/ 
 
 tfltrs 
 
 
 Bap 
 
1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 ! 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 £5 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 •5r 
 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 O- 
 
 
 
 
 $ 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 $ * 
 
 _5 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 o 
 
 $ 
 
 0) 
 
 c 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 & m 
 
 "<U 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2E 
 
 £ 
 
 1 
 
 Ok 
 
 
 . 
 
 ^ 
 
 -o 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 CL 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 . 
 
TW1 ■ VE BETTERS 
 
 A1) DRESSED TO 
 
 Ref. SAMUEL AUSTIN, a, m. 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 HIS VINDICATION OF PARTIAL WASHING 
 FOR CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 CONTAINED IN 
 
 TEN LETTERS, 
 
 t 
 
 ?S REVIEWED AND DISPROVED: 
 
 BY DANIEL*MERRILL, A, M. 
 
 PASTOR. OF THE CHURCH OF CHXliiT IN SEDGWICK, 
 
 In v'-i dr. they worflup me, teaching Tor doctrines the commandments 
 of . len, Jesus Chk i . r. 
 
 Wo unto you, lawyers ! for ye have taken away the hey of knowlc 
 ye entered not in yourfe'ves, and them that were entering in ye hiu- 
 dered. Its us Christ.. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 PRINTEJ A VT D SOLD »BY MAMNIXG & LORIKG, 
 NO. 2> CORNHILL..,.. ,1806. 
 
District of Massachusetts, to <wit. 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the eleventh day of April, in the 
 thirtieth year of the independence of the United States of America, 
 Manning £? Lor i ng, of the laid diftrift, have depofited in this 
 office the title of a Book, the right whereof they claim ^.s Proprietors, 
 in the words following, to wit: — "Twelve Letters, addrefled to Rev. 
 Samu e i At" st i n, A. M. in which his Vindication of Partial Warn- 
 ing for Chriftian Baptifm, contained in Ten Letters, is reviewed and 
 dilproved. By Daniel Me r ri ll, A. M. Paftar of the Church of 
 Chrift in Sedgwick." 
 
 In conformity to the Aft of the Congrefs of the LTnited vStates, entitled, 
 rt An Aft for the Encouragement of Learning, by fecuring the Copies 
 of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch 
 Copies during the Times therein mentioned ;" and alfo to an Aft, 
 entitled, " An Aft fupplementary to an Aft, entitled, '* An Aft for the 
 Encouragement of Learning, by fecuring the Copies of Maps, Chairs*, 
 and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch Copies, during the 
 Times therein mentioned;' and extending the Benefits thereof to the 
 Arts of Deligning, Engraving, and Etching Hiftorical and other Prints." 
 
 N. GOODALE, Clerk oj the DiJlriB of Majac/iufctts. 
 
 A true Copy of Record. Attefl : 
 
 N. Goobale, Clerk* 
 

 *yo the Ghridtlan &l&acl$r> 
 
 WHATEVER be your denomina- 
 tion, your wifdom is, to feek the knowledge 
 and pra&ice of the truth. In the following 
 Letters you will find difcuffed fome of the 
 mod important articles of the Chriftian re- 
 ligion : fome of the great and leading points 
 in which Jcfus, as Captain of the Lord's hoft, 
 afferts his kingly authority, are fet to view ; 
 as well as fome of thofe in which Antichrift 
 afferts his authority, are expofed. The higrw 
 ly interefting contention, at the prefent, is, 
 who fhall reign over us, and who mail give 
 us laws, Chrift or Antichrift ! The Pope and 
 his clergy, and all who are in part or whole 
 blinded by the fmoke, the errors, which came 
 out of the bottomlefs pit, Rev. ix. 2. fay Anti- 
 chrift's authority, in whole or part, is founded 
 in the word of God. The author of thefe 
 pages has endeavoured to mow, that Antichrift 
 hath, for his ordinances of fprinkling, &c. no 
 fupport from the Revelation of Jefus Chrift ; 
 and that his temporifmg, defiling, and aBomi- 
 nable errors, fo far as they concern the pref- 
 
IV 
 
 ent controverfy, have not one paflage, from 
 Genefis to Revelation, in their favour. 
 
 The reader will find a fpirit of extermina- 
 tion manifefted againft the errors of Mr. Auf- 
 tin : but the reader is deli red not to feel in 
 his own breaft, nor to fuppofe that the author 
 poffeffed in his, the fame fpirit towards Mr.. 
 Auftin's perfon or chara&er, which is exprefl- 
 ed towards his errors. The author takes lib- 
 erty to aflure every perfon into whofe hands 
 this pamphlet may fall, that he hath no con- 
 temptible idea of Mr. Auftin's character or 
 talents ; nor is he without ftrong hopes that 
 Mr. Auftin is, generally fpeaking, a cordial 
 friend to truth, notwithstanding he hath em- 
 braced and laboured to vindicate feveral very 
 hurtful and bewildering errors. All God's 
 children have not as yet obeyed the heavenly 
 command, to come out from the man of fin, 
 from Antichrift, to touch not the unclean 
 thing, and be feparate. 
 
 Whilfi Mr. Auftin, and many others, who 
 have left the dodrines of the man of fin, are 
 yet bewildered by fome of his ordinances, we 
 are not to count them as enemies, but to ad- 
 moniih them as friends, and be ever ready to 
 embrace them, the moment in which they 
 will obey our King, and come out, and touch 
 not the abominations of the mother of harlots. 
 
 There are many who will not enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven themfelves, and thofe 
 who are entering in by Chrift's gofpei ordi- 
 
nance, baptifm, they hinder.* In this matter 
 they defile themfelves, and are yet with the 
 man of fin, who ftill hinders the full glory of 
 the church. 
 
 Reader, if you will not be baptized your- 
 felf, and thus enter into the vifible church, 
 the kingdom of heaven on earth, be careful 
 how you hinder thofe who are entering in. 
 ChrifVs kingdom muft come, and it will come: 
 be careful, left you be found even to fight 
 againft God. 
 
 If the errors of fprinkling for baptifm, un- 
 believers for the fubjects, and unbaptized per- 
 fons for church members, be not of Chrift, but 
 of the world, reject them as felicks of And- 
 chrift. The following Letters, if read with a 
 prayerful, teachable fpirit, will fhow that the 
 above are errors, not being found in the gof- 
 pel of Chrift, but being contrary from the 
 word of the Son of God. 
 
 Reader, are you a Chriftian, and yet un- 
 willing to know the laws of your King ! Do 
 you find that within you there are ftrong pre- 
 judices, and the rifiiigs of a corrupt mind, 
 againft hearing and prattiiing as the more 
 noble Bereans did, when Paul was the preach- 
 er ? For Zion's fake, for truth's fake, and for 
 your own fake, remember that the wrath of 
 man worketh not the righteoufnefs of God. 
 Have courage and refolution enough to hear 
 and know the truth, and pra&ife it when 
 known. 
 
Praying that the God and Father of our 
 Lord Jefus Chrift may give you to fee the 
 rifing church, as now xoming up from the 
 wildernefs, mowing herfelf in gofpel beauty 
 and fimplicity, and to efpoufe her caufe with 
 your whole heart, 
 
 I am, reader, 
 
 your's and the church's 
 willing fervant, 
 
 The AUTHOR. 
 
 fts-Bowic-Kt December 35, 1805. 
 
Wt— WMWAWJt B.MUHH 
 
 - -.- 
 
 LETT E k S t 
 
 ; 
 
 TO 
 
 The' Rev. SAMUEL AUSTIN, 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 V E R F. N D 
 
 WITH pain and pleafure I continue in the field of 
 theological controverfy. It is painful to me, that 
 the time, talents, and zeal of good men, mould be occupied 
 to give currency and continuance to error. In the mean 
 time, it is grateful to my feelings to difcover the fame good 
 men relinquifliing, by little and little, their indefenfible 
 ground. The conceflions and profeffion, which are found- 
 in your Letters to me, furnifh hope that you will yet dif- 
 cover truth and embrace it. 
 You concede, 
 i. That the prefent controverfy cannot be fettled by an 
 appeal to the Greeks or Romans ; to the monk of Paleftine, 
 Jerome ; to the reformer of Geneva, or to the Englifh de- 
 fender of the Baptiiis ; or even by an appeal to church hif- 
 tory, or to any other writings which are merely human.* 
 
 2. That when baptifm was introduced among the Jews, 
 in the days of John, and in the days of Chrift and his apof- 
 tles, it was not administered to infants ; and that the evi- 
 dence for infant baptifm docs not, in our day, amount to 
 demonftration.j" 
 
 3. You concede, that the Bible is the only book by which 
 the prefent controverfy mmt be fettled.^- 
 
 4. You concede, that cur Englifh tranflation of the Bible 
 is fo perfect, that every argument, which is founded in any 
 degree upon a different tranflation than what is found in our 
 common Bibles, " has an objection at its foundation." § 
 
 * Pages 66, 10; of the Letters to the author. 
 |< Pages 7, 75, I .Page 108. §. Page 7a.- 
 
I . Letters to Rev, Mr. Auftln. [Let. I. 
 
 Tnis Lai concdTion has its importance, not as it refpects 
 either you or me, but as it refpects common readers, that 
 they may red fatisrkd that the prefent translation is fufH- 
 ciently accurate and explicit. Some other conceffions I may 
 -mention, as the fubject (hall require. 
 
 Your profeffion, Sir, is excellent, and worthy of a Chrif- 
 tian, in every cqnteft. It is this: "As for me, I confider 
 truth infinitely preferable to any party intereft, and promife 
 to you,, that I will yield to evidence as foon as it is prefented." 
 
 It is now expedient that I notice another conceflion, which 
 you give to the public, in page 7 of your Letters ; and in 
 the following words: — "Through the mod of my miniftry, 
 though I prevailingly believed that the doctrine and practice 
 of the Pa:dobaptiPis, generally confidered, were authorized 
 in the Scriptures, I had not that full ccnv'iBion on thefe points 
 which I had refpecting many other articles. It is not more 
 than three years, fmce by fome particular incidents, my 
 attention was called up afrefh to the fubject : I then deter- 
 mined to inveftigate it as clofely as my abilities would allow : 
 T accordingly examined the Scriptures from beginning to 
 tnd — got into my hands and read all the publications on the 
 fubject which I could command, and the refult of my in- 
 quiries was juft the reverfe of yours. It appears to me that 
 no determinate mode of applying water in baptifm was clearly 
 pointed out in the Scriptures, or made eflential to the valid- 
 ity of the ordinance." 
 
 This conceffion of yours, Sir, together with its irTue, in- 
 clines me to relate'to you, in this place, and through you to 
 the public, fome of the providences which led to my convic- 
 tion, and in the refult, to my converfion from fome of my 
 errors. 
 
 For nearly ten years after I entertained fome hope that I 
 was born of the Spirit, I do not recollect of its being once 
 fuggefted to my mind, that there was any confiderable diffi- 
 culty in fuppprting iprinkling for baptifm, and infants for 
 the fubjects. In the year 1790, whilft in purfuit of theo- 
 logical knowledge, 1 had put into my hands a fhort hiftory 
 of infant baptifm, written by a gentleman in New York. 
 This pamphlet produced its witneffes for infant baptifm, 
 century preceding century, till it came nearly to the apof- 
 tolic age ; but it left a blank, as all other hiilories of the 
 fame kind have done, between the period in which we firft 
 hear of infant baptifm, and the apoilles. This deficiency of 
 hiltoric evidence I lenlibly felt. This chain of evidence was 
 at the time quite pleaiing to me, fo far as it went ; but it 
 
Let. I.] Ifeffitti t6 Sk\ Mr. Auftin. 9 
 
 wanted a few more links to reach to the apoftles, fo as to 
 unite their practice and ours together : however, the author 
 did as well as he could, in the caufe which he was labouring 
 to defend. I was now left to believe, without evidence, if I. 
 could, that infant baptifm came down, in regular fucceiTion, 
 from the apoftles to us. This I believed. Not only fo, but 
 I confidered infant baptiim a Bible doctrine, though not 
 quite fo explicitly expreifed as I could have wii'hed. From 
 this time I had occafionally ibme fmall difficulties ; but they 
 were, for the moft part, but quite fmall, and of fhort contin- 
 uance. The Bible I believed to be fall of the doctrine of 
 infant baptiim, though 1 knew of no particular place which 
 was fully to the point. I confidered it to be a very lingular 
 thirtg, that we had no example of infant baptifm. Said I 
 to myfelf, Had there been one example, it would have put 
 the matter beyond a doubt. Whether example or not, it ill 
 I concluded it mull be a Bible doctrine : for I fupprrfed that 
 the greatest of. men. that the wiieit of men, and that the moft 
 learned alfo, had always practifed it : be fides, I took it for 
 granted (for there was no evidence for it)- that baptifm had 
 iacceeded circcmcifion, and that the fame fubjects which 
 were of old circumcifed, weie now to be baptized. More- 
 over, there are feveral paffages of the New Teitament, which 
 have been thought, by gteat, good, and learned men, to 
 favour infant baptifm. 1 thought the fame. If you, Sir, 
 will have patience with me, I v. ill mention fome of thefe 
 fcriptures, and especially thole which I viewed as cardinal 
 texts upon the fubjecl. I will alfo tell you how I then un- 
 derftood them, like wife what are my prefent thoughts re= 
 fpecting them. The texts which were confidered to be, 
 more than any other, in favour of infant baptifm, and which 
 appeared fufficient to authorize the practice, are the fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 1. Mat. xix. 13, 14, i£. * Then were there brought unto 
 him little children, that lie fbould put his hands on them, 
 and pray ; and the difciples rebuked them : but Jefas laid, 
 Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, 
 for of fuch is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his 
 hands on them, and departed thence.' 
 
 2. The parallel text, Mark x. 13, 14, 15, 16. 'And they 
 brought young children to him, that he fhould touch them j 
 and his difciples rebuked thofe that brought them : but when 
 Jefus faw it he was much difpleafed, and faid unto them, 
 Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them 
 
 b 2 
 
io Letters to Rev. Mr. Au/tin, [Let. I, 
 
 not, for of fuch is the kingdom of God. Verily I fay unto- 
 you, Whofcever (hall not receive the kingdom of God as a 
 little child, he {hall not enter therein. And he took them 
 up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and bleffed them.' 
 
 3. The fame account, as related by Luke, xviii. 15, 16, 17, 
 was thought to afford fome additional light:. Luke fays, 
 « They brought unto him alio infants, that he would touch 
 them ; but when his difciples faw it, they rebuked them r 
 but Jefus called them unto him, and faid, Suffer little chil- 
 dren to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of fuch is 
 the kingdom of God. Verily I fay unto you, Whofoever 
 fhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, fhall 
 in no wife enter therein-' 
 
 4. Ads ii. 39. * For the promife is unto you, and to your 
 children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the 
 Lord our God fhall call.' 
 
 5. 1 Cor. vii. 14. * For the unbelieving hufband is fancli- 
 Hed by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is fan&ifted by the 
 hufband > elfe were your children unclean, but now are they 
 holy.' 
 
 Upon thefe texts I reafoned in the following manner. 
 
 Little children, young children, and infants were brought 
 ;o Chrift ; he approved of their being brought ; he was dif- 
 pleafed with fuch as forbade them ; we mould bring our 
 children to him ; what way fo fuitable as to prefent them 
 in baptifm : befides, Chrilt faid, Of fuch is the kingdom of 
 heaven. How could infants be of the kingdom of heaven, 
 ©therwife than by being baptized, and fo admitted members 
 of the vifible church ? It was alfo my thought, that the 
 promife mentioned A els ii. 39. was the fame that was made 
 to Abraham, Gen. xvii. : and, in addition to the above, Paul 
 tells us, that when one of the parents is a believer, the chil- 
 dren are holy. Hence, my conclufion was, that infant bap- 
 tifm was warranted by Scripture, when not One of the texts 
 fays fo much as a word about baptifm ; but each one relates 
 to quite a different fubjeel, as you may fee by examining the 
 connexion of each. 
 
 Should more evidence be required, my erroneous judg- 
 ment was, that houfehold baptifm, as recorded Acls xvi. 
 15 and 33. and 1 Cor. i. 16. would make up any deficiency ; 
 when in neither of the paffages is there a word faid of any 
 child or adult being baptized upon the faith of another. 
 Upon this foundation, if it may be called a foundation, my 
 faith with refpeel to infant baptifm, or with refpeel to what 
 is tf kite years fo called, refted, with little interruption, till 
 
Let. II.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiln. 1 1 
 
 the beginning of 1799 ; at which time I felt fome hefitancy 
 as to ics being fuppoited by the oracles of God. 
 
 My prefent thoughts with refpecl: to the above texts, you 
 will permit me to deter till I write you again ; and in the 
 mean time believe me to be 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 * E V F/.END SIR. 
 
 IN the clofe of my laft, the thought was fuggefted, that 
 my mind hefitated, in the beginning of 1799, as to the 
 validity of infant baplifm ; it did, however, preponderate in 
 its favour. But in the winter and fpring of this year, a new 
 fcene opened to view. At this time a remarkable and 
 extenfive reformation took place x among my people ; and 
 among the converts, there were not leis than twenty or thirty 
 who were diifatisfied with infant baptifm, and many of them 
 doubted of fprinkling being the baptifm of the gofpel. It 
 became my indifpenfable duty to take up the fubject, and 
 canvafs it as well as I could. It was attempted ; but I 
 found not my path fo clear of diificukies as it was wifhed to 
 be. However, my ignorance and unbelief fuftained me for 
 the time : and by not under Handing, and by mifapplying 
 Mark vii. 4. and by going with the young converts to the 
 water, and there partially walhing them for baptifm, their 
 minds were in meafure fatisfled. At the fame time, they 
 had encouragement that the fubject of baptifm lhould 
 be foon taken under confideration again, and that they 
 might expect to have it then more fully and fatisfaclorily 
 explored. Thus the matter apparently relied with them ; 
 but my own mind was not long at a time without queries 
 upon the iubject. I new read my Bible over and over again ; 
 every pamphlet and every page written by any Paedobaptift, 
 upon infant fprinkling, I read with eagernefs, wherever I 
 could find it ; but whenever I lit upon a leaf written in 
 favour of gofpel baptifm, I either neglected it wholly, or 
 read it with prejudice. My object was not fo much to know 
 what baptifm was, as to prove that fprinkling was baptifm. 
 I purfued this fruitlefs fearch for nearly fix years. At in- 
 tervals my mind was fatisfied, largely fo, that fprinkling, or 
 rather that partial walhing, was gofpel baptifm, and infants 
 
12 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufthu [Eet. ir. 
 
 the proper fubjecls ; as fully perfuaded of this being the 
 cafe, perhaps, as you were, arter three years fearch. My 
 mind almofl perpetually gave judgment in favour of infant 
 fprinkling, and feldom, if ever, doubted but it would pafs 
 for baptifm. I was willingly ignorant of the true gofpel 
 baptifm. Not only was I willingly ignorant, but, like my 
 Paedobaptift brethren, I chofe darknefs, in this matter, rather 
 than light. I was much like them alio in another particu- 
 lar, in that I too much laid, in both words and practice, that 
 any application of water, in the name of the Lord Jefus, 
 was baptiim ; and that there was no determinate way, clear- 
 ly pointed out in the Bible, by which water iliould be ap- 
 plied. For fprinkling, as being gofpel baptifm, I long and 
 vainly fought ; and becaufe I could not find it, I more vain- 
 ly concluded, that the matter was all left at fuch loofe ends 
 that nobody could know ; and io we mail praclife, and be 
 agreed about the matter as well as we could. However, 
 my mind could not, for a long period at a time, ie(l in this 
 Hate of grofs vlarkneis and ignorance. Beiides, my people 
 did not forget my encouragement, that the fubject of baptiim 
 fhould be again taken up, and more fully handled ; nor did 
 they forget to remind me of my promife. 
 
 But the more I ftudied on the fubject, the more I difcov- 
 ered my darknefs, and my uilpreparednefs to treat on it 
 publickly. Whilit fearching every where for data to prove 
 iprinkling or partial warning to be baptiim, it uied cccafion- 
 ally to be fogge&eel, Who are gofpel fu bjecls of baptifm? 
 This became to me a ierious queftion in the year 1804. 
 My difficulty was, indeed, not fmall ; yet I thought myfelf 
 justified in continuing my practice. In Auguft of this year, 
 juflf before the adminiftration of infant fprinkling, this text 
 fomewhat forcibly ftruck my mind, * He that doubteth is 
 damned if he eat.' In a moment the following thought 
 came to my relief, / doubt the hvwfuinefs of my refufing to 
 cdminljlcr. In this ft rait, my judgment was, that duty call- 
 ed me to proceed.. 
 
 The next Lord's day, in the morning, one of my breth- 
 ren, who had long doubted infant baptifm, came and re- 
 queued to have his children, eight in number, baptized. 
 This requeft was at that time to me an unpleafant one : I 
 hefitated. My conscience would but barely confent to the 
 baptiim of infants.* Here were children of fufficient age 
 
 * I frequently ufe the words, baptifm and to baptize, in their modern 
 and perverted fenfe, to fignify rantifm and to rantize. It is defired that 
 the reader will under/land me, and that the oppofers of gofpel baptifm 
 will take no advantage, from the words being thus ufed. 
 
Let. II. ] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufiin. 13 
 
 to be taught, and to believe for themfelves. The difficulty 
 which I felt was mentioned to the father of tliefe children : 
 he was defired to wait for an anfwer till the intermiflion : I 
 then took him, with two of my deacons, and converfed con- 
 siderably upon the fubject. It was fomewhat plain to me, 
 and mentioned to them, that, going upon the covenant of 
 circumcifion, it was inconiiftent to baptize an infant of eight 
 days, and to refuie another of twice eight years. The more 
 I thought and fpake on the fubject, the more my difficulties 
 ir.creafed. At this juncture, I fenfibly felt that wifdom was 
 needed from on high. I mentioned to the two deacons, that 
 it was, in my judgment, expedient that there fhould be a 
 day of fading and prayer appointed, that we might, among 
 other requelts, aik of God wifdom and knowledge with 
 refpect to baptifm, and the fit fubjecls. The deacons agreed 
 to the expediency cf the propofal, and the brother consented 
 to defer the baptifm of his children. Not long after, at a 
 public conference of the brethren, my propofal was agreed 
 to, and a day was appointed. 
 
 The day was folemnly obferved : and with pleafure I 
 now give information to all whom it may concern, and for 
 the encouragement of my erring brethren, and efpecially 
 for fuch as are in fenfible darknefs refpecting the fubjecls of 
 our difficulty, that, to the bell of my recollection, every 
 brother and fifter, w r ho readily united in this day of feeking 
 wifdom of God, hath been favoured with light, and very 
 comfortable fatisfaclion, refpecting thofe things concerning 
 which we afked counfel of God. Our darknefs and doubts, 
 however, were not removed all at once, but by little and 
 little ; and we were fet at liberty one after another, much as 
 it is in days of reformation. 
 
 Several manifeftly felt no need of wifdom ; they {till re- 
 main in their traditionary darknefs. 
 
 The day of our fading and prayer to the Father of Lights, 
 for wifdom to guide us into the knowledge and practice of 
 his will, being now ended, my mind was frill in anxious 
 fufpenfe. My thoughts now turned to infant baptiim. 
 Some expectation 1 pofTeffed, that, if nothing could be found 
 for infant fprinkling, fomething might for baptizing, that is, 
 for immerfing them. My cafe was fomewhat like that of 
 a drowning man, — I was difpofed to catch at every ftraw 
 which might ailift in faving my traditionary notions from 
 jinking : ftill nothing could 1 find which appeared fo to 
 comport with the directions and pattern given, as to afford 
 a reiling place. 
 
14 Letters to Rev. Mr. AnfAn. [Let. IF, 
 
 Both day and night my mind was filled with careful and 
 prayerful meditation. My anxiety increafed from week to 
 week ; fo did a careful fearch after the mind and will of 
 God. My darknefs likewife increafe J, till it was darknefs 
 very fenfibly to be felt. 
 
 For a week or ten days I could difcern fcarce a ray of 
 light refpe&ing baptifm, or the fubjecls of baptifm, from any 
 quarter. Whilft in this condition, I was apprehenfive that- 
 the refult would be, that I fhould never know what the gof- 
 pel baptifm is, but fnould, in this dark and doubtful ftate, 
 be difmifTed from my people, and go preaching the gofpel 
 where I might find a place. 
 
 Notwithstanding all my darknefs, I full believed that there 
 was iiich an ordinance as gofpel baptifm, which ought to be 
 adminiftered in the ufe of water ; and that God was able to 
 fhow me what it was. But my prosd heart, at times, could 
 not endure the thought of being a Baptift ; however, God, 
 of his infinite mercy, as I now coniider it, kept me as in 
 Egyptian darknefs, till my proud heart was fubdued, and 
 tny ftubborn will bowed, and I made willingly to fay, Lord, 
 not my will, but thine, be done ; make me a Pasdobaptift, 
 a Paedorantift, or even a Baptift, or any thing, as thou wilt. 
 
 Almoft from this moment the clouds began to fcatter, 
 and the glorious, the important, the precious light of gofpel 
 baptifm began to fhine into my anxious and benighted mind. 
 Directly upon it, I began to write and deliver to my people 
 thofe Sermons which you have profefTedly examined. 
 
 You will probably confider me to have pofteffed a very 
 proud heart, which could be fo unwilling to be a Baptift. 
 Such a proud heart you, Sir, and many others may poifefs, 
 and be as infenfible of it as I once was. You may imagine, 
 that, were the Baptifts right, you would as readily be a 
 Baptift as any thing : but, Sir, as I once heard a dying 
 woman fay, '< When we are living, we talk of dying ; but 
 when death comes, it is another thing :" fo, whilft we are 
 upon good terms with the world, we may talk of being 
 Baptifts ; but when the trial comes, it is another thing. 
 
 During my days of darknefs and trial, the texts mentioned 
 in, the clofe of my laft letter, came, I know not how often, 
 within my view : perhaps I have fifty times turned to one 
 or the other of them, w idling them to fpeak, "infants the 
 fubjecls of gofpel baptism." In years paft I took it for 
 granted that they fpake this language fomewhat plainly • 
 but my thoughts upon thefe texts are different for the pres- 
 ent : they fhall be now laid, before ypu. 
 
Let. II.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlhu 15 
 
 The text in Mat. xix. 13, 14, 15. is, « Then were there 
 brought unto him little children, that: he fhould put his 
 hands on them, and pray ; and the difciples rebuked them : 
 but Jefus faid, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, 
 to come unto me, for of fuch is the kingdom of heaven. 
 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.' 
 My thoughts refpecling this paflfage are, 
 
 1. That here is nothing laid or intimated, directly or in- 
 directly, about baptizing children upon the faith of their 
 parents, or upon their being the children cf believers. 
 
 2. Thefe children were not brought for baptifm, but 
 that Jefus would lay his hands on them and pray, or blefs 
 them, as good old Jacob, when dying, blefled the ions of 
 Jofeph. 
 
 3. Some fuch little children, as were brought to Chrift, 
 are of the kingdom of heaven, and fit fubjects of it too, as 
 you may fee in the preceding chapter, ver. 3 and 6, where 
 it is thus written, * Veiily I lay unto you, Except ye be con- 
 verted, and become as little children, ye ihall not enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven. Whofoever (hall offend one of thefe 
 little ones, which believe in me.' If you will turn to chap. xxi. 
 15, 16. you will find thefe little children mentioned again; 
 and alfo fome farther information, — that of fuch is the king- 
 dom of heaven : it is thus related, — ' And when the chief 
 priefts and fcribes law the wonderful things that he did, and 
 the children crying in the temple, and faying, Hofanna to 
 the Son of David j they were fore difpleafed, and faid unto 
 him, Hearelt thou what thefe fay ? and Jefus faith unto 
 them, Yea : have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes 
 and fuchlings thou halt perfected praile V 
 
 4. If this pafiage hath any indirect reference to the bap- 
 tifm of little children, it is manifeflly againtl your practice 
 or cuftcm of infant baptifm ; ai-d informs you what children 
 are to be baptized,— fuch as are fit for the kingdom of 
 heaven, fuch as believe in Chrift, or fuch babes and fuck- 
 lings as cry, « Hofanna to the Son of David.' 
 
 My thoughts are fimilar, wi;h reflect to the parallel paf- 
 fages, which are related by Mark and Luke. 
 
 The text in Ads ii. 39. is, * For the promife is unto you, 
 and to your children, and to aH that are afar off, even as 
 many as the Lord our God (hall call. 
 My thoughts on this text are, 
 
 1. That the promife is unto all, even to as many as th€ 
 Lord our Gcd mail call, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, 
 parents or children. 
 
i6 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufihu [Let. II. 
 
 2. That the thing promifed was the gift of the Holy 
 Ghoft, as Peter manifeftly informs us in the words immedi- 
 ately preceding the text. * 
 
 3. That the gift of the Holy Ghoft was what was fpoken 
 of by the prophet Joel, ii. 28. as quoted by Peter, Acts ii. 
 17. « And it fhall come to pals in the lad days, (faith God,) 
 I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flefli ; and your fons 
 and your daughters fhall propheiy, and your young men (hall 
 fee vifions, and your old men fhall dream dreams.' This is 
 the very promife about which Peter had been preaching. 
 
 4. That, as Peter laid to his hearers, * Repent, and be 
 baptized every one of you in the name of Jefus Chrift, for 
 the remifHon of fins, and ye fhall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghoft ;' fo it is the duty of all men who hear the 
 gofpel to do likewife, and they fhould receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghoft, to quicken, comfort, and feal them : for 
 the promife ftill is to all, parents and children, even to as 
 many as the Lord our God fhall call. 
 
 5. That the chapter which contains this text fufficiently 
 ■explains it, and renders it not only eafy to be underftood, 
 but difficult to miftake its true meaning. 
 
 There is fcarce a text in the Bible which has been oftener 
 preffed to the fervice of infant baptifm, and there is not one 
 lefs to the purpofe. 
 
 The text in 1 Cor. vii. 14. is, « For the unbelieving huf- 
 band is fanclified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
 fanctified by the hufband ; elfe were your children unclean, 
 .but now are they holy.' 
 
 My thoughts, Sir, on this text, are, 
 
 1. That it hath nothing to fay about baptifm, for it or 
 againft it. The apoftle is treating on a fubjecl quite afide 
 from that of baptifm. The fubject, as you well know, is 
 about hufbands and wives living together, after one of the 
 parties is converted. The fubjecl of baptifm does not once 
 come to view in the whole matter. 
 
 2. The apoftle tells us, that the infidel hufoand is faneli- 
 fied, or made holy, as really and as truly fo, and for aught 
 appears, in the fame fenie of holinefs, as the children are 
 holy. This text, therefore, if you will make it relate to bap- 
 tifm, proves too much ; it proves that the infidel and idol- 
 atrous hufband, as well as the children, is to be baptized. 
 This, Sir, you, and every man who is not blinded by igno- 
 rance or prejudice, would blufh to advocate. This text is, 
 therefore, nothing for infant baptifm. 
 
Let. II. ] Letters to Rev. A/r. AujYin. 17 
 
 As to the texts, Acts xvi. 15 and n. and 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 which fpeak of the baptiihi of houleholds, my thoughts of 
 them are, 
 
 1. As exprefTed in my Sermons. 
 
 2. That thefe texts are totally Iilent about infant baptifm, 
 and that they would, therefore, be never preiTed in to the 
 iupport of it, were not that point very difficult of proof. 
 
 3. There is, on the whole, no intimation that there was, in 
 either of the houleholds, any one baptized, without being at 
 the time a vilible believer. . As to Lydia's houfehold, we read 
 in the lail verie of the chapter of the brethren in her houfe. 
 As to the jailer's, — Paul told him, that if he believed on the 
 Lord Jefus he mould be raved, and his houfe. How could 
 they be laved, if they did not believe? for 'he that belicv- 
 eth not fhall be damned :' befides, we are told in the con- 
 nexion, that the jailer rejoiced, believing in God with all hi* 
 houfe. 
 
 You are pleafed to tell me, in your expofition, " that th« 
 Greek participle which is rendered believing, is in the fm- 
 gular number. '* Every Engliih reader, who is acquainted 
 with the contraction of language, knows it is the fame in 
 our common Bibles : what, therefore, do you gain by refer- 
 ring to the Greek ? Should you write again, pleafe to inform 
 me by what authority you contradict the tranflators of the 
 Bible, and injure the fenfe of this text, by telling us, that 
 the jailer believed in God and rejoiced domejlically. 
 
 With regard to Stephanas' s houfehold, they were addicted 
 to the mini ft ry of the faints, and this too, for aught appears, 
 from the day of their baptifm. 
 
 The above texts, which are your principal ones, being 
 inefficient to fupport infant baptifm, it muft fall : for it is a 
 general truth, — The foundation being removed, the fuper- 
 iiruchire muft come down. Thefe texts have been placed, 
 by the Paedobaptifts, as the foundation of infant baptifm. 
 Thefe texts fay nothing about it ; yet they fay as much as 
 does any other in all the Bible. The fair concluiion is, 
 infant baptifm muft fall, or ftand upon nothing : or, which 
 is the fame thing, it muft fall, or ftand upon texts which 
 have no connexion with it, and which fay nothing about it. 
 We wiih your denomination would be kind enough to be as 
 iilent about infant baptifm, in both precept and example, as 
 is the Bible ; then would the controverfy be ended. 
 
 Now, Sir, permit me to add a few reflections from what 
 we have paifed over. 
 
 c 
 
1 8 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. III. 
 
 The Jirft is — When I found " that I had not that, full 
 conviction on the points of what is called pscdobaptifm," my 
 courfe of inquiry was very finiilar to yours ; and after I had 
 puriiied the fame courfe three years, my conclufion was the 
 lame with yours, that the mode of applying water in baptifm 
 was not very determinately pointed out, but that water ap- 
 plied in almoft any way might aniwer the intent of the great 
 Inilitutor. When I had inquired three years more, fqj'iing 
 and prayer being added, my conclufion was the reverfe. 
 
 The Jecond is — That the reafons, and the only reafons, 
 why I could find no determinate mode of applying water in 
 baptifm, are thefe : lirft, I would not believe that immerfion 
 was the mode, or was the goipel baptifm ; and fecondly, I 
 could find no other mentioned ; hence I concluded that none 
 was prefcribed. 
 
 Third. You, Sir, having been as I once was, you may be 
 as I now am. 
 
 Wiihing you much light and more grace, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 I NOW proceed to examine, as critically and as concifely 
 as I conveniently can, your examination of my Seven 
 Sermons. 
 
 Whilft your Letters fhall pafs in review, I (hall endeavour 
 the ruin of the errors which they contain. But, believe me, 
 Sir, my defire is, that not fo much as one fliaft may be aimed 
 either againfl your perfon, reputation, or piety. My bufinefs 
 is not what you or your denomination are, as to numbers, 
 talents, or piety ; but my bufinefs is with your errors, the 
 ways by which you fupport them, and with the truths which 
 ruin them. Whilll I write not for you only, but for all who 
 may read, you mult give me leave to ufe great plainnefs of 
 fpeech. 
 
 The errors which you advocate and I oppofe, are of fuch 
 magnitude, and fraught with fuch evil confequences to both 
 faints and finners, that we fhould poflefs all that calmnefs 
 in meditation and exprefllon, which au earneft contention 
 for the faith will permit. 
 
Let. III. ] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlln. 19 
 
 The errors, Sir, which you plead for, and I againft, are 
 three*: 
 
 1. Sprinkling, or partial wafhing, is baptifm. 
 
 2. That manifeft unbelievers are proper and gofpel fub- 
 jecls of baptifm. 
 
 3. That baptifm is not necefTary to memberfhip in the 
 vifible church of Chrift. 
 
 Thefe three principles of yours are confidered to be errors, 
 and at war with the gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrift. You 
 confider them to be a part of his gofpel. What you have 
 in your Letters faid, directly or indirectly, in their favour, it 
 will be a part of my bufmefs to refute. It alfo belongs to 
 me to mow the inconclulivenefs of your fuppofed refutation 
 of my arguments in favour of the three following truths. 
 
 1. Immerfion, in the name of the Lord Jefus, or in the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, is the only gofpel 
 baptifm. 
 
 2. No perfon hath a right to gofpel baptifm, but upon his 
 making a profeffion of gofpel faith. 
 
 3. No perfon is a member of Chrift's vifible church till he 
 be baptized. 
 
 From thefe principles you draw fome popular objections 
 againft my fermons. In the fecond fentence of your firft 
 Letter you fay, and you meant the world ihould hear it, 
 " that I muft now coniider you as one of the antichriftian 
 world." In the 8th, 9th, and 10th pages you very much 
 enlarge this of all objections the moft popular. My readers, 
 Sir, {ball have your objection let before them in its full 
 ftrength : for if it be conclufive againft my principles, let it 
 deftroy them ; but if it have no weight, let it be fet down 
 for nothing. Your objection is in the following words : 
 
 " Are you fure that you act under the divine approbation, 
 whilft merely becaufe I am not a baptized perfon, according 
 to your notion of baptifm, you place me without, where are 
 dogs, and forcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and 
 idolaters, and whofcever loveth and maketh a lie ? To thefe 
 extremities you are driven, by the radical principle of your 
 book, by holding that complete immerfion is the only Chrif- 
 tian baptifm, and that baptifm is eifential to a peribn's. being 
 a vifible member of Chrift's kingdom : and by this principle 
 you fhut out thoufands with whom, in regard to piety and 
 Chriftian respectability, probably you, certainly I, can claim 
 no companion. You enroll among the vifible enemies of 
 God, Leightcn, Flavel, Doddridge, Watts, Gardiner, the 
 Edwardses, the Brainerds, and a multitude of eminently 
 
2o Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. IH. 
 
 hoi)- men, whofe names it is impolfible you mould recoiled 
 but with deep veneration. " 
 
 Yes, Sir, I recoiled their names with veneration, and their 
 errors with regret. But what h.uh veneration or regret to 
 do with principles ? 
 
 I muft here ftate three things : 
 
 i. That the manner in which you throw the objection 
 before the public, has a very natural tendency to give an 
 incautious reader a very unjuit idea of the tendency of my 
 principles. 
 
 2. That great men and great names can never change 
 truth into a lie. 
 
 3. Your argument againft the juftnefs of my principles 
 is not fufficient to prove them wrong. 
 
 1. The manner in which you throw the objection before 
 the public, has a very natural tendency to give an incautious 
 reader a very unjuit idea of the tendency of my principles. 
 He would naturally enough conclude that I muft, if con- 
 iiftent with myfelf, believe that no one except the Baptifts 
 has any religion ; that I coniider and treat all others as 
 being impenitent and ungodly; yes, as being ".profligate 
 and aiifegenerate." A more unjuft idea could not be com- 
 municated. Such an idea is not only incontinent with my 
 principles, but they forbid any perfon's fuggefting that fuch 
 an idea could fairly be deduced from them. One of our 
 principles is, that no perfon is a fit fubjeel of baptiim, unlefs 
 he be a penitent, a godly, a regenerate perfon. 
 
 Bendes, Sir, I am not fingular, in conlidering men to be 
 not of the viable church, but vifibly with the world, till 
 they are baptized. This hath ever been the fentiment of 
 the church. It was always mine, fince I had any fentiment 
 on the fubjeel:. 
 
 I will put a cafe. Suppofe there be a reformation at this 
 prefent time at Worcefter, where you refide. Suppofe fifty 
 perfons of the brighten: talents be converted. Not one of 
 them has been baptized, or even fo much as fprinkled. I 
 providentially ride through the town next week'. By chance 
 I meet Mr. Auftin in the ftreet, and put this queftion, — 
 Have thole very refpeclabie characters, who have been of late 
 hopeful])' converted, joined the church, (meaning the vifible 
 church) ? your reply would be ready, No, but lbme of them 
 have palfed examination, and give full fatibfaction, who with 
 the red will probably join in a fhort time. Indeed, Sir, you 
 would have no idea of telling me that they belonged to the 
 viuble church, unlefs you are contrary from all men whom 
 
Let. III.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufnn. 21 
 
 I have, ever yet feen. It is an offence again ft the common 
 fenfe of Chriftians of all denominations, who believe in gof- 
 pel ordinances, to advocate, that peribns belong to the vifible 
 church, and yet never baptized. Were your fide not hard 
 pre/fed, you would never think of fuch an expedient to get 
 out of difficulty. 
 
 This being the cafe, the Baptifts do but confider and treat 
 you and your denomination, as you do the wifeft and mod 
 pious among yourielves, till they be baptized. Hence, you 
 can but fee that you condemn in us what you allow, and 
 almoft univerfally practife among yourfelves. Happy, Sir, 
 is he that condemned) not himielf in that which he alloweth. 
 
 2. Great men and great names can never change truth 
 into a lie. 
 
 Suppofe our principles be fuch as to lead us to believe, 
 that feme great and good men, who will not join the vifible 
 church, are not members of it. By the way, this is juft what 
 you believe yourielves. Becaufe we believe thus, do you 
 wifh us to be 'reproached before all men, as being fuperfti- 
 tioufly different from all Chriilians and reafonable men ? 
 Beiides, my dear Sir, what have great and venerable names 
 to do in determining in your favour the truth or falfehood 
 of a principle, when the faith and practice of the fame great 
 and good men have always been in the face of your theory ? 
 Did you not introduce this whole affair, about excluding 
 pious and venerable men from communion, in order to pre- 
 poffefs the feelings and paffions of your readers in your 
 favour, before you ventured to try the ftrength of the gofpel 
 principles, or thofe which you are pleafed to term mine ? 
 If you did not, I fee but one other motive which you could 
 have, that is, to make room for a retreat, and lave for yourfelf 
 a ftanding in the vifible church, though you might not be 
 able to prove fprinkiing or partial warning to be baptifm, or 
 to refute my arguments for immerfion. 
 
 3. Your argument againft the juftnefs of my princples is 
 not able to prove them wrong. 
 
 Your argument is, Great names and confeffors. But 
 great names have no authority to overturn principles which 
 are founded on revelation. As to confeffors, you have 
 none. Not one hath been called to fuffer in defence of your 
 principles, and againft mine. If none have fuffered in de- 
 fence of your principles, your hoft of confeffors are at mod 
 but great names. Hence, your whole argument is, if my 
 principle be juft, many great and good men have (through 
 
 c 2 
 
22 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlhu [I^t. Ill, 
 
 negleft of duty, for want of light, inclination, or opportunity) 
 never been members of the vilible kingdom or church of 
 Chrift. Your argument I grant, but deny that it injures 
 my principles. If your argument dellroy my principles, 
 one of thefe two things is true ; — either i. That there never 
 were any good men among any heathen nation, tribe, or 
 language, where the vifible church of Chrift was unknown ; 
 or 2. That thefe good men belonged to Chrift's vifible 
 church, where there was none. To affert the firil would be 
 prefumption ; to advocate the laft would be abfurd : hence 
 my principles as yet are out of danger, 
 
 Sir, you do not appear fully to comprehend the Baptift 
 idea of church memberfhrp ; it is therefore expedient to 
 come to definitions. 
 
 1. None but vifible faints are to he baptized. 
 
 2. Every baptized perfon, fo long as he raanifefts himfelf 
 to be a vifible faint, is a member of the vilible church. 
 
 3. Every baptized perfon, who joins himfelf to a fociety 
 cf baptized believers/ is a member of a particular vifible 
 church. 
 
 In your note, pages 12 and 13, you fee fit to contradict 
 what appears to have been the general, if not the univerfal, 
 fentiment of the church in all ages of Chriftianity, and trie 
 fentiment of the Bible too, as I expert to make maniieft. 
 This, your contradiction againft the church of God, and 
 againft his word, confifts in your denying that baptifm is 
 the ordinance of introduction into the vifible church of 
 Chrift, or is neceflary to a vifible (landing in it. 
 
 Your note in pages 18 and 19, was probably considered 
 by you, and will be by many of your readers, as containing 
 a' difficulty which I fhould not be able to get rid of hand- 
 fomely. I will tranferibe the paffage in which the apparent 
 and fuppofed difficulty is contained. 
 
 '* Mr. Merrill (fay you) tells us, page 51, that John bap- 
 tized none but • fuch as brought forth vifible fruits of repent- 
 ance. Thefe perfons he was making ready for the Lord ; 
 when prepared, they were to compofe that kingdom, or the 
 beginning of that kingdom, which fTiall never be deftroyed. 
 Me adds, It appears to be this kingdom which was now at 
 hand, almofl: ready to be fet up, of which Chrift fpake to 
 Nicodemus, when he faid, John iii. 5. 4 Except a man be 
 born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God.' But this is to concede, either that John's 
 baptifm was- not Chriftian baptifm, but of an entirely differ- 
 ent nature, or that baptifm docs net introduce into the king- 
 
Let. III.] Leiicrs to Rev. Mr. Aufthu 23 
 
 dom, as a line of reparation, &c. ; for after thefe multitudes 
 were baptized, according to the reprefentarion of Mr. Mer- 
 rill, they were only made ready for the kingdom, which 
 had not yet even a being. Here, then, he gives up his 
 darling dtidrrae." 
 
 As to this difficulty, in which you confider me now to be, 
 let it be remarked, 
 
 1. That it puts me not to the lead difficulty as to the 
 principal point in debate, namely, That no peribn can be a 
 member of Chrift's vifible church, till he be baptized ; for 
 thefe perfons were confefledly of this defcription. 
 
 2. " It puts my darling doctrine," as you exprefs it, not 
 to the leaft hazard, any more than the peculiar circum- 
 flar.ces of the firft fetting up of Chrift's vifible kingdom 
 would, and in uft manifeftly have done, on fuppofmon that 
 my darling doctrine were perfectly true, and i'o my fentiment 
 correct. For, does not an examination by an authorized 
 officer, and the enlifting of the examined peribn, conftiiute 
 him a foldier ? Yet the firft perfen fo emiited cannot be laid 
 to belong to the army ; nor can he belong to it till numbers 
 lb re are enlifted, and the army organized. At the fame 
 time, fci'efe very things, his examination and enlifting would, 
 after the army is conftituted, be confidered as the introduc- 
 tory and indifpenfablc pre-reqiiitites. The application is 
 eafy, and the concltffion this, — That I have no necethty of 
 conceding to either of the* things which yen fuppofe ; either 
 that John's baptiim is not Chriitian baptifrh, or that bap- 
 tifm does not introduce into the kingdom, as a line of repa- 
 ration. 
 
 3. Were it fo that the quotations which you make would 
 crowd me, even as deftly as you fuppofe, ftill your own 
 principles would (land in the molt hazardous pofition, and 
 muft receive the firft (hock. For, fay you, pages 12, 13, 
 fpeaking of what initiates into the vifible church, " It is that 
 evidence, v hatever it be, which is furnifhed by the fubject, 
 or by God hiralelf, that a man is a faint." It is a given 
 truth, Sir, that many of John's difciples furnifiied this evi- 
 dence, when they were but in part made ready, that is, 
 before they were baptized. Hence your principle brings 
 ycu to this felf contradictory conclusion, that perfons arc 
 members of Chrift's vifible church, and at the fame time 
 are not made ready for him. For it was by preaching the 
 baptiim of repentance, and by baptizing the penitents, that 
 John made ready a people prepared for the Lord. Here 
 is, upon your own principles, a difficulty, which I know not 
 
24 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlln. [Let. IV. 
 
 how to fur mount or remove ; whereas upon mine there is 
 none, unlefs it be a little more explanation is wanted. 
 
 The penitents who were baptized of John, were made 
 ready and prepared for the vifible church ; or they were 
 the unorganized beginnings of it. As two, or as twenty, 
 approved and enlifted foldiers, who are thus made ready 
 and prepared for an army, which is about to be formed, are 
 not the army, unlefs it be the unorganized beginnings of it ; 
 fo, or in a fimilar iituation, are John's fir ft difciples, if not 
 the whole of them,, confidered to have been. 
 
 In your fecond Letter you afk me perhaps a dozen quef- 
 tions, and ftate a particular cafe. I have been, and am 
 Mill, rather at uncertainty, whether you propofed them feri- 
 oufly or not. 
 
 If you be ferious in the inquiries, — " What do we confider 
 the characters of our candidates for baptifm to be ? — What 
 ihould we think of a perfon who propofed to be baptized, 
 and afterwards ihould, from principle or from an erroneous 
 confcience, refufe ? — Whom do we confider to be members 
 of the viable church, &c. ?" Our anfwer is, — i. We confider 
 our candidates for baptifm to be vifible faints. 2 A perfon 
 who has agreed to be baptized, and mould afterwards, 
 merely from error of judgment, refufe to be, would ftili be 
 confidered a vifible faint ; but, at the fame time, we mould 
 believe him to be for the prefent not fit for the kingdom of 
 heaven, for he, having put his hand to the plough, looked 
 back. 3. All vifible faints, who have been baptized, we 
 efteem to be members of Chrift's vifible church, and none 
 elfc. 
 
 Thefe anfwers, Sir, being carefully attended to, will folve 
 all other queftions upon the fubjecl. 
 
 Wiihing you light to fee the truth, and grace to praclife it, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 THE bufinefs now on hand is, to review your examina- 
 tion of my definitions and arguments, which relate to 
 what is Chriftian baptifm. 
 
 On fuppofition that your examination has been candid, 
 critical, and impartial, you have nothing to fear from its 
 
Let. DC] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlhu 25 
 
 being carefully reviewed. If your examination of my defi- 
 nitions and arguments fliould be found to be neither candid, 
 critical, nor impartial, the public will in the iffue difecver 
 where the fault lies, and attach blame where it belongs. 
 
 The prefent point in debate you define well, pages 19, 2C. 
 Say you, " The debate is confined to a (Ingle point : it is 
 this, — Whether a complete immeriion of the body in water, 
 io that it iliall be buried or overwhelmed in water, be the 
 only Chriftian baptifm ?" This is the thing which you deny, 
 but it is what I confider to be already fairly gained, and 
 from which I expeel to remove all your objections, which 
 have any plauiibiiity againft it. 
 
 Permit me to make an obfervation or two, and then I 
 fhall proceed to the buiinefs before us. The fir It obfervation 
 is, " It feems (fay you) very extraordinary that immeriion, 
 as the only Chriftian baptifm, fhould be fo clearly and un- 
 ambiguoully taught, as much or more fo than any Chriftian 
 duty ; alms-giving, for inftance, about which there never 
 was any difpute ; and yet yourfelf, and fuch a multitude of 
 pious, learned, and refpectable minifters, and the pureft and 
 mod enlightened part of the Chriftian church, fince the 
 reformation, fhould fo long remain unconvinced and unre- 
 claimed. " 
 
 Was there never any difpute about alms-giving ? If not, 
 whence, I pray you, arifes the large quantity of warm ccn- 
 verfation which there has fometimes been in the world about 
 alms-giving, for the poor, and other charitable ufes ? Some 
 are complained of for their covetoufnefs, when alms are 
 requefted ; fome for their too great liberality : fome will be 
 offended becaufe alms are requefted : fome affirm that giv- 
 ing money or goods to fuch or fuch a perfon, is alms-giving ; 
 others will deny that it is : fome will contend, that to give 
 property for this purpofe or for that purpofe, is alms-giving ; 
 others are confident that it is no deed of charity to part with 
 one's money to promote fuch purpofes : others ftill may be 
 found, who will not allow that any Chriftian duty of alms- 
 giving is performed, unlefs a Chriftian temper be exercifed 
 in the performance. Perhaps there is fcarce a religious 
 duty, except baptifm, about which there has been more dif- 
 pute, among Papifts and Froteftants, and among Baptifts 
 and Paedobaptifts, than the duty of alms-giving. It feems 
 extraordinary that you fhould not have known this ; and 
 had you known it, you could not have mentioned the duty 
 of alms-giving, with the lead reafonable expectation, that by 
 it ycu mould be able to refute my idea of the clearnefs and 
 
26 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftiru [Let. IV. 
 
 explicitnefs of the duty of Chriftian baptifm by immcrfion. 
 Perhaps you may reply, " I meant, there was never any 
 difpute about there being fuch a Chriftian duty as alms- 
 giving." Should this be granted as a general truth, it is 
 equally true that there has been as little difpute about the 
 exiftence of fuch a Chriftian duty as baptifm. It may be 
 ■well to remark, that it never has been denied in any age, by 
 any denomination of Chriftians, but immerfion is Chriftian 
 baptifm, when it has been adminiftered by a proper perfon, 
 and to a fuitable fubjecl. Juft the fame is true with refpect 
 to alms-giving, mutatis mutandis. 
 
 As to the " multitude of pious, learned, and very refpecl:- 
 able minifters, and the pureft and mod enlightened part of 
 the Chriftian church, fince the reformation, remaining fo 
 long unconvinced and unreclaimed," I beg leave to refer 
 you to my Letters on open communion with all who keep 
 the ordinances as Chrift delivered them to the faints. 
 
 The other obfervation which I have to make, relates to a 
 paftage in your 22d page : it is this, — " If the terms which 
 are ufed by Chrift and his apoftles, when referring to this 
 ordinance, have one uniform, unambiguous meaning, which 
 determines baptifm to be immerfion, and the concurrent 
 language' and facts of fcripture coincide with and fupport 
 this meaning, the point is fettled. We are not left to act at 
 difcretion. To make this evident, is the object which you 
 fet yourfelf to accompiifh." 
 
 Very well, Sir, and it is the object which I am now writ- 
 ing to accompliih, and if the Lord will, I ihall inftrumen- 
 tally make fome progrefs towards its accomplifhment. 
 
 Now, Sir, for a review of your examination, pages 22, 23. 
 Your profeffedly critical examination is thus introduced : 
 " You begin (fay you- to me) by what you call defining the 
 terms, and by detailing to us all the paifages in the New 
 Teftament which fpeak on the fubjecl: of baptifm. Your 
 firft word is Baptifteri<m t the fignification of which is, a font, 
 a bath, a walliing place, a veffel to wain the body in. Very 
 well," fay you. Juft below you add, " If it (i. e. baptijlerion) 
 were in an hundred places in the New Teftament, it would 
 furnifn no evidence in proof of your propofition." Anf. Let 
 us, Sir, for one moment, turn the tables, and fuppofe that 
 lapiijkrion favours fprinkling, as it now favours immerfion, 
 and that the definition of it were, a bafon, a porringer, a 
 fprinkling place, a veffel to fpvinkle the face from ; would 
 here be no drcumftantial evidence in favour of fprinkling ? 
 Would not this fmgle word, on fuppofition that it favoured 
 
Let. IV.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftitt. 27 
 
 your practice as it does ours, be more evidence for you than 
 you are now able to collect from all writings, either human 
 or divine ? Yet it furniihes, fay you, no (circurnftantial) 
 evidence for us. I mentioned it as a mere circumftance in 
 our favour ; the reader will judge whether it be fo. My 
 next words defined were baptifma and baptijmos, the Englifh 
 of which is baptifm, warning, facred ceremonial wafhing. 
 Here, Sir, you feparated, in the lad part of my definition, 
 what I wiih to have underftood as being joined together. 
 The three laft words are exegetical or explanatory of the 
 firft, and fhew the kind of wafhing which I intend. I know 
 not how you could fo miftake my meaning, as to fuppofe 
 that I intended common wafhing. If the definition itfelf 
 were fo expreffed that it was pofhble to miftake my 
 meaning, yet what was faid afterwards, in many places, 
 fhow that I could have no fuch intention as you intimate ; 
 indeed, it could not but have been obvious that my meaning 
 was not common wafhing : for the fact is, as I endeavoured 
 to fhow, and hope raclt plainly to fhow, that the Greek 
 words for baptifm and to baptize have no fuch meaning in 
 the Bible as common wafhing. I find no place in your 
 Letters where you fhow that they have ; and I expect to 
 iliow that they have not. 
 
 You afk, " But is there no facred ceremonial wafhing 
 befides immerfion ?" Anf. No, not where baptifma^ baptijmos 
 or bapt'1%0 is in the original. 
 
 Your obfervation upon baptt/i's, my third word defined, is, 
 " You know that this word limply means a baptizer." But, 
 Sir, the queftion is, What is a baptizer ? I explained or de- 
 fined it, one who dips, a Baptift ; I now add, it is, ftrictly 
 fpeaking, a Baptifl minifter, or one who admini iters die 
 ordinance of baptifm, or one who immerfes. Why did you 
 ©mit my definition ? was it becaufe you faw no plaufible 
 refutation ? 
 
 In the next place, I defined bapt'1%0 to mean, when ren- 
 dered into Englilh, to baptize, to dip all over, to wafh. 
 
 To baptize is, indeed, a Greek word, fupplied with an 
 Englifh termination. 
 
 Upon my definition you make the following remark : 
 " The firft and the laft of thefe definitions, it appears to me, 
 you might as well have omitted." No, Sir, I might not as 
 well have omitted either, or efpecially the laft ; for then 
 you might juftly have complained, but now complaint is 
 afide, for I gave my definitions full ; I did it purpofely : I 
 gave you all to which you could make any honourable pre- 
 
2 8 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. IV. 
 
 tenfions, fo that when thefe were fhown to fpeak nothing for 
 your practice, but wholly for ours, you might put in no 
 farther claim j but as you have, your claim mult be ex- 
 amined. 
 
 " Your definitions of the wordjouo, to warn, to rinfe, to 
 bathe, (fay you to me) feem as little to contribute to fup- 
 port your hypothefis, becaufe it is indifputable that we often 
 wafh, rinfe, anJfr bathe, without immerfing totally under 
 water the thing or body warned, rinfed, or bathed." But 
 do we ever waft, rinfe, or bathe by fprinhltng ? 
 
 I have no where told the public that loud always implied 
 immerfion, nor did I ever intend to communicate fuch an 
 idea. It was and is ftill quite fufficient for my purpofe, to 
 find that loud is never ufed in the Bible, or in the New Tei- 
 tament, to mean any thing ihort of bathing a body or thing 
 all over, 
 
 " But now," fay you, page 25, " for your proof of the fpe- 
 cific, uniform, unambiguous meaning of the word baptizo, 
 as iignifying total immerfion. You fay, page 37, • the plain, 
 literal meaning and common fignification of the word is to 
 immerfe, overwhelm, dip, or plunge all over ; and that there 
 appears to be no evidence that it is ever ufed fo much as 
 once, in any part of the Bible, to fignify the application of 
 water in any other fenfe.' But this is not proof, my dear 
 Sir, it is your aifertion. I am conftrained to deny the cor- 
 rectnefs of it." A<:f Then, Sir, we may expect to rind that 
 in your Letters the matter (lands corrected. We will pro- 
 ceed in the review. 
 
 In the 26th page of your Letters, the public is informed, 
 that the " ftricr truth, however, is, that it {bapt'1%0) does not 
 fignify any manner of applying water, but only the applica- 
 tion of it in general." I confefs. Sir, that this aifertion, 
 coming from a man. of your fenfe, education, and veracity, 
 is a little to be wondered at. But if tills aifertion be fup- 
 portable, we may undoubtedly expect to find it proved in 
 fome of your Letters ; that bapthz.o is ufed in fome one in- 
 flance in which it mall manifeiUy mean fome application of 
 water which does not and cannot imply immeriion. We 
 hope to examine carefully. 
 
 Your next words are fufficiently noticeable : they are 
 thefe, — " As your initial proof is thus found to confift in 
 mere aifertion, I had thought of leaving it, as fufficiently 
 refuted by a contiary aifertion." This, Sir, brings to my 
 mind what Ahab laid to Benhadad, * Let not him that 
 girdeth on the harnefs boaft himfelf as he that putteth it off.' 
 
Let. IV.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlln* 2$ 
 
 The next bufmefs which you undertake, is to make, in 
 my judgment, an unnatural and a fomewhat dangerous 
 addition to every text of Scripture in which the word baptizo 
 is ufed. To each you add, by affufton. This bufmefs, which 
 fills your pages from the 27th to the 33d, I {hall leave to 
 the reflection of your readers, and turn my attention to your 
 own observations on what you had done. It is pleafing, my 
 dear Sir, that you do not appear fully farisfted with what 
 you have done : I defire that you may be lefs and lefs fatis- 
 fied, till you fhall be altogether diilatisfied. 
 
 You conclude that the co^Txexion in which the word lap- 
 tizo is ufed, does not pieciude the pofLbility of baptilm 
 being adminiftered by affuiion. You do not intimate in your 
 preirufes, from which you draw your conclufion, that there 
 is a probability that the ordinance v. as ever adminiftered by 
 affuiion, but that there is a pofjibility. Hence you conclude, 
 " thai if this be admitted as a poffible thing, it is evident that 
 my aflertion, reflecting the uniform, exclufive meaning of 
 the word, as Signifying immeriion, and that only, is entirely 
 without foundation." 
 
 Here, Sir, either your judgment or mine is incorrect : for 
 in my judgment, I may admit your prenn'fes, without fear- 
 ing the conclusion. I would reft the whole caufe, or had I 
 liberty, I might fafely do it, upon this fingle point, that ii: 
 fhould be foriaken, if your prefnifes, -upon their being true, would 
 harm it. Your premifes are, — fir ft, that there is a pcjjlbility, 
 from the connexion in which baptizo is ufed, that baptilm was 
 adminiltered by affufion ; fecondiy, that there is no probabil- 
 ity* from the connexion in which lapiizo is ufed, that it was 
 ever adminillered in that way. 
 
 Now, Sir, can you have a fmgle query in your mind, 
 whether a gofpel ordinance, which hath nothing for its au- 
 thority but pofitive precepts, may not be duly adminiftered, 
 according to the precepts and pattern given, when it is, at 
 the fame time, adminitiered in a manner which cannot be 
 fupported, even by a probability arifing from fo much as 
 one text out of fifty, which contain precepts or examples 
 relative to the pofitive ordinance enjoined ? In all inch moral 
 cafes, where, from the connexion of any pofitive law or 
 ordinance, there may be a poffibility of any certain thing 
 being enjoined, yet if there be no probability of it, it amounts 
 to a moral demontlration, that no fuch duty was cr is en- 
 joined, unlels we would reflect the higher! reproach upon 
 the Lawgiver. 
 
30 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlln. [Let. IV, 
 
 AH which I need to eftablifh the point,- with all who fuit- 
 ably honour the Scriptures and the Chriftian Lawgiver, is, 
 to prove that the JiteraJ, the plain, the common fenfe of the 
 -Scripture is, that to be buried or overwhelmed in water is 
 the only Chriftian baptifm. Ten thousand poflibilities for 
 any thing elfe, arifmg from the connexion of any text in 
 which the word baptizo is ufed f would not alter the matter 
 an hair's breadth. 
 
 Befides, Sir, you confefs that in fome inftances there ap- 
 pears an harfinefs in the fupp 1 ;^, by affufion, arifing from the 
 ■•onnexion: and you do not prefume to fay that it is eafy 
 and natural in any, fave in thofe pafiages which refer to the 
 ^baptifm of the Holy Ghoft ; of which fay you, wafer baptifm 
 is undoubtedly a fymbol. Hence, if I prove from your own 
 conceffions, that the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft means im- 
 merfion or overwhelming, you will yield the point in con- 
 trol erfv, or renew it under increafed difadvantages. 
 
 Now, Sir, to the point. What is the baptifm of the Holy 
 Ghofl, judging from your own conceffions, as well as from 
 the word ,of God I Your Letters to me ihali give the 
 anfwer. 
 
 Speaking of Rom. vi. 4. you fay, page 45, " The fpiritual, 
 internal baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, exacVly coincides with 
 the whole of his (the apoftle's) reprefentation, and invari- 
 ably produces the effects he mentions." 
 
 In page 48, fpeaking of Col. ii. 12. your words are, " It 
 is juft like the other," i. e. it is juft like the above paffage, 
 Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 In the paflkge which we have been juft confidmng. pages 
 33, 34, you tell, us, "Water baptifm is undoubtedly a fym- 
 bol of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, which is a figurative 
 baptifm ;" pages 6o, 61. 
 
 In page 60 you have thefe w r ords, — " There muft be fome 
 evident lihenefs between the fubjecl to which a word is applied, 
 in the natural and primitive ufe of it, and the fubjeel to 
 which it is applied as a figure ; otherwife there is a grofs im- 
 propriety in the figurative ufe of it." 
 
 Now, Sir, permit me to put thefe ideas, concefEons, and 
 declarations of yours together. 
 
 1. To be buried with Chrift in baptifm, to be planted in 
 the lihenefs of his death, to be buried with him by baptifm, 
 and to be rifen with him in baptifm, Rom. vi. 4, 5. and 
 Col, ii. 12. is to be baptized with the Holy Ghoft ; or the 
 " baptifm of the Holy Qhoft exactly coincides with this 
 reprefentation." 
 
Let. V.I Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. 31 
 
 2. " There is an evident likenefs between the natural idea 
 of planting, burying, anc as rrom the dead, and the 
 figurative baptifm of the Holy Ghoit., or there is a grofs 
 impropriety (as you fay) in the apoille's figurative life cf the 
 words." 
 
 3. Water baptifm is a fymbel or figure of the baptiira 
 of the Holy Ghoil ; it is, therefore, a burying, a planting, 
 or immerfion, — your Letters, as well as the word of God, 
 being judge. 
 
 Hence, Sir, by going a large diftance round, to avoid 
 what you feared, vou have proved, to my hand, what I 
 endeavoured to eitablifh through the courfe of five fermons. 
 
 Though I approve of the concluiion to which you have- 
 brought me, yet I cannot fay that I conilnt to all your 
 premifes. You appear to me to be incorrect, in fetting down- 
 time paifages in Rom. vi. 4, 5. and Col. ii. 12. as containing 
 inftances of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoit. Should you 
 ever in the world be a thorough Baptift, or if not, when the 
 light of heaven (hall give you light, you will, if I miftake 
 not, fee very clearly water baptifm pointed out in both thefe 
 chapters. 
 
 If you can honeftly get by the above argument, and flill 
 retain your ground, I wifh you to : but mould the arguir 
 be fe le, then cheerfully concede that truth is 
 
 (Ironger than man, and yield to her fovereign mandate. 
 /Io who is willingly conquered by truth, is a conqiH 
 Celf. 
 
 I am fincerely yours, &c. 
 
 LETTER V, 
 
 It E V E P. E N D SIR, 
 
 IN your fourth Letter you manifefdy difeovered a diflike 
 to my aflTertions and arguments. In this I propofe to 
 give my readers fouie (liort notices of what I. did, both as 
 to argument and affertibn ; and alfo fet to view how you 
 attempted to wind yourfelf out, and how, by the attempt, 
 you have wound yourfelf up in them, 
 
 My fii-ft argument, to prove that the Greek word baptize 
 means to immerfe, bury, &c was — The moll learned critics 
 in the Greek and Englifh languages, bear their united teiri- 
 mony, generally fpeafeing, againli your practice, againft t] 
 
32 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlln. [Let* V. 
 
 own, and for the Baptifts, that the common, the plain, the 
 literal fenfe of the word is as i hud given it. Your reply is, 
 " To have recourfe to fuch miferable authorities, to deter- 
 mine relative to an efTential arid excluftve article of Chriltian 
 doctrine, is not the moft refpectful treatment of the great 
 Infpher of the Bible." The only end which I had to an- 
 iwer, hy quoting the definitions and critical remarks of 
 critical and learned men, was to ascertain the definition of 
 a word. Do you fuppofe, Sir, that I and the reft of your 
 readers, were all of us born with innate notions, anfwering 
 to all the ideas meant to be communicated by all the He- 
 brew, Syriac, Arabic, and Greek words in the Bible ? If 
 this be not your belief, then you know that you and I, and 
 our readers too, mud gain fome of our firft knowledge from 
 critics, or from compilers of dictionaries, lexicons, and other 
 writings of men, &c. When we have gained what knowl- 
 edge is at hand, as to the meaning of any word, and cur 
 confequent duty, as related by the bell of men ; yet if there 
 be any more lure word of prophecy, we mould, as did the 
 Bereans, taV.e heed to it. Accordingly I did in the fecond 
 place turn to the word of the Lord, in which I found it 
 thus written, Mark i. 5. * And there went out unto him 
 (John) all the land of Judea, and they of Jerufalem, and 
 were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan/ Thus, 
 .Sir, by comparing the teftimony of learned men and the 
 fufe word of prophecy together, I find they both agree, and 
 therefore believe both. 
 
 But, Sir, what (hall I fay to your reply ? Shall I tell the- 
 learned world that Mr. S. Auftin, who would not allow me 
 to conjoin the teftimony of learned critics with that of the 
 word of God, in order to make fure the definition of a word 
 which he is difpofed to controvert, dares himfelf to confront 
 plain Scripture with many great but namelefs critics ? Shall 
 I tell it in Afkelon, or publiih it in Gath, that the fame Mr. 
 Auftin, who will not allow a dictionary, lexicon, or con- 
 cordance, each functioned by the learned world, to fay one 
 word, dare fpoil the plain, literal, common, and only fenfe 
 of a plain paiFage of Scripture, when all the authority which 
 he pretends to pofTefs is, that it is the opinion of many great 
 critics, that John actually did baptize in the river of Jordan 
 by ajfufton ? Shall I tell the fame learned world, that ihe 
 fame Mr. Auftin affertr,.'n his public Letters to me, page 35, 
 « Thar, the fuppofed evidence of this paMage muft lie wholly 
 in the prepofuion in, and that applies to John as really as to 
 thefubjects of his adminiftraton ?" " Nay, (fays Mr. Auftin) 
 
Let. V.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. 33 
 
 it efpecially relates to him ; the confequence is obvious, — it 
 is, that John was immerfed at every adminiftration of the 
 ordinance." A peribn who can affert thus roundly, without 
 fo much as a (how of evidence, and call it arguing, may be 
 expected to find fome fault with the arTertions and pretended 
 arguings of his opponents. But, Sir, I have a little more 
 to fay of this argument of yours, by which you would de- • 
 ftroy my evidence from Scripture. You fay, " This confe- 
 rence is too unpleafant to be eafily received.' , What con- 
 fequence ? The one which you had juft drawn, " That John 
 was himfelf immerfed at every adminiiiration of the ordi- 
 nance." This confequence you draw from your own prem- 
 ife, " that the prepofition in relates efpecially to John," 
 together with my definition of laptizo, that it is to immerfe. . 
 Now take your own premife and your own definition, if 
 you have any, or take your affert ion, that bapt'1%0 is a gene- 
 ric term, and means not any particular kind of waihing, 
 but waihing in general, or any application of water : and 
 what is the confequence ? " The confequence may be un- 
 pleafant, and too unpleafant to be eafily received :" but as 
 unpleafant as it may be, I fliall fet it down, and the world 
 will judge on which fide the unpleaiantnefs falls. The 
 confequence is — If John baptized by affuiion every time he 
 adminiftered die ordinance, he affufed or poured water on 
 himfelf: if he baptized by fprinkling, then at every admin- 
 iftration he was fprinkled himfelf : ifheufed water in any 
 other way, in the admini'tralion of the ordinance, in the 
 fame way the water came on himfelf. Thus, Sir, your own 
 argument makes nonfenfe of John's baptifm, take it in any 
 way which you pleafe. Either John's baptifm muft be 
 given up in whole, or your method of managing it. 
 
 In page 36, you are pleafed to exprefs yonrfelf thus : : 
 " You next, for lack of proof, go on to repeat your arTer- 
 tions." And how do you know " it nvas for lack of proof ?' y 
 Is it always the cafe with you, when in. your fermons you 
 recapitulate fome particulars which you had parTed over, 
 that you do it for lack of proof? If not, your accufation 
 againft me may not be well founded. A little afterwards, . 
 fpeaking of my recapitulation, you fubjoin, " My dear Sir, 
 repetitions and aifertions are not arguments. We afk of. 
 you proof." Proof, Sir, you may expect ; proof of two 
 kinds : proof that your examination of my Sermons was not 
 well founded, and proof that no fimilar oppofition will be 
 able to injure the leading fentiments which they contain.,. 
 
 D 2^ 
 
34 Letters to Rev. Mr, Attftin. [Let. V. 
 
 My third argument was to this purport : Baphzo and 
 baptifmos, though they be molt ufually rendered to baptize 
 and baptifm, yet they fometimes fignify to warn ; but when 
 thi-s is their fignirkatioa, the wafting fpoken of is never 
 common wafhing, but ceremonial ; which is bathing the 
 thing in water, or putting it all over in water. Upon this 
 you fee fit to obferve, in not a very handfome manner, thus, 
 " But how you could ftumble upon this, as an argument, is 
 incomprehenfible." 
 
 My readers, Sir, can generally nnderftand me. As to 
 this argument, which" you fay is incomprehenfible, I will fet 
 it before you with mathematical plainnefs. Baptizo and 
 baptifmos equal two tranflations, baptizing and a certain kind 
 of wafhing ; this certain kind of wafhing equals ceremonial 
 wafhing, which is to bathe a thing all over in water, or to 
 put into water, Lev. xi. 32. ; to bathe a thing all over in 
 water, or to put into water, equals immerfion : therefore, 
 to baptize equals to immerfe, and immerfion equals baptifm. 
 But, Sir, your anfwer is ready, and it is this, — " BaptfzS 
 equals nipto, and nipto equals common, wafhing.'' Now, 
 Sir, lhow me in any paffage of the New Teftament, where 
 this fhort chain of yours, of only three links, is fupported, 
 or can be by plain affirmation or fair deduction, and I will 
 confefs that I have run my claim too high. It is eaiy to 
 fliow you where you will go for proof, and it is equally eafy 
 to fhow you that it is not in point. You will directly repair 
 to Mark vii. or to Luke xi. Very well. What do you find 
 here ? In Mark you find, that the Pharifces, except they 
 warn they eat not ; this was a con ft ant ceremony among 
 them, and nipto is ufed. And when .they come from the 
 market, except they wafh (baptize, or bathe themfelves all 
 over in water) they eat not. This is their extraordinary 
 ceremony or tradition. This was to be obferyed when they 
 had been to the market, or to a pomifcuous aiTembly, where 
 clean and unclean perfons were alTembled. This takes up 
 the patfages in Luke xi. as well as Mark vii. Now, Sir, 
 you, and thofe who have written before you on your inde- 
 fenfible ground; would palm it upon both learned and un- 
 learned, upon both faint and fmner, that the circumftancei 
 are fo fimilar, in which nipto and in which baptizo are ufed, 
 that the words are equivalent, when the very texts them- 
 felves intimate to you that it is no fuch tiling. One halt 
 of your fuppofed ftrength, and imaginary triumph, is found- 
 ed upon your miftaking, or willingly not underftanding, the 
 above pafl'ages. Would you bring us half fo much evi- 
 
Let. V.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. $5 
 
 dence for you, as there 5s in thefe two paffages againft 
 you, we would allow you ibmething plaufible. But, Sir, 
 till you fhow us where baptizo and nipto are equivalent, we 
 wifh you would fay lefs about it, and take lefs credit for the 
 fuppofed equivalency of them. Equate them, or make them 
 equal, if you can : when you do it, we will be filent, or 
 make conceffions : till you do this, common civility impofes 
 . filence on you. The other half of your fuppofed ftrength, 
 I hope to remove out of your way as I come to it. 
 
 The next thing which requires to be noticed, in your 
 examination, is my definition of the word loud, and your 
 obfervations relating to my definition. My definition of loud 
 was, and (till is, to bathe or wain a thing all over. You 
 add to my words, and fay " that I intend immerfion." I 
 do not ; nor did I ever intend to define loud as always mean- 
 ing immerfion. All which I have faid is this, that loud al- 
 ways imports a wafhing of the thing or fubject all over. 
 You fubjoin, " If I will turn to John xiii. 10. I ihall find evi- 
 dence directly and conclufively againft this idea." Againft 
 what idea ? Againft immerfion. This idea of immerfion, 
 as being the exclusive fenfe of loud, I never advocated. But 
 we will take the text into confederation : it is this, — * Jefus 
 faith to him, fie that is wafted [o kloumenos) needeth not 
 fave to waih his feet, but is clean every whit/ Here you 
 fay, " the man is warned, when only his feet are warned." 
 .Do you mean to contradict the text ? or, Do you mean that 
 the text, by a figure of fpeech, which puts a part for the 
 whole, lays the man is warned, when it intends the feet only 
 warned ? The text does not appear to be perfectly eafy 
 to be underftood ; its. purport appears to be, either jirjl y 
 That Peter had already been baptized, {Jchumenos) and fo 
 now had no need to have his body, as Paul expreifes It, 
 waflied with pure water; but it was fuiHcient for the object 
 that the Saviour had at this time in view, that his feet be 
 vfafhedj — as that would be fufficient to rranifeft the Sav- 
 iour's condefcenfion, and to teach his followers humility : 
 or, Jccondly, The meaning might be, that lelourtienos referred, 
 by a^ figure, to the wafhing of the man, when it intended 
 the wafhing of the feet only. Bat upon either fuppofition, 
 it comes to the fame thing, as to my argument from it, 
 tinlefs you can fhow that the feet were but partially waihed. 
 For all whic-h I fay or wifh to maintain is, that whenever 
 loud is ufed to import the wafhing of any thing whatever, it 
 intends that the thing is wafhed all over. Should you upon 
 this conceftlon fay, and I grant it in this inftance, and in 
 
3 6 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. . [Let. V„ 
 
 many more, that loud and niptd are equivalent ; would it 
 either help you or harm me ; would it be to your purpofe at 
 all ? If you confider it to be fo, I will grant it ; for I purpofe 
 to allow you every inch of ground to which you can appa- 
 rently make any juft claim. 
 
 We mud now compare things accurately. 
 
 Baptizd is equal to immerfion, and to nothing fhort of it. 
 Loud is fometimes equal to baptizd ; then loud is fometimes 
 equal to immerfion, as when Paul fays, our bodies (leloumenoi) 
 warned with pure water. Loud is fometimes equal to niptd ; 
 niptd is equal to the warning of part of the human body ; 
 therefore, and what ? This, Sir, — firft, that nipto and louo 
 may have the fame import ; and fecondly, that when niptd 
 and louo agree, they neither of them agree with baptizd ; . 
 therefore, and what ? This, Sir, — that your argument comes 
 to juft what it fliould, to nothing. 
 
 Would -you obtain the leaft advantage from the fignifjca- 
 tion of the word loud, you muft prove one of thefe two 
 things,— either i. That loud never intends immerfion, and 
 yet is fometimes equivalent to baptizd ; or 2. That loud, in 
 fome certain place or places, where it is fubftituted for 
 baptizd, figniries not immerfion, but fomething fhort of it. 
 But could you do this, which you neither have done nor 
 can do, ftill nothing would be gained, unlefs it. be this, that 
 it would ernbarrafs my principle, without helping your 
 own ; for neither baptizd, loud, nor niptd, is ever uicd for 
 rantizd or for fprinhling. 
 
 You proceed. Sir, in your examination, to tell us, "That 
 it is not probable that the dead body of Dorcas was im- 
 merfed ; that it would have been a bad way to have im- 
 merfed Paul and Silas, in order to bathe their (tripes ; and 
 you can hardly perfuade yourfelf, that the cuftom, in thofe 
 days, of wafhing the fow from her filth, was to immerfe 
 thofe animals." 
 
 All this trouble, Sir, you have, either through my fault, 
 in exprefllng myfelf without fufficient perfpicuity, or through 
 yours, in adding to my words ; for I never intended any 
 inch thing. What I wifhed for is juft this, — To fhow that 
 loud nqver meant any thing lefs than the waihing of the body 
 or thing all over. The world muft judge, and we mail both 
 one day, whether you have deduced a fingle circumftance 
 to invalidate the idea which I advanced ; if you have not, 
 my Sermons yet appear uninjured by your examination. 
 
 One paflage which I pafled over, in page 39, I will here 
 mention, left you fhould imagine that I wilh to avoid it, oa 
 
Let. VI.] Letters to Rev. Afr. Ai ^ 
 
 account of fome apparent difficulty. You exprefs it thus : 
 •> If you will turn to Rev. i. 5. you v. ill find another exam- 
 ple, clearly again!! what you aifert, refpecling leuo. The 
 word is kloufantu You will :end that Chrift ever 
 
 waihed his people in his own blood by immeiflng them in 
 it ; this is a natural in., : the word here I grant is 
 
 uied figuratively. " Very well, Sir, and are the anfed 
 
 thoroughly ? If fo, they are figuratively wallied all over. 
 This is all that I afk you to grant. 
 
 Your other obiervations, in your fourth Letter, are fup- 
 pofed to be anfwered, and fo fufpciently reviewed by what is 
 already faid. 
 
 I will now irate the bufmefs, fo far as it appears to ftancl 
 for the prefent unembarrafled by your examination. Baptize 
 is to immerfe, bury, overwhelm, &c. ; louo never means any 
 thing lefs than to waft a thing all over The Holy Spirit 
 hath made v.ie of both thefe words, and of thefe only, with 
 their derivatives, except in John iii. 5. to dell gnate baptifm : 
 hence, baptiim can mean nothing lefs than wafting the body 
 all over, or immerfmg it, in the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghoft. There is no denomination in the world 
 who pracliies this baptiim, but thofe who are Baptffts as to 
 the administration of the ordinance : hence thole and thole 
 only who baptize by immerhon, adminifter the Chriilian. 
 ordinance of baptifm. 
 
 Wifhing you more light, love, and knowledge than tha, 
 writer poiieiles, 
 
 I remain yours, Sec. 
 
 LETTER VL 
 
 REV8REND S ! R , 
 
 IT is manifeftly a matter of importance with you, that 
 the world ihouid confider Paul, where he fpeaks of 
 baptiim, Rom. vL and Col. ii. 12. to intend the baptifm of 
 the Holy Ghoft. It is, indeed, to your theory of baptifm, 
 a matter of the greateft magnitude, to have thefe paiiages 
 refer to the baptiim of the Holy Ghoft ; for if they do not, 
 they are as a great mill-Mere, bound about the neck of all 
 arguments, and drown them all as in the fea. So 
 long as you can perfuade the prejudiced and inattentive to 
 diihelieve the plain import of the apoftle's words and reafon- 
 
38 Letters to Rev, Mr. Aujlln. [Let. VI. 
 
 ings, fo long you may prevent their feeling the force of thefe 
 pailagesl But what will the world think of your reafonings, 
 and the blindnefs which they gather from them, provided it 
 be here mown, as it indeed hath already been, that though 
 we grant all your premifes, the conclufion from them is 
 fairly and undeniably this, — that immerfion is the only gof- 
 pel baptifm* All your objection againft allowing that the 
 apoftle, in Romans and Coloilians, alludes to and intends 
 water baptifm, is coniidered to arife from an apprehenfion 
 that immerfion would certainly follow. But we will attend 
 to your premifes. 
 
 In pages 33, 34, your words are, Water baptifm is un- 
 doubtedly a lymbol of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 Pages 44, 45, you inform us that thefe paffages, To be 
 buried with Cirri ft by baptifm into death, to be buried with 
 Chrift in baptifm, and to be raifed with him in baptifm, 
 according to Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12. can never be 
 proved to have any refpect or even allulion to external water 
 baptifm. 
 
 Again you tell us, page 60, " There muft be fome evi- 
 dent likenefs, between the fubjecl to which a word is applied 
 in the natural and primitive ufe of it, and the fubject to 
 which it is applied as a figure, otherwife there is a grofs 
 impropriety in the figurative ufe of it." 
 
 Hence, Sir, baptifm is fpoken of under the fimilitude or 
 figure of burying and riling again. You reply, This is the 
 baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. Grant it : yet you tell us, 
 Water baptifm is undoubtedly a fymbol (i. e. an emblem or 
 figure) of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. You may add, 
 There is no likenefs between the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, 
 and burying and rifing again. But, Sir, you have declared 
 to us, that " there mull be fome evident likenefs between a 
 fubject to which a word is applied in the natural and primi- 
 tive r.fe of it, and the fubjeel to which it is applied as a- 
 figure, otherwife there is a grofs impropriety in the figurative 
 ufe of it." 
 
 Now, Sir, I fee but two things between which you muft 
 choofej either, 1. That water baptifm hath an evident like- 
 nefs to a burial and refurrection ; or, 2. That the apoftle 
 was guilty of a grofs impropriety in the figurative ufe which 
 he made of the words burying and the refurrection. Take 
 which you plcafe. 
 
 You will pleafe to review your aflertion, page 47, " That 
 the above texts in Romans and ColorTians, do not even fur- 
 nilh the fnadow of proof for baptifm by immorfton." 
 
Let, VI.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlln. 39 
 
 In the clofe of your fifth Letter you fet down thefe mem- 
 orable words : " Ail your potent reasoning here, in a few 
 words, is this — The word baptizo means to imrrierfe, there- 
 fore the apoftles, becaufe they were commanded to baptize, 
 practifed immerfion, and their practice of immeriion in bap- 
 tizing proves that bapt'1%0 means to immerie. Whether this 
 be arguing in a circle, or arguing at all, I entreat you to 
 
 \r, take advice, and /peak four mind." 
 Sir, I have confidered, and find that you have given a 
 partial ftatement of my poor arguing, if I argued at all. I 
 have taken advice of that part of my third Sermon which 
 
 are profeifedly examining. Now, Sir, I will fpenk my 
 
 d« It is, firf}, That your critical readers will doubt the 
 torrednefs of your concluding aflertion, (which is quoted 
 above,) judging from the quotations which you have made 
 from my Sermons, pages 36, 37, 38, 39. Secondly, My 
 mind is, that an argument is good, though of a circular 
 form, provided every part contains its own proper evidence. 
 My mind is, thirdly, That it is a good rule, to put in the 
 middle of our arguing thofe particulars on which we place 
 the leail dependence, and that in the beginning and clofe of 
 
 and e\ery arguing of weight, our particulars lhould be 
 able to fuftain the ihock of our opponent's opposition. My 
 mind is, fourthly, That you have told the world that all my 
 potent reasoning refts upon thofe particulars in which I never 
 placed much confidence ; whereas, were I to tell them where 
 tiie ftrengtrh of the reaibning lays, my information would be, 
 that it lays, firft, in the determinate meaning of the apoflle's 
 word, by which he expreffes the thing done in the ordinance 
 of baptifm, without uiing the more common word baptizo, 
 as Keb x. 22. 'Having our bodies (leloumenoi) warned with 
 pure water, &c.' Lahiy, that the ftrength of my reaibning 
 jay in the Similitudes which Paul ufes, when he would illuf- 
 trate what is done to the perfons baptized, or what takes 
 place in baptifm ; that the fubjects are buried and railed 
 again in baptifm : this I coniidered fufficient to make mani- 
 fest the practice of the apoftles. My mind is, fifthly, That 
 the above reafons mayexcufe the circular appearance of my 
 argumentation; or if they will not, thefe reafons are fufti- 
 cient of themfelves to eftablifh what I wifhed, afide from 
 the two middle particulars, which excited your obferv:>i*ons. 
 My mind is, fifthly, That were your Letters, arguments, 
 and their author ufed in a fimilar manner, you would com- 
 plain of unfairnefs. My mind is, laftly, To leave it with 
 oar readers, to form what judgment they pleafe upon th£ 
 
40 . Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlhu [Let. VI. 
 
 conclufivenefs or weaknefs of our arguments, and with re- 
 fpecl: to the truths which we advocate or oppofe. 
 
 Your fixth Letter comes next, that it may pafs in review : 
 in which you bring forward what you term unequivocal and 
 indifputable evidence. If it be unequivocal and indifputable, 
 you need have no apprehenfions with relation to it, while it 
 may pafs a candid review. 
 
 Page 52, fay you, " It will not be denied that the word 
 ?iipto, which is fometimes ufed as equivalent with baptlzo, 
 generally means a partial wafhing. I have produced two 
 or three examples, in which it is indifputable that the word 
 lotto is ufed in the like partial lenfe, and in not one is it clear 
 that it is ufed to iignify total immerfion,. I will now add 
 unequivocal evidence, to prove the direct contrary of your 
 sfTertion, that the words bapt'1%0 and baptifmos have not always 
 the extenfive fenfe of immerfion, but fometimes, at leaft, 
 intend the application of water in a partial manner." 
 
 I. " In Luke xi. 38. it is too plain to admit of any con- 
 troverfy, that baptizo is ufed in a l^nic different from that of 
 a total immerfion in water of the mbjecl to which it is ap- 
 plied : — * And when the Pharnee faw it, he marvelled that 
 he had not firft walhcd before dinner.'* 
 
 Anj\ Sir, your not knowing 1 the traditionary laws of the 
 Pharifees, and your inattention to the connexion and plain 
 import of this paffage in Luke, and in that of Mark vii. is 
 the only excufe-which can be made for you, whilft you very 
 incautioufly, and with great boldnefs, molt roundly contra- 
 dict the plain word of the Lord, in what you fay on thefe 
 paifages, from page 52 to 57. 
 
 The laws traditionary among the Pharifees were, among 
 others, thefe two : 1. " They eat not bread, or any common 
 meal, at any common time, except they wafh their hands ;" 
 2. " When they come from the market, or from a crowded 
 aifembly of clean and unclean per'fons, they baptize them- 
 felvcs, or were baptized ;" that is, they immeried or bathed 
 themfelves all over in water. This iecond law carries its 
 own traditionary evidence with it, fo that it is at once obvi- 
 ous, upon our underitanding the reafon of the firft. The 
 realbn of the firft, or of. their wafhing their hands, was, left 
 they had touched fome unclean thing, and fo their hands 
 mig#*t have contracted fome defilement. Now, the reafon 
 of their immerfing or baptizing themfelvcs, when they came 
 from the market, or from the midil of a promifcuous multitude, 
 is manifeft ; for in fueh places, and in fuch company, they 
 gould not tell on what part their defilement might be ; thejr 
 
Let. VI.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. 41 
 
 muft, therefore, ceremonially cleanfe themfelves, or be cere- 
 monially cleanfed, all over : they muft make the outfide 
 clean, according to their traditionary law. 
 
 This, Sir, exactly agrees with what is related of this mat> 
 ter by both Mark and Luke. 
 
 As you have firft taken the pafTage in Luke, fo I will 
 mention the circumftances of that firft. The p?.fTage is, 
 •When the Pharifee fa*v it, he marvelled that he had not 
 firft wafhed (or was not firft immerfed) before dinner.' 
 The noticeable circumftances are two 1. Jefus had come 
 from a promifcuous alTembly, where r 1 : people were gathered 
 thick together ', verle 29. 2. The re^rcof which our Lord 
 gave the Pharifees, « Now do ye P *arifees make clean the 
 cutjide of the cup and platter? plai y referring to the tradi- 
 tionary wafhing, immeriing, or baptizing their bodies, when 
 they had been publidly expofed to contract, as they fuppofed, 
 fome outward defilement. 
 
 As to the paftage in Mark v i. the matter appears, if 
 poflible, ftill more explicit. In t'.e fecond verfe, the Phari- 
 fees found fault, becaufe Chrift'': difciples ate bread with 
 unwafhen hands : in the third, we are told that the Pharifees 
 ate not, unlefs they wafhed their hands with exactnefs, or 
 rubbing them : and in the fourth verfe, we have an account 
 of their carrying th:ir fuperftit: m ftill farther ; for when 
 they came from the market, they ate not except they baptized 
 themfelves, or wafhed, or bached .11 over. This, Sir, makes 
 the Scripture all eafy and l^.atural. Bat this plain, fair, and 
 natural expoikion of Scripture yery illy fuits you^unferip- 
 tural and unchriftian, or amichri tian, practice of rantixing 
 for baptizing, or fprinkling, or partial walhing, for the gofpel 
 Ordinance of immerfion. 
 
 You produce not one text of Scripture to prove your 
 affertions, or any other authority, fave Grotius, " who (70U 
 fay) is the mot rcipe&able wricer that ever appeared on oui 
 fide of the queiiion ;" and he admits your expoikion ; but, 
 Sir, I do notj nor does the word of God admit it. Nor 
 have you, nor can you find fo much as a fingle pafTage in 
 the word of God, where baptixo and nlpto are ufed, but the 
 attending circumftances will fhow that they mean different 
 things, or a different application of the fame thing. 
 
 In page 55, fpeaking of Luke xi. 38. you fay, "This paf- 
 fage has been often mentioned by Paedobaptift writers, but 
 fomehow the proper light in which it prefents itfelf is ftrange- 
 \j overlooked by you and your brethren." The proper 
 
42 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. VL 
 
 light, Sir, we confiderto be Scripture light ; this we believe 
 God hath ihown us : by this light we difcover your mifap- 
 plication of the pafTage. You fubjoin, " That Mr. Cleave- 
 land made uie of it, we have your authority, under the fol- 
 lowing quotation from him, — " Your learned men know 
 that the word hapti%o\ Luke xi. 38. and lapi'ifmos, Mark vii. 
 5. are ufed to fignify the fame as mptb is ; that is, proper 
 walhing, or making clean by the application of water, in 
 cafes that do not neceflarily require dipping, as the mode of 
 waihing." You anfwer by flatly contradicting the good 
 man's aflertion : nay, you go farther, and fay, that the 
 learned men, in no other clafs, know any inch thing. " You, 
 bir, are pleuied to add, " They certainly do know it, as iai 
 as the Bible furnimes them with information." Reply. True, 
 but the Bible furnifnes them with no fuch information. You 
 {till fubjoin, " I am forry, my dear Sir, that you have not 
 given us a better fpecimen of your modefty." Falfe mod- 
 efty afide, Sir, when you or your brethren would, by wreft- 
 ing the Scriptures, force from us and from the world the 
 precious ordinance of baptifm, and even the knowledge of it. 
 
 We now proceed to what you fet down as undeniable 
 evidence. Your words are, page 57, "Another cafe in 
 which the word baptizo is undeniably ufed to convey an idea 
 entirely different from that of complete immerfion, occurs 
 1 Cor. x. 2. * And were ail baptized (claptij'anto) unto Mofes 
 in the cloud and in the fea." 
 
 Here let Paul explain himfelf, or let the preceding verfe 
 explain what this means. The preceding \crfe is, * More- 
 over, brethren, I would not that ye mould be ignorant, how 
 that all our fathers were wider, the cloud, and ail paffttd 
 through the fea :' then follows, verfe 2, ' And were alj 
 tized unto Mofes in the cloud and in the lea.' How dots 
 this " undeniably convey an idea entirely different iiom that 
 of complete immerfion ?' It looks to me fomewhat like the 
 fame idea. It certainly has the appearance of being over- 
 whelmed, or completely eiicomp ailed. They were all u\ 
 the cloud, they all paifed through the fea ; they were baptized 
 ;n the cloud and in the f.-a. This your undeniable evidence 
 iigainll the idea of immerfion, appears, upon the very fae* 
 of it, to favour, firongly to favour, -the very truth which 
 you brought it to deftroy. Thus, ^Sir, your unequivocal 
 evidence, and your undeniable evidence, and all your evi- 
 dence, which you bring againft immerfion, as the only gof- 
 pel baptifm, turn out like Balaam, whom Balak hiied to 
 curie Ifrael,— they bkft it ahq$etberi 
 
Let, VI. j Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlln. 43 
 
 The next witnefs which yon produce will not be particu- 
 larly noticed, .tor you confeis, laying 1 , u I do not contend 
 that it is conclulive." Bnt, fay you, "The pafTage in Heb. 
 ix. 10. it appears to me, is concluiive.'' It fhall, then, btf 
 fpeciaily noticed. " It determines (fay you) that bapti^o, 
 and I ipti : ■ its derivative to be generic terms, comprehend- 
 ing feveral ways of applying water, without fpecifically 
 defignating either — 'Which (rood only in meats, and drinks, 
 and divers wafhings, [diaphorois baptlfmois) &c.' Thefe bap- 
 tiims were undoubtedly ad thofe applications of fluids which 
 were prescribed in the Moiaic law." 
 
 Had you read yoiir text three words further,, and taken 
 foitable notice of them, they would have fpoiled your con- 
 chifion. You will permit me to read the text, with the three 
 additional words: it is thus. — 'Which Rood only in meats, 
 and drinks, and divers waitings, and £arnal ordinances? I • , 
 Sir, the conclauon is, " Thefe baptifms were undoubtedly 
 not all thofe applications of fluids which were prefciibed in 
 the Mofaic law ; for carnal ordinances comprife the ordi- 
 nances of God concerning bloody facrifices. Thefe ordi- 
 nances comprife the fprinkling of blood, and the allies of 
 an heifer, &c. Hence, Sir, your conclufion is defective, and 
 fo fpoiled. 
 
 Our next inquiry fhall be, What are the wafhings in trie 
 
 ceremonial law ? Then we fhall inquire whether thefe wafh- 
 
 - compared with the text, do not fpoil'your conclufii a 
 
 • it ? Your conclufion is, That divers wafhings include 
 
 (prinklingj as the fprinkling of blood, and the allies of an 
 
 heifer, &c. 
 
 The ceremonial wafhings, mentioned in the law, appear 
 to be at mod but of feven kinds, and fome of thefe have but 
 fli] ht (hades of difference. Thefe kinds are, as I fhall men- 
 n, — 
 
 f. ''It fhall he rinfed m water,' Lev. vi. 28. This obvi- 
 rfion. 
 
 2. * Aaron and his ions fhall waft their feet at the laver,' 
 !. >:xx. 18, 19. This might be performed by immerfmg, 
 
 their hands and their feet, and it might not. 
 
 3. ' It fhall be ft cured in water,' Lev. vi. 28. This fup- 
 2s immerfion. 
 
 4. ' He fhall wafh his clothes in water,' Lev. xiv. 9. 
 This implies immerfion. 
 
 5. 'He fhall bathe himfelf In water, he fhall wafh all his 
 fleih in water,' Lev. xv. n, 16. This taken literally is in>- 
 merfion* 
 
44 Letters to Rev. Mr. Axtftin. [Let. VI. 
 
 6. « Aaron and his fons thou (Mofes) (halt bring untifc 
 the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and^fhalt 
 wafh them with water,' Exod. xxix. 4. This means, ac- 
 cording to the probability, not immerfion. . 
 
 7. «It muft be put into water,' Lev. xi. 32. This is 
 manifeftly immerfion. 
 
 We fhall now inquire whether thefe wafhings, compared 
 with the text, which faith divers wafhings, do not fpoil your 
 conclufion. Your conclufion is, that divers wafhings include 
 fprinklings, all kinds of the fprinklings of fluids, as the fprink- 
 lings of blood, and of the afhes of an heifer, &c. 
 
 Here it is worthy of note, that in no place is warning 
 called fprinkling, or fprinkling called warning. Is your 
 conclufion fpoiled ? It is likewife worthy of your particular 
 obfervation, that in the Mofaic law there are feveral fpecies 
 of ceremonial wafhings, which evidently imply immerfion ; 
 fuch as rinfing, fcouring in water, putting into water, and the 
 like. Now, Sir, how do you know that Paul, or the Holy 
 Ghoft by him, included in (diapborois baptifmois) divers wafh- 
 ings, any other kind of warning but thofe kinds which imply 
 immerfion ? There appears no intimation, from the words 
 afed, from the connexion, or from common fenfe, that any 
 waihing which does not imply immerfion was meant. If you 
 do not know that any other kind of wafhing is intended, then 
 you do not yet know but my fentiment as to the iignificatioa 
 of baptizo is correel: in every part, completely fo. 
 
 But as this text is your laft refort, I will juft obferve to 
 you and the public, that even were your ideas ©f the text, 
 and your conclufion too, as to its including fprinkling, all 
 admitted, and fully granted, it would not put my general 
 principle, that baptifm by immerfion is the only gofpel bap- 
 tifm, to any danger ; for were there a thoufand fpecies or 
 kinds of baptifm, there is, however, but one which is a gof- 
 pel ordinance, as Paul affures us in his epiftle to the Ephe- 
 fians ; and this, one kind of baptifm is the kind which, as Paul 
 tells us in Romans and Coloffians, and as you by confe- 
 rence confefs, has an evident likenefs to burying and rifing 
 again. Baptifm by immerfion is the only baptifm which 
 hath this evident likenefs. Hence, Sir, whether you will be 
 judge yourfelf, or leave it with Paul, it comes, when we put 
 matters together, to the fame thing. Baptifm by immerfion 
 is the only gofpel baptifm : hence, Sir, your fprinkling for 
 baptifm, or your partial wafhing for baptifm, or your warn- 
 ing with rubbing for baptifm, all turn out unfcriptural and 
 of man's invention. 
 
Let. VII. J Leuers to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. 45 
 
 Your pofitioji, Sir, is indeed a trying one to a benevolent 
 
 You believe fprinkliitg or partial waftriug to be bap- 
 
 You have laboured much to prove that there are 
 
 e baptifms than one, hoping in this way to ertablifh 
 
 filing for baptifm, as a neceflary confeqnence. Where- 
 
 :6ftld you prove what you have not, and what we believe 
 
 you never can, that there are baptifms which do not imply 
 
 immerfion, overwhelming, or the like, ilili it would afford 
 
 no more evidence, that fpripkling or any partial wafting is 
 
 el baptifm, than it proves that Mcfes? fprinkling the 
 
 bloi : upon the people, or afhes into the air, 
 
 is g< : . for Chriftians have but ohe gofpel bdp 
 
 . iv, 5. ana if you have more, the} belong to another 
 gofpel, and are oi AutichritVs invention. 
 
 I am yours, Sic, 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 . : r , 
 
 N the beginning of your feventh Letter, "you requeft 
 eonfider what concluhon we are naturally to draw 
 t^ofe places in which the word baptizo is ufed figura- 
 yS* This T have already done in a preceding Letter, 
 and the conclusion which we found to flow naturally fiom 
 it, was immerfion ; for you informed us, that Paul fpake^ of 
 this' baptifm, or defcribed it by the figurative language, 
 burying, planting, and rifmg. You alio in this place inform 
 u#, M that there mult be fome evident likenefs between the 
 iubiect to which a word is applied in the natural primitive 
 ufe of it, and the fubject to which it is applied as a figure ; 
 otherwjfe there is a grofs impropriety in the figurative ufe 
 ©£ it." The concluiion is hence perfectly natural, thai when 
 baptizo is ufed figuratively, it means a figurative immerfion, 
 that is, a figurative burying and refurrection, or immerfion 
 in fome element or thing, afide from water. 
 
 I might have added no more here, on the baptifm of the 
 Holy Ghoft, did I confider your obfervations fufficiently 
 explicit and accurate : but as the matter is, more muft be 
 faid. ^ 
 
 Whilfl fpeaking of the pouring out of the Spirit, as men- 
 tioned by the prophet Joel, ii. 28. you exprefs your fenti- 
 E 2 
 
46 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujl'nu [Let. VII. 
 
 ment in the following manner : " This prophecy the apoftle 
 Peter exprefsly applies to the affufion of the Spirit on the 
 difciples, on the memorable day of Pentecoft, when they 
 were filled with, not plunged in, the Holy Ghoft, and began 
 to fpeak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utter- 
 ance. According to your ftrange treatment of this pafTage, 
 which furely is (fay you to me) more like rant than reafon- 
 ing, the found and the Spirit were the fame thing, and the 
 apoftles were overwhelmed with, or immerfed in, found." 
 
 Anf. I faid not that the apoftles were plunged, over- 
 whelmed, or immerfed in found : I faid this, — that the houfe 
 was filled with the found, wind, or Spirit from heaven, and 
 that the apoftles were overwhelmed, for all the houfe where 
 they were fitting was filled. I left it with you to determine 
 with what the houfe was filled, whether with found, wind, 
 or Spirit : but as you have determined riot according to my 
 liking, that it was filled with found, 1 mud (till add, and 
 will do it as explicitly as I can. 
 
 The operation wrought on the morning of the memorable 
 day of Pentecoft, let it be what it may, was the baptizing 
 of the difciples with the Holy Ghoft, as Chrift promifed, 
 Acts i. 5. y 
 
 Qucfl. What was now done ? 
 
 Anf. Three things were done. 
 
 1. There was a found from heaven as of a mighty rufhing 
 wind, (this is what attended the pouring out of the Spirit 
 from heaven,) and it filled all the houfe where they were 
 fitting. What filled all the houfe ? You may reply, Sound 
 filled all the houfe ; but is your reply warranted from the 
 text, and circumftances attending ? Is it not much more 
 confiftent with truth, and with the intent of the text, to fay 
 that all the houfe was filled with the remarkable prefence 
 and power of theTIoly Ghoft ? To me, the latter is the im- 
 portant and juft fenfe of the text. 
 
 2. Another thing done was, there appeared unto them 
 cloven tongue's as of fire, and it fat upon each of them. 
 
 3. They were all rilled with the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 Nowj Sir, you will judge, or let common fenfe judge, what 
 part, or whether every part of this operation comes in to 
 make up w r hat is called the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. To 
 me, it is a plain cafe that the difciples were encompaifed or 
 overwhelmed with the divine glory, or with the remarkable 
 prefence of the Holy Ghoft, as well as filled with it ; and 
 that this was the baptifm which was predicted and accem- 
 plilhed. 
 
Let. VII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. 47 
 
 As to the text, 1 Cor. xii. 1 3. * For by one Spirit are we 
 all baptized into one body/ the import appears, from the 
 connexion, to be this, — all Chriitians, though of very differ- 
 ent gifts and graces, are all bound and inclofed by one Spirit, 
 in one myftical body. 
 
 Your collateral arguments mud now pafs a fliort re- 
 view. 
 
 Neither you nor my readers would be troubled with any 
 attention to thefe, but I wifti to meet and remove every 
 thing which prefents even a plaufible difficulty in my way. 
 
 After having exhaufted your arguments, which poffefs 
 any apparent or fuppofed formidablenefs, you obferve, page 
 62, " Other collateral arguments againit. the juftnefs of your 
 propoikion readily occur.' , 
 
 I. " There being not a word faid, in any cafe of baptifm, 
 about the perfcns changing their apparel, and going to a 
 bath or river, for the exprefs and evident purpoie of being 
 hnmerjl-d." 
 
 AnJ\ X)id you never read, Mat. iii. 13. 'Then cometh 
 Jefus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, (for what?) to be 
 baptized of him.' The plain } literal, and common import 
 of this is, as we have ihown from your Letters, as well as 
 from the Scriptures, Jefus came from Galilee to Jordan unto 
 John, to be immerfed of him. 
 
 As for change of apparel, it might be with them, in 
 John's day, and in the days of the apoftles, as it has been 
 with feveral in this place. When they came from home 
 they thought not of being baptized, but when they gladly 
 received the word, love conftrained them to obey their Lord ; 
 and there was no change of garments in the cafe, fave they 
 threw afide lome of their lcofer garments, and having re- 
 ceived the ordinance, put them on again. 
 
 II. " The improbability (fay you) that the water which 
 was made ufe of for baptizing the eunuch, as it was a water 
 to which they happened to be near, and was not fought for 
 the purpofe, fhould be in fufficient quantity for his immer- 
 fion." 
 
 Atif. Philip had told the eunuch what the ordinance of 
 baptifm meant, or he would not have wifhed that he might 
 be the fubjecl of it. If he knew what it meant, he would 
 probably know whether they law a fufficiency of water. 
 
 III. Ycur next collateral argument is, " The difficulty 
 of fuppofmg the three thcufand, mentioned Acts ii. 41. to 
 have been immerfed in that part of one day which followed 
 tfceir ccnverficn, efpecially confidering the probable want 
 
4 3 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. VII. 
 
 of bathing places, and their not having at command fuitable 
 change or apparel." 
 
 - Anf. i. At Jerufalem lived at this '.;me probably not lefs 
 than three hundred thoufand, one-third of tlieXe at leaft were 
 obliged to bathe themfelves frequently, on account of fome 
 ceremonial uncleannefs, and many of the others often ; hence 
 there was no want of bathing places. 
 
 Anf 2. There was no want of qualified adrniniftrators ; 
 for their number appears to have been about an hundred 
 and twenty ; compare A efts i. J5. with ii. 2, 3, 4. ; theft 
 could have baptized the whole in lefs than an hour, 
 
 Ar.J. 3. As to their probably not having at command 
 fuitable change of appareL this would be thought of little 
 confequence by them, or by any others, who i i iem- 
 
 nity, the importance, and the ipirit of the precious, ordinance 
 of gcfpel baptifm. Hence, Sir, here is no difficulty, but to 
 fiich as have no heart to follow the example of the Lamb 
 of God. 
 
 IV. " The form of expreffion (fay you) which Peter 
 life's, A els x. 47. < Can any man forbid water, that thefe 
 mould not be baptized V and the fuel of their being baptized 
 by the command of Peter immediately, and as it would fee 111 
 oft the fpbt. This qiieftion of Peter, and this fact in the 
 narrative, viewed conjunctly, have not the appearance of 
 going to a water, for the purpdfe 01 immerfmg Cornelius, 
 his kinfmen and friends who were with him, but of bap- 
 tizing hirn by the application of water produced in ioir.e 
 veffel." 
 
 Anf. Sir, had we need of any more arguments for im- 
 Xnerfion, this account of Cornelius would manifeftly come 
 to our help, and the following particulars will mow it. 
 
 1. Cornelius was a Roman captain guarding Judea, which 
 was at this time one of the provinces conquered by the Ro- 
 mans. 
 
 2. Cornelius being a Roman officer in a foreign country, 
 probably poffelfed no land but that on which his houfe and 
 the barracks for his foldiers Rood. 
 
 3. Cornelius being a Roman, not a Jew, lie would proba- 
 bly not furnim himfelf with a bath or bathing place. 
 
 4. All who know the jealoufy of the Jews as to their 
 liberties, and what animoiity they have generally borne to- 
 wards their conquerors, may fee at once they would not be 
 very ready to grant favours to a Gentile officer, whofe office 
 aud prefence pat them in conftant remembrance of their 
 fubje&ion. 
 
Let. VII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. 49 
 
 5. The Jews probably owned all the bathing places which 
 were for miles round, and Cornelius had no liberty to oc- 
 cupy them without their confent. 
 
 Under thefe circumitances, we may conclude, and very 
 rationally too, that Peter would addrefs the Jews who came 
 from Joppa with him, and others who might poflibly be 
 prefent, and fay to them, with relation to his brethren, who 
 were owners of the bathing places round about Cornelius's 
 habitation, Who of us Jews, who believe in God and in his 
 Son Jefus, can be fo tenacious of our civil privileges, and 
 bear fo much ill will to the Romans, as to forbid water, or 
 the ufe of fome bathing place, that thefe fmners of the Gen- 
 tiles, who have now received the Holy Ghoft as well as we, 
 inould not be permitted to receive the gofpel ordinance of 
 baptifm ? This appears «11 eafy and natural : but to fup- 
 pofe that Peter meant, Can any man forbid a bafon of 
 water to be brought in, that thefe fhould not be baptized, 
 would be totally and manifestly unnatural, and inconiiftent 
 with the attending circumftances. Peter was now in Cor- 
 nelius's houfe : Cornelius had both fervants and foldiers at 
 a moment's command, and it would perhaps have been the 
 laft thing that any one of the company would have thought 
 of, to have forbidden a bowl of water to be brought by one 
 of the fervants, at the command of Cornelius. You, Sir, 
 and *the reader will judge which fide, yours or the Baptift's, 
 is favoured by this collateral argument of yours. 
 
 V. Say you, " The ftrong probability, notwithstanding 
 your fuppofitions, that the jailer and his houfe were not 
 baptized by immerfion." 
 
 For anfwer, the reader is referred to my fixth Sermon, 
 pages 93, 94, firft edition ; however, I will reply to a quef. 
 tion which you put under this argument. " If here was 
 immerfion, (fay you) why do we not hear fomething about 
 a river or bathing place, going out to it, returning, &c. ? 
 Anf. We do hear or read in the fame chapter, and with 
 refpecl: to the fame city where the jailer lived, that there was 
 a river running through the city, or by it. It was by the 
 fide of this, where Paul and Silas fpake unto the women, 
 where prayer was wont to be made. We alio read of the 
 jailer and the apoftles coming in, of confequence they muii 
 have gone out. 
 
 VI. Say you, page 65, " I will jufl fubjoin, for I confult 
 brevity as much as poiTible, the cafe of Paul, Ads ix. 18, 19. 
 
 « And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been / 
 fcales ; and he received fight forthwith, and arofe, and was. 
 baptized." 
 
So Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. VII. 
 
 Anf. Why, Sir, did you not mention Acts xr.ii. 16. where 
 the fameTuftory of Paul is related in -he following words-** 
 ' A rile, and be baptized, and nvajh aivay thy fins, calling on 
 the name of the Lord' ? The reaibn is fufficiencly plain : in 
 this relation of the fame transaction, the manner in which 
 water was to be applied to Paul, in the ordinance of baptifm, 
 was mentioned by implication. He was to be bathed or 
 immerfed in water, and thus, by a figure, he was to wafll 
 away his fins, or to have them apparently or figuratively 
 wafhed away. 
 
 Having faid what you pleafed, and probably every thing 
 which you thought plaufible, at ieafl the things which you 
 judged moil: fo, then you obferve, as a kind of conclusion, 
 thus, — " I fuggeft thefe things curforily, not pretending that 
 they furnifh demonftration, that the uniform import of the 
 term baptize, as ufed in the Scriptures, is a partial warning 
 fhort of immeriion ; for that is not a point I am aiming to 
 eftablifh, but as furnifhing direB proof againft your hypothe- 
 cs, that the word fignifies to immerfe, and that only. If 
 there are exceptions, and we fee that there is abundant evi- 
 dence that there are, your main propofition relative to bap- 
 tifm falls, and with it muft fall, for this reafon, as well as 
 for the other previously given, your whole fuperftructure of 
 clofe communion. " 
 
 slnf. I have, Sir, two objections againft this your con- 
 clufion. One is, You tell us about dired. proof .againft my 
 hypothefis. When not one paiTage which you have brought, 
 nor all of them put together, where bnplhza is ufed, furnifh, 
 ftrictly fpeaking, fo much as one plaufible argument againflt 
 my hypothefis. When you take the derivative of bapfini 
 there is fomething plaufible, but it furnifhes no proof, di 
 or indirect, againft it. The rriofl: which you can fay with 
 fafety is, that when the tipoftle fpeaks of diaphorgts baptjfntois t 
 divers waihings, he might mean, or you believe lie meant to. 
 include more kinds of wafhings than the multitude of rinf- 
 ings, fcourings in water, and puttings into Water, &c. which 
 were enjoined in the ceremonial law. You have no proof, 
 or at leaft you have given us none, that he intended any 
 other kinds of wafliings, which did not imply immerfion. 
 Even if you could do what yui have not done, produce 
 proof that bapl'ifmoh did include tome kinds of wafhings 
 which were not entire immuuon, (till this would be no 
 direct proof that. bapti%5 was ever ufed to import any thing 
 ftort of entire immerfion. Your proof, therefore, fails you 
 utterly; hence my hypothefis as yet (land's fecurely. 
 
Let. VII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aiifiln. 51 
 
 My other objection is, You tell us that there is abundance 
 of evidence that there are exceptions, i. e. that baptizo does 
 not always mean immerficn, or the like. We have received 
 all your Letters, and find no evidence. You have produced 
 feveral pretended witneifes, but they agree not together, nor 
 does any one of them fpeak to the point in hand ; and even 
 when we fummed up your own evidence, it was, that immer- 
 sion was the only gofpel baptifm which you could find ; 
 hence my main proportion (lands, and with it mujijiand my 
 whole fuperjlruclure of clofe communion. 
 
 In page 66, you mention the appeals which have been 
 made on both lides, to the learned fathers and critics ; and 
 then, in page 67, make this excellent declaration and appeal, 
 «' We refufe, Sir, (fay you) to be bound by human teiti- 
 mony, in an eifential article of Chriftian practice : we appeal 
 to the oracles of truth" This is juft the resolution and point 
 to which the Eaptifts wifh to bring your denomination. If 
 you might be inftrumental of purfuading them to refufe 
 human teflimony, as the balls of any eflential article in the 
 Chriftian faith, and to take the oracles of truth, as being a 
 iufneient guide in matters of faith and pract-ce, and to be- 
 lieve that the man of God, fo far as he underitands them, is 
 perfect, throughly furnrihed unto ail good works, you 
 would do an eifential fervice to the caufe ci truth, and your 
 praii'e would be in all the churches. Could this be effected, 
 we might hope for a fpeedy union between the two denomi- 
 nations. Could we all agree to walk by one iule, we might 
 expect to be foon in one path. 
 
 The next thing which in your Letters appears woithy of 
 particular attention* is your ioienm addrefs to me, in page 
 * o, a part of which is in the words following, — k - I entreat 
 3 ou to come to a folemn paufe, and with your eye upon the 
 inert day, inquire whether you have authority to ex- 
 elude all Pidcdobaptiits from a vififcle ftanding in Chriit's 
 kingdom, and from the communion of faints io an ordinance 
 which was given to them as a moil valuable bequeft of their 
 Redeemer, merely becaufe they have not been oaptized in 
 the manner of immerfion ?" 
 My reply to you, Sir, is, 
 
 1. It was a folemn belief in a judgment to come, and that 
 the light of that day would detect all error, and difcover the 
 truth, and bring me to acknowledge it, which greatly fub- 
 dued the riiings of my carnal heart again ft the clofe com- 
 munion Bap lifts. After I had thought much of the rar'.ic- 
 ular s pf^fcbe Laptiils, and had had no finall diiH- 
 
5 a Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufthu [Let. VII. 
 
 culty as to my own practice, their clofe communion fcheme, 
 as I then considered it, appeared to me fo erroneous, that I 
 was upon the point of concluding them to be wrong through- 
 out, and of fettling down upon my old practice ; but, Sir, a 
 folemn belief in a judgment to come, calmed my oppofition ; 
 and a folemn belief that truth would then appear, and that 
 if the Baptifts were in the truth, they would then appear fo, 
 prevailed upon me to give their diftinguifhing fentiments 
 one folemn hearing more. I may fay, it was the judgment 
 day as a mean, which made me a Baptiii. I have daily a 
 folemn view, or folemn thoughts, on death, judgment, and 
 eternity ; and with reference to thefe, I fometimes defire to 
 do with my might what my hands find to do, for God 
 and the church. 
 
 2. My reply is, that I have no authority to exclude you 
 from any place where Chrift hath put you, nor from any 
 ordinance which he hath bequeathed to you : but I have no 
 belief of fprinkling, nor of any thing elfe fliort of immerfion, 
 being gofpel baptifm. I have no belief of a perfon's be- 
 longing to ChriiVs viGble kingdom, before he is baptized. 
 I have no belief of Chrift's having bequeathed the ordinance 
 of the fupper to any, till they belong to his vifible kingdom ; 
 confequently, I have no belief of your having any gofpel 
 right to partake of that ordinance ; hence, my fettled belief 
 is, that I have no liberty to encourage you to come, till you 
 repent of your perverfion of the firft gofpel ordinance, and be 
 baptized. 
 
 Say you again, confider, " I befeech you, how your doc- 
 trine belittles the glorious and growing kingdom of the 
 Meffiah, &c. ; how it obliges you to go abreaft of the moll 
 affecting facts, I mean the wonderful fuccefs which has at- 
 tended the labours of thoufands of Pasdobaptift minifters " 
 
 But, my dear Sir, you have forgotten the appeal which 
 you have but juft made to the oracles of truth. On the laft 
 page this appeal was made, and now you are appealing to 
 good Paedobaptift minifters, to cfonvict me of an error. I 
 fhall no more confent to fuch an appeal. To the oracles of 
 truth thou baft appealed, and to them thou muft go, and by 
 them thou and thy works muft be judged. By them con- 
 vict either me or my doctrines, and I am filent. But at no 
 other tribunal do I for the prefent confent to meet you, or 
 to be tried myfelf. 
 
 Wiihing that we may both of u# be prepared to meet the 
 God of truth, in Him who is the truth, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
Let. VIII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufiin. $\ 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 I NOW haften to a review of your examination of my 
 Sermon on the fubjects of baptifm. 
 
 In page 72, you complain of my ftatement of the ques- 
 tion, which relates to the command to difciple all nations. 
 I ftated it thus : The important queftion to be decided is 
 juft this — If I difciple any of you vuho are parents •, do I, as a 
 necejfary confequence, difciple all your children and houfeholds ? 
 
 You object — " No, Sir, this is not juft the queftion ; the 
 queftion refpects the object of this act of difcipling. Whom 
 are you to difciple ? the text fays, All nations." Very well ; 
 and do not nations confift of parents, with their children and 
 houfeholds ? In the next page you fay, " The capability of 
 the objects muft certainly be fuppofed ; but there can be no 
 capability in the infant part of a nation, but by virtue of 
 their relation to their parents." Very well again ; this comes 
 to juft what I laid — If your fcheme be juft, we difciple the 
 children by diicipling the parents. 
 
 Before we proceed any further, we will give our Saviour's 
 definition of a difciple, Luke xiv. 33. 'Whofoever he be of 
 you that forfaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my 
 difciple.' Now, Sir, the important queftion is juft this — . 
 If through my inftrumentality a parent forfakes all that he 
 hath, and fo becomes a difciple, do the infant children and 
 houfehold become difciples of courfe ? This is your fcheme, 
 Sir, but it is not mine nor the gofpePs. 
 
 In connexion, you afk, "Is it impoftible for God to per- 
 fect praife from the mouth of babes and fucklings, and that 
 of fuch, in part, his kingdom of grace mould confift ?" From 
 what motive you afked this queftion, which, from its con- 
 nexion, tends to deceive the inattentive, I know not, but to 
 it I reply — You have changed the fubject in debate ; we 
 are not fpeaking of the kingdom of grace, but of Chrift's 
 vifible kingdom : befides, the babes and fucklings which are 
 fpoken of in the gofpel, and of which Chrift's vifible king- 
 dom does no doubt in part confift, are fuch as cried in the 
 temple, faying, Hofanna to the Son of David. 
 
 You complain again, becaufe I fubftituted difciple for teac/j, 
 and fo make the command of our Lord to be, Go and dis- 
 ciple all nations ; yet in the next page you fay, " The fub- 
 ftitution of the term difciple, is much more favourable to 
 
 F 
 
54 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. VIII. 
 
 the caufe of the Paedobaptifts than to yours." Why fo? 
 Becaufe, as you implicitly tell us in the preceding fentence, 
 and imply in this, that children cannot be taught by virtue 
 of their relation to their parents, but that they may be dif- 
 cipled by virtue of this relation. But, Sir, you quite forget 
 your appeal to the oracles of truth, or determine not to abide 
 their decifion, or you could never fuppofe that an infant, or 
 that a child of any age, could, by virtue of his relation to 
 his parents, forfake all that he hath, and fo become a difct- 
 ple of Chrift. "But (in the clofe you fay) allow, in this 
 refpect alfo, all that you wifh, that the command extends to 
 adults only, what will follow ? Will it follow that this paf- 
 fage interdicts infant baptifm ? By no means," fay you. I 
 anfwer, By all means, it does interdict all others ; for the 
 text, Mat. xxviii. 19. is the general orders, and it is the 
 particular orders, which Jefus Chrift halh given, relative to 
 the fubjects of baptifm, and he hath given us no different 
 orders. When he hath pointed out, and particularly defig- 
 nated, who are to be admitted to his ordinance of baptifm, 
 he interdicts all others, and none elfe have a right to come ; 
 nor have his minifters any authority to baptize any others ; 
 and it is grofs prefumption, if they knowingly adminifter to 
 perfons of a different defcription. 
 
 You next examine three fhcrt arguments of mine, againft 
 infant baptifm. 
 
 1. John made his hearers difciples, before he baptized 
 them. 
 
 2. Chrift's difciples baptized none, but fuch as were made 
 difciples firft, according to John iv. 1, 2. 
 
 3. Chrift, in my text, gives no liberty to baptize any, but 
 fuch as are firft difcipled. 
 
 You allent to each of thefe arguments, as being well 
 founded; nay, if poffible, you do more : you inform us that 
 the cafe of infant baptifm was not mentioned by John, by 
 Jefus Chrift, or. by his difciples. Your words are, «* Ther* 
 was good reafon why, when baptifm was introduced, as 
 adminiftered to the Jews, the cafe of infants was not men- 
 tioned : it is doubtful whether they were baptized ; I am 
 inclined to think they were not." Now, Sir, if there were 
 good reafon why, when baptifm was introduced, as ad- 
 miniftered to the Jews, the cafe of infants was not men- 
 tioned, then it was not ; if it were not mentioned then, 
 among the Jew?, it was not mentioned at all by Jefus 
 Chrift, for he was no where elie. If it were not mentioned 
 b-v Chrift, it Is r.ot in the gofpel of Jefus Chrift; for nor.e! 
 
Let. IX.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin. 55 
 
 had authority to add any thing but what he had command- 
 ed. This being the cafe, furely you have not expreue$l 
 yourfelf too ftrongly, where you fay, " It is doubtful whether 
 they (infants) were baptized ; I am inclined to think they 
 were not.'* But if this be the truth, that neither John, nor 
 Jefus Chrift, the Chriftian Lawgiver, nor his difciples, fo 
 much as mentioned infant baptifm, I wifii to know by what 
 authority you and your brethren practife it ? and who gave 
 you this authority ? From Chrift you received it not ; for 
 you confefs that he mentioned it not in his days, or you fay, 
 *• there was good reafon why the cafe of infants was not then 
 mentioned." You alfo confefs, his difciples did not mention 
 rt in the days of Chrift, nor for I know not how long after- 
 wards. The apoftles have, indeed, no where faid a word of 
 infant baptifm. By what authority then do you teach in- 
 fant baptifm, and prefume to practice it ? and who gave you 
 this authority ? Have you any authority, fave from the popes 
 of Rome, from the mother of harlots, the my fiery of iniqui- 
 ty, comprifing the kings of the earth,, who are at war with 
 the Lamb ? 
 
 Wifhihg you wifdom and grace enough to renounce the 
 traditions of popes and councils, and. to practise by gofpel 
 rules, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER IX, 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 YOUR Letter upon the covenant of circumcifion, de- 
 mands our next attention. You manifeft a very ftrong 
 attachment to this covenant : you confider it to be the in- 
 furmountable obftacle in our way, and the hinge on which 
 hangs the controverfy between us ; yes, you fet it down to 
 be the rock on which are all our hopes. You tell us, " if 
 we do not keep it, we are inevitably lojr forever." 
 
 It might be thought by fome to be a fufficient anfwer, t« 
 afk, What then hath become of Enoch, Methufelah, Noah, 
 and many others, who lived and died long before the cove- 
 nant of circumcifion had exiftence ? But, Sir, as your mind 
 is highly intent on this covenant, and as I indeed confider it 
 an important article, I will fet it before you with as muck 
 perfpicuity as I can. 
 
$6 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufiin. [Let. IX. 
 
 To clear the way to introduce the covenant of circum- 
 cifion, I will juft mention the covenant which includes the 
 promifes which were made to Abraham and to his feed ; 
 * not to feeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy feed, 
 which is Chrift,' Gal. iii. 16. This covenant was before 
 time ; but it was confirmed of God in Chrift, (to Abraham) 
 twenty years before the covenant of circumciiion was made 
 or mentioned, verfe 17. This covenant, which included the 
 promifes of grace, was mentioned or intimated, Gen. xii. 3. 
 The fame covenant, or fome of the promifes contained in it, 
 or flowing from it, are again mentioned, Gen. xii.' 7. xv. 8. 
 and xvii. 1 — 8. and in many other places. With regard to 
 this covenant, there is no profefted difficulty between your 
 denomination and the Baptifts, fave in one point, whether 
 this covenant and that of circumcifion be the fame. 
 
 You believe this covenant contains all the promifes of 
 grace, and that this covenant and that of circumcifion are 
 one and the fame covenant. 
 
 We believe this covenant contains Chrift, and as all the 
 promifes of grace are in Chrift, ib all the promifes are con- 
 tained in this covenant ; and that the covenant of circum- 
 cifion is a covenant diftincl from this, and is but a token of 
 this. We believe the firft covenant, which, for the fake of 
 diftinclion, is called the covenant of grace, comprifes this 
 covenant of circumcifion, fo far as circumcifion was of 
 grace ; but we do not believe that the covenant of grace 
 was the covenant of circumcifion ; we believe the latter 
 covenant to be a token of the former, and yet fo diftincl from 
 it as to be two diftincl covenants. Our inquiry fhall be, 
 Do not the Scriptures fay the fame things ? 
 
 Before I make the propofed inquiry I have a few things 
 to obferve. 
 
 1. The covenant of grace is what God agrees, if I may 
 fo fay, or covenants, or promifes to do for Abraham, his 
 pofterity, and for the family of mankind ; or that which 
 God hath promifed to do for the human family, is the vifi- 
 ble part of the covenant of grace, as it refpecls the good of 
 man. 
 
 2. The covenant of circumcifion is what God required 
 Abraham to agree to and to praclife. 
 
 3. The firft covenant was repeatedly mentioned, and was 
 confirmed by the promife of God, before the fecond was 
 once brought to view. 
 
 4. The covenant of circumcifion appears to be no more 
 the covenant of grace, in which are the promifes, than' my 
 
Let. IX.] Letters to F.ev. Mr. Auftin. 57 
 
 believing in a;d approving of the mediatorial righteoufnefs 
 of Jefus Chrift, is that all-fufficient righteoufnefs. God re- 
 quired Abraham and his natural feed to obferve the cove- 
 nant of circumcifion ; he requires me and all others to believe. 
 The foul who was not circumcifed, had broken the covenant ; 
 fc the unbeliever is condemned already, Gen. xvii. 14. John 
 lit. 18. 
 
 5. By confounding thefe two covenants together, you 
 confound ycinfelf, and confufe your readers and hearers, 
 and obtain fome unreafonable plaufibility in favour of your 
 unfcriptural notions of baptizing children. 
 
 6. If thefe covenants were one, flill they neither of them 
 Tay a word about the baptifm of children, or of Chriftian 
 baptifm for any perfon ; nor are they ever mentioned by 
 Chrift, by his difciplos, or by any others, as giving any right 
 to baptifm, unlefs it were by the Pharifees and Sadducees 
 w^o came to John's baptifm. 
 
 7. The covenant of circumcifion is but a toVen of the 
 covenant between God and Abraham ; or a token of God's 
 promifes being to Abraham for good, and a feal of Abra* 
 ham's faithfulnefs. 
 
 Now our inquiry mall be — Say not the Scriptures the fame 
 things ? 
 
 In the firff place, the Scriptures tell us, that God prom- 
 ifed to Abraham, that in his feed all the families of the earth 
 fhould be blerTed, Gen. xii. 3. The Scriptures alfo a/fure 
 us, that God prcmifed to Abraham, that his feed fliouid 
 inherit the land cf Canaan, and that God would make him 
 the father of many nations, Gen. xii. 7. xv. 18- xvii. 1 — 8. 
 Thefe are promifes contained in the covenant of grace, or 
 thefe are the covenant cf grace, as manifested to Abraham ; 
 or they are promifes founded upon, or flowing from, that 
 covenant. 
 
 In the next place, the Scriptures fay, Gen. xvii. 10, 11. 
 * T,\:s is my covenant 'which ye JJjall keep between me and you y and 
 thy feed after thee ; Every man-child among you Jhall be circum- 
 cifed. Aiid ye JJoall circumcife the jlejh of your for ejkin ; and it 
 Jhall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.' Heuce, if 
 you can underftand two plain verfes in the Bible, you may 
 underftand what the covenant of circumcifion is. In thefe 
 two verfes we have the fame thing mentioned four times, in 
 different words : firft, God fays, This is my covenant ; feq> 
 ondly, he tells what it is, Every man-child among you (hall 
 be circumcifed ; thirdly, God informs us how this covenant is 
 F 2 
 
58 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftln. [Let. IX. 
 
 to be kept, Ye (hall circumcife the flefh of your forefkin 5 
 fourthly, God informs us what is the end or ufe of this cov- 
 enant of circumcition, It ihall be a token of the covenant 
 betwixt Him and Abraham. 
 
 Here the covenant of circumcifion equals every man-child 
 being circumcifed ; every man-child being circumcifed equals 
 the circumcjfmg the flefh of their forefkin ; the circumcifing 
 the flefh of their forefkin equals the token of the covenant 
 betwixt God and Abraham ; hence, the token of the cove- 
 nant betwixt God and Abraham equals the covenant of 
 circumcifion ; for it is a well known axiom, That things 
 that are equal to the fame are equal to one another : hence, 
 Sir, you rnuft fay, that a token of a covenant is the covenant 
 itfelf, which is abfurd, or that the covenant of circumcifion is 
 a covenant in diftinction from the covenant of grace, or in 
 diftinction from that covenant which contains the promifes. 
 
 Befides, if you will ftill hold that the covenant of circum- 
 cifion and that of grace are the fame thing, you foil into 
 another abfurdity, which ought to alarm you, and it will 
 confound your fentiment. The abfurdity is this, — If the 
 covenant of grace, which contains the promife of the Mei- 
 fiah, and the covenant of circumcifion, be one and the fame 
 thing, then the covenant of grace, which contains the prom- 
 ife of the Meffiah, may be broken, and hath been thoufands 
 of times ; for the covenant of circumcifion was broken every 
 time and as often as any male child among the Jews was 
 not circumcifed, Gen. xvii. 14. Thus abfurd are your no- 
 tions of the covenant of circumcifion ; and by thefe abfurd 
 notions, you would lead men blindfold into the antichriftian 
 notion of infant baptifm : for, fay as much as you pleafe, 
 there is not one of your hearers or readers, who can fee that 
 infant baptifm, as a gofpel duty, is found in the Jewifh rite 
 of circumcifion. By fuch dark notions you may lead the 
 blind blindfold, but you can never in this way inftruct the 
 ignorant, or reclaim thofe who wander out of the way. 
 Chrift hath no where taught you to teach thus, „and you 
 ought to be careful how you thus teach for the future. 
 
 You probably may fuppofe that you have an objection of 
 fome magnitude, againft my idea of the covenant of circum- 
 cifion, becaufe it is faid, Gen. xvii. 13. * My covenant ihall 
 be in your Jlijh for an everlafling covenant* Anf. This ever- 
 lafting covenant of circumcifion was to be of the fame dura- 
 tion with the everlafling pojfejfion which the Lord promifed to 
 give the feed of Abraham, in the land of Canaan, verfe 8 : 
 neither of them was intended to continue without end. 
 
Let. IX.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. ■ $g 
 
 Your denomination are often, if not continually, telling 
 the world about circumcifion being a feal of the covenant. 
 You would much oblige us, would you inform us by what 
 authority you employ this blind to prevent the ignorant from 
 feeing. 
 
 We read, Rom. iv. 1 1. of circumcifion being a feal cf the 
 righteoufnefs of Ab rah an? 's faith, but this gives you no author- 
 ity to impofe upon your hearers the falfe and miichievous 
 idea of its being a feal of the covenant, and fo they muft 
 have their children fprinkled, to put them into the covenant. 
 A more wicked idea the man of Jn probably never advanced 
 to a credulous world. 
 
 By this time you may conclude that either you or I know 
 nothing about the covenant of circumciiion. That the 
 readers may judge for themfeives, and know where the 
 truth lies, I will fet down, in the margin, the texts which 
 ipeak of circumcifion, from Genefis to Revelation.* 
 
 You fay, page 84, fpeaking of the covenant of grace, " If 
 circumciiion was a feal of this covenant, which preceded 
 Chri ft, and is abolifned, beyond ail queftion baptifm is or- 
 dained in its fxead. I fhould admit this, if 1 were a Bap- 
 tift." Admit what, Sir, if you were a Baptiit ? " If cir- 
 cumciiion was> a feal of this covenant." Yes, Sir, if cir- 
 cumcifion were a feal of the covenant of grace, and all who 
 were circumcifed were fealed in this covenant of grace, we 
 would admit juft what you might pleafe to prefcribe. But, 
 Sir, the whole of this bufmefs of circumciiion being a leal, 
 as multitudes are in our day made to believe, is a mere 
 farce, or religious impoiition. 
 
 I now leave the covenant of circumcifion to your future 
 confideration, and come to review a few of your words 
 which relate to Lydia. Speaking of what I obferved of 
 Lydia and her houfehold, after mentioning feveral things 
 which I fuggefted, and leaving out the little evidence which 
 I fet down, namely, * That Paul entered into the houfe of 
 Lydia, and there comforted the brethren/ you fay, " Thefe 
 fuppofitions, Sir, may be founded in truth, but who knows 
 that they are ; who, that can juftly make any pretenfions to 
 impartiality, can believe them without evidence ?" Your 
 
 * Gen. xvii. to — 74, 23 — 27. xxxiv. 15, 17, 22, 24. Exod. iv. 26. 
 Deut. x. 16. xxx. 6. Jofh. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. Jere. iv. 4. ix. 25, 26. 
 Luke ii. 21. John vii. 22, 23. A<5b vii. 8. x. 45. xi. 2, 3. xv. 1, 5. 
 xvi. 3 xxi. 21. Rom. ii. 25, 26, 28,29. iii. I, 30. iv. 9 — 12. xv. 8. 
 1 Cor. vii. 18, 19. Gal. ii. 3, 7, 8, 9. v. 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15. Eph. 
 ii. 11. Fhil. iii. 3, 5. Col, ii. 11. iii. 11. iv. II. 
 
6o Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. IX. 
 
 conclufion is, " Upon the whole, as fuppofitions are mifera- 
 ble arguments, the evidence is left juft where you found 
 it." 
 
 Were I, Sir, to join with yon in fentiment, and were your 
 readers to be of the fame opinion, that fuppofitions are mifer- 
 able arguments, we might all of us have one idea fuggefted 
 to our minds at the fame moment, whether your arguments 
 be not all of them of that defcription. But, efpecially if 
 fuppofitions be miferable arguments, why do you and your 
 denomination reft the important points of baptifm and its 
 ftibjects on juft fuch miferable arguments f For, make the 
 beft of the arguments for infaint fprinkling, or even for in- 
 fant baptifm, they are but fuppofitions, and but poor im- 
 probable ones too ; yet, in the face of your brethren, you 
 fay, fuppofitions are miferable arguments. Such an alfertion, if 
 true, is enough to ruin the praelice of infant fprinkling, or 
 at leaft the credit of fuch a practice. 
 
 You fuppofe that bapt'1%0 is fometimes ufed for fprinklin** 
 ©r partial wailiing, but you produce no evidence, unlefs it 
 be fuppofititious evidence, that it is ever once £0 ufed in any 
 part of the Bible,. 
 
 You fuppofe that baptizo is fometimes ufed as equivalent 
 wkh nipto, but you find no place where it is thus ufed, or 
 have no evidence that it is thus, unlefs it be fuppofed 1 »!- 
 dence, which comes only to fuppofition. 
 
 You fuppofe that baptifmois is ufed for the application of 
 fluids in every way, but ftill you want evidence. 
 
 You fuppofe that Chrift's bleffing little children is an ar- 
 gument in favour of infant baptifm. 
 
 You fuppofe that what Peter laid about the promife of 
 the Spirit, as being to parents and children, even to as many 
 as the Lord our God fhall call, is for infant baptifm. 
 
 You fuppofe that the baptifm of Lydia's houfehold, of 
 the jailer's houfehold, and of Stephanas's, are all in favour 
 of infant baptifm. 
 
 You fuppofe that many other things are alfo in its favour - ; 
 but it is all but bare fuppofition, for not a fy liable is men- 
 tioned of infant baptifm from Genefis to Revelation. Now, 
 is it not furprifmg that you mould tell the world, (not your 
 opponents only, but your friends too) that fuppofitions are 
 miferable arguments ? In fact, Sir, if this be admitted, and 
 fhould it be generally received, that fuppofitions are mifera- 
 ble arguments, your examination of my Sermons will lofe its 
 influence, and fo will your whole caufe of fprinkling and 
 infant baptifm. 
 
Let. IX.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. 6 1 
 
 The next thing to be noticed, is your reply to the follow- 
 ing proportion. I obferved, c Abraham's children after the 
 fleih were not included in the promife, as Paedobaptifts of 
 our day would have theirs.' You reply, as though you 
 did not understand me — " If you mean (fay you) that they 
 were not all participants in the bleffings of the promife, it is 
 admitted. " If you, Sir, did not underftand me before, I 
 will endeavour that you may now. What I mean is this — 
 « They which are the children of the flefh, thefe are not the 
 children of God, but the children of the promife are counted 
 for the feed ; for this is the word of promife, At this time 
 will I come, and Sara mail have a fon,' Rom. ix. 8, 9. 
 Not, Hagar fhall have a fon ; not, Keturah fnail have fix 
 fons. Abraham had eight fons, but Ifaac was the only one 
 of the eight to whom Was the promife. Nov/, you fay this 
 promife, which was to Abraham and his feed, is to you and 
 to all your children : hence you, having eight fons, claim 
 the promife to each of the eight, when Abraham could claim 
 it but for one of his. Do you and your brethren fuppofe, 
 that you have each one of you eight parts in the promife, 
 and Abraham but one ? It is no wonder, Sir, that you could 
 not underftand me. I defire that you might, for the future, 
 have a good understanding, when you fpeak of the promife, 
 as being to you and to jour children, and of putting them 
 into the covenant, or putting the fed of the covenant upon 
 them. 
 
 In pages 88, 89, you have the remarkable paffage which 
 follows : " In pages 96, 97, and 98, (i. e. of my Sermons) 
 you run (fay you) the doclrine of psedobaptifm into what 
 you call legitimate confequeuces : they are eight in number, 
 and they are frightful things indeed. If you have fuppofed 
 pardobaptifm embai raffed with all thefe confequences, I am 
 perfectly aftoniihed how you could find a confeience to prac- 
 tife it, as you have done." 
 
 Reply, Is it not, Sir, more aftonlfhing that you can prac- 
 tife it, after thefe confequences are laid before you ? But you 
 find a very eafy way to get rid, as you fuppofe, of the whole 
 difficulty : the way you take is this — fay you, " All thefe 
 confequences, Sir, will be denied by every intelligent aehocate 
 for infant baptifm." How intelligent, I will not prefume 
 to fay, a perfon muft be, to hold a premife and deny all the 
 legitimate confequences. Should you, or any of your de- 
 nomination, hereafter undertake to deny the confequences 
 which I drew, you are defired to ftate the principle, and 
 then mow the difagreement between that and my confe- 
 
&i Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let, IX. 
 
 quences. The principle of the Paedobapttfts is this — " The 
 fubjecls of baptifm are to be determined by the fubjects of 
 circumcifion." The firft account which we have of the 
 iubjeas of circumcifion, and perhaps as particular account 
 as any which is given us, is in the family of Abraham. 
 Abraham was a great and good man, and on his account 
 all the males in his houfe were to be circumcifed, whether 
 they were young or old, his own children, or bought with 
 money, or born in his houfe. Before he was commanded 
 to circumcife his houfehold, he had three hundred and eigh- 
 teen training foldiers, born in his own houfe : how many 
 more were born in his houfe, or bought with his money, 
 before the day of their circumcifion, we know not ; but let 
 it be more or lefs, one thing is certain, they were all to be 
 Circumcifed, on account of Abraham's being a good man, 
 full of faith. 
 
 Now, Sir, your principle, or the principle of your de- 
 nomination, is, that the fubjects of baptifm are to be deter- 
 mined by the fubjects of circumcifion. 
 
 Hence, my firfl confequence was — Every man who is 
 converted to the Chriftian religion is- to be baptized, and all 
 his houfehold, though he may have three hundred and 
 eighteen training foldiers born in his own houfe. Not only 
 are thefe foldiers, but their wives and children, and all other 
 fervants who belong to this great man's home. A thoufand 
 infidels are to be baptized, becaufe one great man, their 
 iziafter, is chrUlianized. 
 
 My fie and confequence was — Thefe foldiers, with their 
 wives, children, and fervants, are all to be confidered and 
 treated as church members, or as being in covenant :. in the 
 covenant of circumcifion, or fome fimilar. 
 
 Thus were the circumcifed confidered and treated. I£ 
 baptifm have taken the place of circumcifion, and the fub- 
 jecls of the one are to be determined by the other, then mult 
 thefe foldiers, wives, and children be confidered and treated' 
 in the fame manner. 
 
 The other confequences the reader will find in my fixth 
 Sermon, and confult them at his leifure. 
 
 Now, Sir, how you could, without mentioning either prin- 
 ciple or confequence, tell the world, both learned and un- 
 learned, " that all thefe confequences will be denied by 
 every Intelligent advocate for infant baptifm," is a little to be 
 wondered at. I have hardly intelligence enough to under- 
 ftand what you intend by an intelligent advocate for infant 
 baptifm. By what you have {aid, I fbould naturally enougk 
 
Let, IX.] Letters to Rev, Mt\ Aujttn. 6$ 
 
 conclude, that by an intelligent advocate for infant baptifm, 
 you intend one who knows how to advocate principles and 
 <feny the natural confequences,and deduce others to his liking. 
 
 You fay, *■ That my confequences are frightful things." 
 I drew them that you might attend to them, and be frightened 
 or driven from your antichriftian principle : but you flill 
 hold the principle, at lead in meafure, and fecure or content 
 yourfelf under the idea, that every intelligent advocate for 
 infant baptifm will deny my confequences. How you will 
 anfwer it to the Britifn church, to the popes of Rome, and 
 to a multitude of other learned Paedobaptifts, who have 
 practtfed upon a number of my conclufions, and admitted 
 the reft as true, fave the fifth and laft, for placing them 
 among the unintelligents, is left for you to determine. 
 
 The laft cbrtfequehce which I drew from this Psedobaptift 
 principle, That the fubje&s of baptifm are to be determined 
 by the fubjects of circumcifion, is — It doth, fo far as it hath 
 its perfect work, deftroy the very idea of the gofpel church, 
 contradict the prophets, and make Paul and others fpeak 
 not the truth ; and it throws us back to the ftate of the 
 Jewifh church. 
 
 To this you fee fit to reply, and yoiu reply hath the ap- 
 pearance of a laboured attempt to confound the diftinction 
 between the Jewifh church and the gofpel church, and to 
 make your readers believe them to be both one and the 
 fame thing. Ycur very reply goes to prove that your prin- 
 ciple would, if true, throw us back to the ftate of the Jewifh 
 church ; and thus it proves my confequence true. 
 
 In your reply, you keep a juft idea of the Jewifh church 
 altogether out of fight ; you do not mention fo much as 
 one juft trait cf it. Your arguments to prove the gofpel 
 church and the Jewifh church to be one, are — Firjt, God 
 manifefted great kindnefs to the Jewifh church ; he carried 
 them as on eagles' wings, and fome of them greatly rejoiced in 
 the Lord : Secondly, That the Jewifh church con fi Red of fuch 
 perfons as were Abraham and Ifaac : thefe are your words — 
 *< Are Baptift churches generally purer, think you, than a 
 church would be composed of fuch perfons as Abraham ; 
 and where is the inconfiftehcy or danger of admitting the 
 teftimeny of the Holy Ghoft, I Cor. vii. 14. that the chil- 
 dren are vifibly holy as Ifaac was V 
 
 There Is, Sir, no inconfiftency or danger in admitting the 
 teflirr.ony of the Holy Ghoft 5 but there is both inconilftency 
 and danger in ivrefihig the teiitBQony of the Holy Ghoii. or 
 in mife£> plying it. 
 
64 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. IX. 
 
 Why, Sir, do you not come out in fair day-lu-Iit, and tell 
 all your readers, and efpecially fiich as love darknefs rather 
 than light, that the Jewilh church confided o£ all the rebefe* 
 lious, ftifT-necked, and infidel Jews, including Scribes, Fhari- 
 fees, Sadducees, and all hypocrites among them, as well as 
 the few godly ones who might be found ; and that the 
 gofpel church is-juft like the Jewilh, fo far as it can be, by 
 including all perfons, of every defcription, who have been 
 baptized or fprinkled, and have not been call out by regular 
 church difcipline ? Come out thus, and let poor deluded 
 fouls know your real fentiment, or a fair ftatement of it ; 
 then might they judge for themfel'ves. If you deny this 
 being your fentiment, I will prove it to you. Pages 87, 88, 
 your words are — " I am as much (hocked at your dereliction 
 of infant memberjinp and infant bapufm, as I fhould have been 
 had you denied the obligation of family prayer." Now, 
 Sir, you believe that baptized or fprinkled infants are church 
 members : the confequence is this — A large part, perhaps 
 more than half, of the infants, children, infidels, drunkards, 
 and liars, in our nation, are members of the gofpel church. 
 Sir, either renounce the erroneous principle on which infant 
 baptifm hangs, or admit the legitimate confequences, and make 
 the bed of them. If you pleafe, never again think t£> get 
 rid of my confequences, by telling the public that every 
 intelligent advocate for infant baptifm will deny them. 
 
 I have one thing more to notice, in your plea for the 
 gofpel church being the fame as the Jewifh : it is this — 
 " Row does paedobaptifm ({:\y you) deitroy the very idea 
 of the gofpel church ?" You, Sir, anfwer, " A gofpel church 
 is a body of vifible faints or holy perfons." What do you 
 mean by this anfwer ? If you mean, by vifible faints and 
 holy perfons, fuch as appear to poilefs holineis of heart, or 
 to be believers in Chrift, I readily agree to it : but, Sir, you 
 mean no fuch thing ; you mean, a gofpel church is a body 
 of perfons, compofed of believing parents, together with 
 their baptized or fprinkled children, let their children be 
 what they may, believers or infidels, if they have not been 
 cut oif from the church by difcipline : or you mean a body 
 of per Ions made up of a number of converted heads of fami- 
 lies, with their ungodly, unconverted families. See your 
 Letters, pages 90, 91, 92, and elfewhere. 
 
 This is the way which your own church is made up, if 
 your practice has been in agreement with your principles — 
 holding to infant membership, and children memberfhip, and 
 fervant membership. 
 
Let. X.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. 65 
 
 I do not mention thefe different church membermips, 
 becaufe I wifh to caft odium on your character, or on that 
 of your brethren, but becaufe I confider thefe to belong to 
 the inevitable confequences of your principle, which every 
 intelligent advocate for infant baptilm ought candidly to admit, 
 and becaufe I wifh to expofe your antichriftian principle, and 
 your correfponding antichriftian practice. 
 
 Wiihing you reformation, in both principle and practice, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER X, 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 I HAVE reviewed, with fbme attention, your Ten Let- 
 ters, which you confider as an Examination or my 
 Seven Sermons. In your Letters, which you have given 
 to the public, you have laid of me and of my Sermons 
 what you pleafed. Of your performance, I have not] ' - ^ to 
 fay as to its ftrengtn or weaknefs, or with refpecl Co your 
 aftertions, repetitions, or arguments ; they are all before the 
 public, as are my Sermons, and as this Review I expect will 
 foon be. Not only are my Sermons and your Examination 
 before the public, but they are both before Him, who knows 
 what is truth, and whether either of us, or whether both of 
 us have written and publillied with our eye tingle, and our 
 wills bowed to his. 
 
 In this Letter feveral things may be laid before you, vAtih 
 a defire that you may receive the light of gofpel truth, rela- 
 tive to the firft gofpel ordinance : but, Sir, unlefs God be 
 pleafed to give you a large fiare of grace, you will not {o 
 much defire the light of conviction, as the light by which to 
 refute what I have written. But if there be no hope of your 
 conviction from any argument of mine, yet it is poffible that 
 you will yield to your own arguments.; for you have, indeed, 
 given us the outlines of an argument or two, the force of 
 which I fee not "now you will handfomely evade. 
 
 Your firft premife is — " There muft be fome evident like- 
 nefs between the fubject to which a word is applied in the 
 natural, primitive ufe of it, and the fubject to which it is 
 applied as a figure, otherwife there is a grofs impropriety in 
 the figurative ufe of it." You cannot eafily get rid of the 
 plain truth of this your major proportion. 
 
 G 
 
65 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. X, 
 
 Your fecond premife is — The baptifm of the Holy Ghoft 
 is a fubjeft to which the words burying and rifing as from 
 the dead, are applied as a figure, and water baptifm is un- 
 doubtedly a fymbol'oi the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. Thefe 
 are your o<wn premif-s, (fee pages 61, 44, $$, 34.) You are 
 defired to draw your c<wn conclujion. 
 
 You will permit me to refrelh your memory, with a con- 
 fefhon and promife, which you made to me in your firft. 
 Letter, and in thefe words, «« As for me, I confider truth 
 infinitely preferable to any party intereft, and promife to you 
 that I will yield to evidence, as foon as it is prefented." 
 
 Another of your arguments in favour of the Baptifts (hall 
 be prefented ; for I fmcerely wim that your arguments may 
 be found unanfwerable, and that they may iniuumentally 
 produce your thorough converfion. 
 
 Your major propofition, in this fecond argument, is — The 
 fubjecl in debate between the Baptifts and Psedobaptifts, is 
 of great importance, and it can be brought to an iifue, and 
 it miijl be brought to an iifue. (See page 98.) 
 
 Your minor propofition is — " All the treatifes and fchemes 
 which the Pasdobaptifts have produced, in order to fettle this 
 debate, have been emlarrajfcd with material objections," page 
 95. It therefore cannot be brought to an iifue upon their 
 embarrajjed treatifes or fchemes, " but it can be brought to an 
 iifue, and it mujl be brought to an iifue." 
 
 Conclufion — We can be Baptifts, and we mufi be Baptifts, 
 and that will bring the debate to an ijfue. 
 
 Now, Sir, I will prefent you with an argument or two, 
 which may be partly yours and partly mine. 
 
 What I fay is, The plain, the literal, the common mean- 
 ing of the word to baptize is to immerfe, bury, overwhelm, 
 put into water, or the like : you fay this is the meaning 
 fbmetimes, efpecially when it means to baptize with the 
 Holy Ghoft, and water baptifm is undoubtedly a fymbol of 
 the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft % therefore, the plain, literal, 
 and common fenfe of the baptifmal command is, that the 
 fubjects of baptifm fljould be immerfed, buried, or put into 
 water, or the like. 
 
 Again — what I fay is, The word to baptize hath in the 
 Bible no meaning different from immerfion, overwhelming, 
 or the like. You have tried, and have found nothing, to 
 prove that it hath any opponte meaning, except it be by 
 inppofitions, which ycu fay are miferable arguments : there- 
 fore, the only Bible meaning of the word to baptize is to 
 immerfe, overwhelm, or the like ; or at molt, there is noth- 
 ing againft it but miferabh arguments. 
 
Let. X.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aiiftin. 6j 
 
 Again — The word baptifm, and even in Heb. ix. 10. 
 where it is laid divers baptifm s, the meaning is divers appli- 
 cations of water to divers fubjecls, all which imply immer- 
 fion, or putting into water, or the like, or at beft there is 
 nothing but fuppofitions againft this being the fenfe ; and 
 even if it had any different fenfe, fmce the gofpel baptifm is 
 but one baptifm, and this is certainly immeriion fometimes, 
 as when they were baptized in the river, and when they 
 were baptized with the Holy Ghoft, of which water baptifm 
 is a fymbol ; and, confequently, at all times ; the conclufion 
 is ftfll the fame — that the only go/pel baptifm is by tmmerfion. 
 
 Another matter, quite worthy of your attention, I have 
 to lay before you and your brethren : it is this — You and 
 your brethren have preiurned to claim fome authority, or at 
 leaft credit, for psedobaptifm, and for fprinkling children, 
 from confeffors and martyrs, who have held thofe tradition- 
 ary practices. Now, Sir, the fact appears to be, that you 
 have not the leaft fliadow of. ground for any of your pre- 
 tended authority or credit from this quarter. It is manifeft, 
 that you do but amufe and miflead your hearers and leaders, 
 in the whole of tins bufinefs. Where are your martyrs, who 
 have died in defence of psedobaptifm and fprinkling ? Do 
 you find them in Fox's martyrology ? Do you find them in 
 the Bible ? Do you find them any where ? No, Sir, you 
 find no fuch martyrs, either amongft Proteftants or Papifts. 
 You find good men and martyrs amongft thofe who have 
 embraced the error of baptizing children, and even among 
 thofe who may have conferred to fprinkle them ; but not 
 one who has ever laid down his life as a witnefs for either 
 of thofe errors ; indeed, there has been no call for any to 
 do thus ; for his holinefs the pope, and his clergy, the cage of 
 unclean birds, and other portions of antichriit, have never 
 oppofed thefe errors. It appears that Satan would be di- 
 vided againft himfeif, mould he ftimulate any of his fubjecls 
 to perfecute unto death any good men, for holding either 
 of thefe antichriftian traditions. But both Papifts and Pro- 
 tectant Paeaobaptifts have perfecuted unto various kinds of 
 death, the Baptiils, who have nobly laid down their lives, as 
 witnerfes for the gofpel baptifm and the gofpel fubjects. 
 
 For oppofing infant baptifm, and for maintaining the doc- 
 trine of the Baptifts, hundreds, about the year 1529, were put 
 to death at Saltzburg, in the Palatinate, at Altze, in Ger- 
 many, and at many other places, and at many other times.* 
 
 * See Crcfby's Hiftory of the Englith Saptifts, Preface, psge 30 ; and 
 Hiftory, pages 3*, 4a, &c 
 
68 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujl'in. [Let. X. 
 
 The general manner of their death was to be beheaded, 
 roafted, or drowned. 
 
 It would, indeed, have been a furprifing thing, had it 
 been as you and your brethren intimate, that good men 
 have died as witnerfes of the traditions of popes and councils. 
 Wicked men may die, in vindication of their own errors ; 
 but we are not to expect that good men will die as martyrs, 
 for the errors which the wicked have propagated among the 
 faints. You will be kind enough, I hope, never to force 
 this argument into your fervice again, till you can, amongft 
 all the martyrs of Jefus, find one who has been called to lay 
 down his life, as a witnefs to your error of fprinkling children. 
 
 Your attention is requefied, Sir, to one thing more. You 
 and your brethren are not only contrary from both the Old 
 Teftament and the New, but you are contrary from each 
 other, and you begin to be contrary from all men. From 
 your Examination of my Sermons, pages 12, 13, 16, 17, you 
 appear not to know when baptiim is to be adminiftered ; 
 whether at the time when members are admitted into the 
 church, foon after it, or long after, or whether it be necerTary 
 at all, in order to church mernberfhip, or whether before or 
 after the Lord's fupper. When men come to know nothing 
 about a fubject, prudence dictates that it is time to drop it. 
 You would never traverfe fuch a crooked courfe, with rela- 
 tion to baptifm, did you underftand how to go ftraight. 
 You would, Sir, do well to fay no more about baptifm, or 
 elfe take the Bible for your guide, or pay iome attention to 
 the church of Chrift, which is the pillar and ground of the 
 truth : you now fet afide both, and hence it is that you have 
 loft: fight of the fubject. You muft, indeed, perfuade Chrif- 
 tians to believe baptifm to be of little worth, or they cannot 
 reft contented with the manner of your handling that im- 
 portant gofpel ordinance. 
 
 You inform us, that no one hath written well on the fub- 
 ject of baptifm, or " that there is no fcheme but what is 
 embarraffed with material objections," (page 94,) or at lead, 
 there is none on your fide of the qneftion but what is thus 
 embarratfed. At the fame time, you treat with very little 
 refpect what hath been attempted by the Baptifts : this being 
 the cafe, the public will probably expect not only fomething 
 new on the fubject, and fomething great, but fomething free 
 of embarrafTmcnts, when you mall fee fit to favour them 
 with your volume, which you encourage us to expect. 
 
 Wiihing you the true knowledge of gofpel baptiim, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
Let. XL] Letters io Rev. Mr. Aujlin* 69, 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 HAVING traverfed through your Letters, I proceed to 
 your Appendix. In it you were pleafed to notice my 
 pamphlet, entitled, Open Communion with all <who keep the Or- 
 dinances as Chriji delivered them to the Saints. "As it comes 
 cut in.the form of letters, addrefTed to Mr. Anderfon, the 
 duty of replying to it (fay you) is properly his, I (hall not 
 take it out of his hands, but beg leave to trouble you with a. 
 few remarks on what I find in this work." 
 
 Mr. Anderfon is, Sir, confeiTedly the proper perfon to 
 reply, and no doubt he will, if he dill confider his ground 
 defenfible, and have arguments at hand for the bufinefs ; 
 but as my Letters to him were net of a private or perfonal 
 nature, but implicated all his denomination, as being with, 
 him in the fame error, he probably will not take it unkindly,. 
 that you fent out your Appendix, as a precurfor to what 
 might foljow. You, Sir. it is p relumed, laid but little in 
 your Appendix, compared with what you confider might be- 
 faid; you will, therefore, not be oifended, mould I, whilfl 
 replying to you, keep fomething in refer ve againft Mr. An- 
 derfon mall appear with the main body of arguments : I 
 ili-ill, however, endeavour to iilence fome. of your fuppofed 
 refutation, and remove your fuppofed llrength, in which: 
 you truft. 
 
 It is worthy to be noticed, that in the fecond page of? 
 your Appendix, you tell me, " that I am relponfible to the- 
 religious public, to prove that to baptize invariably means. 
 to immerfe, and that only.'* I confider this, Sir, to be 
 already done, at lead {o far that you have not been able ta 
 difprove it : befides, this point may receive fome additional 
 light, before the Letters now writing (hall be doled. 
 
 You add, in the fame page, " The world mail not be 
 impofed upon by round aiferticns and dogmatic declama- 
 tion," nor by fuppofnicns, you fhould have faid. " We are 
 not (fay you) to be puc out of the vilibie fociety of believes s, 
 but for fome evident disqualifying reafon. And now you. 
 are fei iouily called upon to prove from the Bible, what with 
 fuch an air of certainty you afTume." Have patience with 
 me, and if the Lord will, I (hall endeavour all you afki 
 this you may expeel in my next Letter. 
 
 G. 2 
 
jo Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. XI. 
 
 In page 99, you tell us, that " the difficulty is wholly on 
 oui part, and that it is without foundation." Here, bir, you 
 miftake in whole. Is the difficulty on our part, when you 
 are continually taking from the people the key of knowledge, 
 by 'ivrejllng the Scriptures, by mifappVying them, and by 
 many erroneous interpretations, fo far as they refpect gofpel 
 baptifm and its l'ubjeers \ Not only fo, but ye enter not into 
 the kingdom of heaven yourfelves, and them that are enter- 
 ing in ye hinder. The whole tenor of your Letters to me, 
 is to juftify your own neglect of duty, as it refpects baptifm, 
 and to prevent others from complying with theirs : or, (to 
 exprefs the matter in milder terms,) the manifeft object of 
 your Letters is to juftify your practice of fprinkling inftead 
 of immerfion, and to encourage others to believe and practife 
 the fame, when you have not found, and cannot find, one 
 fentence or word in all the Scriptures, to warrant your prac- 
 tice, or juftify your departure from gofpel baptifm. You 
 have fearched, and by fearching have found that you have 
 nothing but fuppofitions and uncertain conjectures, for your 
 infant fprinkling or infant baptifm. Mlfcrable bafis this, for 
 the foundation of our faith in the firft gofpel ordinance. 
 On fuch a bafis Hands your faith ; and by fuch weak and 
 beggarly arguments would you drive us from gofpel bap- 
 tiim, or to confent to the validity of fprinkling ; and not 
 only fo, but you contend with us, becaufe we choole not to 
 reft our faith and venture our practice on fuch conjectural 
 ground, when we have for our prefent faith and practice the 
 broad bafis of all the Bible, fairly and unequivocally in our 
 favour, fo far as it mentions the fubject. You fiirely ought 
 to have had better arguments, and fome facts in your favour, 
 before you pronounced, in the face of infpiration and before 
 the world, " that the difficulty is wholly on the BaptiuV 
 part, and without foundation." 
 
 The next and lad thing in your pamphlet is now to be 
 confidered : it is your particular refutation of my fentiments 
 on open communion with all who keep the ordinances as 
 Chrift delivered them to the faints. This your fuppofed re- 
 flation mnft have a particular examination, for it is calcu- 
 lated to miflead thofe who examine things very partially. 
 . I propofe to ftate your refutation as explicitly as I can, 
 and try its ftrength as concifely as may be. You begin 
 your refutation thus — " The leading principles of your de- 
 fence feem to be thefe : — 
 
 " I. The fault, fay you, is wholly ours, becaufe we re- 
 fufe to fubmit to an exprefsly appointed ordinance of the 
 
Let. XL] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aiiftin. 7 1 
 
 gofpel." " We contend, that we as feriouily reverence, and 
 as conic ientioufly obferve this ordinance, as the Baptiits ; 
 but your manner of applying water, in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, has nothing 
 to Ao with baptifm : here we are at ifTue. You have yet 
 furnifhed no proof; we have furnifhed clear demonjlration to 
 the contrary." 
 
 Anf. This, Sir, is the whole of your refutation of what 
 you let down for my firft principle. 
 
 I have two queflions to propofe, and then fhall leave this 
 part of your refutation to your future reflections. The frjl 
 is, you fay, " We as ferioufly reverence, and as confcien- 
 tiouJly obferve the gofpel ordinance of baptifm, as the Bap- 
 tifts." What do you call a ferious and confcientious ob- 
 fervance of this ordinance ? Saying all you can againft it ? 
 Refufmg to fubmit to it, and fubftituting man's invention 
 in the room of it ? We wilh you to be delivered from filch 
 ferious and confcientious obfervances of the commandments 
 and inventions of men. Belides, it is your fentiment, that 
 this ordinance is to be obferved or received when we are 
 infants, when we can know nothing about it. How much 
 ferious reverence and conjeientiovfnefs infants have we know not. 
 Secondly — The ftrength of your refutation is fuppofed, no 
 doubt, to be in your concluding words, which are, " You 
 have yet furniihed no proof; we have furnifhed clear demon- 
 Jlratlon to the contrary.'* This is worthy of obfervation — 
 " We have furnifhed (fay you) clear demonftration !" The 
 queftion is, to whom ? and where ? we have not feen it. 
 Clear demonftration ! this is all we want : if you have fur- 
 nifhed it, it ought to have been written in capitals, that not 
 one of your readers mould have pafTed it over unnoticed. 
 The truth is, you have miftaken the bufinefs : you have 
 furniihed no demonfu ation of any kind, lave it be this, that 
 you are oppofmg the wily gofpel baptifm, and that the con- 
 trary from what you advocate is true. 
 
 Your ftatement of my next principle is, 
 
 " II. You tell us, (fay you to me) the perfect idea in 
 the prefent controverfy is, " The actual comrfiunion at the 
 Lord's table is to be confined to baptized believers.'* 
 
 This principle, Sir, you implicitly grant to be true, and 
 my ftatement juft ; and contend that you are baptized ; and, 
 inltead of clear demonstration, bring In your congregations as 
 witnefles that you have been the fubjects of gofpel baptifm, 
 "by your having been fprinkled in your infancy, which is a 
 mere human fubftitute for gofpel baptifm. But, Sir, you 
 
72 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. XL 
 
 know, or ought to, that thefe congregations, from whom 
 you have fo taken the key of knowledge, that they know 
 not what baptifm is, or to whom it mould be adminillered, 
 are no witne/Tes in this cafe. You have taught them to 
 mifunderftand the plain fenfe of the Bible, and to read 
 fprinkling for baptifm, and Abraham's houfehold for difci- 
 ples of Chrift ; and now would conftrain us to admit them 
 as witneifes. No, Sir, we thall admit no fuch fuborned or 
 tutored evidence : we alk for your clear demonjlration. 
 
 III. You ftate my third principle to be — " The being 
 born of water or baptifm, is the perfect and vifible line of 
 feparation between the vifible kingdom of Chrift and the 
 kingdoms of this world." " Your grand, and as far as I 
 have obferved, your only text to prove this is John iii. 5. 
 ' Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he can- 
 not enter into the kingdom of God.' But this darling 
 doctrine is refuted — , 
 
 "1. By what you do ; for you baptize perfons upon the 
 ground of evidence that they have been already born of the 
 Spirit, and therefore are, before baptifm, vifible believers." 
 jinf. This, Sir, we at once grant, but how does this refute 
 my doctrine ? But you add, " and of the kingdom," as 
 though to be a vifible believer, and a member of the vijible 
 kingdom of Chrift, were one and the fame thing. By thus 
 confounding things you may kjep truth out of fight, and 
 blind your readers, but you can never in this way refute my 
 doctrine. 
 
 "2. This darling doctrine (fay you to me) is refuted by 
 what you fay ; for you tell us, that John's baprifm waft 
 gofpel baptifm ; that the multitudes from all Judea and 
 Jerufalem, who en.braced John's bapiifm, previouily brought 
 forth fruits of repentance, yet when they were baptized they 
 were only prepared to be introduced into die kingdom of 
 the Meffiah." Sir, I find no fault when you mifquote my 
 words, provided you retain the idea, but here you have-mif- 
 taken both. Speaking of the people made ready and pre- 
 pared by John, my words are, page 49, * Of this people, and 
 of this only, for aught appears, Chrift took and formed the 
 flrft vifible gofpJ church ; or this prepared people were the 
 church, though not yet organized. ' Had you quoted my 
 words, this part of your refutation might have been fpared, 
 
 3. You tell me that my doctrine "is refuted by the text 
 itfelf ; for whatever be defigned by the kingdom of God, 
 and whatever is to be underftood here by being born of 
 water and of the Spirit, both are neceifary, as prc-requihtes 
 
Let, XL] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. J$ 
 
 to a perfon's entering into the kingdom of God. The birth 
 goes before the entrance." Anf. If you will be kind enough 
 to inform the public for how long a time a peribn mull be 
 born before he enters into the world, then they will poftefs 
 a neceifary datum to underftand your new doctrine, that the 
 birth goes before the entrance ; till you do this, your third 
 refutation might alfo have been fpared, for the public will 
 not be able to understand this new doctrine, without fome 
 clue to it. In the mean time, the common fenfe of the 
 public will lead them to believe my doctrine, that the birth 
 is ihe entrance. 
 
 Say you again, " The being born of water is placed before 
 being bom of the Spirit." Anf. If you will read the third 
 vei:e, which you had jufl mentioned, which fpeaks of being 
 born again, you may find your miftake. 
 
 4. My doctrine, you fay, " is refuted by abundance of 
 other Scripture evidence ; for example, there were multi- 
 tudes who belonged to the viable kingdom of God before 
 Chrift, who were net born of water." Anf. You ought, 
 Sir, to have told us where this Scripture evidence is, which 
 proves that what Chrift faid is not true. Chriit faith, « Ver- 
 ily, verily, I fay unto you, Except a man be born of water, 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' 
 You fay there is Scripture evidence, trut multitudes have 
 belonged to the vifible kingdom of God before Chrift, who 
 were not born of water. Befides, Sir, Chrift fpeaks, Mat. 
 iv. 17. of the kingdom of heaven as not having made its 
 public appearance, but as being then at hand. Where you 
 fee fit to contradict Jeius Chrift, in direci^erms, I leave you 
 to anfwer it to him. 
 
 In the next place, you tell us, u that Chrift himfelf was 
 never born of water." Had you forgotten, or did you 
 fuppofe that none of your readei s would recollect, Mark i. 
 9. that Jefus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was bap- 
 tized of John in Jordan? 
 
 Again, fay you, " Matthew and Levi, Philip and Nathan- 
 ael, Andrew and Peter, and probably the reft of Chriit 's 
 difciples, were not born of water, as the commencement of 
 their vifible (landing as his difciples." But had not thefe 
 been born of water, baptized, of John ? Had not John 
 made them ready \ 
 
 . " The penitent thief upon the crofs (fay you) was not 
 born of water, and yet the atteftation of Chrift in his behalf 
 determines him to be a vifible member of his kingdom." 
 Here, Sir, you have either a double intention, or you di- 
 
74 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. XL 
 
 rectly contradict the Saviour ; in either cafe I leave you to 
 your own reflections. Befides, our Lord did not fay that 
 the thief belonged to his vifible kingdom, but that he ihould 
 that day be with him in paradife. 
 
 Again, you fay, 4< Cornelius, Paul, and the Ethiopian 
 eunuch, were certainly vifible believers before they were 
 born of water." Did any perfon ever deny it? I' certainly 
 do not, nor ever did : but this is as far from the fubject in 
 debate, as the north is from the fouth. The queftion, which 
 you appear to have forgotten, is, Whether any ever belong- 
 ed to the kingdom of God, the vifible church, without being 
 born of water \ Not whether any have been believers before 
 they were born of water : for my principle is, and the prin- 
 ciple of the Bible is. that none are to be baptized but vifible 
 believers, and that fuch are to be baptized, and thus intro- 
 duced into the vilible church. 
 
 5. " Your doctrine (fay you to me) is refuted by what 
 you prefume is my view of the condition of many who die, 
 either in their infancy, or childhood, or youth, without hav- 
 ing ever been immerfed." 
 
 Anf. Do you fuppofe that I believe that infants, and chil- 
 dren, and youth, who have not been immerfed, belong to 
 the vifible kingdom of God ? If you do, you rnqft certainly 
 mud be quite unacquainted with what I believe. Perhaps 
 your idea is this, that I believe fome infants, children, and 
 youth, who have not been immerfed, may go to heaven, and 
 be finally faved. This, Sir, I do believe ; but what hath 
 this to do with the prefent controverfy ? As foon as you 
 mall underftandingly compare this part of your fuppofed 
 refutation with tha doctrine to be refuted, you will fee that 
 they have no connexion with each other, and the one can 
 never be injured by the other. 
 
 You clofe your refutation of my exclufi ve doctrine, as 
 you term it, by faying, " It is enough, if the fmgle principle 
 of your exclufive doctrine is found to be unfcriptural." 
 True, Sir, this would be enough ; and had you been able to 
 have found one fcripture againft it, you would have deferved 
 well ; but a thoufand texts which fay nothing about it, will 
 never prove it unfcriptural. 
 
 Upon another of my leading principles, you obferve, 
 
 ■ IV. To juftify your denying us communion at the 
 Lord's table, you fay, « Not the leaft intimation is given, 
 that ever one was admitted to the Lord's table prior to his 
 being baptized.** In reply to this, I obferve, 
 
 " I. That our proof that we are baptized is as clear ag 
 
Let. XL] Letters to Rev. Mr. Au/lin. 75 
 
 yours is that you are baptized." AnJ. This is the very 
 thing for you to prove. 
 
 " 2. It is evident (fay you) that the difciples were ad- 
 mitted to communion with their Lord at the fupper, and 
 yet there is no evidence that they were ever baptized." 
 Anf, There is no evidence but they were, and fo it helps 
 you not. Such arguments would never help a good caufe. 
 Befides, there is evidence that they were baptized, Luke vii. 
 
 29. * And all the people that heard him, juftified God, 
 
 being baptized with the baptilm of John ;' and thus it ruins 
 this part of your caufe. 
 
 " 3. The exprefs command of Chrift to his followers, 
 indifcriminately, is, Do this in remembrance of me. You 
 muft, therefore, prove, either that we are not his followers, 
 or that ycu have a warrant to difpenfe with that law, and 
 deny us the privilege of complying with it." Certainly, 
 Sir, I muft prove one of thefe, and nothing is eafier than to 
 prove the firft — that you are not his followers, in that very 
 example, the copying of which is indifpenfable, if you will 
 enter into his vifible kingdom. Chrift was baptized in Jor- 
 dan ; you refufe to be baptized any where ; you will only 
 be fprinkled : thus you are not his followers in the firft 
 gofpel ordinance ; and he hath no where commanded you, 
 or any others, to partake of the fecond ordinance, whilft 
 they neglect, much lefs whilft they deny the firft. You 
 have never vifibly forfaken all that ycu have for Chrift's 
 fake and the gofpePs : in no other way can you becon e 
 Chrift's vifible difciples, fee Luke xiv. 33. There is bit 
 one way pointed cut in the gofpel, by which we are mani- 
 feftly to forfake all, at the commencement of our vifible 
 diiciplefhip, and that one way is to be born, into his king- 
 dom, of water, or to be baptized. You reject this counfel 
 of Gcd againit yourfelves — you refufe to be born of water, 
 or to be baptized ; you, therefore, are, in this important 
 article, not his followers, and fo not of the vifible kingdom 
 of heaven. There is no law which requires you to come, 
 till you be followers of Chrift, and members of his vifible 
 kingdom, nor is there any law of Chrift's which allows you 
 to come before : we are, therefore, under obligation to refufe 
 you admittance among us. 
 
 You fay, again, " You muft mow us that Chrift has fome- 
 where made this deficiency, (i. e. the want of baptifm) in 
 all cafes, a bar to communion at his table." No, Sir, (now 
 us where any have liberty to come with this deficiency 
 about therm 
 
j 6 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aufiin. [Let. XL 
 
 Page 105, you quote the following lines — 
 
 " Do this, he cries, till time fhall end, 
 " In naem'ry of your dying Friend; 
 " Mett at my table and record 
 " The love of your departed Lord." 
 
 "We feel (fay you) all the tendernefs of this invitation, 
 and folicit a place among the guefts." We fay, come and 
 welcome ; but come according to the pattern, example, and 
 commandment given. But you make my anfwer to be very 
 different : you tell the public that my reply to your folici- 
 tation is, " No, avaunt, you are not among the followers of 
 Jefus ; you are unbapt\%ul heathen." This, Sir, is an impru- 
 dent expreflion ; and I have juit caufe to call you to ac- 
 count before the public, for manufacturing fuch an indecent 
 anfwer, and palming it upon your readers as being mine. 
 You have, Sir, faid hard things enough in your pamphlet, 
 without this attempt to make me appear uncivil. 
 
 By what you fay, pages 106, 107, it is manifeft, that you 
 are qaite dhpleafed with the name given to your denomina- 
 tion, which is peculiarly your own. By the name Pa*do- 
 rantifls, you ought ever willingly to be known, till you 
 change your practice. If you diilike your name, do you 
 fuppofe thfrt the great Kead of the church will be pleafed 
 with your practice, which anfwers exactly to it ? You con- 
 fider Psedorantiits to be a contemptuous name ; if it indeed 
 be fo, your practice is a contemptuous practice, for the name 
 and the practice perfectly agree together. Your practice is 
 indeed contemptuous, for it contemns the ordinance of Jefus 
 Chrift, for which it is fubftituted. By this fubftitution you 
 have polluted the ordinance of the Lord, or made it void 
 by the traditions of men \ and it is time for you to inquire 
 how you fhall anfwer, when he mall afk by what authority 
 you have done thefe things. The argument which you now 
 ufe, that great and learned men have thus done, will be but 
 a poor one then. This argument is no better than the Jews 
 might have ufed in Nehermah's day, when their fathers had 
 not kept the feaft of tabernacles in its order, according to 
 the command, for a thoufand years. The truth is, from 
 the days of your fathers ye have gone away from the Lord's 
 ordinance of baptifm, and have not kept it. Return unto 
 the Lord, and he will return unto you. 
 
 I agree, Sir, never to give you the appellation, Pa^doran- 
 tifts, after you fhall produce one example, precept, or fair 
 and full Scripture confequence, to fhow that fpnnkling is fo 
 much as once, in all the Bibie, put for Chriitian baptifm. 
 
Let. XL] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aitftin. 77 
 
 If this cannot be done, you do not appear to advantage, to 
 manifeft: any uneafinefs at your name, which perfectly defig- 
 nates your practice, and diftinguiihes your denomination. 
 Your practice, and not your name, mould difpleafe you. 
 
 You intimate, page 107, that I fhall oblige you, and many 
 of your denomination, by explaining what I mean by ad- 
 dreffing Mr. Anderibn, Brother Anderfon. This is eafily 
 done : by it I mean this — To manifeft my belief that he is 
 born of the Spirit, notwithstanding he refufes to be born of 
 water. 
 
 In the clofe of your Appendix, you appeal from all au- 
 thors, both Greek and Roman, from Jerome, Calvin, and 
 Dr. Gill, from all corruptions and fuperadditions of any 
 church, or the world, to that good book, which is by way of 
 eminence called the word of God. 
 
 In the laft words of your poftfcript, you make a formal 
 appeal, in thefe words — " But to the Bible, Sir, to the Bible." 
 Hail thou appealed unto the Bible ? unto the Bible ihalt 
 thou go. 
 
 Wifhing you a full hearing, a fair trial, and your errors a 
 juft condemnation, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
7$ Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. XII. 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 HAST thou appealed unto the BIBLE ? unto 
 the Bible {halt thou go. 
 
 Pleafe to attend to the following, and the 
 Bible will you fee for Go/pel Baptifm, 
 
 Here, Sir, is the Bible for baptifm, to which you have 
 appealed, and by which you and fome of your works are 
 now to be tried. 
 
 The following are all the texts which clearly fpeak of 
 gofpel baptifm. 
 
 1. Mat. iii. 5, 6, 7. Then went out to him Jerufalem, 
 and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and 
 were baptized of him in Jordan : — but when he faw many 
 of the Pharifees and Sadducees come to his baptifm, he 
 faid, &c. 
 
 2. Ver. 11. I indeed baptize you with water, &c. 
 
 3. Ver. 13, 14, 15, 16. Then cometh Jefus from Galilee 
 to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him ; but John for- 
 bade him, faying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and 
 comeft thou to me ? And Jefus anfwering, faid unto him, 
 Suffer it to be fo now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all 
 righteoufnefs : then he fuffered him. And Jefus, when he 
 was baptized, went up ftraightway out of the water. 
 
 4. Chap. xxi. 25, 26, 27. The baptifm of John, whence 
 was it ? from heaven or of men ? And they rtafaned with 
 them/elves, &C 
 
 5. Chap, xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. 
 
 6. Mark i. 4, 5. John did baptize in the wildernefs, and 
 preach the baptifm of repentance for the remiffion of fins. 
 And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and 
 they of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the river 
 ©f Jordan, &c. 
 
 7. Ver. 8, 9, 10. I indeed have baptized you with water. 
 — And it came to pafs in thofe days, that Jefus came from 
 Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 
 And ftraightway, coming up out of the water, &c. 
 
 8. Chap. .xi. 30. The baptifm of John, was it from 
 heayen, or of meji ? 
 
Let. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin. 79 
 
 9. Chap. xvi. 15, 16. Andhefaid unto them, Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the gofpel to every creature. 
 He that believeth, and is baptized, &c. 
 
 10. Luke iii. 3. And he came into all the country about 
 Jordan, preaching the baptifm of repentance, &c. 
 
 11. Ver. 7, 8. Then faid he to the multitude that came 
 forth to be baptized of him, &c. 
 
 12. Ver. 12. Then came alfo publicans to be baptized. 
 
 13. Ver. 16. I indeed baptize you with water. 
 
 1 4. Ver. 2 1 . Now, when all the people were baptized, it 
 came to pafs, that Jefus alfo being baptized, &c. 
 
 15. Chap. vii. 29, 30. And all the people that heard 
 him, and the publicans, juftified God, being baptized with 
 the baptifm of John. But the Pharifees and lawyers rejected 
 the counfel of God againft themielves, being not baptized 
 of him. 
 
 !6. Chap. xx. 4. The baptifm of John, was it from 
 heaven, or of men ? 
 
 17. John i. 25, 26. Why baptized thou then, if thou be 
 not that Chrift, nor Elias, neither that prophet ? John an- 
 fwered them, faying, I baptize with water. 
 
 if. Ver. 28. Beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. 
 
 19. Ver. 31. That he mould be made manifefl. to Ifrael, 
 therefore am I come baptizing with water. 
 
 20. Ver. 33. He that fent me to baptize with water. 
 ti. Chap. iii. 5. Except a man be born of water, and of 
 
 the Spirit, &c. 
 
 22. Ver. 22. After thefe things came Jefus and his dif- 
 ciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with 
 them, and baptized. 
 
 23. Ver. 23. And John alfo was baptizing in iEnon, 
 near to Salim, becaufe there was much water there j and they 
 came, and were baptized. 
 
 24. Ver. 26. Behold, the fame baptizeth, and all men 
 come to him. 
 
 25. Chap. iv. 1, 2, The Pharifees had heard that Jefus 
 made and baptized more difciples than John, (though Jefus 
 himfelf baptized not, but his difciples. ) 
 
 26. Chap. x. 40. Beyond Jordan, into the place where 
 John at raft baptized. 
 
 27. Acts i. 5. John truly baptized with water. 
 
 28. Ver. 22. Beginning from the baptifm of John, 
 
 29. Chap. ii. 38. Then Peter faid unto them, Repent, 
 and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jefus 
 Chriit, — and ye mail receive the gift of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
80 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujlin. [Let. XII. 
 
 30. Ver. 41. Then they that gladly received his word 
 were baptized. 
 
 31. Chap. viii. 12, 13. But when they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
 the name of Jems Chrift, they were baptized, both men and 
 women. Then Simon himielf believed alio \ and when he 
 was baptized, &c. 
 
 32. Ver. 16. Only they were baptized in the name of 
 the Lord Jefus. 
 
 33. Ver. 36 — 39. And as they went on their way they 
 came unto a certain water : and the eunuch faid, See, here 
 is water : what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip 
 faid, If thou believeil with all thine heart, thou mayeft. 
 And he anfwered and faid, I believe that Jefus Chrift is the 
 Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to ftand dill : 
 and they went down both into the water, both Philip and 
 the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were 
 come up out of the water, &c. 
 
 34. Chap. ix. 18. And he (Saul) arofe, and was baptized. 
 $5. Chap. x. 37. After the baptifm which John preached. 
 
 36. Ver. 47, 48. Can any man forbid water, that thefe 
 ihould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghoft 
 as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in 
 the name of the Lord. 
 
 37. Chap. xi. 16. John indeed baptized with water. 
 
 38. Chap. xiii. 24. When John had firft preached, be- 
 fore his coming, the baptifm of repentance to all the people. 
 
 39. Chap. xvi. 15. And when ihe (Lydia) was baptiz- 
 ed, and her houfehold. 
 
 40. Ver. ^^. And was baptized, he (the jailer) and all 
 his, ftraightway. 
 
 41. Chap, xviii. 8. And many of the Corinthians hear- 
 ing, believed, and were baptized. 
 
 42. Ver. 25. Pie (Apollos) fpake and taught diligently 
 the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptifm of John. 
 
 43. Chap. xix. 3, 4, 5. Unto what then were ye bap- 
 tized ? And they faid, Unto John's baptifm. Then faid 
 Paul, John verily baptized with the baptifm of repentance, 
 faying unto the people, That they mould believe on him 
 which mould come after him, that is, on Chrift Jefus. When 
 they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jefus. 
 
 44. Chap. xxii. 16. And now, why tarried thou? arife, 
 and be baptized, and ivajh aivay thy fins, calling on the 
 «ame of the Lord. 
 
Let. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Anjlin. 81 
 
 45- Rom. vi. 3, 4. Know ye not, that fo many of us as 
 were baptized into Jeius Chrift, were baptized into his death ? 
 Therefore we are buried with him by baptifm into death, &c. 
 
 46. Ver. 5. If we have been planted together in the 
 likenefs of his death, &c. 
 
 47. 1 Cor. i. 13 — 17. Were ye baptized in the name of 
 Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none cf you but Crifpus 
 and Gaius ; let any ihould fay that I had baptized in mine 
 own name. And I baptized alio the houfehold of Stepha- 
 nas : befides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 
 For Chrifl fent me not to baptize, but to preach the gofpel. 
 
 48. Chap. vi. 11. But ye are warned. 
 
 49. Chap. xv. 29. Elfe what (hall they do which are 
 baptized for the dead I 
 
 50. Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been bap- 
 tized into Chrift have put on Chriil. 
 
 51. Eph. iv. 5. One baptifm. 
 
 52. Chap. v. 26. That he might fan£Kfy and cleanfe it 
 {the church) with the waihing of water by the word. 
 
 53. Col. ii. 12. Buried with him in baptifm, wherein 
 alfo ye are rifen with him. 
 
 54. Titus iii. 5. According to his mercy he faved us, by 
 the warning of regeneration, 6c c. 
 
 55. Heb. x. 22. Our bodies ivafhed with pure water. 
 
 56. 1 Peter iii. 21. The like figure whereunto even bap- 
 tifm doth alfo now fave us. 
 
 Here, my dear Sir, you have in plain view directly before 
 you all the Bible, fo far as it refpecls the matter of gofpel 
 baptifm. 
 
 The court to which you have appealed is now opened. 
 Now felect your witneifes, and have your evidence ready ; 
 for to trial you muft come. Every text is allowed to be a 
 good witnefs, and to polfefs evidence fufficient to fet the 
 accufed free, upon bearing telVimony in his favour. 
 
 You are now, Sir, upon your trial before the court of 
 Truth ; charged with violating and profaning the Jlrft gofpel 
 ordinance. 
 
 Say you, Guilty or not guilty ? You fay, Not guilty. 
 
 Then the trial mull proceed. 
 
 Where is your text, your witnefs, which by example, by 
 precept, or by intuitive confequence, teltifies that fprinkling t 
 or partial <wajhing> in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft, is gofpel baptifm. Name your texts, yotir witneifes. 
 Call them one by one. Call them all, if you pleafe. 
 h 2 
 
§2 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujl'in. [Let. XII. 
 
 Mat. iii. 5, 6, 7. is the firft. What fays this witnefs > 
 Then went out unto him Jerufalem, and Judea, and all the 
 region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jor- 
 dan, &c. Call all the other witneffes, from Matthew to Peter. 
 The witneffes having been feverally called, and the tefti- 
 mony of each feparately taken — 
 
 Court. You, S. A. fuppofed that thefe witnefles, at leaft 
 fome of them, would have fpoken in your favour : but fup- 
 pofnions do not pafs for evidence at this court. What have 
 your witneffes teftified ? The teftimony of each, as it refpects .' 
 your practice, is Tekel — Thou art weighed in the balances, and 
 art found wanting. 
 
 Now, Sir, for the trial of immerfion for gofpel baptifrri. 
 Call the witneffes one by one. The witne/Tes being called, 
 the teftimony of each is, My plain and common fenfe of the 
 cafe is, that immerfion is gofpel baptifm. Call fome of the 
 witneffes again. Call Mark i. 5. This witnefs teftifies, that 
 he faw John baptizing a multitude of his difciples in the 
 'river of Jordan. Call Mark i. 9. The teftimony of this 
 witnefs is, that he faw John baptizing the Head and Hujband 
 of the Church, Jefus Chrift, in Jordan; and that he faw 
 him, after the ordinance was adminiftered, coming upflraight- 
 nvay out of the water. Call Heb. x. 22. This witnefs af- 
 firmeth, that in gofpel baptifm the fubjects had their bodies 
 wafhed with pure water. Call 1 Peter iii. 21. The teftU 
 mony of this witnefs is, that as Noah was faved in the ark. 
 from a drowning world, fo are the baptized faved in the 
 water from a burning world : that is, baptifm being an antt- 
 lupon or figure, anfwering to the figure the ark, it figura- 
 tively points out the Saviour's purpofe of faving his difciples 
 from a fiery deluge, which mail burn up the World and 
 deft roy the ungodly. He, therefore, as a token of his great 
 kindnefs, directs that they be put all under water in baptifm ; 
 that not fo much as an hair mould be finged, or the fmell of 
 fire pafs on them* 
 
 Immerfion being tried, is found perfectly innocent, and is 
 pronounced to be the matter of gofpel baptifm. 
 
 Shouldft thou, S. A. yet hefitate whether fprinkling may 
 not, in fpecial inftances, be allowed, another witnefs muft be 
 again called. Call Eph. iv. 5. One Lord, one faith, ont 
 baptifm. 
 
 Court. Our judgment is, that the error of S. A. hath no 
 countenance, from any precept, example, or fair confe- 
 cjuence, from any thing which hath been faid or done hj 
 Jefus Chrift, or any of his infpired fervants* 
 
Let. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin. 83 
 
 HAST thou appealed unto the BIBLE ? unto 
 the Bible fhalt thou go. 
 
 Pleafe to attend to the following, and the 
 Bible you will fee for the Subjects of Go/pel 
 Baptifm. ' 
 
 Here, Sir, is, if I miftake not, every text in which the 
 Bible manifeftly defines the fubjefis of gofpel baptifm. 
 
 1. Mat. iii. 7, 8, 9. When he faw many of the Pharifees 
 and Sadducees come to his baptifm, he faid unto them, O 
 generation of vipers ! who hath warned you to flee from the 
 wrath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for re- 
 pentance : and think not to fay within yourfelves, We have 
 Abraham to our father. 
 
 2. Ver. j 1. I indeed baptize you with water unto rc~ 
 peniance. • 
 
 3. Chap, xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name, &c. 
 
 4. Mark i. 4, 5. John did baptize in the wildernefs, and 
 preach the baptifm of repentance for the remiffion of fins. 
 And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and 
 they of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the 
 river of Jordan, confejjing their Jins. 
 
 5. Chap. xvi. 15, 16. And he faid unto them, Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the gofpel to every creature. 
 He that believeth, and is baptized, &c. 
 
 6. Luke iii. 7, 8, 9. Then faid he to the multitude that 
 came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers ! 
 who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring 
 forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance ; and begin 
 not to fay within yourfelves, We have Abraham to our 
 father. — And now alfo the axe is laid unto the root of the 
 treu* &c. 
 
 7. Ver. 12. Then came alfo publicans to be baptized, 
 ^nd faid unto him, Mailer, what mail <we do ? 
 
 8. Chap. vii. 29, 30. And all the people that heard him, 
 id the publicans, juftified God, being baptized with the 
 
 baptifm of John. But the Pharifees and lawyers rejecled the 
 ccunfel of God againfi themfclves, being not baptized of him. 
 
 9. John iii. 5. Except a man be born of water, and of 
 the Spirit, &c. 
 
 10. Chap. iv. 1, Jefus made and baptized more difciples 
 than John. 
 
§4 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. XII. 
 
 11. A&s ii. 38. Then Peter faid unto them, Repent, and 
 be baptized every one of you in the name of Jems Chrift, for 
 the remijfion of fins, and ye fliall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghoft. 
 
 12. Ver. 41. Then they that gladly received his word 
 were baptized. 
 
 13. Chap. viii. 12, 13. But when they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
 the name of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized, both men and 
 women. Then Simon himfelf believed alfo ; and when he 
 was baptized, &c. 
 
 14. Ver. 36, 37. What doth hinder me to be baptized ? 
 And Philip faid, If thou believejl with all thine heart, thou 
 mayeft. And he (the eunuch) anfwered and faid, I believe 
 that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God. 
 
 1 5. Chap, x. 48. Can any man forbid water, that thefe 
 fhould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghojl 
 as well as we ? 
 
 16. Chap. xiii. 24. When John had firft preached, be- 
 fore his coming, the baptifm of repentance to all the peopU. 
 
 17. Chap. xvi. 14, 15. A certain woman named Lydia, 
 a feller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, who ivor/hipped 
 God, heard us ; whofe heart the Lord opened, that (lie 
 attended unto the things which were fpoken of Paul. And 
 when Ine was baptized, and her houfehold. &c. 
 
 18. Ver. 33, ..34. And was baptized, he (the jailer) and 
 all his, (traightway. And when he had brought them into 
 his houfe, he let meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in 
 Gad with all his hnufe. 
 
 19. Chap, xviii. 8. And many of the Corinthians hear- 
 ing, believed, and were baptized. 
 
 20. Chap. xix. 4, 5. John verily baptized with the baptifm 
 of repentance, faying unto the people, That they jhould believe 
 on him which mould come after him, that is, on Chrift Jefus. 
 When they heard this, they were baptized, &c. 
 
 21. Chap. xxii. 16. And now, why tarriejl thou ? arife, 
 and be baptized, and ivafh away thy fins, calling on the 
 name of the Lord. 
 
 22. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Know ye not, that fo many of us as 
 were baptized into Jefus Chrift were baptized into his death ? 
 Therefore we are buried with him by baptifm into death ; 
 that like as Chrift was raifed up from the dead by the glory 
 of the Father, even fo we alfo ihould walk in newnefs of life. 
 
 23. Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been bap- 
 tized into Chrift have put on Chrift. 
 
Let. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aaftin* 85 
 
 24. 1 Peter iii. 21. The like figure whereunto even bap- 
 tifm doth now fave us, (not the putting away of the filth of 
 the flefh, but the anfiuer of a good confcience toward God,) 
 by the refurrection of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Here, Sir, you behold, in full view, the court to which 
 you have appealed, to be again in feftion. 
 
 Before this court you, Sir, ftand indicted for the following 
 high crimes or mifdemeanors : 1. For teaching the people 
 to mifunderftand the laws of Chrift's kingdom : 2. For do- 
 ing what you could to bring into this kingdom thofe who 
 have no gofpel liberty to come: '3. For fome public at- 
 tempts to prolong and to increafe the blindnefs of many, as 
 to the fubjects of gofpel baptifm. 
 
 You are now fet before the court of Truth for your trial. 
 
 What fay you to the indictment ? Guilty, or not guilty I 
 
 Anf .. Not guilty. 
 
 Then you muft be proved guilty. 
 
 You, as a teacher of the gofpel, have taught the people, 
 that the children of believers were to be baptized, on ac- 
 count of their parents' faith. 
 
 Court. Read the laws of Chrift's kingdom. The .laws 
 being read — Not a word is found for you, but much againft 
 you ; particularly the ftatutes recorded Mat. iii. 7, 8, 9. 
 Luke iii. 7, 8, 9. and in feveral other places : you, there- 
 fore, ftand convicted of the firfl claufe of the indictment. 
 
 As to the fecond claufe of the indictment — you have bap- 
 tized or iprinkled infants and unbelieving children, and thus 
 intentionally brought them into Chrift's kingdom, or done 
 what you could to place them there. 
 
 Court. You confefs the fact, but plead that the laws of 
 Chrift's kingdom enjoin the practice. Read the laws, that 
 the perfon on trial may be convicted from the mouth of the 
 law. The laws are read — Not a word is found for infant 
 baptifm, baptifm for believers' children, or for unbelievers' 
 baptifm of any kind. The law fpeaks of the baptifm of 
 believers, and gives liberty for none befides. Hence, you 
 ftand convicted of practifmg the traditions of men : which 
 was, for fubftance, the fecond claufe of the indictment. 
 
 As for the laft claufe, it is a fact of fuch public notoriety, 
 you will to that readily plead guilty ; otherwife, your Letters 
 to D. M. with the Appendix, will be laid before the court. 
 What fay you ? Anf Guilty. 
 
 Court. The judgment of this court is, that thou, S. A. art 
 guilty, in both matter and form, as ies forth in the indictment. 
 
$6 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Xet. XII. 
 
 HAST thou appealed unto the BIBLE ? unto 
 the Bible {halt thou go. 
 
 Pleafe to attend to the following, and you will 
 fee the Bible for Communicants. 
 
 The Following, if I miftake not, is the whole Bible, fo 
 far as it fpeaks of the Lord's fupper, and defines the quali- 
 fications of the accepted guefls. 
 
 i. Mat. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And as they were eating, 
 Jefus took bread, and blefled it, and brake it, and gave it to 
 the difciples, and faid, Take, eat ; this is my body. And 
 he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, fay- 
 ing, Drink ye all of it : for this is my blood of the new 
 teftament, which is ilied for many, for the remiffion of fins. 
 
 2. Mark xiv. 22, 23, 24. And as they did eat, Jefus 
 took bread, and blefTed, and brake it, and gave to them, 
 and faid, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the 
 cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and 
 they all drank of it : and he faid unto them, This is pay- 
 blood of the new teftament, which is fhed for many* 
 
 3. Luke xsii. 19, 20. And he took bread, and gave 
 thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, faying, This is 
 my body, which is given for you : this do in remembrance 
 of me. Like wife alfo the cup, after fupper, faying, This 
 cup is the new teftament in my blood, which is fhed for you. 
 
 4. Acts ii. 41, 42. Then they that gladly received his 
 word were baptized: and the fame day there were added 
 unto them about three thoufand fouls. And they continued 
 ftedfaftly in the apoftles' doctrine and fellowfhip, and in 
 breaking of bread, and in prayers. 
 
 5. Ver. 46, 47. And they, continuing daily with one 
 accord in the. temple, and breaking bread from houfe to 
 houfe. — And the Lord added to the church daily fuch as 
 ihould be faved. 
 
 6. Chap. xx. 7, n. And upon the firft day of the week, 
 when the difciples came together to break bread, Paul 
 preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow ; and 
 continued his fpeech until midnight. When he had broken 
 iread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of 
 day, fo he departed. 
 
 7. 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. The cup of bleflmg which we blefs, 
 is it not the communion of the blood of Chrift ? the bread 
 
Let. XII. ] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. 87 
 
 which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chrift ? 
 For we, being many, are one bread, and one body : for <we 
 ure all partakers of that one bread. 
 
 8. Chap. xi. 16, 20. But if any man feem to be conten- 
 tious, we have no fuch cuftom, neither the churches of God. 
 When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is 
 not to eat the Lord's fupper. 
 
 9. Ver. 23 — 29. For I have received of the Lord that 
 which alfo I delivered unto you — That the Lord Jefus, the 
 fame night in which he was betrayed, took bread : and when 
 he had given thanks he brake it, and faid, Take, eat ; this 
 is my body, which is broken for you : this, do in remem- 
 brance of me. After the fame manner alfo he took the cup, 
 when he had flipped, faying, This cup is the new teflament 
 in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remem- 
 brance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink 
 this cup, ye do mew the Lord's death till he come. Where- 
 fore, whomever fhall eat this bread and drink this cup of the 
 Lord unworthily, fhall be guilty of the body and blood of 
 the Lord. But let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him 
 eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth 
 and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to 
 himfelf, not difcerning the Lord's body. 
 
 Here, Sir, you behold the court to which you have ap- 
 pealed, once more convened, for your trial. 
 
 You now ftand before this court, to anfwer to the follow- 
 ing indictment. 
 
 Thou art accufed of having infinuated, before the friends 
 and enemies of king Jefus, that he hath left the order of his 
 houfe and worfhip at fuch loofe ends, that it cannot be de« 
 termined, from the rules given, in what order the two great 
 gofpel ordinances are to be adminiftered — whether the firft 
 laft, or the laft firft ; or whether it be of any confequence 
 which fhall have the priority : that is, whether baptifm fhall 
 precede the Lord's fupper, or the Lord's fupper precede 
 baptifm ; or whether it be of confequence which fhall be firft. 
 
 Counfellor. Sir, every dictate of prudence ftrongly fug- 
 gefts to you, that your wifdom is, to plead guilty, and caft 
 yourfelf upon the mercy of the court. Should you not, out 
 of your own mouth you will be condemned. Your Letters 
 to D. M. and your Appendix, both pronounce you, Guilty, 
 guilty. 
 
 Court. What fay you ? Guilty, or not guilty ? 
 
 jlnf. Guilty. 
 
88 Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. XII. 
 
 Court. Read all the King's laws which relate to the 
 fubject, for the violation of which S. A. hath been here in- 
 dicted, and .to which indictment he pleads guilty ; that if he 
 will {how himfelf an honeft man, he may be no more ar- 
 raigned before us for any fimilar mifdemeanors. Read 
 diftinctly < Mat. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. Mark xiv. 22, 23. &c. 
 Do ft thou, S. A. fee, and perfectly under ftand, that there is 
 no law, ftatute, or claufe, which affords the lead poffible 
 plea, that any ever was, or of right mould be, admitted to 
 the table of the Lord, before he fubmitted to the ordinance 
 of baptifm ? and that the order of Chrift's houfe is plainly 
 fet forth ? Is farther light needed ? read Luke vii. 29, 30 ; 
 read alfo Luke i. 17. where John's work is defcribed to be 
 to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. Read alfo 
 what took place whilit John was making ready this people, 
 and preparing them for the Lord, Mat. iii. 1 — 6. John 
 preached repentance, and the baptifm of repentance, and 
 baptized them in the river of Jordan. Read again, Acts 
 ii. 41, 42. They that gladly received his word were bap- 
 tized, &c. 
 
 Court. Thou, S. A. haft been indicted before this court — 
 i. For having perverted the gofpel baptifm, by changing 
 it for fprinkling, an invention of men — 2. For pleading that 
 you, and confequently that your children, have Abraham to 
 your father, and that on this account they were fit fubjects 
 of gofpel baptifm, and that in this way thou haft violated 
 the laws of Chrift, as to the fubjects of baptifm — 3. For 
 having impeached the honour of the Chriftian Lawgiver, by 
 teaching that matters were left by him at uncertainties, what 
 and how things fhould be do'ne in his houfe and kingdom, 
 the church, and for feveral other collateral offences. Thou 
 didft well by appealing to this court, that thou mighteft have 
 a full hearing, and receive judgment without partiality. 
 This court having taken every part of each trial, had before 
 them, into full confideration, find thee, S. A. guilty *, guilty^ 
 guilty, as fet forth in the feveral indictments. The fentence 
 which the court mall inflict on thee, will not be publickly 
 pronounced this day : the court, however, from motives of 
 compaffion, fee fit to inform thee, that Inould repentance, 
 manifefted by reformation, be found in thee, their fentende 
 will be mixed with very much mercy. 
 
 Thou art now permitted to go, for a few days, whither 
 thou wilt, and no man fhall hurt thee, provided thou haft 
 continually about thee the King's laws, which thou haft 
 violated, and do not openly tranfgrefs them in future. 
 
Let. XH.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. S9 
 
 The principal part of what I purpofed to fay to you, Sir, 
 in the public hearing, I have now faid : you muft, however, 
 permit me to fay a few tilings more. 
 
 Among the many things which might be mentioned to 
 profit, the following only will find place for the prefent. 
 
 1. It is worthy of the reader's particular obfervation, that 
 you have not found fo much as one text, which fays fo much 
 as one word about fprinkling as being gofpel baptifm ; not 
 one precept, not one example, nor one plain confequence, 
 which mows fprinkling to be from heaven : and had you not 
 forbidden me to go to Rome, I could have mown that 
 fprinkling for baptifm was one of the children of the man of 
 fin. It mud appear a lingular matter, to every perfon of 
 difcernment, that you mould forbid me to go to the ancient 
 fathers, to prove your practice to be of men, when you, at 
 the fame time, take the liberty to bring in the modern 
 fathers, to mow your doctrine from heaven. Do you not 
 know, Sir, that in this particular you have exactly imitated 
 the pope and his clergy ? They would not fubmit to have 
 their errors confronted by the writings of the ancient fathers, 
 but they would prove the purity of their prefent practice, 
 becaufe his holinefs the pope, and his holy catholic churchy 
 have thus practifed for many years. 
 
 2. It is not unworthy of critical attention, why you have 
 not, and why you cannot, produce one Scripture precept, 
 example, or fair confequence, to prove that ever one infant, 
 child, or fervant, or foldier, was baptized upon the faith of 
 another, or becaufe the parent, mafter, captain, or fome 
 other perfon believed. The reafon why you produced no 
 fcripture which was to your point, is but too manifeft ; you 
 had none to bring. 
 
 .3. Another consideration you are defired to take into feri- 
 ous and immediate contemplation : it is this — You are ac- 
 countable, not to men only, but to the Lord, for your fup- 
 pofititious attempts to keep the ignorant and credulous in 
 the belief and practice of their fuperftitious and antichrif- 
 tian traditions. If you have any thing in favour of infant 
 fprinkling, or infant baptifm, which can bear the light of 
 truth, we wifn you to uiher it forth to public view as foon 
 as poffible : but if you have nothing but conjectures, fuppo- 
 fitions, and dubious, uncertain confequences, we wifh you 
 to let them fleep in their native darknefs ; for as often as 
 you, or your brethren, make fuch dark and benighted at- 
 tempts, to palm upon the Cbriftian world the inventions of 
 
$o Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. [Let. XIL 
 
 ynen for the ordinances of Heaven, you reproach your Maker. 
 His ordinances and pofitive institutions never did, do not 
 now, and never will, ftand in need of fuch blind arguments 
 to give them currency; the bare fuppofition that they do, 
 is a reflection upon his benevolence, or upon his wifdom. 
 
 4. Another thought I wilh to fuggeft, for your considera- 
 tion : it is this — Should you be diifatisfied with the judg- 
 ment which the Scriptures have paffed upon your traditionary 
 practices, you are defired to remember, that by them you and 
 your works are to be tried ; and happy for you, if your works 
 only mail be burnt up. It will be for you but a poor plea, 
 at the judgment, to fay, Many, of reputation, believed and 
 praclifed with you. You have appealed to the Bible ; if you 
 will hearken to it, it will be well ; otherwife, the blood of 
 many may be required at your hands. I fmcerely with that 
 you may repent of your deeds, and yet be a burning and a 
 ihining light in fome golden candleftick. Not that you 
 might believe as I do, but that you might believe and prac- 
 tife as the gofpel enjoins, and no more wound the fujfering 
 jlock of God, and caufe the daughters of the uncircumcifed 
 to rejoice, and the hypocrites and unbelievers to triumph 
 over the church. 
 
 What yet remains to be laid before you, is a few deduc- 
 tions or confequences from what we have paffed over. 
 
 1 . The fum total of your arguments againft the reafon- 
 ings in my Sermons, is a collection of Juppojitions^ which you 
 fay are miferable arguments. 
 
 2. Your Examination of my Sermons hath a tendency to 
 lengthen, and perhaps to augment, the difference between 
 your denomination and the Baptifts ; but it hath no direct , 
 aptitude towards fettling the difpute. The Baptifts are, 
 generally fpeaking, determined to abide by the judgment of 
 the court of truth ; before which both your pamphlet and 
 your practice have been tried and condemned. 
 
 3. Another confequence is, that you have darkened the 
 counfel of the Lord by words without knowledge : this is the 
 beft which we can fay of your performance, feeing by it you 
 have attempted to turn us from the right ways of the 
 Lord. 
 
 4. Another confequence is, you have, fo far as you could, 
 taken from the people the key of knowledge, by reprefenting 
 plain truths in fuch a wrong manner, as to lead your preju- 
 diced readers to believe, that there is very 'little or no truth 
 
Let. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Aujiin. 91 
 
 revealed, as to the important fubjects on which you have 
 written. 
 
 5. You have implicitly contradicted the Bible, in that you 
 have obvioufly intimated that there are divers kinds- of 
 Chriftian baptifms, when the Bible fays, One baptifm. 
 
 6. It appears that you have done what you could to re- 
 move the land-mark of the King of Ifrael : you have, with- 
 out authority, and contrary from the plain tenor of the New 
 Teftament, informed us, that perfons may be members of 
 the vilible church of Chrift, and not yet baptized. Befides, 
 you have fpoken lightly, or at lead very inconfiderately, of 
 the divine rite of Chriftian baptifm; you have treated it as 
 being, in a great degree, an uncertain and unimportant or- 
 dinance. 
 
 7. Another confequence is, that unlefs your traditionary 
 rite of fprinkling, your tradition of infant baptifm, and your 
 newly invented Jcheme of admitting nnbapti%ed perfons to the 
 Lord's table, can obtain a ftronger fupport than your fup- 
 pofitions, or others like them, they will all of them be treated 
 as intruders, and relics of popery, fo far as truth fhall obtain 
 a xandid hearing. 
 
 8. You and your denomination not only reject the coun- 
 sel of God againft yourfelves, being not baptized, and fo 
 
 will not enter into the vifible kingdom of Chrift, but them 
 who are entering in ye hinder. 
 
 9. Another deduction, which appears naturally to flow 
 from what hath been faid, is, that had you been on Bible 
 ground, the Scriptures would not have failed you on every 
 point, fo as not to have lent you one fair argument, either 
 from precept or fact, or from intuitive confequence. But, 
 Sir, the fact is too notorious for you honourably to deny it, 
 that you have not even fo much as one fair argument from 
 the Bible, (and you have appealed to it,) to fupport either 
 fprinkling, infant baptifm, or unbaptized church members, 
 or for communion with thofe who reject the counfel of God 
 againft themfelves, being not baptized, only fprinkled ac- 
 cording to man's inventions. 
 
 10. The reafon why you and many others have had fo 
 much difficulty in preventing Chriftians of their focieties 
 from embracing immerfion, as gofpel baptifm, is becaufe it 
 is fo plainly taught in the Bible. We likewife fee. the foun- 
 dation of your difficulty, in fatisfying your hearers that 
 fprinhling) man's fubflitute for baptifm, will anfwer for the firfl 
 Chriftian ordinance : it is this — nothing is found in the Bible 
 
92 Letters to Rev. Mr. Aiiftin* [Let. XIF, 
 
 for this fprinkling fubftitute, which is faft going into dif- 
 lepute ; it will foon be in perpetual difgrace. 
 
 ii. Another deduction is, that the public fhould be adver- 
 tized, that, fhould you prefent them with your propofed 
 volume, they are not to expect, that when you treat on bap- 
 tifm, on the fubjects of baptifm, or on unbaptized church 
 members, or on unbaptized communicants, that you will 
 produce one plain text from the Bible, to prove your fenti- 
 ments correct ; but that they will probably find many texts, 
 which have no direct connexion with either of the fubjects, 
 produced to prove each, refpectively ; for the public ought 
 not to expect impbffibilities : and as the Bible is totally, totally 
 filent, as to countenancing either of the fubjects, which you 
 expect to i«t in a clear point of view, no text, direct for eithep 
 of them, can juftly be looked for. 
 
 You do, indeed, Sir, appear to me to po/Tefs a curious 
 pofition : for you would make a lingular figure before the 
 public, fhould you go to Greece or Rome, to popes or car- 
 dinals, councils or conclaves for evidence, fmce you have 
 forbidden me to argue from any fimilar fource ; and, at the 
 fame time, you have appealed to the Bible, and that hath 
 nothing to fay for you, directly or Indirectly: you find 
 nothing for you there, but filence on the one hand, and on 
 the other many precepts and examples, enjoining it upon 
 you to change both your words and practice. In this pofi- 
 tion, and thus circumitanced, you are jufl publifhing a vol- 
 ume to rectify raiftakes, and to fet thefe controverted fubjects 
 in a clear point of view. You certainly would do well to 
 confult the Bible, and take advice of the Scriptures, before 
 you proceed any farther. Curfed be he that handkth the 
 word of God, or doeth his work, deceitfully. 
 
 Lajlly. Another confequence is, that every perfon mar 
 confider himfelf to be again at full liberty to read my Seven 
 Sermons, if he pleafe : for .though there be but little of argu- 
 ment in them, yet your Examination is found not to be able 
 to difprove that little. It is, therefore, obvious that they 
 poffefs as much of argument as they ever did, together with 
 this advantageous circumftance, that . they have, without 
 receiving material injury, fuftained the firft public general 
 attack. Nor will you, or any of your denomination, be 
 ever able to deftroy the immovable lafis on which the prin- 
 cipal arguments in my Sermons are founded. Their foun- 
 dation is the broad bafis of revelation. Would you maintain 
 
Let. XII.] Letters to Rev. Mr. Auftin. 93 
 
 your ground, In this day of light, liberty, and inquiry, it would 
 probably be your wifdom, to be as totally filent, as to any 
 mention of your errors, as the Scriptures are with relation 
 tso any defence of them. 
 
 With grief for your errors, 
 with affeclion for your perfon, 
 
 with efteem for your general character, 
 and defires for your fpeedy reformation, 
 I am, dear Sir, fmcerely yours, 
 
 DANIEL MERRILL. 
 
A few words for Rev, Samuel Worcester^ 
 of S/f/em. 
 
 THE author of the foregoing Letters does mod fincerely regret, that 
 any perfonal and public abufe and obloquy fhould be reforted to by 
 Mr. Worcefter, of Salem, in defence of the prefent very interefting and 
 folemn controverfy. He alfo fincerely regrets, that the fame Mr. Wor- 
 cefter fhould publifh to the world feveral unfounded afTertions, or great 
 mifreprefentations, that he might in this way fupport his unftable caufe. 
 Truth wants no fuch auxiliaries, and error cannot be always fupported 
 by them. - \ 
 
 The following are confidered to be unfounded afTertions, or great mif- 
 reprefentations. 
 
 i. Says Mr. Worcefter,* " Even the author of Seven Sermons, on the 
 mode and fubjecls of baptifm, defires to thank God that he knows the 
 Greek as ivell as any man." 
 
 %. The fame Mr. Worcefter informs the public,f that the " author of 
 Letters to Mr. Anderfon, has not only gratuitoujly coined, and contemptuoufly 
 beftowed upon us a new name, but becaufe he found that John, the har- 
 binger of Chrift, is called a Baptift, very fhrewdly concludes thofe who 
 were baptized by John were alfo Baptifts, &c. ; but upon being afked, 
 by the author oitbefe difcourfes, whether the term Baptift was applied to 
 John in the fame fenfe in which it is now applied to thofe who are called 
 Baptifts, he confejfed the truth, and faid it ivas not" 
 
 3. The fame Mr. Worcefter tells us, page 6a, that " the fame reafon- 
 ing, if reafonlng it muji be called, by which it was fuppofed to be proved 
 that the Waldenfes, Wickliffites, Huffites, and other witneffes for the truth- 
 in the dark ages, were Antipjedobaptifts, would equally prove that the 
 Tabernacle church are Antipaedobaptifts. This the writer of the Minia- 
 ture Hiftory has himfelf been brought to acknowledge" 
 
 Had thefe unfounded afTertions, or great mifreprefentations, of Mr,, 
 Worcefter's, affected merely the private character and feelings of him 
 whom they implicate, he might have left them, after denying their cor- 
 ye&nefs, to the future confideration of Mr. Worcefter, and to the juft 
 cenfure of every candid writer and reader of theological difputation. 
 But when a public teacher of religion (hall practife fuch kind of manage? 
 ment, to prepoffefs and to prejudice the minds of his hearers and readeny 
 againft the truth, he ought to expect fome fuitable correction. This the 
 author of the Miniature Hiftory, and of the Letters to Mr. Anderfon, 
 expects to endeavour, as foon as he fhall have leifure. In the mean time, 
 Mr. Worcefter is called upon to make his afTertions good, if he be able to : 
 he is defired, however, to do it in fuch a manner, that the public may not 
 confider him to be contending wi(h an enemy, nor with one whom he 
 laay with impunity treat with contempt. 
 
 * See his Difcourfes, page 69. 
 f Difi«urfcs } page 66, 
 
C 95 3 
 
 The author of the Miniature Hiftory takes liberty juft to obferve, that 
 lie does not believe, alfo that, he never did believe, and that he never 
 acknowledged, that the fame reafoning by which the Waldenfes, &c. were 
 proved to be Antipaed.ilaptifts, would prove the Tabernacle church in 
 Salem to be fo: nor did he ever make any fimilar conceflion, but upon 
 fuppofition that this proportion oi Mr. Worcefter's was correcl: — That 
 the Tabernacle church held to the fame greal and leading maxim with the 
 Waldenfes, &c. ; which the author confidered, and ftill confiders, to he 
 Mr. Worcefter's miftake. 
 
 This maxim of the Waldenfes, &c. is, " That the kingdom of ChriJ?, or 
 the vijible church, he bad efiablifhed upon earth, luas an ajfembly of true and 
 real faints, and ought, therefore, to be inacceffible to the wicked and unrighteous^ 
 and alfo exempt from all thofe infitutions which human prudence fuggefls, f 
 tppofe the progrefs of iniquity, or to correcl and reform tranfgrejfors" 
 
 Let Mr. Worcefter lhow, if he can, that the Tabernacle church adopt 
 this maxim, not in part, but in ivhole, and that their practice does, in 
 facT:, correfpond with it, and that thoroughly ; then fhall it be conceded 
 to him, that, fo far as the argument depends on this great leading maxim, 
 the fame reafoning which proves the Waldenfes, &c to be Antipaedo- 
 baptifts, will prove the Tabernacle church to be fo. 
 
 The author of Letters to Mr. Anderfon alfo takes liberty to obferve, 
 that his fentiment of John's being called the Baptift is, that he was thus 
 called becaufe he baptized, and that every Baptift minifter is called a Bap- 
 tift for the fame identical reafon for which John was thus called ; and 
 that the brethren among the Baptifts are thus called, not becaufe they 
 aie baptizers, but becaufe they are baptized. 
 
 The author of the Seven Sermons, Miniature Hiftory, &c. never ut- 
 tered or publilhed the expreflion in the firft great mifreprefentation of 
 Mr. Worcefter,* nor made conceiuons or acknowledgments to him, but 
 in agreement with the above ftatement, Mr. Worcefter will account to 
 himfelf, to his people, and to the public, for his affertions, in the beft 
 manner he can. 
 
 One acknowledgment I moft frankly make to Mr. Worcefter : it is 
 this — That I am really pained that he hath compelled me thus publickly 
 to contradict his public ftatements. The fault is his, and the damage he 
 . will fuftain. 
 
 The AUTHOR. 
 Sedgwick, December 1$, 1805. 
 
 * I may, when urged by blind gainfayers, have J "aid fome thing to the fot- 
 hiving purport — That I underfiood the Greek words which relate to the ordi- 
 nance ofbaptifm, as well as do the oppofers ; but never did I fay, or intention' 
 tllyfo much as intimate, <v»bat Mr. Worcefier mofl ungenerwjly and manife/lly 
 thurges to my acctunt.