are willing to make this 
 attempt. You fay, ** If our Lord had defigned to 
 " confine his followers to a particular mode, exclu- 
 ** five of all others, why did he ufe an open gene- 
 " ral term [^aTrrt^w] and not a word decided and 
 " Umitted in its import ? — The Greek language, 
 " would have furnifhcd him with terms indifputabiy 
 " precife and exaft " I'P. 17.) The Greek lan- 
 guage, by competent judges, is faid to be uncom- 
 monly copious. I am not able to form, with pre- 
 cifion, a comparifon betwixt it and cur own. But, 
 as far as I can judge, our language, at prefent, is 
 nearly, if not altogether, as copious as the Greek : 
 And I could quote refpe(!.-lable authorities in favor 
 of this opinion. Yet, copious as our language is, 
 and zealous as \yq. baptifts are fuppofed to be iri 
 defence of believer's baptifm, we always confine 
 ourfelves in adminifterijig that ordinance to the terms 
 of our own tranflation. We never fay, / wajhy I 
 immerfey I dip, I plunge, I cvsrivhelm thee, and fo 
 on : but, I baptize. Yet we are not under any ap- 
 prehenfion, fo long as the fpectators have eyes and 
 earSf with commo7i underftanding, that they will mif- 
 apprehend our meaning, or form a falfe conception 
 what meaning we always intend to convey by the 
 
 term 
 
[ 129 ] 
 
 term baptize. If ever they find it difficult to deter- 
 mine what is the fenfe of this word, it muft be when 
 they hear what you preach, or fee what you do, or 
 read what you have written ; or when they are thus 
 attentive to the labours of fome other psedobaptift. By 
 fuch tuition, fome may be fo enamoured with that 
 cuftom which is found convenient, as to imagine, that 
 tofprinkle is to baptize. But was any man who never 
 heard of this controverfy at all, to read with reverence 
 the New-Teftament, without any wifh but this, that 
 he might find the truth and follow it, I have not any 
 doubt but to that man every other book on this fub- 
 je61: would be needlefs : he would need no expofition 
 to inform him, that they who are taught, fo taught 
 as to believe in Chrift, are to be baptized, that is, 
 immerfedy in water ; as the primitive believers were ; 
 and that, it is the will of Jefus Chrift, that this or- 
 dinance fhould be thus regarded, in all nations^ to the 
 end of the world 
 
 Further ; however copious the Greek language 
 was when our Lord appeared as a teacher, meek and 
 lowly in heart, was he, without juft occafion, to 
 depart from the terms and ftyle of the Septuagini to 
 inftru61: mankind ? Had he given us the fenfe of that 
 ancient verfion of the Hebrew bible, in the unanimat- 
 ed didactic diclion of Ariftotle, or in the polifhed 
 periods of Plato and Xenophon, would that have 
 been more fuited to his wifdom, or to our weaknefs ? 
 Mr. Parkhurft has made fome remarks on the ftyle of 
 the New-Teftament worthy, in my opinion* of your 
 K notice. 
 
r 13° } 
 
 notice. He obferves, ** That in the Apoftolic age, 
 *' Greek was the moft univerfally fpoken and iin- 
 *\ derftood of any language upon earth : But tliat 
 <* in all the Eaftern parts of the world it had un- 
 ** doubtedly received a ftrong tin^lure from the He^ 
 " hrew and Oriental tongues : and that the books of 
 " the New-Teftament were written not only for 
 ** the benefit of this, or that particular Church, or 
 ** people, but of the whole world, both yeivi and 
 " Gentiles. Such being, in the time of the Apoftlcs 
 " the real Rate of the Greek language, and of man- 
 ** kind in refpeft to it, and to the Evangelical writ- 
 " ings, we may defy the utmofl wit and malice of 
 " the enemies of God'^s Revelation to point out a 
 '* wifer method of communicating the fcriptures of 
 ** the New-Teftament to the World, than that which 
 " the Holy Spirit has a6tually employed, namely, by 
 " caufmg thofe divine Oracles to be penned in fuch a 
 •' Greek ftyle, which, at the fame time, that it might 
 " in general hQ underftood by every man who was ac- 
 ** quainted with the Greek language, was peculiarly 
 ** conformable to the idiom of the Jews^ and of the 
 ** Eaftern n^iUons : and the adorable propriety of this 
 " latter circumftance will appear ftill more evident, if 
 " we refle£lthat in the Apollles days the World, both 
 " Jewijb and Heathen, had been for about 300 years 
 " in pofTtilion of the Septuagint Verfionof the Old 
 «* Teftament ; the Greek of whichTranilation did like- 
 " v/ife greatly abound in Hebrew and Oriental forms 
 
 <' of 
 
f 131 J 
 
 " of expreflion, many of which are adopted by the 
 " Evan Tel leal Writers.'* 
 
 " 1'he Writers, therefore, of the New-Tefta^ 
 ** ment, or rather, (with reverence be it fpoken) 
 *' the Holy-Spirit, whofe Pen-men they were, wife- 
 " ly chofe, in exprefling Evangelical notions, to 
 " employ fuch Greek terms as had been long before 
 " ufed for the fame purpofes by the Greek Tranfla- 
 " tors of the Old Teftament : And thus the Sep- 
 " tuag-int Verfion, however imperfeSl and faulty in 
 " many particulars became, in this refpeft, not to 
 " the firll: age of the church only, but alfo to all 
 " fucceeding generations, the conne(Eling link be- 
 " tween the language of the Old and of the New- 
 ** Teftament, and will be regarded in this view as 
 " long as found judgment and real learning fhajl 
 " continue among men." See the Preface to Mr. 
 Parkhurft's Greek and Englifli Lexicon. P. 6, 7. 
 
 Perhaps, Sir, thefe laboured and judicious re- 
 marks of Mr. Parkhurft, may guard you in future, 
 againft a hafty and immature opinion of our Lord's 
 ufe of any Greek word, which you imagine might 
 have been changed with advantage. 
 
 But what are the Greek words which you would 
 fubilitute for ^etTrn^u ? With reliance on the learned 
 for fuch a change, you fay, " Of this kind have 
 *' been reckoned, and I think properly, xara^tSi^w, 
 *' nccTa-TTovn^Uj Karctovvu or xara^i'w, not tO fay ^vfrrat 
 
 " and i5y9»^ft;." (P, 17.) which of thefe terms you 
 
 would prefer we can only guefs. But this is not 
 
 K 2 material: 
 
f 132 ] 
 
 material : for where meaning made vlfible hy praSf ice, 
 does not convey fufficient inftrndion, I am afraid 
 the ufe of any term would be found inefFeftual. 
 
 The fubje6l before us is of a praflical nature. And 
 it ought to be recoUeifted, that men have eyesy and 
 will not be perfuaded they are ufelefs. When our 
 Lord fat down v/ith the twelve, and faid, " This 
 " do in remembrance of me," his Exajnple was a 
 Comment on the meaning of thofe words, and fettled, 
 withthe impartial, the y^;2y^of that command. So they 
 who faw John baptize, and they who read without 
 prejudice, the narrative of Matthew on that fubje6l, 
 muft knov/ in what manner John performed that 
 duty. The many Conceflions which have been 
 made by them who never followed his Example, 
 warrant this aiTertlon : And I have converfed with 
 Ibme Deifts who treat the whole account as unwor- 
 thy of a wife man's notice, who neverthelefs, con- 
 fidtr it is obvious, that John baptized by Immerfion, 
 Had lye^tr,-^ you officiate at Mr Bennet's meeting, you 
 might have called your fprinkling of his child by any 
 name you chofe ; I fhould have returned with a 
 clear idea of your aclion, and fhould have faid, you 
 did not baptize his fon. But were you to be pre- 
 fent, when I fay to a believer, ** I baptize thee, in 
 *< the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 ** the Holy-Ghofl i** you would not hefitate to fay, 
 that I did no\. fpr inkle yOx pour MV2iXtx upon him. Now, 
 as they who faw John, or Paul, or Philip, or any 
 other Apoflle, or Evangelift baptize, could have no 
 
 doubt 
 
[ 133 ] 
 
 (k)\ibt of the meaning of the word which they 
 ufed, becaufe the aft which immediately followed, 
 was the cleareft comment on their fenfe of that 
 term; and as their practice was o/>fw, continuedy and 
 always the famey there could be neither confuHon 
 nor obfciirity, till after their deceafe, fome ingeni- 
 ous Innovator wifhed to introduce, (for reafons befl: 
 known to himfelf,) a praftice more pleafing to flefh 
 and blood. But here lay the difficulty : this was to 
 be done under the fanftion of the original term. For 
 many are more tenacious of Names than Things. 
 To effe6l the wifhed for change, what parts, what 
 labour, what plaufible, nay what pious pretences, 
 have been employed ! Yet after all, what Concejfions 
 have been made, and what contradictions have ap- 
 peared ! 
 
 Say, Sir, how is it, that we are exempted from 
 fuch toil, and preferved, in treating on this fubjeft, 
 from thofe circuitous labyrinths which you are com- 
 pelled to purfue ? Adhering to the precepts and 
 practice fet before us in the New Teflament, our 
 account is fhort, and iteadfaft, and confiftent : ex- 
 cept, indeed, when you involve us in the briars and 
 thorns of controverfy. If fo circumilanced, we are 
 tedious, it is becaufe we are conftrained to follow 
 the ingenious from conjefture to conjefture, from 
 cnc cuftom to another cuftom, and tlirough a long 
 length of analogical reafoning that may well weary 
 t,hc patience of any common reader. If in thefe 
 K 3 Letters 
 
C 134 ] 
 
 Letters I exefnplify the prefent afTertion, your /«- 
 genuity muft be my apology. 
 
 To the prepofition ««Ta, the leading fenfe of 
 which is, to defcend or come doiun, you have an- 
 nexed, in your two firft words, the Deep and the 
 Sea, And are thefe terms to be the fubftitute for 
 ^ATrn^ej ? You remind me of the words of Mofes, 
 which we have thus tranflated : " Pharaoh's cha- 
 ** riots and his hofl hath be caji into the fea : his 
 " chofen captains alfo are drowned in the Red Sea. 
 ** The depths have covered them : they fank into 
 " the hottom as a ftone. Exod. xv. 4, 5.** Fright- 
 ful ideas ! Will not any thing fofter give you fatis- 
 fa^lion ? 
 
 Kara^uwand y.ocroc^uco produce the fame fenfations. 
 Thanks be to God, our fins, all our fins, are caft 
 into the depths of a differenty^^ / Micah vii. 19. 
 And muft they who obtain mercy be baptized vv'ith 
 vengeance ? — As you mention ^vrrru and ^v^i^a with 
 a lefs degree of confidence, I fhould hope, on due 
 reflection, you may be of opinion, that the word 
 ^ccTTTKu, connected as you find it in the New Tef- 
 teftament, is ufed with more propriety on this fub- 
 je61; than you have hitherto imagined. If, how- 
 ever, your diiFatisfadion fhould continue, and you 
 fhould think proper to reply to thefe remarks, I in- 
 treat, that fome text may be quoted, in which any 
 word that you would adopt occurs. Mofes and the 
 Picphets, the Evangeliils and ApoRles, we know ; 
 
 but 
 
[ 135 1 
 
 but your appeal to the Greek language is vague, nor 
 in the lead likely to fettle this difpute ? 
 
 " We never read of one perfon's dipping ano- 
 " ther under the water." (P. 17.) If you confine 
 this affertion, as it (hould feem yon do, to the Jew- 
 ifh church, what is that to us, whether it be true 
 or not ? And, on vour ov.-n principle, what is it 
 to you ? For if the chriftian religion be as new 
 as you would reprefent it, it feems natural to fup- 
 pofe, that the pofitive Inftitutlons of that difpenfation, 
 if any be admitted, fhould be as 7iew as the reft. 
 If you extend your aflertion beyond the limits I 
 have mentioned, all I fhall fay in anfwer is, fond 
 as I am of reading, I will never read any more, if 
 you can prove that I have never read of one per- 
 fon's baptizing, or immerfmg another in water, in 
 the New Tejiament. 
 
 " Sprinkling and pouring v/ater, was a ceremony 
 " in DAILY USE, and of divine appointment.'* 
 (P. 18.) When? By whom? To "what end? 
 Let me alfo aik. Was the water mixed or umnixed? 
 and what has all this to do with the matter in de- 
 bate ? Much of your reafoning feems to me as in- 
 conclufive as if you were plcafed to fay, whatever 
 may be aiTerted of a triangle ^ may alfo be afferted 
 of a fquare. 
 
 *' 'Tis true, indeed, that John accommodated the 
 
 " multitude i/i a place where there v.^ere Many wa-, 
 
 " ters * (vJala 'dowa,.) But, might not this be from 
 
 " confiderations totally diftind from the mode of 
 
 K 4 - bnp- 
 
 ** * vodtloc troA^a Is only the Hebraifm 0^31 D\'J.'' 
 
r 136 ] 
 
 *' baptizing ?'* (P. 1 8.) It Is not faid, Sir, That 
 John alfo w:is. feafiingy or that John alfo \v2ls preach- 
 ingy but that John alfo was baptixing in Enon, 
 near to Salim ; becaufe there was much water there : 
 and it is exprefly added, and they ca?ne, and were 
 baptized. John iii. 23. Of thefe words, they come, 
 you make a multitude. By what authority ? It 
 feems more probable that John's popularity began 
 to decreafe. For hisdifciples came to him and faid, 
 " Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to 
 " whom thou bareft witnefs, behold, the fame bap- 
 " tizeth, and all men come to him.^' John iii. 26. 
 
 The note of Dr Whitby on John iii. 23. is, for 
 a Pa^dobaptift, very remarkable. He fays, On v^ara, 
 luyox^a. r,v Un , " Becaufe there zuas much water 
 ** there : In which their whole bodies might be 
 " dipped \ for in this manner only was the Jewifli 
 " baptifm performed, by a Defcent into the water, 
 " A6ls viii. 38. and an Ajcent out of it, ver. 39. 
 " and a Burial m it, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12." 
 
 I fhould imagine. Sir, you did not reolle^l this 
 conceflion, and the ground on which it (lands, when 
 you gave way to the following trifling turn of mind. 
 " But, is it not exprefly alferted^ that many, at 
 ** the time of baptizing, went ititOy and came up 
 " <?«/ of the water f'* To this queftion, having, I 
 prefume, no better, you return thisafifwer. '* True: 
 ** but a fchool-boy knows, that the Greek parti-, 
 ^* cles fo rendered, are very frequently tranflatcd 
 f* only to z\\d.from\ aad, if fo rendered in the places 
 
 *' refer- 
 
r 137 J 
 
 •* referred to, the argument for immerfion is pro- 
 " portionably u^eakened.*' P. 18.) To weaken the 
 argument for immerfion, would be a Jlrong tempta- 
 tion to fomey^ to render the Greek particles where 
 the word baptifm occurs. But did our Tranflators, 
 tho' Paedobaptifts, give way to that temptation ? Or, 
 did not they, nor Dr Whitby, poiTefs a fchool boy's 
 knowledge on this fubje£l? Subflitute your change 
 of particles, publifli your liberal tranflation, and fee 
 if it will not be as unnoticed as others that have 
 been fo called. But you have no obje6lion to our 
 tranflation here. (P. 18 } Then you might have 
 omitted the preceding remark, and faved us who 
 differ from you, the trouble of making a reply. 
 
 A young Lady who attended your Courfe of Lec- 
 tin'es on Infant Baptifm, at Northampton, wrote on 
 that occafion, an ingenious Dialogue between a maf- 
 tcr and his fervant. The fervant had been per- 
 plexed by your learned labour, and fought relief 
 from the afiiftance of his mafter. On the ufe of 
 Greek prepofitions, the mailer attempts to relieve 
 his unlettered fervant thus : " They who efteem 
 ** fprinkling a baptifm, fay, that the prepofitions 
 ** into and out of, might have been tranllated to and 
 ** from. But I would afk fuch perfons, fuppofing 
 ** the writers of the New Teftament, intended by 
 " baptizing, immerfion ^ could they have made ufe 
 " of words more proper to exprefs their meaning ? 
 " but if they hr.d intended fprinklingy could they 
 ** not have found other and better words ? But, 
 
 " fuppcfe 
 
[ 138 ] 
 
 " fuppofe the prepofitions were tranilated to anc^ 
 " froTTty that would not abfolutely determine that 
 " they did not go into the water : for we may fay, 
 ** with propriety, We went to fnch a place, if we 
 ** went into it. If I fay, Laft year, I went to 
 ** London : it is meant and underftood, that I went 
 " into London. If I bid you go to fuch a garden, 
 " you underftand that I mean yon fhould go into 
 " it : and if you tell me you have been to the gar- 
 " den, I underfland you have been into it : the 
 " fame may be faid of the other prepofition. But, 
 " on the other hand, fuppofing the words arc 
 " more properly trandated into and out ofy they 
 ** will, by no means, convey the idea oi mere fprink- 
 ** ling. For though I may properly fay, I went 
 " to London, if I went into it ; yet it would be 
 " falfe were I to fay, I vvent into London, fuppof- 
 " ing L who live at Northampton, went no fur- 
 " ther than Klington : or for you to tell me you 
 " went into the garden, if you only went up to the 
 ** garden gate.** 
 
 " They podibly might go into the water, and 
 ** come up out of it ; yet does this prove that the 
 ** fubjecls baptized vv^ere plunged all under water ? 
 " Is not that circum.Aance perfectly diftinfl, and 
 " entirely undetermJned ?" (P. i8.) What you 
 here grants and here infer ^ I have had occafion to no- 
 tice, and to fmile at, in a preceding Letter. As if 
 you felt the weakncfs of your own inference, you 
 immediately afk, " But then, why was a river 
 
 " made 
 
r 139 ] 
 
 " made ufe of ?** Or was this qiiefllon afked on- 
 ly to introduce the ftrange conjefture of an inge- 
 nious Brother ? which is, that a river was made 
 life of for the fake of running water. " The fig- 
 " nificant reafon, ftated by the late Reverend Mr. 
 " Fleming, is to this efFeft — John was of the 
 " order of the Priefts; and begun his public mi- 
 " niftrations at thirty years of age, in conformity 
 " to the laws of the Prieft?. Nov/, 'tis clear, that 
 " the moft important baptifms, or religious applicati- 
 " ons ofwater among the Jews, had been bysPRiNK- 
 " LiNGorPOURiNG : and,that, amongft the formalities 
 " attending the water of feparation in particular, the 
 " Prieft was obliged, by divine command, to regard 
 ** this circumftance, that it was running water. Now, 
 " is it not fuppofable, that John, thus circumftanced 
 " in his intermediate difpenfation, gradually declining 
 " from the Jewiih Syftem, and imperfecflly antici- 
 " pating the Chriftian, might pay attention to this 
 *' circumftance in his manner of ufing baptifmal 
 " water? (P. 18, 19.) 
 
 Now, is it not laughable. Brother Horfey, to fee 
 thefe quaint remarks drelTed up by you, for the en- 
 tertainment, I cannot fay for the edification, of a nu- 
 merous and refpe(^abie congregation ? 
 
 Let a Prieft of the houfe of Aaron, when he is to 
 cleanfe a leper, take two birds, and command one 
 of them to be kill'jd in an earthen veffel, over run- 
 ning water. As for the living bird, he fhall take it, 
 and the cedar wood, and the fcarlet, and the hylTop, 
 
 and 
 
and fhall dip them and the living bird, in the blood of 
 the bird that was killed overxhQ running water. And 
 he fhall fprinkle rpon him that is ^o be cleanfed 
 feven times.— And he that is to be cleanfed fhall 
 wafn his clothes, and iliaveofFall his hair, znAwaJb 
 himfelf'm water, that he may be clean. Lev. xiv. 5 
 — 8. Anci now, if John the baptift, in his inter- 
 mediate difpenfation, does not fee the propriety of 
 going into Jordan Xo fpri^ikle with running water, in 
 the name of the Lord, let him not be accounted a 
 prophet indeed, or be received as the voice of him 
 that crieth in the Vv ildernefs. 
 
 I obferve. Sir, you fay, that the Frieft was obliged 
 to do what he did. If fo, the divine command laid 
 him under that obligation. And fhould any thing 
 which is mt commanded, in a poftive inflitution, 
 oblige us to obey ? I would farther obfervcj that if, 
 when the Jew^ifh Syftem gradually declined, and the 
 Chriftian Syftem was imperfedly anticipated ; if in 
 fuch a fituation, John might, and did pay attention 
 to ingenious conjedlure, and go into Jordan, not to 
 immerfe, but for the fake of running water, what a 
 progrefs in the fcience of conjecture, may we not 
 expe«5l when the chriflian Syflem is eftabiijiudf Then^ 
 Sir, it feems there is no occafion to go to a river for 
 running water ; it may be brought from a river run- 
 ning through pipes ; and ftill to preferve analogy, it 
 may be taken up and poured into a bafon ; after- 
 wards, the minider may dip his fingers, and fprinkle 
 
 the 
 
[ HI ] 
 
 the child with running water ; I mean, with water 
 that runs from his fingers on the infants /<7r^. 
 
 What fhall we fay to this progrefTive improve- 
 ment in the fcience of conje6lure ? — But you will 
 think that I am ludicrous. Do not however fay 
 that, becaufe, it is your own comment and pra£lice 
 that is here laughable, if any thing appear fo m the 
 conclufion of this Letter. The burlefque of Butler 
 feldom wounds any who have not given too much 
 occafion for fuch pointed cenfure. Let us do our- 
 felves no harm, and, comparitively fpeaking, others 
 can do us but little hurt. In belief of this fadl, I 
 am, with due refpe£t, 
 
 your humble fervant, 
 
 April 27, 1786. 
 
 John Martin. 
 
 LET. 
 
14.2 I 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Rev. Sir. 
 
 TX7ITH what different perceptions and fen- 
 ^ ^ fations do we read the fame page,* or the 
 fame paragraph. For inflance, fpeaking of your 
 ingenious friend, the Rev. ?vlr. Fleming, or 
 rather of his fanciful conftrudion of the conduft 
 of John the baptift, you fay, " There appears 
 " furely in this account, to fay the leaft of it, no- 
 " thing forced or unnatural : and, whether the pro- 
 «* bability be allowed greater or lefs, there is cer- 
 " tainly no proof that John pra6lifed immerfion." 
 (P. 19.) Your furely and certainly, are both of them 
 by me, inadmiiTible : or in other words.; without 
 foundation. But in vindication of fuch conjeftures, 
 who can tell a fimple tale like you ? 
 
 The tale is fimply this. " He preached by a ri- 
 ** ver — to a multitude of hearers — in a hot climate 
 " — drelTed anfwerably to it — with fandals only on 
 " their feet — and their baptifm, when they went out 
 " to hear him, an uncertainty. — As they hear, they 
 ** underftand, and are baptized ; how? In or at the 
 " river Jordan : there is nothing decifive as to the 
 
 ** mode 
 
[ U3 3 
 
 " mode. We muft be determined in this by the 
 " circiimftances of the cafe.** (P. 19.) 
 
 Is this, Sir, fimplicity ? what then fhall v.^e call 
 fophiftry r You remind me of Gay*s cenfure of cer- 
 tain Lawyers. He fays, 
 
 " Read o'er a will, was't ever known 
 
 " But you could make that will your own?*' 
 
 Shall we thus treat the true Hmpllcity of the Sacred 
 text ? Your motto is. Speaking the truth in love. 
 Permit me to wiili, you would love the truth and 
 peace. Zech. viii. 19. 
 
 They who came to John " heard, underflood and 
 were baptized.*' They did fo. And when you 
 baptize as he did, you will obferve the fame order. 
 But where were they baptized ? " In or at the river 
 ** Jordan." What, cannot we yet tell whether they 
 whom John baptized, did (o much as go //z/«? Jordan ? 
 I thought. Sir, that had been admitted, when you 
 faid, *' They poflibly might go into the w^ater ;" but 
 I did not recolle(^t, that poflibly mighty implies they 
 poflibly might not. But, in this doubtful fituation, 
 in or at the river Jordan, what did John do when he 
 baptized them ? Alas ! *' there is nothing decifive as 
 " to the mode. We muft be determined by the 
 " circumftances of the cafe." I wifh, Sir, this fim- 
 pie tale does not turn out a fad ftory. But let me, 
 with all the patience I now pofTefs, be attentive to 
 thofe circumftancei v/hich you confidcr as decifive. 
 
 I'hus 
 
[ 144 3 
 
 Thus they are introduced : " Obferve then" — I will. 
 Go on, Sir, I am all attention. 
 
 " On the one hand, the ceremony was perform- 
 " ed In connection with a river ^ the particle mean- 
 " ing fometimes atj and fometimes /«.'* And what 
 next ? " On the other hand, the number baptized 
 " appears to have been great ;" I do not wifh to 
 diminifh the n amber. Whether you have not a 
 poor motive in wifhing to augment it, you know 
 belt. Have you any information how often John 
 baptized in Jordan r or, how many he baptized 
 whenever he attended to that duty r " Many of them 
 " at a confiderable diftance from home." Whence 
 did you obtain that knowledge ? In how many places 
 in the river Jordan did John baptize ? Survey a map 
 of Canaan, and obferve the courfe of the Jordan 
 from the lake of Ph'iala to the Jfphaltite lake, you 
 will then perceive that the inhabitants of Jerufalem 
 and Judea, and of the region round about Jordan, 
 had not fo far to go as you feem to furmife. Jefus 
 went much farther than they. For he came from 
 Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 
 Mat. iii. 13- *' Unexpe6ledly awakened." If fo, 
 does it follow, that they were unexpe£ledly baptized ? 
 I have repeatedly gone out in the country, to bap- 
 tize, at a confiderable diftance from my dwelling. 
 Others have done the fame. But we never went 
 out at an uncertainty. And why inould you imagine 
 that John ever went out to baptize, not knowing 
 "Whether any perfon was ilif[:)ofcdto fubmit to that 
 
 ordinance ? 
 
f 145 ] 
 
 ordinance ? When you undertook a journey ol fixty- 
 fixvs\\\t% \o fprinkle an infant^ I apprehend you had 
 afTurance before you fet out, that if you came up 
 from Northampton to Totvriy you fhould not be dif- 
 appointed. Curiofity might bring many to fee John 
 baptize : and that none of the curious was unex- 
 pectedly awakened in that fituation, I will not af- 
 firm. But be it fo. It was either found proper ^ or 
 improper, to baptize them. \i proper, your objection 
 is of no force. If improper, can you prove that the 
 baptifm of fuch was not poftponed ? It is thus we 
 a6l in fimilar circumftances. And can we doubt 
 whether John who, though he was in the wildernefs, 
 was a propheti yea and more than a prophet, can 
 we pretend to doubt, whether he had common pru- 
 dence to direft him in the difcharge of his duty ? 
 
 But, there is " no mention of any change of rai- 
 " ment ;" which muft have taken place if immerfion 
 was the mode." (P. 19, 20.) And can you ima- 
 gine, there was the leafl occafion that we fhould be 
 informed of this circumftance ? Hov/ muft the New 
 Teftament have been fwelledin iize, if every thing of 
 this nature had been inferted? We read of no change 
 of raiment when Philip baptized the Eunuch : but 
 when Luke informs us, " They went down both into 
 ** the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he bap- 
 *' ti%ed him :'* we have no wifh for farther infor- 
 mation. 
 
 When Naaman the Syrian dipped himfelf ^awen 
 times in Jordan, according to the faying of the man 
 L ' of 
 
[ ,46 ] 
 
 of God, we do not read of any change of raiment ; 
 1 Kings V. 14. nor in various inftances of legal pu- 
 rification among the Jews, are we informed of that 
 fa6l : I mean in fuch cafes, where immerfion was, 
 beyond a doubt, a part of the ceremonial cleanfmg. 
 
 When I write to any perfon on this fubjedl, I 
 never make mention of any change of raiment. 
 Why fhoLild I trifle in fuch a narative? " On which 
 " fide, then, lies the probability ?'* You mean. Sir, 
 which is moft probable, that John baptized by 
 immerfioriy or by fprinkling ? You fliall fpeak firft. 
 " I prefume, not by immerfton at all." How then ? 
 Why, " that the multitude flood in ranks at the 
 " brink, or juft within the Q^gt of the river, while 
 *' the Adminiftrator sprinkled or poured the 
 " running water upon them." (P. 20.) 
 
 And now, Sir, as it is m.y turn to fpeak, I fhall 
 venture to remind you of what Mr. Booth has faid of 
 a conclufion of Mr, Wefley's, fo like your own, 
 that if he deferved the following rebuke, you can- 
 not think yourfelf much injured in the prefent ap- 
 plication. " Mr. Wefley has given us a very fan- 
 ciful and ludicrous reprefentation indeed, of the ad- 
 " miniftration of baptifm by the venerable John. 
 " For, fpeaking, of the multitudes who applied to 
 " him, he fays, — It feem?, therefore, that they flood 
 " in ratiks on the edge of the river, and that John 
 " pafl!ing along, before them, cajl water on their 
 " heads or or faces ; by which means he might bap- 
 " tize many thoufands in a day. See Mr. Wefley *s 
 
 " Note, 
 
[ H7 ] 
 
 ** Note, on Matt. iii. 6. — While I wonder at that' 
 *' feriUUy of invention -which appears in this Note 
 ** of the Annotator, I cannot but deteft the puerile 
 " and farcical turn, which he has given to the con- 
 " du6t of our Lord's harbinger, when adminifter- 
 '* ing a folemn ordinance of holy worfhip. If the 
 •* credit q{ f prink ling cannot be fupported without 
 " burlefquing the facred hiftory, and expofmg one 
 " of the moft exalted human charaders to the ri- 
 " dicule of Infidels in this manner, it ought for ever 
 " to fmk in oblivion. But what will not the love 
 " of hypothefis do, when cherifhed by fuch an 
 " expofitor !** See Mr. Booth's Pa^dobaptifm Ex- 
 amined. (P. 115.) 
 
 Some o^ your dec eijive circumftances yet remain to 
 be noticed. When ** John preached by a river, to 
 " a multitude of hearers, it was in a hot climate y and 
 " they were dreffed anfwerably to it, with fandals 
 " on their feet." (P. 19.) Was not Judea fome- 
 times wet and cold^ as well as dry and hot ? In other 
 words, had they not winter as \vell as fummer ? 
 fevere winters, as well as fultry feafons r — They 
 had. " As the fummers of the holy land are per- 
 " fecflly dry, its winters are wet. — And accordingly, 
 ** the Hebrew word Choreph, which we tranflate 
 ** wintery feems rather precifely to mean the luet • 
 ** feafon. Their winters too 2i.rc very cold andy^- 
 " verey at lead in fome years, and in fome places. 
 " — He giveth his fnow like wool, he fcattereth 
 *' the ho^r froft like aflies, he cafteth forth his ice 
 L 2 *' like 
 
[ H8 ] 
 
 " like morfels : who canjiand before his cold ? Pfal. 
 " cxlvii. 1 6, 17. King Jehoiakim is defcribed as 
 " fitting in his winter hoiifey in the ninth month, 
 " (which anfwers to the latter end of November 
 *' and part of December,) with a fire burning upon 
 ** the hearth before hiniy Jer. xxxvi. 22. — In the 
 " night of the eighth of May^ the Sheik of Sephoury 
 " [a place in Galilee] made them a Jire [Bp. Po- 
 " cocke and thofe who were with him] in a ruined 
 ** little building, and fent them boiled milk, eggs 
 " and coffee: the fire therefore was not defigned for 
 " the preparing their food, but for the warming 
 ** them. No wonder then, that the people who 
 ** went to Gethfemane, to apprehend our Lord, 
 " thought a fire of coals a confiderable refrelliment 
 " at the time of the Fajfover^ which mufl have been 
 " earlier in the year than the 8th of May^ though 
 " it might be confiderahly later than the 17th of 
 " March. See Obfervations on divers Paflages of 
 Scripture, Vol. 1. P. 13, 14, 16, 17, 25, 26. 
 Edition the 2d. 
 
 When Chrift predicted the deflrucftion of Jeru- 
 falem, he faid, " Pray ye that your fight be not in 
 the winter. Matt. xxiv. 20.** But did he ever 
 fay to his difciples, Pray ye that ye may not be bap- 
 tized In winter P No, his commifHon extends to all 
 nations ; there is neither period, nor place, nor fea- 
 fon of the year excepted. And, if Infants are im- 
 merfed with fafety in Rujfi'i, can immerfion be very 
 dangerous in this country? I hope, Sir, we (hall 
 
 hear 
 
hear no more of a hot climate, of a drcfs anfvvcr- 
 able to it, and fandals only on their feet ; unlefs 
 you will inform us at what period, and in what par- 
 ticular place, the weather was fo hoty and the peo- 
 ple were fo wife. I hope, too, thefe circumjiances 
 will never again be thrown into zfrmple tale to lelTen 
 our regard to an exaSf attention to the command of 
 Chriji ; unlefs you can prove that John never bap- 
 tized in Judea fo early in the year as the Btli of 
 May : But I believe the reverfe of this is fa6l, and 
 admits of the cleared: proof 
 
 Your exa6l acquaintance with all thefe circum- 
 fiances, again reminds me of the ingenious Dia- 
 logue I have already mentioned ; in which, the fer- 
 vant informs his mafter of your uncommon fkill to 
 difcover what was done at the brink of Jordan when 
 John baptized. — " He made a defcriptlon of John's 
 " manner of baptizing, which would take up too 
 " much of your time. Sir, to repeat. He told us 
 " every circumftance, and how he managed, as 
 " clearly as if he had been there. I cannot think 
 " where he_got his intelligence. I am fure. Sir, 
 " if you had heard him, you would have fancied 
 " you had ftood on the brink of Jordan with John 
 " and all his difciples." — May this fmart, yet not 
 fevere rebuke, moderat>e your paflion for conjecture; 
 and warn you, when you preach j and when you/>«^-» 
 Itjhf to diftinguifh between what may be furmifed, 
 and thofe fads, which admit of proper proof. 
 
 L 3 To 
 
C i5<^ ] i 
 
 To be rich in fancy and poor in belief, at the fame 
 time, is no uncommon thing. Yon furnifh us with 
 an inftance of the truth of this remark. For, im- 
 mediately after your fanciful account of John's bap- 
 tizing, at the brink, or juft within the edge of the 
 river, by fprinkling, or pouring running water up- 
 on them who flood in ranks before him, you add, 
 *' When too I am informed, that three thousand 
 *' were by Peter's fermon pricked to. the [in their J 
 " heirr, and added to the church, being baptized 
 *< on xhcfame day \ fuch a croud of objeclions flart 
 ** up to view, if I fuppofe them all plunged, as 
 ** quite ftaggers my belief," (P. 2o.) Is it not as I 
 have faid ? Fancy r'tfing, and faith reeling at the 
 fame time ? But when was you inform.ed that thefe 
 three thoufand were baptized on the fame day ? On 
 the fame day they were added to the church, but does 
 it therefore follow, they were, all of them, baptized 
 in one day r Suppofe this to be fad ; yet how many 
 were emploved in adminiderlng that ordinance ? 
 Let this be fettled as a remedy to relieve your weak 
 belief. There were twelve Apoftles , there were 
 feventy Difciples, who had an equal right to baptize. 
 Let us hope, if this great number was baptized on 
 \.\\t fame day, that moft of them were prefent to grant 
 their alliftance. When the firft temple was dedi- 
 cated, it is faid, *' And Solomon offered a facriiice 
 ** of peace offerings, which he offered unto the 
 ** Lord, two and twenty thoufand oxen, and a hun- 
 " dred and ivjenty thoufand fieep.'' i Kings viii. 63. 
 
 Now, 
 
C 151 ] 
 
 Now, Sir, when you read this account, does a 
 crowd of obje6lions ftart up, fo as quite to ftagger 
 your belief? "Not fo ;'* You will doubtlefs fay, 
 " For, I confider that many were employed, and 
 " that all this was not done in one day.** Be then 
 as thoughtful in the bufinefs before us, and you will 
 no\. J} ag^er through unbelief. 
 
 But, after all, why ftart an obje^Thion which, if 
 it has any force, militates as much againftyour ozvn 
 pra<5lice as mine. For, as but one perfoh can be bap- 
 tized at once \ (I fuppofe you forgot this when you 
 placed the people in ranks before John,) and as the 
 fame form of words muft be ufed to each^ the time 
 faved, by changing immerfion for fprinklingy would 
 be very little. Were you to fee me baptize a 
 proper fubje<£t, I think you would be obliged to 
 confefs, that I take up no more time in performing 
 the a£l of immerfion, than you did in fprinkling 
 Mafter Bennet. Further ; do you believe that the 
 three thoufand made a perfonal profefTion of their 
 repentance and faith on the fame day r Yet, as 
 they had never received chriftian baptifm at alU 
 you admit that this was neceffary. (P. 6.) If then, 
 their perfonal profeflion preceded the day of their be- 
 ing baptized, and if it took up more days than one^ 
 why (hould you fuppofe, that f^z^^/ prudence was not 
 manifefted in baptising thefe believers, as in receiv- 
 ing their declarations ? 
 
 Your obje(?tions to immerfio-n (though you admit 
 
 it is perfedlly equivalent, and equally valid, wlt-h 
 
 fprinkling and pouring, (P. 17.) are thus continued: 
 
 L 4 " ^^ 
 
C 152 ] 
 
 "Is not the feverity of immerfion under all circum- 
 " fiances, and in all Countries, inconfiftent with the 
 " mild genius of the chriftian religion?" (P. 20.) 
 XJnder all circumjlances : what would you have your 
 Reader imagine by thefe words ? That we baptize 
 perfons in a putrid fever, or when having the m^a- 
 %leSy or xht fmall-pox ? We know that God requires 
 mercy and not facrifice. But if any perfon, at any 
 time, be fo indifpofed that he cannot, with fafety, be 
 baptized as the Lord has commanded ; is it not bet- 
 ter to pojlpone it till he can, or even for him to die 
 unbaptizedj than firji, to alter this inflitution with- 
 out any authority •, fecondly, to call fuch temerity 
 prudence; and then, thirdly, to fpeak difrefpe£l:- 
 fully of the original appointment ? hi all countries. 
 I ajfk, Is any country excepted in our Lord's com- 
 miffion r If any nation be, which is it ? 
 
 But you reprefent immerfion as " inconfiftent with 
 *' the JTii Id genius of the chriftian religion." And yet, 
 Sir, was ever any fyftem of religion fo contrary to 
 fiefh and blood, or to the corruption of the human 
 heart ? " Whofoever does not bear his crofs, and 
 " come after me, cannot be my difciple." Luke 
 xiv. 27. Paul alTures us, that he conferred not 
 with flefh and blood, when he became a difciple of 
 Jefus Chrift. Gal. i. 15, 16. — You fpeak of im- 
 merfion as *' a form harfh and terrifying." But, do 
 the advocates for pleafure, or the Valetudinarians, at 
 the different watering places in Great Britain, give 
 you mrxh credit ? Are not male and female, the 
 
 delicate 
 
[ 153 ] 
 
 delicate, as well as the robuft, repeatedly immerfed 
 by choice ? and even willing to pay for that plea- 
 fure, or for the advantage, which they expe£l ? Nor 
 is the feebleft infant always fpared, if the phyfician, 
 the parent, the midwife or the nurfe, are pleafed to 
 fay, that cold bathing will do it good. 
 
 But it " tends to fliock our feelings." (P. 20.) 
 So did the divine order to circumcife theflefh of the 
 forefkin. Some have been juftly cenfured, becaufc 
 they contend, we ought not to credit any thing 
 which even the Almighty aflerts, unlefs it be quite 
 level with our underftandings. This cenfure you 
 would not, I am perfuacied, deferve. However, 
 to darken our faith by the indulgence of fancy ; to 
 damp it, by the chill of a momentary fenfation in 
 our animal frame ; if this deferves cenfure, how 
 will you avoid it ? So to ad, ill becomes him, who 
 fhould endure hardnefs as a good foldier of Jefus 
 Chrifl. From this delicate difpofition, from this 
 fmooth, but barren path, may I ever turn without 
 regret ! He that purfues it, walks unenvied by me : 
 though I muft confefs, his companions are more 
 numerous, opulent and fplendid, in this country, 
 than thofe who walk with us. 
 
 Still you objeft, "Is not fprinkling or pouring 
 ** water on the fubjecEl, a mode which beft agrees 
 " with the form in which the CHIEF blessing fig- 
 " nifiedby baptlfm is promifed, viz. The baptifm 
 " or eifufion of the fpirit?" (P. 20.) IfSir, nolefs 
 1^-m fifty-fix Authors, all of them Padcbaptlfis, may 
 
 be 
 
C '54 ] 
 
 be heard on this queftion, " they are almoU: iinani- 
 " mous in confidering baptifm, as principally in- 
 " tended, by the great Legiilator, to reprefent the 
 ** deathy burial s-nd refurreSiion of Chrift, the Sponfor 
 ** of his people ; their communion ivith him in thofe 
 " momentous fa(fl:s ; and their inter eft in the blef- 
 " fas^ thence refiilting. To confirm and illiiftrate 
 " which, they agree in applying the declarations of 
 " Paul, recorded in Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12. 
 " Now, if fuch be the chief defign of the ordinance ; 
 ** if thefe palTages of holy writ be pertinently ap- 
 " plied ; and if there be any correfpondency be- 
 " tween the fign and the things that are fignified by 
 " it ; immerfion muji be the mode of admini- 
 «* flration.'* 
 
 " Nay, fuppofi ng that our clcanfing from fm by 
 " the blood of Chrift, were the firfi: and principal 
 ** thing, intended and fuggefled by baptifm ; yet 
 " the fame confequence would naturally follow^ 
 ** For that purification muft be either partial or 
 ** complete. Not the former^ our oppofers them- 
 *• felves being judges. It mud, therefore, be the 
 ** latter. Of perfeft purification, then, baptifm is 
 *' either an exprejfiie emblem, or it is not. If not^ 
 " why fuch a ritual fervice appointed, in prefer- 
 ** ence to any other that might have been chofen, 
 *' and would have exJiibited the blelhng in a far 
 ** more ftriking point of light ? To this reafoning 
 " an excellent Piedobaptift Author gives atteftation, 
 ** when he obferves ; ~ That bctvveen an arbitrary 
 
 o 
 
f «5S 3 
 
 ** fign and the thing figniHed, there may be an 
 ** agreement, or fimilitude ; which is the reajon of 
 " one fign being chofcn, rather than another. And 
 *' by how much the more a fign is fitted to excite 
 " certain thoughts, and to reprefent the thing ^^- 
 " nified\ by fo much the better, or more ufeful, it 
 " is. Whence it follows, that the illuftration of 
 ** an invifible thing, depends on the likeness there 
 " is, between the sign and the spiritual object 
 " to he reprefented in the mind.'* Stapferi Inftitut. 
 Theolog. Polem. Tom. i Cap. III. § 1625. — *' If, 
 " in baptifm, there is an expreffwe emblefn of per- 
 " fe6l purification from fin, iramerfion mit/l be the 
 " mode of adminifiration ; becaufe nothing fhort 
 " of that reprefents a total wajinng. I may here 
 " venture an appeal to the common fenfe of man- 
 " kind \ whether pouring, or fprinliling a little water 
 ** on ih^face, or an immcrfion of the whole body, be 
 ** better adapted to excite the idea of an intire 
 " clean fing." See Mr. Booth's P^dobaptifm Ex- 
 amined. P. 71, 72. 
 
 Words themfclves, as well as zxX-^ are figns of 
 things, both vifible and invifible. As then they ex- 
 cite, or are the mean of exciting, in us, y«/? ideas, 
 and correfponding emotions, and of fiimulating us 
 to proper condudl:, fiich is their real va!i:e. Now, 
 will the word fprinkling, of whicli you are fo fond, 
 apply it to what you pleafe ? will it excite the fame 
 idea as the word immerfion ? And if thefe /tf 5 words 
 be applied to l\it Jufferings of Chrifl, or to thofe 
 
 hlejfmgs 
 
r 's6 ] 
 
 hkjJingSf or to that dutyt which are connc^ed with 
 the fufferings of the Son of God, will they produce 
 in us th^fame emotions ? or th^fame behaviour? I 
 will venture then to fay, though you have faid the 
 contrary, that fprinkling and immerjion, neither as 
 words, nor a6ls, are perfe^ly equivalent. 
 
 " John prophefied of Chrift, he (hall baptize 
 ** you with the Holy Gholl and with fire. Luke 
 " iii. 1 6. But when, and how was this accom- 
 " pliflied ? By the Holy Ghoft's defcending and 
 ** fitting upon them in the form of cloven tongues 
 " of fire. A£ls ii. 3. It is manifeft, they were 
 " not PLUNGED in it ; but it was poured down 
 " upon their heads. Yet John, (was he right think 
 " ye?) calls this, being baptized therewith. (P. 21.) 
 In Luke iii. 15, 16. we read, " And as the peo- 
 •* pie were in expectation, and all men mufed in 
 " their hearts of John, whether he were the Chrift 
 *♦ or not : John anfwered, faying to them all, I 
 " indeed baptize you with water : but one mightier 
 " than I Cometh, the latchet of whofe fhoes I am 
 " not worthy to unloofe : he fliall baptize you 
 " with the Holy Ghoft and with fire." Now, it 
 is obvious, that in thefe words, " I indeed baptize 
 *' you with (or in) water:'* John fpeaks of baptifm 
 literally^ as it was adminiftered by him : but in thefe 
 words, " He fhall baptize you with (or in) the 
 " Holy Ghoft, and with (or in) fire ;" he fpeaks of 
 baptifm figuratrjelyy or allufwely. This figurative 
 baptifm was either a judgment or a mercy. \i a 
 
 judg^ 
 
r 157 J 
 
 judgment^ or rather that judgment which was com- 
 ing upon Judea^ was that a fprinkling of God*s in- 
 dignation ? Or, were not the Jews immerfed in the 
 deepeft calamities ? \i a mercy, or that mercy to 
 which you refer, are you right, think you, to give 
 us fo partial an account of that blejjing ? I read. Sir, 
 " And when the day of Pentecoft was fully come, 
 •* they were all with one accord, in one place. And 
 " fuddenly, there came a found from heaven, as of 
 ** a rufhing mighty wind, and \\ filled all the houfe 
 " where they were fitting. And there appeared unto 
 •^ them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it fat 
 *' upon each of them. And they were all///^iwith 
 " the Holy Ghoft, and began to fpeak with other 
 " tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.'*. 
 A6ls ii. 1—4. 
 
 Obferve, Sir, we read o^ found and wind, as well 
 as oi flame : equally emblematical of the gifts and 
 operations of the Holy Ghoft. Further obferve, they 
 were in one place ; and that place was filled with 
 what is compared to a rufhing mighty wind. Were 
 they not, therefore, of w^r^/y, as it were, immerfed? 
 Whether then, I attend to the whole of thefe ex» 
 ternal figns, or to the internal favor, (for they w^ho 
 were indulged with thefe figns, were alfo filled with 
 the Holy Gkoji,) I own, I fhould never have thought 
 of fprinkling from this narrative, had not fome in- 
 genious Commentator fuggefted the idea. But 
 what cannot human fagacity, when urged by the 
 love of hypQthefis, fipd out ;tnd infer ? For, having 
 
 fsund 
 
[ '58 ] 
 
 found out an analogy betv/een " cloven tongues^ like 
 ** as oi fircy^ and dro^s of watery you infer, becaufe 
 thofe cloven tongues fat upon each of the Jpojiles, 
 you mzy fprinkU running water on the faces of cer- 
 tain Infants: and by fo doing, you feem, in one place, 
 to give Mr. Bennet fome hope o'l fpiritual bleifings 
 for his " dear Immortal:" (P. 25.) and yet, you give 
 that very child no fuch expectation ; teaching him 
 to fay, that this ** rite by no means afcertains to the 
 " fubjedl SPIRITUAL and saving bleflings.*' (P4.) 
 " So, when Peter, and the attending Jev^-s, faw 
 " that the Holy Ghoft, {ittntia^fell on (««» £xxs%f1«i 
 <« iwi TOfr i^v-n) and w^as poured out upon the Gentiles, 
 ** then remembered I, (fays he) the vi^ord of the 
 " Lord, how that he faid, John indeed baptized 
 " with water, but ye fhall be baptized with the 
 ** Holy Ghofl." P. 21.) The extenty as well as 
 the utility of this blefling, feems to be compared to 
 copious 2iW^ fruitful fliowers. " He fhall come down 
 " like fhowers upon the mown grafs ; as fhowers 
 " that water the earth. Pfal. Ixxii. 6.** So fang 
 the Pfalmift of Jefus Chrift. But this defcenfion of 
 the Son of God, was to be enjoyed after his afcen- 
 fion up on high, far above all heavens, that he 
 might fll all things. Then he received gifts in 
 men, and gave gifts to men, to the rebellious alfo, 
 that the Lord God might dwell among them. Vid. 
 Venema Comment. Pfal. Ixxii. 6, 7. 
 
 But is it not improper, Sir, to appeal to expref- 
 fions merely allufive f and from a baptifm confef- 
 
 fedly 
 
 I 
 
[ '59 ] 
 
 {^^y figurative, to produce a {landing rule for the 
 adminiftration of a plain and pofitive inftitution ? 
 The queftion between us is this, What is the pri- 
 mary, natural and obvious fenfe of the word bap- 
 tlfm? If that be, not pouring, ov fpr inkling, but 
 immerjion, it is to no purpofe to appeal to the al- 
 lujive ufe of that term ; though, in any other ref- 
 peft, it feemed to countenance what you labour fo 
 inuch to recommend. Now, that the primary, na- 
 tural and obvious fenfe of the word baptifm, is im- 
 merfion, is not only our opinion, but the opinion 
 of the moft learned and pious Poedobaptijls that 
 ever exifted, or that how exift. Not oizfew only, 
 l>ut of many ; not their fleeting, but fixed opinion ; 
 and publifhed as fuch ; even though thofe publi- 
 cations ill agreed with their own pra6lice. I know 
 not, therefore, whether any term in Theology is 
 letter explained, or of w^hich it may be faid, that 
 its leading, genuine fenfe is better fettled. How 
 then, fmce you are not a ftranger to thefe things, 
 how then, could you afk this ftrangc queftion ? 
 " Does it not appear, that the analogy is entirely 
 *• loft by plunging, but ccmpleatly preferved by 
 " pouring water on the fubjeft r'* (P. 22.) And, 
 is it not ftill more ftrange, that this queftion ftiould 
 be afked by a Gentleman who very feldom pours 
 water on the fubjecl:, but who, in common, if not 
 always, complies with the current and convenient 
 cuftom of fpr inkling ? 
 
 I 
 
C i6o ] 
 
 1 am now, Sir, in fight of the conclufion of 
 your Defence of Infant baptifm : and as it will bring 
 me almofl to the clofe of my intended Anfwer^ I 
 behold it with fatisfadion. Otherwife, the man- 
 ner in which you conclude your Defencey is too 
 much like the preceding pages to give me r€al 
 pleafure. Your final decifion is, " On thefc 
 " and fimilar accounts I conclude, that immer- 
 " siON UNDER WATER, IS fo far from being es- 
 •• SENT I AL to chriftian baptifm, that sprinkling 
 " or POURING water is equally valid; yea, 
 " MORE SIGNIFICANT ; and therefore TO be pre- 
 
 " FERRED." (p. 22.) 
 
 If, Sir, the words, " On thefe and fimilar ac- 
 " counts," fhould be unnoticed, or not duly 
 confidered, your conclufion may pafs without co7n' 
 plaint. But, if the accounts^ to which you have re- 
 ferred us, be properly uivejligaiedy fo far as I can 
 judge, your conclufion will then appear extrava- 
 gant : and the more fo, when it is recollected, that 
 though you now {2iNy That fprtnklingy or pouring 
 water, is more significant than immerfion^ and 
 therefore to be preferred; it is not long fines 
 you were of a different opinion; afTuring us they 
 were perfectly equivalent. P. 17.) 
 
 *• Many other confiderations might be produced 
 " and other pafiages of Scripture cited, farther to 
 " illuftrate the fubjec^, or confirm what has been 
 " advanced ; but I omit both, left I fhould tref- 
 V pafs on your time, and fatigue your patience.*' 
 
 . (P. 22.) 
 
[ «6i 3 
 
 (p. 22.) This refolution was wife arid kind. That 
 you might have faid fomething more, I am willing 
 to admit ; but, have I not juft reafon to conclude, 
 you were confcioiis you could fay nothing better oh 
 this controverted fubjeft ? On fuch an bccafion, and 
 in fuch a place^ undoubtedly, you produced your 
 heft. And, I take it for granted, that they who 
 heard you Lecture at Northampton, will find your 
 moft plo.ufible conjedlures, and your moft ■peremp- 
 tory conclufions, united in this Difcourp. Of what 
 weight your arguments are in this controverfy, I 
 have ventured to give you my opinion. It is not 
 indeed, io flattering as the eulogiums of fome of 
 your friends ; but perhaps, Sir, it may prove as 
 ufeful. Whatever be its effeSl^ as I have written 
 without unmanly fear, and without pretence of un- 
 tommon candour, fo I have written wi'th real regard 
 to your chriftian charafter : which 1 as truly revere, 
 as I rejc£i and cenfure thofe errors which I have 
 made it my bufinefs, in thefe Letters, to remark and 
 refute. But notVr ithftanding this, I meant to make 
 it manifefl, and I hope, I have, that in the bonds 
 of the gofpel, I am, with great fmcerity^ your's in 
 our Lord, 
 
 April 30, 1786. 
 
 John IvIartin. 
 
 M LET- 
 
[ i62 ] 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Rev. Sir. 
 
 IT is not impoffible to connecl devotion with dif- 
 putatlon. To build and to fight at the fame 
 time may be difficult : yet this difficulty has been 
 furmounted. Neh. 4. And we tire told, that Paul 
 preached the gofpel with much contention, i ThelT. 
 ii. 2. Your aim, therefore, to add devotion to argu- 
 ment is laudable. But, fir, our devotion ever is, as 
 the principles are on which it is built. In your 
 Addrefiy your principles of devotion appear to me, to 
 be mjxed, and difcordant. When truth animates 
 your mind, and makes you glow with zeal, I read 
 with fatisfadion : and, I fincerely wifh, that every 
 truth which you communicated to your friends in 
 that JddrefSi m.ay be followed with a great and lad- 
 ing blefling ! But fometimes you feem to trifle, and 
 then I grow uneafy. Sometimes, you attempt to 
 argue without argument ; and your leading error 
 leads you on to others, which tend, as I think, to 
 disfigure the fimpiicity, and obfcure the fpirituality 
 of Gofpel worfhip. 
 
 In the Addrefs a text was not expecEled. To move 
 rather than to inftru£l, is commonly the defign of 
 
 the 
 
 I 
 
[ i53 i 
 
 the fpeaker on fucli occailons. But a fermon ■\vith'- 
 out a text does not feein fo eligible. I am told, 
 however, it is like enough to become faihionable. 
 It may, fo'r ou^ht Iknow, be as much to edificati- 
 on as a Leflure on the Pilgrim's Progrefs. But I 
 think a fermon without a text, or upon any text 
 which is not taken from the word of God, is an en- 
 couragement of that levity, or unfteady temper, 
 which We fhould not indulge. Without a text we 
 may propofe and difcufs whatpropofltions we pleafe. 
 It is true, we may do fo if we take one : but with 
 this difference \ propofitions founded on any paifage 
 of fcripture, if properly founded, are more forcible 
 than any other : and if they are founded improperlv, 
 fuch miib.kes are m.ore likely to" be detefted, and 
 when they are fo, to be avoided. 
 
 " You anticipate, but with great uncertainty, its 
 *' future character and lot." (P23). Thus you 
 addreffed your " dear friend and Brother," Mr. 
 Bennet, and his aimahk companion, in refpeft of 
 their infant, then, baptized ; and while each of them 
 was in prefence of a numerous congregation. "Is it 
 an EMBRio-ANGEL, oran EMBRio-FiEND r (P. 23.) 
 Who could have thought, you Vvould have wounded 
 their ears by a queftlon fo ufelefs, and fo extra\"a- 
 gant r I fuppofe, fome poetic fragm.ent fuddenly feiz^- 
 ed your warm imagination : and in your fervour 
 you forgot, that piety and poetry are not always 
 United. Or was, this poetic Itart defigned to make 
 your hearers f^el that you had a de^p fenfe of the 
 M 2 propriety 
 
C 164 ] 
 
 propriety and excellence of infant baptifm, confidercd, 
 (to ufe a favourite phrafe of your's) as a formal rite ? 
 Whatever w^as your defign, you will at laft be con- 
 vinced, that may be tolerated as a fudden emotion, 
 which, when twice printed, is in danger of excit- 
 ing difguft. 
 
 Suppofe a legacy was left by will to certain lega- 
 tees, who are mentioned with precifion ; but, in 
 a fubfequent teftament, they are not fo much as 
 named ; would a claim founded on the firft tef- 
 tament, either by quoting the words of that will, 
 or by reafoning from them by analogy, would fuch 
 a claim, either to property or privilege, be admitted ? 
 In applying this remark to our debate, let it not be 
 thought either hard or ftrange, that there ihould be 
 a New Teftament which does not take that notice 
 of infants, in refpedl: of external rites and privileges, 
 v/hich the former did. " For the Priefthood being 
 *■' changed, there is made of necejjity^ a change alfo 
 •* of the Law. Heb. vii. 12." Were the Leviticai 
 Priefthood, and that which is after the order of 
 Melchi%edeCy the famey fome of your arguments 
 would be invincible : but they are not l\\e fame ; they 
 are widely different \ a. folution, therefore, of fuch 
 arguments, is eafy, and your inattention to this ob- 
 vious fd.Si, is much to be lamented: On any other fub- 
 jecl you would not overlook it. But, " what faith the 
 ** fcripture r Caft out the bond woman, and her 
 fon :*' yet he was the fon of Abraliam. They are, 
 however, to b^ caft out of the Church j which is no 
 
 longer 
 
 W 
 
longer national ; nor Is there any regular admittance 
 into it by birth, or blood, or by the will of man : 
 but only to them who are born of God : " for the 
 ** fon of the bond woman ;*' not any of her fons, 
 " fhall not be heir with the fon of the free woman." 
 " So then, brethren, we'* who believe injefus Chrift, 
 " are not the children of the bond woman, but of 
 " the free'*. Gal. iv. 30, 31, ** Now we, brethren, 
 " as Ifaac was, are children of the promife.** V. 28. 
 " Being born again, not of corruptible feed, but of 
 " incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth 
 " and abideth for ever, i Pet. i. 23." — You will 
 remember. Sir, that what I have adduced from 
 Paul's Epiftle to the Galatians, he calls " an Allegory,'' 
 and applies it, himfelf, to the two Covenants. But, 
 by the two covenants, I apprehend, two adminif- 
 trations of one and the fame covenant, which 
 were to take place in the world fuccelfively, are to 
 be underftood. 
 
 " Is it not decided, by the highefl authority, that 
 ** our Infants are included under the Melliah's ad- 
 " miniftration r" {P. 23.) Why do you indulge 
 fuch ambiguous exprefTions ? What do you mean by 
 the highefl authority ? by our infants r and by their 
 being included, while infanls, under the Meffiah's 
 admini/lration P 
 
 " Suffer little children to come unto me." {P. 23.) 
 
 But might not little children have been fuffered to 
 
 cofne to Jefus Chriil, without drawing from that 
 
 fufferance this inference, That the infants of certain 
 
 M 3 parents 
 
[ i66 ] 
 
 parents are therefore to be brought to the Servants of 
 Chrifl to be baptized : i. e. to be fprinkled wth run- 
 ning water r Had the Apoflles, Sir, known as well 
 as you do, that the Governor of the Chriftian 
 Church had appointed infants to be baptized, by 
 perpetuating a rite which had been in pra(?l ice from 
 time immemorial, and by determining its ufe in the 
 evangelical difpenfation, would they, with fuch light, 
 and with half your zeal for infant fprinkling, have 
 forbidden little children to come to Jefus Chrift ? 
 Could you, on your own principles, haye made the 
 lead objection r Had you been prefent, would not 
 your expectation, on this occafion, have been anxi- 
 ous to have received a confirmation of the undoubted 
 duty, and of the real importance of this formal rite ? 
 If you reply, " No, it would not: for I do not 
 ^' confider this text as decifme^ or as containing a 
 *' confirmation of my own pra£lice."— Why then, 
 is it thus produced ? and produced too, when you 
 fugged that Infant fprinkling is decided by the highefl 
 autliority ) 
 
 Every attempt to prove that Infants were baptized, 
 either by Jefus Chrift, or by any of his Apoftles, 
 proves abortive. And yet, from the death of John 
 the Baptift, to the death of John the Evangelift, 
 almoft a hundred years elapfed. In this period, 
 many, very many, were undoubtedly born of believing 
 parents. And, as no inftance can be produced that 
 fo much as one infant, arnong the manyy were baptizedy 
 ■yve niuft, we v/ill fay, that they who fpfinkle in- 
 
 faptf. 
 
[ '6? ] 
 
 fants, a£l not only without the higheft authority* 
 but without either /»r^r7/>//o«, or precedent^ in that 
 word which is the rule, the only rule, of religious 
 duty. This filence, which you thought you could 
 account for, (P. 5.) is to me, the more inexplica- 
 ble, fmce, as we have obferved, children, little chil- 
 dren, are frequentl mentioned in the New Tefln- 
 ment, when they are parlies concerned in certain 
 tranfaftions ; and onccy even in reference to the 
 aholijhed rite of circumcifion ; for, we are told a report 
 prevailed, that Paul taught the Jews to furfake 
 Mofes, faying, *' that they ought not to circumcife 
 " their childreriy neither to walk after the cujionis. 
 See Afts xxi. 21. Is it poiTible to fuppofe, tliat 
 children would have been exprefsly mentioned on 
 th^fe occafions, and yet not at all mentioned in re- 
 ference to their being baptized, if from the death of 
 John the baptift, to the death of John the Evange- 
 lift, it had been ufual and common to baptize them ? 
 There are as many kinds of filence, as caufes of it. 
 It is not fimxply filence, but fuch filence ; filence fo 
 circumftanced, which ought to affect you on this 
 fubjea. 
 
 " Did pious Abraham accept the grant," (you 
 " fliould fay, comply with an exprefs command) 
 " under the former conflitution of divine truth and 
 " mercy ? Did the faithful of old uniformly ap- 
 ** ply the token of it ?" I fhould fay. Did they 
 " do what God required at their hands ? — ** Let us 
 ** tread in their deps, and ufe the chriflian circum- 
 M 4 " cifion, 
 
C i68 ] 
 
 ** cifion, the baptifmal water, the only initiatory 
 ** rite to the kingdom of the Mejfiahy acknowledg- 
 ** ing and accepting the divine condefcenfion and 
 << mercy.'* P 23.) Remember, Sir, the chriftian 
 circumcifion is made without hands. So, indeed, is 
 ** baptifmal water ;" for, being unmixed water, 
 it is the produ£lion and gift of God. But was 
 ** baptifmal water" ever before called chriftian cir- 
 cumcifion ? 
 
 Though we are willing to accept your invitation, 
 to follow the faithful of old, yet as we attempt to 
 tread in their fteps, give us leave to judge what was 
 peculiar to their difpenfation, and what that is, which 
 is peculiar to our own. Without fuch caution, 
 we fhould unavoidably mifapply general principles, 
 which is a very common error ; and inftead of be- 
 ing evangeUzedy we ihall Judaizey or verge to fome- 
 thing which is ant i-ev angelical. 
 
 Many of the Jews, who believed, were zealous 
 of the law: and it was with difficulty that thofe 
 zealots could be perfuaded, that God would call 
 the Gentiles ; or could approve, when they were 
 called, that they ftiould be confidered no longer as 
 Grangers and foreigners, but as fellow-citizens with 
 the faints, and of the houfehold of God. For, thofe 
 zealots ftill hoped to be diftinguifhed from all people, 
 and to dwell alonpy and not to be reckoned among 
 the nations. And even when the middle wall of 
 partition was irreparably thrown down, they con- 
 tinued to difcover an improper afFedion for their an- 
 
 tient 
 
r 169 ] 
 
 tient ceremonies. By the fpread of jthe gofpcl, they 
 fancied that the ceremonialX^iw would be every where 
 obferved; as far at lead as it was then poffible to 
 regard the legal inftitutions. In this manner they 
 manifefted a difpofition to make Jefus Chrift a fer- 
 vant to MofeSy and how unwilling they were to con- 
 fider Mofes as being nothing more than a fervant of 
 'Jefm Chrift. What they did by defign^ others did 
 contrary to their intention : and I believe, that what 
 you have written, tends more to lead your readers 
 back to Mount Sinai than you could wifh it fhould. 
 
 " By baptifm you furrender and dedicate your 
 f* child to God. Yes.-— To the adorable Jehovah, 
 ** Father, Son, and Spirit, I prefent, fays each of 
 f* you, this dear immortal : offering up my moil 
 " affe£lionate wifhes, and fervent prayers on its 
 " behalf." (P. 24.) We fometimes fay that to 
 men, which we cannot fay to God. When you 
 lead your friends to the duty of fupplication, you 
 do not fuppofethat either of them will fay, " I pre- 
 " fent, O Lord, to Thee, this embrio-angel, or 
 " this EMBRio-FiEND !'* Exclamation may in- 
 clude, but fupplicants will not fufFer, fuch wild ex- 
 prellions : 1 mean, when they have a proper fenfe 
 of the object of religious worfliip, and de fire to ob- 
 tain grace to ferve God with reverence and with 
 godly-fear. 
 
 After attempting to touch their feelings, by lay- 
 ing before them atFe6ling, but probable profpedls, 
 refpecting their child, you make Mr. Bennet fay, 
 
 *♦ But 
 
C 170 ] 
 
 " But, furely, I may hope for his prefervation." 
 
 Why fo ? Becaufe he is fprinkled ? This fenti- 
 ment, ftrange as it is, Mr. Bennct is made more 
 fully to exprefs, by faying,—'* I pray — I hope too ; 
 " fmce the baptifmal water is an emblem of his 
 " [the fpirit's] purifying fanftifying influences." 
 (P. 25.) That hope, Sir, which refls on an em- 
 hlerriy is, to me, an a?nigma I cannot folve. But> 
 having alTured us, that " This rite by no means 
 ** afcertains to the fubje6l spiritual and saving 
 " bleflings," (P. 4.) how, on this ground, can 
 you encourage your friend to expert thofe blellings ? 
 The hope, then, which you are willing to conneftwiih 
 ** baptifmal water,*' muft, I imagine, have nfpe6l 
 to temporal blefTings : fuch as exemption from fe- 
 vere affli(f^ion and death. fP. 24..) Surely, Mr Ben- 
 net may hope his fon will be preferved from thefe 
 evils at leaft, now he is, in your way, baptized. 
 But, furely. Brother Horfey, this is a very unguard- 
 ed way of talking: nor am I alone of this opinion. 
 
 " Oh to have him baptized, not only with water 
 " but the Holy Ghoft!" (P. 25) This exclama- 
 tion (houid have been inverted. Oh to have him 
 baptized, with the Holy Ghoft '.-and then, who could 
 forbid %vater that he (hould notbebaptized, as other 
 believers have been, in the Nam.e of the Lord ? 
 
 In the following page, you have made fome good 
 remarks on parental duty ; which Mr. Bennct, and 
 others, will recollecl: v/ith fatisfaclion. And you 
 did well, at the clofe of thefe remarks, to remund 
 
 your 
 
[ 171 3 
 
 your friends of the propriety and inntportance of 
 prayer in their attempts to regard relative obligations. 
 
 Your addrefs to the young people, for their in- 
 ftruLlion and improvement, was not throughout, I 
 think, maturely coniidered. You advife them, fe- 
 rioufly to examine the grounds of this pra6lice. (P. 
 27.) Should they fo do, and, .being thus exhorted, 
 perhaps, fome of them may, you will, probably, re- 
 pent you ever gave them this counfel. For, per- 
 haps, if they feriouily examine the New Tefla- 
 ment, in order to find a ground for infant fprink- 
 Jing, they will be greatly difappointed : fmce they 
 will not there be able to find, any warrant for that 
 ceremony ; but, will probably perceive, that you 
 have been compelled to defend it, by what is called 
 analogy^ and by multiplied conjeclures. 
 
 ** Your baptifm was the a61: of your parents.'* 
 (P. 28.) You ought, Sir, to knovv^ beft ; becaufe, 
 for my own part, I never faw an infant baptized 
 fmce I was a boy. But I fhould have thought, that 
 fprinkling was no more the acl of the parents than 
 their own. My apprehenfions were, that the pa- 
 rents requefled a proper Adminiftrator to perform 
 the ceremony, and, that he fprinkled the child 
 without their adiftance. 
 
 You inform the young people, however, that, 
 " To communicate at the Lord's table is their 
 " own aa." (P. 28.) Monfieur Le Clerc, I re- 
 member, fpeaks as if he thought it an infelicity 
 that himfelf, and other P^edobaptills had no choice 
 
 in 
 
C 172 ] 
 
 in reference to their baptifm : which he wifhes his 
 brethren to recolledt, and to make the beft ufe of, 
 when they come to the Lord's table. He fays, 
 " Since Chrift has appointed two figns or fymbols 
 ** of Chriftianity, Baptifm and the Lord's Supper ; 
 ** it was not indeed rn our power j to receive Bap- 
 " tifm where we judged the Chriftian Religion to 
 " hemoj} pure, becaufe we were h^L^f^xxtd very young \ 
 " but fmce we do not come to the otiier facrament 
 *' till we are of riper age, we may dijiinguijl) that 
 " fociety of Chriftians, in which we are willing to 
 " be partakers of it ; which if we hav:e not already 
 " done, we ought to do it nowJ'* See Monfieur 
 Le Clerc's DifTertation concerning the choice of our 
 Opinion amongft the different Seels of Chriftians j 
 at the clofe of Dr. Clarke's Edition of Grotius on 
 the Tnith of the Chriftian Religion. P. 312. 
 
 " To conclude, Let us all pray for the peace of 
 '* Jerufalem, and for the propagation of religious 
 " truth." (P. 28.} Amen ! But let us alfo pray, 
 we may perpetually recolle(5i:, that our prefent (late 
 is militant, within and without ; and that peace, in 
 war, cannot be expecled, unlefs we war a good war- 
 fare. In the prefent jftate of things there mufl: be 
 oppofitions and contentions, as well as herefies, that 
 they who are approved may be made manifeft ; and 
 that it may appear that fuch people act on princi- 
 ple and on found convi6i:ion. 
 
 Truth and peace, Sir, are, at prefent, (o much 
 oppofed, fo frequently, and fometimcs, fo artfully, 
 
 that 
 
[ 173 ] 
 
 that every man who wifhes to promote peace by 
 the propagation of truth, has continual need of faith 
 and patience ; of fortitude towards men, and of 
 fervent prayer towards God. Thus fupported, he 
 may obtain a better proof of his fincerity and zeal, 
 than if he v.alkcd on without attack from any, 
 and lived and died without temptation, or ever 
 meeting, either with afFiiclion or v/ith oppofition. 
 
 Some, I believe, from a pious difpofition, wifh, 
 if it were pcjftbkj to live peaceably with all men. 
 Thefe are fons of truth and peace : they fHall be 
 called the children of God. Others, cry peace, 
 peace, when there is no peace : the peace which 
 they would promote, requires not the propagation 
 of religious truth : as that abounds, their peace ex- 
 pires. Thefe people hate contention, becaufe they 
 cannot bear the ihadow of contradiction. Thev, 
 with ail their pacific pretenfions, will be found the 
 enemies of truth and of real tranquility. 
 
 But you. Brother Horfey, conclude your Addrefs^ 
 by connecting peace with truth ; bleflings thefe, 
 which cannot be divided. I therefore faid, and 
 ftill fay. Amen ! — May you have much of that peace 
 which rules the heart ; which fubfifts and cheers 
 the mind of man, in his fharpeft confiicls, and mod 
 painful contentions ; and which, in various views, 
 paiTes all underftanding I May you ever love that 
 truth on which this peace is founded ; that truth 
 which fets a firmer free from condemnation, and 
 which makes a believer^ clofe his complicated con- 
 
 flia 
 
flidl, and longeft con-rfe, with joy ! Thefe, Sir, are 
 the unfeigned reqiiefts of your opponent, whofe re- 
 bukes were meant to be conne£led with real ref- 
 pc6l ; and who is, with thefe declarations, whether 
 this controverfy with you be thus clofed, or be yet 
 continued, your fellow fervant in the gofpel of oiit 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, ' * 
 
 . ., Q^ John Martin. 
 
 April 31, 1786. -f . 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 In refpecfl of a word mif-fpelled, a point mifplaced, 
 or a text mifquoted, where fenfc and argument 
 are not affected by them, I fuppofe, they;wil] be 
 as much beneath your notice, as fuch' miltakes 
 in your Difcourfe have been thought below mine. 
 What is mod likely to interrupt your attention, 
 I have noticed, and beg leave her£ to correiH:. > 
 
 iPage4. line 23. d^le of. 1. 30. ior fe'ven, tfaAnine. p. 
 ,5. 1. 13. inilead of /or, readyro/«. p. i4.-. Note: add, as it 
 is noiv in common ufe. p. 16. 1. ii< iov thpfey rt^id tbejt\ 
 p. 18. 1.^ 29. for 'Fey^or, read Tsf^o^ p. 19. 1. 30, for 
 ■frwciple^ rca.d principal, p. 22. I, J7. iov difenfation, read 
 JifpenfatioH, p. '25, T. 18. dele 77'«/. p. 33. 1. 3- dele the 
 period at ad. p. 42. I. 30. for c r iJJi an , redid chrijiian. p. 48.' 
 1. 25. for legimatCy read legitimate, p. 49. 1. 11. for nvas, 
 read <^jjere. 1. 13. iov credible ^ x^-?A' credible, p. 74-. 1. a^w 
 for nue are, read are 'we p. 88. Note -.for folionvedf read 
 foUo'-w. p. 9 1, Note: ion i^iatieme, read i^iartleme. p. 97. 
 ]. 14, ior believer'',vza.d beUe-jer^s. p. 98#1.. 12. for as, read 
 'has. p 100. 1. 4. for vyt^oy, read v^wv, and alfo in line 11. 
 ip. 106. 1. 22. for e<very, read a've.rj, p. IJ7. i8.for //a/i- 
 ^ular, vt2id particular, p. 120 1. z6, {or logomachial,vtAd 
 bgomachical. p, 123. 1. 6. for ji;«r, read our, p. 136. 1. 6. 
 ior c(y?m, read ca77ie. p.i 46. 1. 25. dele the comma at fpeak- 
 jiig, p- 153. 1. 5. for are, i. be.p. 166. 1. 29. for "ixereyt.'vjas^ 
 
 FINIS. 
 
*.. 
 
r 
 
 .«?-<iegss»ri 
 
 
 !■***«■) 
 
 A