'i,n^./&. 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^^ 
 
 Presented by (^ . (5~\ . C/<^vtac£.VcDy^ "Y^V^ ."D, 
 
 Dhjision 
 Section ■■ 
 
 
/ 
 
\ 
 
:* N .11910 
 
 OF A DEBATE ON N^V/^,/ "* TT'-O? 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 Mr. JOHN WALKER, A MINISTER OF THE SECESSION, 
 
 AND 
 
 Mr. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, A BAPTIST MINISTER, 
 
 PUBLISHED BY Mr. CAMPBELL; 
 
 NOW ADDRESSED AND DEDICATED TO THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CONGRE- 
 GATIONS OF 
 
 .MWGO CREEK, AjYD JVILLMJM SPORT, 
 
 BY THEIR AFFECTIONATE PASTOR, 
 
 V 
 
 SAMUEL RALSTON, A. M. 
 
 *'//(? that isjirst in his own cause see7nct/i just; but his neighbour cometh 
 ond searcheth him." Proverbs 17: 17. 
 ^^ Search the Scrijitures." John 5: 39. 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN ANDREWS, 
 
 AT THE OFFICE OF THE UTTSBURGH RECORDER- 
 1823. 
 
A 
 OF A DEBATE O.Y 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISIM, <S^* 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 YOU ask my opinion of such public debates, and of this one in i)avli- 
 ctilar. I have never had but one opinion of such exercises; as it is victory, 
 and not searching after truth, that is usually the object of the combatants; 
 and should any of them, at the beginning, found their argument on talst: 
 principles, this will necessarily lead them to adopt other principles equal- 
 ly false, in defence of the original one; and thus the whole must end in 
 ■worse than unprofitable and indecisive wrangling. 
 
 We have a striking example of this ia the debate now under review. — 
 Mr. Walker assumed as his fundamental principle, that the covenant 
 which God made with Abraham, recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis, 
 and of which circumcision was a sign and seal, was the covenant of grace; 
 whence he argued the right of the infants of church memiM-rs to be intro- 
 duced into the church by baptism, as they had from the establislmient of 
 that covenant been introduced by circumcision; the former, under the pre- 
 sent dispensation, coming in the place of the latter. Now, as circumci- 
 sion was the seal which (Jod himself affixed to that covenant, and as a 
 seal, the moment it is affixed, gives the person on whose l)ehalf the cove- 
 nant was made, all the advantages therein contained; it follows by inevi- 
 table consequence, that if that covenant was the covenant of grace, then 
 every circumcised person must be saved; and if baptism is come in the 
 room of circumcision, that every baptized person must be saved also-^a 
 position, I am persuaded, which no Pedobaptist will defend. Some Pedo- 
 baptist writers, who, with Mr. W. have assumed that the covenant of 
 circumcision, as the protomartyr Stephen emphatically calls it, was the 
 covenant of grace, have endeavoured to free themselves from the above 
 consecjuence, by saying thai there is an external and intenial relation to 
 the covenant of grace; and that circumcision and baptism lorm the exter- 
 nal relation only. But what is an external relation to a covenant? Is it 
 not, in other words, to be out of a covenant? If the word has any mean- 
 ing at all, this it must be; but as circumcision was the seal which Jehovah 
 himself affixed to that covenant, then, whatever that covenant was, it fol- 
 lows that the instant a proper subject was circumcised, that moment he 
 became interested in all its privileges and appurtenances. 
 
 You are now, no doubt, ready to ask, what was that covenant or dispen- 
 sation, as it alters not the case, nor affects the argument I)y which of these 
 names it may be called; and what vere the advantages thereby se- 
 
cured to the circumcised? I answer, it may be called an ecclesiastical cove- 
 nant; or a covenant whereby Jehovah was pleased to bind himself by the 
 SEAL of circumcision, to send a Redeemer of the family of Abraham into 
 the world — to preserve in his family a visible church, until that Redeemer 
 should come; and, as his infinite wisdom saw best, to appoint, from time 
 to time, and continue with them such ordinances as would be the best me- 
 dium of acceptable worship, and best calculated to interest them in the 
 merits of this Redeemer; and when this Redeemer would come, to ingraft 
 the Gentile nations into this church, and consequently to bestow upon 
 them those means equally with tlie Jews. In a word, it was a covenant 
 or dispensation, graciously designed, and wisely calculated, as a mean to 
 an end, to interest them in the blessings of the covenant of grace, consist- 
 ing in pardon, sanctification, and eternal life. 
 
 Mr Campbell, on the other hand, affirms again and again, "that its 
 promised blessings were temporal — every -S'iie temporal — that circumci- 
 sion conveyed no spiritual blessings to the Jews. It guaranteed that they 
 should be a numerous and powerful nation — that God would be their king, 
 and that they would individually inherit the land of Canaan." 
 
 The apostle Paul, however, teaches otherwise in the third chapter of 
 his epistle to the Romans, first verse. As if he foresaw that in future 
 days such bold and unscriptural assertions would be made for the purpose 
 of supportmg a favourite system, he proposes their objection in almost 
 their own words, and then gives it an answer, which one would think 
 would silence the objection forever. "What advantage hath the Jew? 
 and what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way, but chiefly be- 
 cause that unto them were committed the oracles of God." And what he 
 meant by the oracles of God, he tells us in detail in the 9th chapter of the 
 same epistle. "To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the 
 covenants, and the giving of the lav/, and the service of God, and the prO' 
 mises: whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ 
 came, who is God over ail, blessed forever." And as if this was not suffi- 
 cient to prevent such bold and unscriptural assertions, the same apostle, 
 in the third chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, quotes the principal 
 provision of that covenant, and styles it the preaching of the gospel to 
 Abraham. "And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the 
 heathen through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying, in 
 thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed." From these quotations 
 then it appears, that besides the promise of a Redeemer, that covenant 
 sealed or confirmed to all the circumcised, all those ordinances, which in- 
 finite wisdom saw best calculated to interest them in the forgiveness of 
 «ins, to be purchased by his blood, together with the sanctification of their 
 natures, or what is emphatically styled "the circumcision oi the heart;" 
 in allusion to which circumcision is called "a sig^," as well a.s"asea/." 
 
 I am aware that it will now be asked, was not the possession of the land 
 of Canaan promised to Abraham in that covenant? and is it not expressly 
 mentioned as one of its provisions? It is, indeed, recognised in that cove- 
 nant, as what was secured to him and his seed in another and distinct co- 
 venant, recorded in the 15th chapter; but which INIr. C. for very prudential 
 reasons, as respects his system, has entirely overlooked in that catalogue 
 of the scripture covenants which he has given us in the appendix to his 
 book. "And God said unto Abraham, I am the Lord which brought thee 
 out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And Abra- 
 ham said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And 
 
God said unto him, lake me a heifer of ihrec years ohl, and a she goat 
 of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turlk'-(love,and a 
 younc^ pigeon. And Abraham took unto him all these, and he divided 
 ihcm in the midst; and laid each one against another, but the l>irds divided 
 he not. — And it came to pass M-hen the sun was down, and it was dark, be- 
 hold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that passed between these 
 pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying 
 unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Kgvjjt unto the 
 great river Euphrates." 
 
 I am aware also, that Mr. C. may reply, all this affects not his system, 
 for he denies that there was a visible church in the woild until the day of 
 Pentecost. 
 
 It is no doubt a matter of surprise to you, and to olhei-s who icad your 
 Bibles, that he should have the effrontery to contradict Stephen, who told 
 the Jews "that Moses was in the c/iurc/i in the wilderness \\ilh the an^^el 
 that spake unto him in Mo\int Sinai, and Avith their fathers, who received 
 the lively oracles to give unto them." Acts vii. 28. The secret is ihis — 
 Mr. Peter Edwards, of Englanfl, had proved l)cyond all contradiction, by 
 a plain and simple logical process, the right of infants to be admitted in- 
 to the church by the ordinance ot bapiism; and as it had not been denied 
 when he wrote, that the Jewish nation was a visible church of (iod; and 
 as it was undeniable that infants were introduced into that church by cir- 
 cumcision; and as their right was not repealed by Christ or his apostles, 
 hut recognised by both; and as baptism was the rite of iniliutian, he 
 drew this fair and irresistible consequence, that infants ought to be liap- 
 tized. It required no great degree of ])enelration to see that this simple 
 and plain argument overturned the whole Baptist system respecting in- 
 fants. Something must be done to prop the tottering fabric, and as no- 
 thing else could avail, the late David Jones, a Baptist minister, ventuied 
 on the Ijold ex])edient of denying that there was a chinch of (iod on cirlh, 
 until the days of John the Baptist, which has been le-echoed iiy IMr. C. 
 with this difference, that Mr. C dates his church from the day of Fente- 
 cost, or the first church at Jerusalem. The reason why Mr. Jones com- 
 menced his church with John the Baptist jjrobably was, to maintain th'- 
 propriety <>f the name which Baptists have assumed; and perhaps the rea- 
 son why Mr. C'.diiVeied IVom him was, that he saw the aljsurdity of dating 
 the Christian church with amanAvhodicd before the Christian dispensa- 
 tion commenced. 
 
 When Mr. W. adduced the words of Stephen as a proof that there 
 was a church in the wilderness, what is Mr. C.'s rejjly? That th", Greek 
 word ecc/fsici, which is ti-anslated church, signifies any kind of an assem- 
 bly; and that it is used by the writers of the New Testament to signify a 
 lawful and unlawful assembly, as well as the church of Christ. That it 
 is by some accompanying epithet, or other circumstance, that we are to 
 ascertain in which of these senses we are to understand tlie word; and that 
 there is nothing in the passage adduced that can Icad us to understand it 
 in any other sense, than merely the multitude of the Jews assembled in 
 the wilderness. At any rate, he tells us, "That it was an assembly or 
 church of Jews, and not an assemblv of Christians, or a church of Jesus 
 Christ.' p. 41,4 2. 
 
 This last part of the reply, which I have stated in his own v.ords, is not 
 only a quibble, l)ut a very sorry quibble; and similar loan o!)jeclion that 
 he brings against infant baptism — that baptism is not mentioned in 'Jie 
 
\7iln chapter of Genesis. For, was it to be expected that the church of 
 God would assume, or be called by the name of the church of Christ, un- 
 til he should come into the world; or that an ordinance would be called 
 by its name two thousand years before the dispensation of which it was a 
 part, commenced, and when another ordinance that prefigured it, was just 
 appointed? 
 
 With respect to the first part of the reply, there is that in the passage 
 which, in my opinion, fixes the meaning of the word "church" as the 
 church of God. Stephen tells us that in this church in the wilderness, there 
 was an angel, emphatically styled the angel who spake unto Moses in 
 Mount Sinai, and delivered to him what he calls "the lively oracks," to 
 be delivered to their fathers, or the ordinances respecting the worship of 
 Jehovah. I expect that it will be admitted that this angel was none other 
 ihan the Son of God; and the circumstance of his delivering to tl^ Jews, 
 by the hand of Moses, the lively oracles, is a proof that they were a church 
 in the proper sense -of the word: for what is a church of God, but a num- 
 ber of persons set apart for worshipping him agreeably to his own insti- 
 tutions? 
 
 That the pi'inciple I wish to establish may be the more clearly seen, and 
 the merits of the debate now under review clearly seen also; it is necessary 
 to make a few observations respecting the commencement, nature and de- 
 sign of the church of God. I agree with Mr. C. that the Greek ecclesia, 
 which is translated chuixh, signifies a number of persons assembled for 
 the purpose of worshipping God, and this implies in it their being possess- 
 ed of ordinances of divine appointment, as the medium of acceptable wor- 
 ship, and means of grace; but I object, when he says that all these persons 
 must be saints, "or called from darkness to God's marvellous light." 
 Saints, or persons regenerated in the church, are indeed a component part 
 of it; but it was designed to embrace others, whose duty and privilege it 
 is to attend on the ordinances of divine appointment, that by the blessing 
 of God on his own ordinances they inay be regenerated. For this defini- 
 tion of the church I have the authority of Christ, who compares the king- 
 dom of heaven, or the gospel church, to "a net cast into the sea, which 
 gathered of every kind," and to "ten virgins, five of which were wise and 
 five foolish;" and farther proofs of the justness of this definition will be 
 adduced in the course of these letters. 
 
 Now, that there was a church of this character from Adam to Abraham, 
 is clearly intimated from vvhat is said in the oth chapter of Genesis con- 
 cerning Seth;* "that to him was a son born, and he called his name Enos; 
 then began men to call upon the name of the Lord," or as it is in the mar- 
 gin, "then men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord," proba- 
 bly in contradistinction to Cain, who is said to have gone out "from the 
 presence of the Lord." or separated himself and descendants from his 
 
 * The existence of the church as a medium of redemption may be traced to the 
 -very first promise in Genesis 2:15. A Redeemer under the appellation of the "seed of 
 the woman" v.as then promised. "The coats of skins" with which the Lord God cloth- 
 ed Adam and Eve, were doubtless the skins of beasts offered in sacrifice, as there was 
 then no need of the flesh of beasts for food; nor were the beasts given to man for food, 
 until after the deluge. Those coats were doubtless figurative of the righteousness of 
 the Redeemer wliich is frequently compared to a garment, which covers the moral na- 
 kedness of those who put it on by the hand of faith. Luke 15: 22. Rev. 3: 18. Abel's 
 offering up the firstlings of his flock in sacrifice to God was doubtless one circurnstance 
 that rendered the offering acceptable, while Cain's was rejected; as Abel's offering had 
 reference to the blood of Christ, while Cain's had no such reference. 
 
Iruc worshippers. And hence, no doubl, the distlnnloii hotwe.en "the sons 
 of God, and the daughters of men," the iiiterniarriasj;!' of which was the 
 cause of the universal delui^e; the hitter seducing the fornM-r iutoidohitry. 
 The church attliis period was indeed patriarchal, or confined to the fami- 
 lies of the faithful; every head of a family being king and jiriest of thi' fa- 
 mily, who offered up sacrifice, the only mode of initiation, medium of 
 worship and mean ol grace, that we read of at that time, l)oth on his own 
 behalf, and on behalf of his family. Tliis did Abel — this did Noah, when 
 he came out of the ark — and "this did Job continually." In the days of 
 Abraham, i^olytheism and idolatry so far prevailed as to threaten the very 
 existence of the church; whereupon (iod revealed himself to tliat distin- 
 guished personage, made the covenunt Avith him already alluded to, and 
 bound himself by the seal of circumcision '*to be a (iod to him, and to his 
 seed after him," to maintain a visible church in his fumily, or the means 
 of grace, which he had appointed for the salvation ol sinners. The privi- 
 leges of the church were also enlarged at this time, by the appointment of 
 circumcision as a mode of initiation for the males, infinite wisdom seeing 
 that the ancient mode of sacrifice answered all the purpose to the females; 
 females, as well as males, being permitted to eat of the sacrifices. And as 
 an intimation that in due time the (ientiles would be taken into the church, 
 Ishmael, and the servants of Al)raham, "born in his house, or !)ought Avith 
 his money from any stranger," were allowed to be circumcised, together 
 with proselytes from the surrounding nations. In Egypt another ordi- 
 nance was added — the ordinance of the passover, designed not only as a 
 commemoration of the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian 
 bondage.but of a far greater deliverance which Jehovah liad promised to ac- 
 complish in due time — the deliverance of guilty sinners by the sacrifice 
 of his Son; for an inspired writer tells us, "even Christ our passover is sa- 
 crificed for us." In the wilderness various saci-ifices and ablutions were 
 added, the former indicating the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice for sin, 
 and the latter, like circumcision, signifying the necessity of purity of heart 
 in order to salvation. When they entered the promised land, every male 
 was required to appear thrice annually before the Lord in the temple of 
 Jerusalem, for the purpose of olfering those sacrifices which the law re- 
 quired. Here then we have all the characteristics of a church of Ciod — 
 u people separated from the world, and furnished with ordinances for his 
 service; and ordinances too, as I shall show in the proper j)lace, that pre- 
 figured the positive institutions under the present dispensation. Hence, 
 then, we find that people designated as "a chosen nation"-"a kingdom 
 of priests, and a holy nation" — "and a peculiar treasure" to C;od,above all 
 people — epithets ascribed by the apostle Peter to the Christian chuich. 
 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, and 
 a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath 
 called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. I Pet. 2: 9. Hence 
 we read of "the congregation of Israel — tlie congregation of the Lord — tjie 
 congregation of saints" — and "the asseml)ly of (In; saints," words of the 
 same import as "cHiufH;" and whicli might l)e read, the churcli of Isra- 
 el — the church of the Lord — and the church of liie saints: and hence, 
 saith the Psalmist, "I will praise the Lord with my whole heart, in the 
 asiie7nb(y of the upright, and in the rou!^-rr<^ation." From all which the 
 i"cuder is left to judge, whether Stephen meant by ".'/;r church in the. wil- 
 derness," the church of God, or the mere multitude <>l" tlje Israeli' en, or 
 an unlawful mob. 
 
But not only is it evident from the foregoing passages, and numberless - 
 others that might be adduced, that the Jewish nation, in consequence of 
 the covenant of circumcision, Avas a visible church of God; but the view 
 I have given of it, exactly accords with what Jehovah himself says of it 
 in the 5th chapter of Isaiah, under the metaphor of a vineyard. "My 
 beloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill, and he fenced it, and gat'ier- 
 ed out the stones thereof, a.nd /ilanted it with the choicest vine, and built a 
 tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine press therein. And he 
 looked that it should bring forth grapes; and it brought forth wild grapes. 
 And now, O '.nhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray 
 you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What more could be done to my 
 vineyard that I have not done? For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is 
 the house of Israel, and the men of Judah is his pleasant plant." Our 
 blessed Lord appears to have had a view to this allegory of the church in 
 his parable of the vineyard, in the 13th chapter of Luke; and the apostle 
 Paul to both in the 6th chapter to the Romans: where, speaking of bap- 
 tism, he styles it a hem^ filanted in the likeness of Christ's death; a proof 
 by the way, that he considered circumcision and baptism as appointed 
 for the same purposes. 
 
 It is necessary also here to observe, that the church, under the patriar- 
 chal and Abrahamic dispensations, was not different from that under the 
 dispensation by Christ, but one and the same; differing indeed in external 
 rites, but the same in substance and in essence. When the Abrahamic 
 dispensation began, though new ordinances were added to it, it was yet 
 ingrafted into the patriarchal dispensation, constituted a church by sacri- 
 fice, typical of the death of Christ. That the Christian dispensation is 
 ingrafted into the Abrahamic, is affirmed and argued by Paul in his epis- 
 tles to the Christian churches. In the eleventh chapter of his epistle to 
 the Romans, he fitly compares the covenant of circumcision on which the 
 Jewish church was founded to a good olive tree" — Abraham, with whom 
 it was first made, to "its root," its provisions to "its fatness" — and the cir- 
 cumcised offspring of Abraham to its "natural branches:" and, by a very 
 common figure of speech, the Jewish nation as constituting the church of 
 God at that time, are compared by Jeremiah to "a green olive tree, fair 
 and of goodly fruit." He tells us that the natural branches were broken 
 off "because of unbelief," or for not receiving Christ as the Messiah,with 
 the exception of a remnant that received him as such, and thus still ad- 
 hered to the gord olive tree, and constituted the church. He tells us al- 
 so, that some of the Gentile nations, whom he fitly compares to a wild olive 
 tree, were "cut out of this wild olive tree," by believing in Christ, and by 
 faith ingrafted into the good olive tree, in the place of the broken off 
 branches, and "partake of its root and fatness." And it is worthy of par- 
 ticular attention, that the apostle, in the 2."d and 24th verses, alluding to 
 the restoration of the Jews, does not say with Mr. C. that they will be in- 
 fi-rafted into what he calls the Christian church, commencing at the day of 
 Pentecost, but into their own olive tree, or that church founded on the co- 
 venantor cii-cumcision, and out of which they were cast by their unbelief. 
 "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in, for 
 God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive 
 \ree %v])ich is wild by nature, and wert grafted in contrary to nature into 
 the good olive tree, how much more these which be the natural branches 
 shall be grafted into their own olive tree?" — grafted in with their off- 
 spring as formerly, "as the bud is grafted in with the branch." 
 
Let this be rccollectod; and what now is Mr. C.'s intorprctatidn of this 
 i)eautifiil and appropriate alk-goryr "The ^ood olive tree was the Jewisl» 
 nation," — but not as a church of Ciod, for this he denies — '^he root and 
 fatness of the ij;ood olive tree was Jesus Chr<st; and in a still more en- 
 larged and exalted sense, the Christian church is the good olive tree: the 
 natural branches denote the Jews." p. 29. 
 
 Let us now test this interpretation by what the apostle tells us about 
 this good olive tree and its natural branches. The natural branch<?s, says 
 he, were broken off from the good olive tree; that is, according to Mr. C.'s 
 interpretation, the Jews were broken off from the Jews, or the Jewish na- 
 tion. If we will try it by the hypothesis that the Christian church was 
 the good olive tree, it will be this: — The Jews, the natural branches of the 
 Christian church,were broken off from the Christian church: but, accord- 
 ing to Mr. C.'s system, the Christian church did not commence until th(i 
 day of Pentecost, and the Jews were broken oH" l)efore this time by their 
 not receiving Jesus as the Messiah, and crucifying him as an impostor. I 
 need scarcely say that the absurdity of this interpretation is so palpable, 
 as to be almost capable of being felt, and is as opposed to itself, as the 
 arctic is to the antarctic pole. But this is not all. He tells us in the lore- 
 going page, "that Judaism and Cientilism were both distinct from and p*- 
 nentially opposite to Christianity." What now shall I say to this? I feel 
 an unwillingness to call it blasphemy, or a speaking injuriously of (iod; 
 and yet I know not a milder term whereby it can be designated. Judaism 
 is an universal term comprehending all the doctrines, commandments, afid. 
 ordinances, delivered by God to Moses; and you are now doubtless ready 
 to ask, what could induce him to bring down the doctrines and precej)ts 
 of Judaism to a level willi the doctrines and precepts of Gentilism; and 
 the ordinances w hich Jehovah a|)pointed for his own worship, to a level 
 with the impure, licentious, and liorrible rites of Cientile idolaters, whose 
 altars often streamed with the blood of their own children, and of other 
 human victims, sacrificed to their idol gods? The same principle that 
 induced him to deny that there was a cluirch of (Jod in the Jewish natioti, 
 together with that unrelenting hatred to infant baptism which he mani- 
 fests in almost every page of his book. For he clearly saw, that the admis- 
 sion of a church in that nation, and that the Christian church was ingraft- 
 ed into it, overturned his whole system, and furnished Pedobaptists with 
 an unanswerable argument for infant baptism, as I hope to make appear in 
 its proper place. Sui-ely there is not a thinking person whose mind 
 is not perverted by a system, but will say, there must be some»hing rot- 
 ten — rotten to the very core, in that systeu., to support which, compels a 
 man to pour contempt on that church of God, ancl his ordinances, "which 
 he hath purchased with his own blood." 
 
 But so intent is Mr. Con degrading Jews and Judaism, that he insists 
 that it is impossible that they could be a church of God, because the 
 apostle says in the ."2d verse of this chapter, "that (Jod hath concluded 
 them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all," and he warmly re- 
 commends this verse to the consideration of all Pedol)a|)tists. I have 
 considered it, and to understand it as Mr. C does, would be to set the 
 apostle in opposition to himself. For although lie says that the Jewish 
 nation were rejected by (iod irom being his church, because of their re- 
 jecting his Son, yet theie was "a remnant according to the election of 
 grace:" that although "blindness happened to Israel," it was "but in part:" 
 and that oiUy "some of the branches were broken off." What then does 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 he mean in that verse? The same thing that he meant in the 3d chapter^ 
 when he says, "I have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are 
 all under sin," and equally need a Redeemer. And to redeem Gentiles, as 
 well as Jews, was the ultimate end for which Christ came into the world, 
 and erected a church as a medium of redemption; and although professed 
 friends sometimes join Math avowed infidels, in pouring contempt on that 
 church and his holy word, he hath declared that "the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it." And who does not see, that to place Judaism on 
 a level with Gentilism, is virtually saying, that the Old Testament cannot 
 be the revelation of a holy God; for, if Judaism is essentially opposite to 
 Christianity, Gentilism cannot be any thing more than essentially so. 
 
 _ But this chapter is not the only place wherein Paul, who was a Jew by 
 birth, not only recognised the existence of a church in the Jewish nation, 
 but affirms that the Christian church was built upon it. In the 2d chapter of 
 his epistle to the Ephesians, he says, "Wherefore remember that ye be- 
 ing in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by 
 that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made my hands; that at 
 that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of 
 Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and 
 without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime 
 were afar off" are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, 
 Avho hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of parti- 
 tion between us. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, 
 but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God: and are 
 built," (not as Mr. C. says, upon the foundation of the apostles alone, but) 
 "upon" the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
 being the chief corner-stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together, 
 groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." 
 
 Having now proved the existence of a church of God from Adam to 
 Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ, and the identity or oneness of that 
 church under those dispensations, and also the present dispensation of 
 grace; we are now prepared to estimate the force or weakness of Mr. W.'s 
 arguments in favour of infant baptism, drawn from the oneness of the 
 church, and the force or weakness of Mr. C.'s replies. The limits I have 
 assigned to this letter, will not allow me to review all the arguments used 
 on the occasion; I shall therefore confine myself to those that seem to 
 have most bearing on the point in dispute. 
 
 Mr. W. we are told, produced that passage from one of the evangelists, 
 where it is said, that little children were brought to Christ, that he might 
 put his hands on them and pray; and his disciples rebuked them that 
 brought them — "But Jesus said, suffer little children to come unto me, 
 and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." From this 
 passage Mr. W. argued, "that by the kingdom of heaven we must under- 
 stand either the church of Christ on earth, or the kingdom of heaven 
 above: if we understand it of the church on earth, then doubtless infants 
 are said to be members of it; and if we suppose that the kingdom of hea- 
 ven or the invisible church above is meant, then they must be born of the 
 Spirit, and consequently fit subjects for baptism." 
 
 As I do not know whether Mr. W.'s argument from this passage is stat- 
 ed with accuracy and precision, or not, I shall therefore not make any re- 
 marks upon it. Mr. C.'s objections, however, are, that this transaction 
 took place previous to the appointment of baptism as an initiating ordi- 
 »aHce into the Christian church; and that it was a blessing and not bap- 
 
n 
 
 tism that was requested for these children. Be it so — the words "ol* such 
 is the kiiif»;tloin of heaven," however, jjrove that Christ considered and ac- 
 knowkdj>od iheiu as a component ])art of his cliurch at tliat lime; and Mr. 
 C. is now called upon to show at what time, and by whom they weiecast 
 out. Aware, it would seem, of the force of this argument, ht; says, that 
 the words '■'■of .inch" only mean similarity; and in su])port of this he ad- 
 verts to another passas,^e, where it is said, 'Hhat Jesus called a liuh; child 
 to him and set him in the midst and said. Except ye be converted, and 
 become as little cluldren,ye cannot ei\ler into the kingdom of heaven." It is 
 enough to say in reply, that the words ''of such" and "as little children" 
 iire entirely dissimilar in signification; the former always referring to 
 persons, and the latter to character. As for the silly pun, which he ex- 
 hibited on the occasion, that as bajitism and blessing both begin with a 
 B, either will suit the advocates of infant baptism; I am heartily willing 
 that he shall have all the honour that belongs to it; and those who then 
 heard it, and those who now read it, will estimate all its worth and force. 
 
 Mr. W. also produced, in favour of infant baptism, Peter's memorulde 
 address to the Jews, on the day. of Pentecost. Acts 2: 38, 39. "Repent 
 and be bajjtized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
 mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of tlie Holy Ghost. For the 
 promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off', even as 
 many as the Lord our God shall call." According to Mr. C.'s statement 
 (pages 50-54) ISIr. W. argued, that as the promise in this passage evident- 
 ly referred to Gen. 17: 7. "I will ])e a God to thee, and to thy seed after 
 thee;" and as the children of the Jews are equally included with the pa- 
 rents in it, when he urged the parents to be baptized — that the children 
 ought to be baptized also. 
 
 To this Mr. C. objects, by saying that the promise in this passage does 
 not refer to Gen. 17: 7, but to the promise of the extraoidinary influences 
 of the Holy Ghost, mentioned by the prophet Joel in the second chapter 
 of his prophecy, and referred to, and applied by Peter from the I6ih to the 
 21st verse. Beit so; and what follows: This: that whatever that promise 
 was, it is undeniable Ihat Peter urged it as an argument, why the Jews and 
 their children should be baptized. 
 
 But that the promise referred to in this passage cannot refer to the 
 prophecy of Joel, is evident from the following considerations. That pro- 
 mise had been already fulfdled, in the miraculous gift of tongues, confer- 
 red on the apostles, for the purpose of qualifying them for preaching the 
 gospel to the different nations of the earth to which they were now to be 
 sent. And as the "gift of the Holy Ghost," as well as "the remission of 
 sins," is mentioned by Peter, as what the Jews whom he addressed were to 
 receive, upon their acknowledging Jesus to be the Messiah, by being bap- 
 tized in his name; then, according to Mr. C.'s interpretation of the passage, 
 the three thousand that were baptized on that day, were all endowed wit!\ 
 the gift of tongues. But there is not the smallest intimation that this 
 was the case; nor is it elsewhere mentioned that this gift was to be expect- 
 ed by those who submitted to Christian baptism, ihe fair conclusion then 
 is, that the ordinary influences of the Spirit, as a spirit of sunctificalion, 
 are there intended, and are therefore properly connected with the remission 
 of sins. 
 
 Since, then, the promise of the Holy (J host, ii\ his extraordinary in- 
 fluences, cannot be intended in this passage;, it will be naturally asked, is 
 there any corresponding passage that will lead us to understand it, as re- 
 
12 
 
 ferring to Gen. 17: 7? Before I answer this question, I would remark, that 
 the expression is not a firomise, but '■'■the promise" or a promise of a 
 peculiar and distinguished kind. The apostle Paul, I think, answers the 
 question, when speaking of the covenant of circumcision: he says, "And 
 if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, according to the promise," 
 Gal. 3: 29, And in his epistle to the Romans (9: 8.) he uses the same 
 phraseology, and says, they that are the children of the flesh are not the 
 children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 
 With these passages in view, we now see the propriety and force of Peter's 
 argument. 
 
 From the time of Abraham, the Jews had enjoyed the privilege of be- 
 ing admitted into the church by circumcision, together with their children. 
 — Baptism was now to take its place. Hence says Peter, "be baptized 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And lest they should 
 suppose that they themselves were only entitled to be admitted into the 
 Christian church by baptism, and their children left out, he adds, "the pro- 
 mise is to you and to your children," or they are, by the promise of God 
 in the covenant of circumcision, entitled to all the privileges under the 
 new dispensation, to which they were entitled under the old. But let the 
 promise mean what it may, what is the language of Mr. C.'s interpreta- 
 tion? This: the promise is to you, Jews, therefore be baptized; the promise 
 is also to your children, but they are not to be baptized; or in other Avords, 
 the promise was once to your children, but it is now revoked; but bj' whom, 
 or at what time, neither Mr. C. nor any other person can tell. On the 
 contrary, we have seen that it was acknowledged by Christ during his 
 life, and by Peter after his death, "and after Christ had fully instructed the 
 apostles in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God." 
 
 There is another consideration, which, when duly weighed, perfectly 
 comports with, and strongly corroborates the intci-pretation I have given to 
 this passage. l"he Jews, we know, from Paul's epistles, were extremely 
 tenacious of their privileges; and if their children, according to the Bap- 
 tist system, wei'e now to be cast out of the church, a fairer opportunity of 
 doing so, and of obtaining their ]3arent's consent to the measure, never 
 presented itself befoi'C nor since. "They were pricked to the heart," from 
 a sense of their exceeding great guilt in crucifying, as an impostor, the 
 Son of God, and their expected Messiah; and were thereby prepared to 
 submit to any thing that would i-emove the guilt of such an atrocious 
 crime; and accordingly said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men 
 and brethren, what shall we do?" Did Peter say to them as Baptists 
 would have said, and do say; be baptized every one of you, in the name of 
 Jesus Christ for the i-emission of sins — for the promise is to you, but not 
 to your children? No — but he says, "the pi'omise is to you, and to your 
 children; and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Loi'd our God 
 shall call." 
 
 But whom does the apostle mean by the "afar off," in this passage? Mr. 
 C. tells us that it means what Joel in his prophecy styles the "remnant 
 ■whom the Loi'd shall call." I confess that I was amazed when I read this, 
 as it came from a man who in his book talks about "cjuacks in theology," 
 and as I did not think there was any person who read the Bible, and was 
 acquainted with its phraseology, but knew that the remnant is usually, if 
 not uniformly, applied to that portion of the Jews who believed in Christ, 
 and who should be saved from the direful calamities awaiting that nation^, 
 
13 
 
 atid portrayed by Joel in that prophecy in the strong^est and most appallinij 
 colours. But a passage in the epistle to the Kphosiuns, already adduced, 
 tells us that the words "afar oft"," designate tlie Centile nulicjus: "but ye 
 
 who sometimes were afur off^ are made itigli by the blood of Christ." 
 
 Hence then, the plain and unsophisticated meaning ol' the passage is 
 that not only the Jews, in consequence of the promise of (iod in the co- 
 venant of circumcision, wei*e to be introduced, they and their cliildren 
 into the church, \inder the present dispensation, but the (ientiles also 
 with their children, when they should be called by the ministration of i!ie 
 gospel, to the knowledge of Christ, and thereby ingrafted into the good 
 olive tree. 
 
 As the passage now under consideration so fully establishes the right 
 of infants, whose parents are clmrch meml)ers, to baptism; every art that 
 ingenuity and sophistry could invent, has therefore been employed to les- 
 sen its force. Hence then Baptist writers tell us, that the word "chil- 
 dren" in scripture language sometimes means young persons arrived to 
 maturity, and Mr. C. in his book applies it to the young men and maidens 
 mentioned in Joel's prophecy. Be it so, — it will not be denied that it is 
 also applied to minors and infants, and this is enough for the Pedoi)aptist 
 argument. And admitting that the word in this passage means young 
 men and women arrived to maturity, what would then be the scope of the 
 apostle's argument? This: The promise is to you, Jews, and to your chil- 
 dren; but not to your children while under your direction and discipline, 
 but to your children when arrived to maturity, and not under your direc- 
 tion, and when God shall call them by his gospel to the knowledge of sal- 
 vation by Christ. I need not tell you how foolishly this interpretation 
 makes the apostle speak; for this is no more than could l)e said to the 
 most idolatrous Gentile. Such is the absurdity of the Baptist interpre- 
 tation of this important passage: and who would have thought it, or ra- 
 ther, who would not have thought it, the interpretation of the man who 
 tells us, that on the subject of baptism he '■'-c/nillcnt^es all christcTiduw." 
 
 Aware how much this important passage stands in the way of the Bap- 
 tist system, Mr. C. tells us with an air of triumph, in No. 3 of the appen- 
 dix to his book,that by deep research into chronology,.hehas at length found 
 out what will not only destroy the strong argument for infant baptism de- 
 rived from it, but what will "tumble the whole system of Pedobajjti^ts to 
 the ground." And what is it?— That the covenant of circumcision, on 
 which the foregoing argument is founded, was made thirty years after 
 "the covenant of (iod in Christ;" and that it is the covenant of God in 
 Christ, and not the covenant of ciicumcision, tluit the apostle alludes to 
 in his epistle to the (ialatians, and styles the preaching of tlie gospel to 
 Abraham: — or, in other words, that I ed<;b;iplists argue from a wrong co- 
 venant, and consequently from wrong premises. 
 
 It is very fortumite, however, fur the devoted Pdobaptists, that these 
 two covenants of Mr. C.'s are one and the same; and verv unfortunate for 
 him that they are so, as he has thereby lost all the honour he expected 
 from such a notable discovery. As the church of Rome has thrown out 
 the second commandment, because it forbids the makin.ir and worshipping 
 of graven images, and split the tenth into two, to rnak- up the number; 
 so Mr. C. for the sake of his system, has thrown out of the catalogue of 
 his covenants the covenant recorded in the 15th chapter of Genesis, as I 
 have already observed, and split the covenant confirmed of God in Christ, 
 
14 
 
 into two, in order to make up his number, or perhaps, because that num 
 ber is considered by some a number of perfection. 
 
 Now, that what is called the covenant of God in Clirist is the same 
 with what is called the covenant of circumcision, is evident, from the 
 consideration that the provisions and object of both are the same. It was 
 first intimated to Abraham in the 12th chapter of Genesis: — "Now the 
 Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy 
 kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee; 
 and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy 
 name great, and thou shalt be a blessing, and in thee shall all the families 
 of the earth be blessed." That it is this covenant the apostle alludes to 
 in the 3d chapter to the Galatians, is evident, from his quoting one of its 
 blessings with a small verbal variation, very common with New Testa- 
 ment writers, Avhen quoting the Old; and thatitis thesamethat he alludes 
 to in the 4th chapter to the Romans, is also evident froir> his quoting ano- 
 ther of its blessings with a small variation also. In the former epistle 
 and chapter, are these words — "In thee shall all nations be blessed;" the 
 same as "In thee shall all the families of the eartli be blessed." In the 
 latter epistle and chapter he has these words — "I have made thee a father 
 of many nations;" equivalent to "I Avill make of thee a great nation." 
 And not only is this the case, but the very words of Jehovah liimself, in the 
 17th chapter, is a proof, that the covenant there mentioned was not anew 
 covenant, but a covenant already made. "As for me (saith God) my co- 
 venant is ivith thee;'" which plainly alludes to a covenant already intimat- 
 ed; "and I will establish my covenant between me and thee," or confirm 
 my covenant between me and thee, which he did at that time by the seal 
 of circumcision. 
 
 From these considerations it is evident that the covenant of God in 
 Christ, and the covenant of circumcision, are one and the same. It was 
 styled by Paul "the covenant confirmed of God in Christ (e/s Christo-n) be- 
 cause it had relation to Christ and his church; and it is called by Stephen 
 the covenant of circumcision, because it was confirmed by that rite thirty 
 years after it was made — and therefore the Pedobaptist system still stands 
 firm, notwithstanding Mr. C.'s notable discovery that was "to tumble it to 
 the ground." You will have perceived, however, that had Mr. C.'s great 
 chronological discovery, so big with mischief to the Pedobaptist system, 
 been founded on fact, it could not have affected my view of the subject,as 
 I do not consider that covenant to be the covenant of gi-ace.* 
 
 But to the argument drawn from the covenant of circumcision in favour 
 of infant baptism, M'^. C. replies, that circumcision and baptism are posi- 
 tive institutes; "and in positive institutes we are not authorized to reason, 
 what we should do, but implicitly to obey; and was there ever a positive 
 ordinance or institution founded solely upon inference or reason — and can 
 
 * That the covenant of circumcision was not the covenant of grace, is apparent from 
 Rom. 3:12, already adduced for another purpose 1 shall transcribe the passage again. 
 "What advantage hath the Jew? or whatprofit is there of circumcision? much every way; 
 chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Here "the oracles 
 of God" are said to be the c/uc/ advantage which those who were interested in that cove- 
 nant by circumcision, derived from it, and until it is proved that the words "the oracles 
 of God" imply in them justification, sanctification and eternal life, this single passage 
 settles the point at once. If it is said that they are the appointed means for interesting 
 in those all-important blessings — that is the very thing I contend for, but the means are 
 not the end, nor the end the means. As I understand that Mr. W. intends to combat my 
 opinion on this subject, it is expected that he will not overlook this passage. 
 
13 
 
 xiievc be a positive institution without a positive pi\:rc])t or precedent au- 
 thorizing it — unci a limited commission implies a prohibition of s'oh 
 thiiiq^s as are not contain«'d in it; and /lositivr lunvs inifily tluir ncj^atiitn.'" 
 The amoinit and meanint^ of all this is — "that there is no such prc<:ept 
 or command in the scriptures as that inlanls shall l)e l>apti7.ed," or prece- 
 dent or example that they were: and hence he infers that they oui^iu not. 
 When called upon by Mr. W. to produce a positive precept for admit linj^ 
 believing women to the ordinance of the su])per, or ])recedent that they 
 were admitted — what does he do? — Does he direct to the chapter and verse 
 tliat savs that lielicving women are to be admitted to the Lord's laijle, or 
 precedent that they were? — No — but he tells us in his usual style, a style 
 sui ffe7icris^ "that it is a pitiful and poor come-off'," "the most puerile and 
 childish retort that he had ever heard used by adults that had any know- 
 ledge of words and things." Then he tells us that tlie Lord's sui)per was 
 appointed for the disciples of Christ; but women are styled disciples; 
 therefore they are to be admitted to the table of the Lord, lie has indeed 
 fully proved the point — but how? was it by producing his positive pre- 
 cedent? No — for there is no such precept or precedent but by reasoning 
 and inference, to the destruction of his own rule, which he so frequently 
 and so strenuously inculcates, and which if acted uj)on would exclude 
 every female, however pious, from the Lord's tal)lc, as the Lord's suppei- 
 is as much a positive institute as baptism. With respect to this rule con- 
 tained in the al)ove quotations, and which is to be applied to infants, but 
 not at all to women, he is only the echo of Mr. Booth, and from the just 
 severity, with which Peter Edwards, whom he very modestly styles a so- 
 phist, had exposed it, 1 had expected that no man of common sense and 
 modesty, would have had the hardihood to bring it forward again; and its 
 re-appearance in Mr. C's book, is a proof to what miserable shifts he is 
 reduced to support his system. 
 
 If it is asked, how far we may safely reason with respect to positive 
 institutes? So far I think, and no farther. W^hcn the scriptures tell us 
 that one positive institute is come in the room of another, then we may 
 safely infer, that the latter is to be applied to the same su!)jects as were 
 embraced by the former, unless positively prohil>ited, and to as many 
 more as maybe expressly mentioiied or implied. We have seen that the 
 church of God is one and indivisiljlc — that male infants were introduced 
 into it by the ordinance of circumcision under the Abrahamic dispensa- 
 tion — that their membership instead of being revoked, was acknowledged 
 by Christ in the most explicit terms — that baptism is now the initiating or- 
 dinance — and lieing told that there is "neither male nor female in Christ 
 Jesus," or no sextual distinction of privileges under the present cHspensa- 
 tion; wc may hence safely infer, that female as well as male infants are to 
 be baptized, when their parents are members of the church, and in good 
 standing. In this mantier the apostle Peter reasoned on the day of Pente- 
 cost: and in this manner may we safely reason on every passage that has 
 a reference to the point. 
 
 Mr. C. has another argument against infant baptism, which he pror 
 nounces in the 31st page and elsewhere to be unanswerable, and as set- 
 tling the point at once. It amounts to this. The scripture direction re- 
 specting baptism is, believe and be baptizec^; but infants are not capable 
 of believing, therefore they are not to be iiaptized. A syllogism con- 
 structed on t'.us plan will prove, that all infants shall be damned. For in- 
 ^'a:ice, tiie scriptures tell us, that he that believeth s'aall be saved: and hi- 
 
Hi 
 
 that believeth not shall be damned: but infants are not capable of believ- 
 ing, therefore they shall be damned. It may answer every purpose at pre- 
 sent just to observe, that when the scriptures say that he that believeth 
 not shall be damned; and Avhen they speak of failh as a pre-requisite for 
 baptism, they speak of adults only, and to include infants in such pas- 
 sages betrays an unpardonable ignorance in any man who has pretensions 
 to a knowledge of letters, or a disposition to impose upon the ignorant by 
 a shameless sophistry. 
 
 The same inexcusable ignorance or unblushing sophistry is also mani- 
 fested, in his answer to the argument adduced by Mr. W. in favour of in- 
 fant baptism, from the baptisms of the households of Cornelius, of Lydia, 
 of the jailer, and of Stephanas. Mr. W. presumed that there were in- 
 fants in some of these households; but Mr. C. in pages 72, 73, confident- 
 ly affirms there were none. As he has kindly constructed syllogisms, not 
 only for Papists, and Episcopalians, but for Presbyterians on the subject 
 of baptism, I shall therefore throw his answers and proofs into the form 
 of syllogisms, both for brevity's sake, and that the reader may at one 
 glance see them just as they are — in all their shameful nakedness. Corne- 
 lius was a devout man and feared God, with alibis house — Cornelius call- 
 ed together his kinsmen and near friends — Peter preached to them all — 
 the Holy Ghost fell on them that heard the word, and they were all bap- 
 tized: but infants are incapable of being devout, and of fearing God, or 
 of hearing preaching so as to understand it; therefore, there were no in- 
 fants in the house of Cornelius. The Lord opened the heart of Lydia; 
 and she believed and was baptized, and her household — Paul and Silas vi- 
 sited her family, and when they had seen the brethren, and comforted 
 them, they departed: but infants are incapable of believing and being com- 
 forted; therefore, there were no infants in the household of Lydia. Paul 
 spake the word of the Lord to the jailer, and to all that were in his house, 
 and the jailer believed in God, with all his house: but infants are incapable 
 of hearing the word of the Lord so as to understand it, or of rejoicing 
 from the same cause that the jailer did; therefore, there were no infants in 
 the household of the jailer. The household of Stephanas addicted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints: but infants are incapable of addict- 
 ing themselves to the ministry of the saints; therefore, there were no in 
 fants in the household of Stephanas. 
 
 As every person of good common sense is a good logician, though not 
 instructed in the systematic logic of the schools, — every such reader Avill 
 now easily see wherein the sophistry of the foregoing syllogisms, fairly 
 constructed from his answers, lies. He will perceive that although the 
 word of God frequently speaks of infants and their privileges, when chil- 
 dren of believing parents; yet the scriptures are not addressed to them as 
 infants, but to adults capable of hearing or reading, and of understanding 
 what they hear or read; and therefore to include them in warnings, ex- 
 hortations or promises addressed to adults, or to class them with those 
 who arc subjects of duties, is sophistical in the highest degree; and I am 
 persuaded that he will be constrained to say there must be something ra- 
 dically unsound in that system that has recourse to such shameful sophis- 
 iry to support it. 
 
 It is true, that the argument for infant baptism deduced from the bap- 
 'ism of those households, is only presumptive; but it is a presumption of 
 the strongest kind; for as the conversion of the heads of those families is 
 only mentioned, the inference I think is just, that the households were; 
 
n 
 
 haptized on account of the faith of the parents: and whenever a minister 
 of the gospel meets with a lieathen or infidel head of a fumily, brout,'-ht 
 over to the Christian faith, and desirous to be baptized, he is warranted 
 by the example of the apostles, "to liaptize him and all his straij^htway." 
 
 I would here farther remark, that Mr. C. according to his own acco\int, 
 acted fully as disingenuously and sophistically, Avith respect to the argu- 
 ment in favour of infant baptism drawn from the testimonies of the an- 
 cient fathers of the church, as in the instances now reviewed. Mr. W. he 
 tells us,produced extracts from the writings of JustinMartyr, Irenaeus,Ter- 
 tullian, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, and Chrysostom, who filled 
 in the church a space of time from the beginning of the 2d to the 4th 
 century of the Christian era; and all of whom mention more or less, that 
 infant baptism was practised in their day. And how does Mr. C. meet 
 this strong presumptive argument? These fathers held some errors — and 
 he consumes twelve pages of his book in pointing out those errors, and 
 portraying them in the strongest colours; with the evident design of mak- 
 ing the impression that such dotards and errorists are not worthy of the 
 least attention. But what if those fathers held some errors and funciful 
 theories? Docs it follow that they arc not competent and credible wit- 
 nesses for facts that happened in their day? and facts too in which they 
 themselves were engaged — the baptizing of infants; and it is as witnesses 
 for this fact, and not as standards of orthodoxy, that Pedobaptist writers 
 bring forward their testimony. 
 
 I shall close this letter I)y obviating another objection to infant baptism, 
 and indeed the only one that ever appeared to me to deserve a serious an- 
 swer. As infants are incapable of knowing what is done to them when 
 they are baptized, it is asked — "Of what use can it be to them?" Mr. C. 
 frequently brings forward the objection, and with an air of ridicule border- 
 ing on rancorous malevolence: and frecpit ntly too out of place; for when 
 the question was about their i-ight to baptism, his usual phraseology is — 
 infant sprinkling — infant sprinkling — yea, the first words of the title page 
 of his book is "inkant si'iunkling," as it that and nothing else had bten 
 !he subject of debate. 
 
 It might be enough to silence such objectors by saying, it is of divine 
 appointment, "and who art thou, O man, who rcpliest against God?" 
 And it can be of as much use now as circumcision of old. But besides 
 this; we think we can sec in the institution a gracious provision for train- 
 ing up the rising generation for the Lord. By baptism they are taken out 
 of the visible kingdom of Satan, in which all are born, as the children of a 
 degenerate i)arent, and PLwiKnin the vineyard, or the church of God,the 
 usual birth-place of the children of his grace, and become entitled, by i\\c 
 divine promise, to what Christ calls "digging about and dunging;" or 
 such instruction by the word and Spirit, thro-igh the instrumentality of 
 their parents, and of the church, as is calculated to m ke them "trees of 
 righteousiu'ss, the ])lanting of the Lord, that he might be glorified." And 
 as God usually works by means or second causes in the kingdom of grace, 
 as well as in the kingdom of nature; may we not venture to say tliat bap- 
 tism was also appointed as a means of regeneration for the infants of his 
 people dyitigin infancy, and whom he designed to save? If it is not a means 
 for this puipose, then there are no means. What God designs to do with 
 infants dying in infancy, he has not told us, and to d<'cide peremptorily on 
 the subject belongs not to man — the Judge of all the eurtli will not do 
 'hem any wrong; but this we know, that he has promised to sanctify and 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 save some of the children of his people. "Thus saith the Lord that made 
 thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee: fear not, O 
 Jacob, my servant, and thou Jeshuran, whom I have chosen. For I will 
 pour water on him that is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground. I will 
 pour my Spirit upon thy seed; and my blessing upon thy offspring; and 
 they shall spring ufi as among the grass, and as willows by the water 
 courses." 
 
 And now what is the comparative, practical operation and effect of the 
 two systems? The Baptists take into the church baptized adults only, and 
 hone others are considered under h^r direction and control; and hence the 
 comparatively slow progress of Christianity in the East, under their mis- 
 sionaries, zealous and indefatigable as they are; while upon the Pedobap- 
 tist system, sanctioned by the example of the apostles, of taking under 
 her wings those households, the heads of which profess the Christian 
 faith, by being baptized, the inhabitants of Otaheite, of Eimeo, and of 
 other adjacent islands in the Pacific ocean, may be said, according to the 
 prophecy, "to be born in a day." The Baptists leave their children in the 
 visible kingdom of darkness, where there is no promise nor provision for 
 their regeneration; and if a gracious and sovereign God regenerates them, 
 well and good. But Pedobaptists consider it their duty and privilege to 
 plant their children by baptism in the vineyard of the Lord; hoping that 
 in his own time, and according to his own promise, he will "pour out his 
 Spirit on their seed, and his blessing upon their offspring," "that they may- 
 be trees of i-ighteousness, the planting of the Lord, that his name may be 
 glorified." Those Baptists who have embraced the whole of Mr. C.'s sys- 
 tem, degrade the Old Testament dispensation of grace, by denying that 
 there was a church of God in the Jewish nation; and consequently must 
 consider the ordinances appointed by Jehovah, from the time of Abraham 
 to the completion of the temple service, at best, as an unmeaning ineffi- 
 cient mummery; but Pedobaptists consider them as unequivocal proofs of 
 the existence of a church amongst that people, as ordinances "/o?- t/ie ser- 
 ■vice of God" are involved in the very idea of a church, and belong to her 
 essence; and also as precious means o^ grace suited to that day, and gra- 
 ciously intended for interesting them in the Redeemer's righteousness. 
 From a view of the whole of this system; as a father of a family, and with 
 the Bible before me, I must say of such Baptists and their system, " O 
 my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their 'assembly' mine ho- 
 nour be not united." I say this only of those Baptists who have embrac- 
 ed the whole of Mr. C.'s system; for there are Baptists whom I esteem 
 for their piety and intelligence, and who, I am persuaded, abhor some of 
 his priuciples as much as I do. I shall resume the subject in my next 
 letter. 
 
 LETTER n. 
 
 As the design of a Magazine is to furnish the public with different essays 
 on different useful subjects, it cannot therefore admit of ajiy publication of 
 any considerable length. I was guided by this consideration when I 
 wrote the foregoing letter for the Presbyterian Magazine, and I according- 
 ly selected for review only those passages from the word of God, that 
 speak, as we think, of infant baptism, that were brought forward in the 
 iebate, and which appeared to have most bearing on the point in issue. 
 
19 
 
 This was the vcuson that 1 pasaed over the urKumoiit lor inlant baptism 
 tleduced from the account we have in the New Testament of ditVerent la- 
 fnilies bein;'- baptized at dilTerent times, with Ijarely noticin^' what I deem- 
 ed sophistical reasoning- on that subject by Mr. C. As I am not now so 
 circumscribed, I shall resume that point, and also examine oi>c or two 
 other passages introduced by Mr. C. in the appendix to his book, and 
 these will embrace all he has said on the subject. 
 
 I would therefore observe that the (ire.ek words Oikos and O/X/f/, wbub 
 literally sienifv a house or d\vellin!vplace,are used metaphorically iK.th in the 
 Sentuai?int* of the Old, and in the CJreek New Testament \n denote the 
 inhabit'ants, with this dilTerence, that Oikia signifies a i-an's household or 
 servants, but Oiko.<< is confined to the children separate from the parents, 
 examples of which shall be adduced in the proper place. 1 here may l)e 
 an instance where there words are used interchangeably, perhaps through 
 the carelessness of transcribers, but every person who will take the iron 
 ble of examining the matter will find that the distinction is accurately ol;- 
 served, particularly in the New Testament. 
 
 The reason why Olkos is used to denote the children of the owner of a 
 household seems to be this— that as a house or dwelling place is built up 
 by degrees, and by successive acts, so a man's family is built up by de- 
 irrees, by children born to him in succession. In this sense it is used re- 
 peatedly in 2 Sam. 7: 25—29. "And now O Lord fJod, the word which 
 thou hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning his house Ojk'ju) 
 establish it forever, and do as thou hast said.— And let the house (O/X-o.v 
 of thv servant David be established l>efore thee. l"or thon, O Lord o 
 hosts; God of Israel, hast revealed thyself to thy servant, saying, I wiH 
 6w,7f/theean house, ( OiAo.?.)— Therefore let it please thee to b.ess the 
 house (Oikon) of thy servant." The apostle Peter speaking ol believers 
 as the children, and more immediate family of (iod here below, uses the 
 word in the same sense, and assigns the same reason respecting the use 
 and propriety of the metaphor. Ye also as lively stones are buiU u/i a 
 spiritual liouse (Oikos) to ofler up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to (l«<d 
 through Jesus Christ. I Lpistle 2: 8. 
 
 That the word House is used in the Old Testament to designate chil- 
 dren separate from their parent or parents, is evident not only fronj the 
 foregoing, but the follow ing examples. "Then went king David in, and 
 sat before the Lord, and he said, who am I, O Lord, and what is my hou^Hi 
 (Oikos) that thou has hast brought me hitherto?" 2 Sam. 7: 18.— "And 
 thus saith the Lord, behold I will raise up evil against thee [David] out ol 
 thine own house" ( Oikou.) 2 Sam. 1 ;>: 1 1. The same phraseology is used 
 in the New Testament. Hence then we read of Cornelius and his housr, 
 of Lydia and her /lousf, of the Jailei- and his /lousr, und of Stei)hanas and 
 his /lous,', in all of which Oikos and not Oikici is used. It is true indeed, 
 that the English translators have sometimes rendered both words //rw/sr, 
 and sometimes household; but as I have already obsi rved, the distinction is 
 generally ol)served with accuracy; and certainly it v. ould have been belter 
 to have uniformly rendered Oikos^ housCy and OikLa^ household, as they 
 
 • It may be necessary for the sake of some readers to observe that by the '^Stpfungin' 
 is meant a translation of the Old Testament, which was wriUen in H«ibrcw, into the 
 Greek language about 150 years before Christ. It is Ibis translation that is usually f- 
 ferred to by Christ and the apostles. We refer to it only for the {wirpose of asoi-rtuir.- 
 ingthe true meainini; of some words in the Greek Testament, as many of the principal 
 words are evidently borrowed from it; nor indeed without that translation, could the real 
 caeaning of them be clearly ascertained, as we shall have occasion hereafter to shew. 
 
20 
 
 have done in Phil. 4: 22. "All the saints salute you, chiefly those that are 
 of Caesar's household" (Oikias) and everyone knows that it must have 
 been Caesar's servants, and not his children that are meant in that passage. 
 
 Having thus shewn that the word house is used in both the Old, and the 
 New Testament to denote children separate from their parents; I would 
 now observe that it is used to denote little children as a part of a house or 
 family. Thus in Numbers 16: 27. It is said that Dathan and Abiram 
 came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their 
 sons, and their little children. Verse 32. And it came to pass that the 
 earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up and their houses, (Oikous) 
 . — swallowed up their little children as part of their A o uses, as well as their 
 wives, their sons, and themsclvef; And not only is this the case, but that 
 it is also used to signify infcmts exclusively, is apparent from the follow- 
 ing examples. According to a law of the Mosaic dispensation, if a mar- 
 ried man died childless, then his unmarried brother, and if he had no un- 
 married brother, then the next of kin was required to marry his widow; 
 and if he refused, "then shall his brother's wife loose his shoe from off his 
 foot, and spit in his face, and say, so shall it be done to that man who will 
 not build u/i his brother's house " (Oikon.) Deut. 25: 9. But how was his 
 brother's house to be built up? — By the surviving brother marrying his 
 deceased brother's widow, and by infants born to him by her, but which 
 Avere to be esteemed the children of the deceased brother. The marriage 
 of Ruth to Boaz was in consequence of this law: and we are accordingly 
 told that when he had espoused her, all the people that were in the 
 gate, and the elders said we are witnesses. "The Lord make the wo- 
 man that is to come into thine house, or dwelling place, like Rachel, and 
 like Leah, which two did build u/i the house [Oikoji) of Israel. — And let 
 thy house be like the house (Oikos) of Phares which Tamar bare unto 
 Judah of ihe seed which the Lord will give thee of this young woman." 
 Ruth 4: 12. I would again ask how was the house of Israel built up by 
 Rachel and by Leah? — certainly by the infants brought forth by them from 
 time to time. And how Avas the house of Boaz to become like the house 
 of Phares, but by infants to be born to him by Ruth, and which are styled 
 "the seed of this young v omau?" Many other examples of the word 
 house being used to denote little children, and infants exclusively, might 
 t.'e adduced, but I shall mention only another in the 1 1 3th Psalm, 9th verse. 
 "He maketh the barren woman to keep house^ (Oiko) and to be the joyful 
 mother of children." In this passage, every reader will see that the bar- 
 ren Avoman's heart v/as to be made glad by infants to be given to her by 
 the Lord, and who were to constitute Avhat is called her '•'■house" or family. 
 
 Now to apply the metaphorical use of the word hou^e, not only as an ar- 
 gument for, but rather as a proof of intant baptism. We read in the NeAV 
 Testament of the baptism of Lydia, and of her house, of the Jailer, and 
 of his house, and of Stephanas, and of his house, or household, as it is 
 translated. The question now is, what did the inspired penmen mean by 
 the word '■'•House," in the record they have left us of these, and of other 
 family baptisms? They were Avell acquainted with the meaning of the 
 term in the Old Testament, as sometimes signifying children separate 
 from their parents, and little children, and infants exclusively. The Jews 
 to whom they wrote had the same understanding of the word; and if it is 
 necessary, it can be proved that the Greeks attached the same idea to it, 
 when used metaphorically. When the Jews then read that Lydia and her 
 house (Oikos) — the Jailer and his house (OiXrqs) — and the houst (Oikos) of 
 
21 
 
 Stephanas were baptized, what would they, or what could they under- 
 stand by the word in those several passages? Would they not altacii the 
 same idea which they had been accustomed to affix to it iii ilic Ohl Testa- 
 ment, namely, a man's or woman's children by immediate descent or a- 
 doption, infants included? If accordiiitj^ to the Baptist system, infants are 
 not to be baptized, then the inspired penmen have used a word calculated 
 to deceive both Jews and Cireeks — but this is not to be admitted. 1 can- 
 not conceive of any possible way of evading the argument I)ut liv alleg- 
 ing that they used it in a new and limited sense, as embracing only chil- 
 dreti arrived to maturity, to the exclusion of infants. But where is the 
 proof of this? An instance or two, if such can be found, of their using 
 it in this sense cannot overturn the argument; for to overturn it, it must 
 be proved that they always used it in that sense. But this I fearlessly af- 
 firm cannot be done; and therefore it follows incontrovertibly that they 
 attached the same idea to it, as had been affixed by their sacred writers for 
 upward of two thousand years. 
 
 But that the soundness and force of this argument may be still more 
 apparent, I would observe farther, that although there are other Creek 
 words as /*«/«, Paklion^ Paidario?}; Ih c/i/ios, Bre/i/iul/ion; A'c/iios, .Vc/iioTi; 
 and Teknon and Tckna; and which are frccjuently used in the Septuagint, 
 and in the flreek Testament to designate little children and infants; yet 
 none of them are used by the writers of the New Testament in the account 
 they have given us of family baptisms. The reason doubtless was, that 
 these words are rather indeterminate in their meaning, and are some- 
 times employed to denote persons apjiroaching, or arrived to maturity, as 
 well as littte children and infants. Thus in (ien. 37: .00, Joseph is stvled 
 "a child (7^oi(/«r/&7i) when sixteen years of age; and Benjamin "a little 
 one" (/•fl/V/ZoT?) m hen upwards of thirty. It was therefoie with an evi- 
 dent design, that they used a word so fixed and determinate in its meaning 
 by a prescription of two thousand years, that those who read it would not 
 be mistaken, but immediately understand by it, a man's or woman's fami- 
 ly, infants included. 
 
 I have extracted and condensed the foregoing argument from a pamphlet 
 by a Mr. Taylor, the Editor of Calmkt's Dictionary It would seem 
 that Mr. C. has either seen that pamphlet, or extracts fiom it also, in Dr. 
 Ely's quarterly review, or in the first numl)er of the Pa.mphlktier, edited 
 at Richmond by Dr. Ricf: and as the only possible way of evading the 
 force of this argument, he roundly affirms in pages 72, 73, 1st Ed. that 
 the baptized families mentioned in the KUh chapter of the Acts of the 
 apostles, and elsewhere, Avere all adults, and baptized on their own pro- 
 fession of faith. I shall now examine what is said of the baptism of 
 those families, and if it shall appear that they v.cre n(jt all adults, then I 
 shall consider the (]uestion as settled; and the public will certainly excuse 
 me for jiot noticing any thing he may j)ui)lish on this subject, until he 
 completely overturns the foregoing and this, and the following arguments. 
 In such an event, I Mill become his proselyte, and tluiiik him for enlight- 
 ening my mind. And 
 
 First, Mr. C. infers that all the members of the house of Lydia were 
 adult persons, because it is said that Paul and Silas, after they Mere libe- 
 rated from prison, m ent to see, and comfort the brethren in her house. 
 Acts 16: 40. 
 
 The very language of Lydia in the 16th verse is however a strong pre- 
 sumptive argument that there were not any believers in her family at that 
 
22 
 
 time. Had her family been believers she would not have said, as she did, 
 "If ye have judged me," but "If ye have judged us" "to be faithful,come in- 
 to my house, (Oi/coji) and abide there." As to the brethren whom Paul 
 and Silas went to visit in her house at the time alluded to; had Mr. C. 
 read with attention the third and fourth verses of that chapter, he would 
 have found that Timothy Avas with them in their journey from Lystra to 
 Philippi. Had he read the 10th, 11th and 12th verses, he would have 
 found that Luke, the relater of the incidents of that journey, jomed them 
 at Troas — "Therefore coasting from Troas tve came a straight course to 
 Samothracia." And had he read the 15th verse, he would have found 
 that Luke was one of those whom the kind-hearted Lydia not only be- 
 sought, but constrained "to come into her /touse and abide there" — "And 
 she constrained us." Putting these facts together, we may now see that 
 Timothy and Luke were the brethren whom Paul and Silas went to see 
 and visit, after they themselves were liberated from prison. These bre- 
 thren were doubtless much depressed in mind on account of the imprison- 
 ment of their dear friends and companions; and this accounts for the ex- 
 pression that Paul and Silas "went to see, and comfort them." To this 
 may be added that these indefatigable champions of the cross had been 
 "certain days" in Philippi previous to their imprisonment. It is to be 
 presumed that they preached the gospel during "those days," and as the 
 preaching of the gospel was attended with much power at that period, it 
 is-to be presumed also that some believed. These would naturally resort to 
 the house of Lydia, not only for the purpose of Christian fellowship, but 
 to condole with Timothy and Luke; and these might also be among the 
 number of those brethren whom Paul and Silas went to visit and comfort 
 before they departed. But be that as it may, the well attested fact that 
 Timothy and Luke abode in the house of Lydia during the imprisonment of 
 Paul and Silas, shews that Mr. C.'s inference respecting her family was de- 
 duced from false premises. So far then the foregoing argument stands firm . 
 
 Secondly; Mr. C. affirms that the family of the jailer, mentioned in the 
 same chapter, were also adult believers and baptized on account of their 
 own profession of faith; because, as he expresses it, "Paul preached sal- 
 vation to him, and his house" — because "he spake the word of the Lord 
 ■to him, and to all that were in his house" — and because the jailer "rejoic- 
 ed, believing in God with all his house." A few remarks on each of these 
 propositions or premises Avill shew their fallaciousness, and the conse- 
 quent inconclusiveness of his inference. 
 
 The first proposition is, "That Paul preached salvation to the jailer and 
 his house." This I presume is founded on the 31st verse, and the word 
 ".9aT'ea'" in that verse, as there is no other in the whole passage whence it 
 can be deduced. "And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and 
 thou shalt be saved and thy house," (Oifcos.) 
 
 That the real meaning of the apostle may be seen in this passage, it 
 may be necessary to observe that the word salvation, like many other 
 words in the scriptures, is used by the sacred penmen in tv/o or three dif- 
 ferent meanings or acceptations. Sometimes it is used to signify a deli- 
 verance from temporal danger only. This is its meaning in Exod. 14: 13, 
 Avhere Moses speaking of that deliverance which Jehovah was about to 
 vouchsafe to the Israelites, in the destruclicn of their enemies, the 
 Egyptians, says to the former, "stand still, and see the salvation of the 
 Lord which he will shew to you to-day." As it respects spiritual objects 
 and interests, it is sometimes used to signify the ordinances of the true re- 
 
li}»ion. This T apprehend is its tneaninp^ in John 4: 22, where Christ telU 
 the woman ol Samaria, "That salvafion is of the Jews." And it sometimes 
 means that pardon of sin, sanctification of heart, and eternal lif*', which 
 is promised to all true l>clievers in Christ. This is its meanini^ in Horn. 
 1: 16, where the apostle says, "I am not ashamed of the jjospel of Christ, 
 for it is the power of God unto m/varion, to every one that believeth, to 
 the Jew first and also to the Greek." 
 
 That it is salvation in this full and unlimited sense that Mr. C. intends 
 in this proposition, will I expect be admitted: indeed no other kind of sal- 
 vation, nor any salvation less than this, would answer his purpose, as he 
 contends that a profession of this salvation is what alone can entitle an 
 adult to baptism. This salvation as it regards adults is promised to be- 
 lievers only; "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that 
 believeth not, shall be damned." Now every tyro in the Cireek languaj^e 
 knows, that the \cvb''^I-'isfeusofi," believe, in this verse, is in the sinijular 
 number, and was addressed to the jailer only, and not to his hous'e or fami- 
 ly. As they were all adults, according to Mr. C.'s inference, then Paul 
 did not preach this full salvation to them, unless he preached a saltation 
 that may be obtained without believing, or that the children can be saved 
 by the faith of the parent. But as neither of these can In," admitted, th<-. 
 question now is, what did he mean by the word '■'■saved" in that verse, as 
 it has reference to the jailer's family? The apostle Peter answers thr 
 question in the 3d chapter of his 1st Epistle 23d verse; where he tells us 
 that baptism is a figure, or rather an antitype {'■'■antitufion") of the deli- 
 verance of Noah and his house "by water," and not surely by Ix-ing im- 
 mersed in it, (for that was the case with the antedeluvians) but by being 
 borne up by it in the ark, the type of the church — "the like figure whcre- 
 unto baptism doth also nf)w save us." Not that we are to understand the 
 apostle as teaching that baptism is regeneration, or yet a seal of an inter- 
 est in the salvation purchased by Christ, to either. adults or infants, until 
 they bring forth "the answer of a good conscience toward God," as the 
 fruit of a living faith in a risen Saviour; but as one of the means appoint- 
 ed by the Head of the church, for interesting in that salvation, and for 
 communicating those renewing iniluences of the Holy Spirit, without 
 which no one can behold his face in glory. That this is his meaning is 
 apparent from his advice to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. "Be bap- 
 tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ. /or tlic revihaiou of 
 .WJ.V, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: for the promise is to 
 you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the 
 Lord our God shall call." By thus bringing Peter and Paul together, wt 
 learn what the latter meant by the word saved, as it rcsi)erted the jailer's 
 family, in the verse now undci' consideration. — That by his believing on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, they would be brought under bajiti sm as a mean of 
 salvation, together with the other means connected with it, and which w«- 
 are afterwards told was the case. Thus a due attention to the true import 
 of the words "believe," and "saved," in that verse, shews the fallaciousness 
 of Mr. C.'s proposition, "that Paul preached salvation in its full extent to 
 the jailer and his house;" and the inference deduced from it, that they 
 were adult believers, and baptized on their own profession of faith, conse- 
 quently falls to the ground. 
 
 The second proposition from which he has drawn this inference is, thai 
 it is said in the 32d verse, that Paul spake the word of the Lord to the 
 jailer, and to all that were in his hous<',rinfants and adults.) 
 
34 
 
 I confess that I was surprised, when I saw the word infants attached to 
 this proposition: and I am at a loss to know what he intended by it, and 
 what purpose it was to answer in his argument. Did he mean that Paul 
 spake the word of the Lord to the infants of the jailer's family? This is re- 
 presenting the apostle's conduct in a truly ludicrous point of light; as in- 
 fants are incapable of hearing the word so as to understand it, and profit 
 by it. Besides, to admit that there were infants in the jailer's family is 
 giving up the point at once; for as we are told in the following verse, "that 
 he and all his were baptized," then as infants are not capable of believing, 
 it follows that they were not baptized on account of their own faith, but 
 on account of the faith of their parents. It would seem that he was led to 
 acknowledge that there were infants in the jailer's family,from the scriptu- 
 ral meaning of the word house; without reflecting that this acknowledg- 
 ment subverted the Baptist, and established the Pedobaptist system. But 
 be that as it may, the inspired historian's words imply that there were per- 
 sons in the jailer's house who were capable of hearing and imderstand- 
 ing the word, and the question is, who were they? An inspection of the 
 Greek word translated house in that verse solves the question. It is not 
 O/Xros, but Oikia^ which when used metaphorically, as I think is the case 
 in this verse, denotes a man's household or servants; and that the jailer's 
 servants would be persons capable of hearing and understanding the word 
 spoken, is what was to be expected from his occupation. — It is scarcely 
 worth while to observe that little children and infants are unfit guards for 
 a prison. You will have seen that this proposition, as stated by himself, 
 instead of supporting his inference, completely overthrows both it, and the 
 Baptist system, so far as that system respects the right of the infants of 
 baptized persons to the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 The third proposition is, that it is said of the jailer in the 34th verse, 
 that he "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." 
 
 I have observed in one of these leiters,which were published in the Pres- 
 byterian Magazine, that the last translators of the Bible have manifested 
 a strong partiality for the Anabaptist system, as it was styled in that day, 
 from the manner in which they have translated the passage that records the 
 baptism of the Eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. This partiality is still 
 more glaring in their translations of this verse; and that the unlearned 
 reader should draw the inference from it, that the jailer's family were 
 adult believers is nothing extraordinary: but that Mr. C. who is the Prix- 
 ciPAi. of an Academy in Avhich the Greek language is said to be taught, 
 and who as a desputer and writer on baptism, it is to be supposed, has read 
 this verse in the Greek Testament, should draw that inference from it, is 
 extraordinary indeed; and the fact is a proof, either that he does not un- 
 ilerstand the grammatical principles of the Greek language; or that a love 
 of system, and the Ijold defying ground which he has taken in this contro- 
 versy, have so blunted his moral feelings, as to induce him to grasp at 
 any thing, however preposterous, that has the ajjpearance of supporting 
 that system, and of maintaining that ground. 
 
 That these strictures are neither unadvised nor unjust will be admitted 
 by every person who is acquainted with the Greek language, and has exa- 
 mined, or will examine the passage in the original text. I have already 
 remarked that every school-boy who is reading the Greek Testament knows 
 that the verb Pistenson in the 31st verse is in the singular number, and 
 was consequently addressed to the jailer, and not to his family. This is 
 also the case with the participle Pry/w^cr^X-oav translated believing in this 
 
2b 
 
 vtrsc. It is also in llie sin;2;iilar numtior, and in the perfect ten«C, and 
 siijnifies ^'•haxnng helifvcd^" and is conscqiionlly preclicatcrl of the jailer 
 himself, and not of his house, or yel of his hoitsehoUl. As for the adverb 
 Panoik-fy it is evidently an abbreviation of the noun PanoHia, which siq;'- 
 nifies a nhole household; and the literal meaning; of the wliole ptvssajj^e is 
 this — "He rejoiced with all his household, havini^ himself believed ia 
 God," or "havini^ believed in Ciod, he rejoiced with all his household." 
 I fear not contradiction to this translation, from any man who understai>ds 
 the Greek lanp:uaj»;e. It is true indeed that some expositors understand 
 by the adverl) '■'■ Panoi/ci" "■c\cry part of the house or dwellini:^ place;" and 
 others "the whole house or family." Rut admitting; that eithei- of these 
 ititerpretations is preferable to the one I have g;iven; yet neither of theni 
 will countenance Mr. C.'s inference; for it is natural to suppose that those 
 of his children who were capable of being influenced liy the passion of 
 fear, would rejoice, when they saw their father rejoice, although their 
 joy proceeded only from the circumstance of their having^ escaped the ef- 
 fects of the appallin.g earthcjuake that caused "the foundations of the 
 prison to shake." In a word, the single consideration that the childien of 
 the jailer were not called upon to believe, while their father was, and the 
 j)rofound silence respecting their believing, while we are expressly told of 
 his "having believed," is an evid'jnce that they were not capable of believ- 
 ing, a:,'! as ihey were baptized, that they were liaptizcd on account of the 
 faith of their parent. 
 
 Thus all the premises whence Mr. C. has inferred that this house or fa- 
 mily were adult believers, when brought to the touchstone of the original 
 text, prove fallacious; and these premises evidence,at the same time, either 
 an ignorance of the elementary princij)les of the Greek language, or a 
 design to impose on the unlearned by a shameful sophistry. He cannot 
 but feel that he has placed himself betwixt the horns of a dilemma, and I 
 know of no honoural)le way whereby lie can extricate himself l)Ut by ac- 
 knowledging his ignorance of what he ought tn have known before he be- 
 gan to write. I feel disposed to impute the palpable blunders he hascoTi- 
 mitted in hisexamination of the baptism of the jailer's family, ratherto this 
 cause than to adestitution of moral principle, or a disregard to moral truth. 
 
 Thirdly; Mr. C. infers that the house of Cornelius mentioned in the 
 1 0th chapter were all believers, because it is said that he was "a devout 
 man, and one that feared (iod %vi//i all fiis house;'''' and because it is said 
 that when Peter preached in his house, "the Holy (Jhost fell upon them 
 nil ihat heard the word.'" 
 
 That Cornelius, who was a devout man, should, like .\braham of old, 
 "■command his children and household to keep the way of the I^ord," is 
 what was to be expected IVom his character, and what is usually the case 
 s\\\.\\ good men. But it does not follow tliat all those children, who in a 
 state of minority are restrained from evil, and JTiiluenccd I)y patemul au- 
 thority and example to respect the character of God, are true beli vjrs. 
 Thousands, who have been thus trained up, have given the fullest evi- 
 dence that the reverse was their character, as soon as they arrived to ma- 
 turity, atid were removed from under the paternal eye and authority. 
 
 That the Holy (ihosi fell upon those "kinsmen, and near friends," 
 whom Cornelius had called together on the occasion; and that they were 
 baptized on their own personal profession of faith, was indeed the case; 
 liutit does not follow, nor is it i,aid that this was the case with his - bil- 
 dren "v //^. /*" Peter.when defendifig himself for associating with Comc- 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 lius and his friends,who were uncircumcised Gentiles, mentions a circum- 
 stance in the 14th verse of the following chapter, which, vhen taken m 
 connexion with the words,"5G/2fzs7n doth now save us," and compared with 
 the words of Paul and Silas to the jailer, fully proves that the house of 
 Cornelius were not baptized on their own account, but on account of the 
 faith of their parent. Paul and Silas said to the jailer, "believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house;" and Peter's 
 account is, that an angel from heaven advised Cornelius to send for Simon 
 whose surname is Peter, "who will tell thee\jiot thevf\ words whereby 
 thou and all thy house (Oikos) shall be saved." Let it now be observed that 
 the words addressed to both houses are precisely the same, and the pro- 
 mise made to the one, is made to the other. But I have shewn 
 that the promise of salvation made to the house of the jailer must neces- 
 sarily be limited to the means of salvation. That this must also be the 
 meaning of the salvation promised to the house of Cornelius is evident 
 from the consideration that no "words,"however good,addressed to Corne- 
 lius, and believed by him, could confer eternal salvation on his children; 
 any more than that the children of the jailer could be thus saved by his be- 
 lieving. It follows then, that as the children of the jailer were brought 
 under the means of salvation by baptism, in consequence of his believing 
 and being baptized, so the children of Cornelius were brought under the 
 same means, by the same ordinance, by his believing, and being ba^jtized 
 also. It is true that they are not specifically mentioned amongst those 
 whom Peter commanded to be baptized on that occasion; but that they 
 were baptized follows from this consideration,that if they were not baptized, 
 the promise to them was not made good — but this is not the case Avith the 
 promises of God. 
 
 Fourthly; Mr. C. infers that the house of Stephanas were believers, be- 
 cause it is said, 1 Cor. 15: 16, that they were "the first fruits of Achaia,and 
 addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 
 
 There is a difficulty not only in the grammatical structure of that pas- 
 sage, but in the directions given by the apostles relative to that House, 
 that has perplexed Expositors and Commentators. The difficulty ,however, 
 as far as it respects the point in debate, vanishes in a moment, when we 
 consult the orignal text. When Paul tells us, chapter 1: 16, that he bap- 
 tized the household of Stephanas, as it is translated,the word used is Oikos; 
 but in the passage now under consideration it is Oikia, which is a proof 
 that he had reference, not to the children, but to the servants of Stephanas. 
 Their being styled the first fruits of Achaia, is a proof that they were 
 converted to the Christian faith at the same time with their master, and 
 this circumstance, together with the character for kindness given of Ste- 
 phanas himself, in the following verse, accounts for their addicting them- 
 selves to the ministry or service of the saints; and hence it follows that 
 the house of Stephanas alluded to in 1 Cor. 1: 16, is to be classed with the 
 house of Cornelius, of Lydia, and of the jailer. 
 
 The conclusion then that forces itself upon the mind from a close in- 
 spection of the baptism of those houses is; that as the word House de- 
 notes the whole family,infants included, and sometimes infants exclusively; 
 and as there is not the least intimation that any individual of those families 
 believed, that they were baptized on account of the faith of their parents. 
 This conclusion is strengthened by what we are told in the 18lh chapter 
 of the Acts of the Apostles, respecting the baptism of Crispus and his 
 house. "And Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed with al! 
 
his house," and wvvr bapti/.ed. Hci-o we are told that the family of Cris- 
 piis were capable of Ixdievini^, and believed, and the ciicunTilaJire is ac- 
 cordins;ly distinctly related, previous to the account of their biMn!;»; l)aptiz- 
 ed; and if any of llie family of Cornelius, of Lydia, of the jailer, aM<l of 
 Stephanas, had been ca])al)le of I)elicvin^^ and believed, can we su|)i)osc 
 that the circumstance would not have been recorded also? for to record tlic 
 triumphs of the (lospel in that day, over obstinate Jews, and idolatrous 
 Gentiles, was the principal end which Luke had in view in wrilinjthe At;rs 
 
 OF THK ApOSTLKS. 
 
 I shall close this arj^ument by just firthcr observinj^, that as Mr. C 
 places such a mip^hty stress on '-a positive precept, or precedent'' for ad- 
 ministering positive institutes, he may find both in the baptism of the 
 Houses alluded to, provided he will look at them with a true philoloi^icai 
 eye, purged from the mists of prejudice. He will find his positive precept 
 in the meaning which the ins])ired historians must have nf^cessarily attach- 
 ed to the word "Housk," and his precedent in the baptism of the houses 
 mentioned. But I am not to be understood as adniitting that no doctrine 
 is to be believnl for which there is not a positive precept, or tiiat is not le- 
 vealed in a certain form of words; nor institute observed for which there 
 is no precedent, or example that persons ol a certain age or sex were ad- 
 mitted to that institute or ordinance. The doctrine of the resurrection of 
 the dead is as much a positive doctrine as what we arc taught resptxting 
 the manner of administering baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the per- 
 sons to whom they are to be administered; that is, human reason could 
 never have discovered it. And yet our blessed Lord, in proving that doc- 
 trine against the Sadducees who denied it, did not refer to any positive pre- 
 cept or precedent, but proves it by a train of reasoning, or by deducing 
 consequences from scripture premises. "But as touching the resurrection 
 of the dead, have ye not heard that which was spoken to you saying; I am 
 the God of Abraham, the (Jod of Lsaac,and the (iod of Jacob; God is not 
 the God of the dead,butof the living." And admitting thtil there is not 
 a positive precept, or precedent for infant baptism, yet Pedobaptists arc 
 certain that they are correct, while they can prove it l)y legitimate conse- 
 quences drawn from scriptui'c premises; and for the validity of such jjroof, 
 they have the highest authoi-ity — the authority of him who was "rnr. 
 truth" itself. It is on this princijile tliat they admit believing women to 
 the table of the Lord, for let it be reraeml)ercd that there is neither posi- 
 tive precept or precedent for admitting them; and it is on the same princi- 
 ple that they observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath; neither of 
 which Baptists should do on their own principles, and if they acted con- 
 sistently. And indeed a sense ol consistency has induced some Baptists 
 to deny that the first day of the week is to be observed as a Sabbath unto 
 the Lord. Why they have not denied the Lord's Supjjer to women I 
 know nut, unless that they saw, that to push their ideas of consistency so 
 far,would be such an outrage on the rights of pious women, as would endan- 
 ger their church, if not erase its very foundations; and I leave it to you to 
 judge whether Mr. C's argument in p. 71, for admitting them,though valid 
 enough, is either as clear or as strong as the argument for infant baptism 
 deduced from the example of the apostles in baptizing the houses of bap- 
 tized parents. 
 
 But after all, deep-rooted prejudice may say, that we are not told that 
 there were- any little children or infants in \\\o^*i houses. In reply to this I 
 would ask the most prejudiced and prepossessed, if they can possibly sup- 
 
pose that the inspired pennian would use a word that not only embraces 
 little children as a part of a family, but is used to denote infants exclusive- 
 ly, if he knew that there were no infants in those houses, or if he knew that 
 infants were not to be baptized. On the contrary,is not his usin^ such a 
 word a proof that he knew that there were infants in those houses; and of 
 the houses of Lydia and the jailer he had a personal knowledge, for, as we 
 hae shewn he was at Philippi when they were baptized. 
 
 But besides this, I will state a plain case, which has indeed been stated 
 by others, and which I think will decide the question to every person who 
 will be at the trouble of making; the experiment. We are told that Cor- 
 nelius, Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas were themselves baptized, and 
 their families also. Now let a Iijt of all the families in any g-iven district 
 be taken. Let that list be presented to a person entirely unacquainted 
 with them; and let him select four fiirailies promiscuously out of that 
 list; and then let the inquiry be made, whether there is, or is not, a little 
 child or infant in any of those families. I have no hesitation in saying;, 
 that oul of a hundred selections or trials, there would be found a minor 
 child or infant in someone of them, for one selection where no such child 
 would be found. Every person versed in the science of calculation, Avill 
 immediately see that in the case now stated, there is not only a hundred, 
 but hundreds against one. From the whole I will now venture to say, that 
 the baptism of the houses referred to, is not only a presumptive argument 
 of the strongest kind for infart baptism; but when duly weighed, and con- 
 sidered in all its bearings, will of itself be decisive with every intelligent 
 person whose mind is not warped by prejudice and prepossession. May 
 I not s'^y moi-e — that it is irresistible? 
 
 Another argument, if not a positive precept for infant baptism, is to be 
 found in Mat. 28: 19, 20. ''Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; 
 teaching them to observe all things Avhatsoever I have commanded you." 
 
 I'he argument lies in the meaning of the Greek verb '•'•mathctcuftate'" vty 
 the 19th verse, w!iich,although translated "teach," signifies to make disci- 
 ples,as is acknowledged by the ablest translators and commentators; yea,is 
 acknowledged- by Mr. C. himself in p. 151; with this difference, that in- 
 stead of making the risen Saviour say. Go, and makes disciples of all na- 
 tions, he makes him say. Go, and make disciples out of all nations. His 
 reason for thus supplying what he virtually tells us is wanting in the words 
 of the Saviour himself, and mending his commission to his disciples, is 
 very obvious to the hitelligent reader. But the Greek preposition ek which 
 is sometimes used to signify out of^ is not in the passage, and had it been 
 omitted by an ellipsis, then the nouns jxanta ta tthne, "all nations" would 
 have been in the genitive, Avhereas they are in the accusative case; and 
 thererore,as every good linguist knows, the clause, "Cio, teach all nations," 
 literally signifies, Go, and disciple all nations. 
 
 From those observations the argument for infant baptism is obvious and 
 irresistible. The command and commission is, to make disciples of all 
 nations, of which infants and minors are a large component part, and how 
 this is to be done we are told in the next fullov.'ing words, "baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Sun, and of the Holy Ghost; and 
 when they are thus made disciples, then ihey are to be taught all things 
 vhatsoever Christ hath commanded. This you will have perceived is 
 agreeable to the order of nature, and the established practice of mankind 
 resulting from that order, in communicating knowledge to the young, and 
 
29 
 
 iHlterate; first to enrol them in a school, and then teach them in that school 
 the requisite l)riinches of literature. On the other haiul, the system of the 
 Baptist church, and their practice resultin;^ from that system,reverses tiiis 
 order. They keep their children out of the school of Christ, and whose 
 scholars should children be but Christ's? and if perchance they have learn- 
 ed out of that school the, elementary principles of his religion, and pro- 
 fess laith in him as the Son of (iod and Saviour of sinn<'rs. then they 
 bring them by ba-ptism into his school or church, but which I have shewn 
 in my 3d letter was designed to be at the same time, the mother, the nurse, 
 and the instructress of those whom he designed to save. It is true that 
 the prejudices, ignorance, and pcrverseness of men often counteract his 
 wise designs; and that any are saved through any other plan, than that he 
 iiimself has devised and revealed, shews him to be "the Lord, the Lord 
 God, merciful and gracious" indeed. You will also have perceived that 
 the foregoing remarks were designed to apply only to the children of 
 church-memliers, and not to adult unbaptized persons. With respect to 
 such we arc told in the Cd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,that they must 
 possess a knowledge of Christ as an all-sufficient, and the only Saviour, 
 and be deeply sensible that they are guilty and depraved sinnei's, before 
 they can be baptized; and when such are baptized, then, as in the cases of 
 Lydia, of the jailei', and others, their children or licunes are to be baptized 
 with them, as a part of the nations for whom baptism was appointed; "for 
 the promise is to you Jews, (said Peter) and to your children, and to all 
 who are ufui- (ijff\or the Gentile nations,) even as many as the Lord our 
 God shall call." 
 
 But Mr. C. has not oidy tried to invalidate the argument for the bap- 
 tism of infants deduced from the commission of Christ, to disciple them 
 by that ordinance, by altering or rather amending the commission with a 
 word of his own; he tries also in p. ISo, to run the argument down with 
 high sounding words, and by worse than empty declamation. "To talk, 
 (he tells us,) of an infant disciple, or to say that an inl'ant of eight or ten 
 days old can be a disciple or scholar of Christ, not only contradicts all 
 scripture, but shocks all common sense." 
 
 Surely Mr. C. did not reflect when he wrote this sneering, and in mv 
 opinion, impious sentence, that Christ teaches his discij)les or scholars, 
 not only by his word, but by his Spirit. IIow soon young childret» may 
 be taught from the word of God, 1 will not positively say; but certain I am 
 that they are capable of receiving ideas concerning God and things di- 
 vine, much sooner than is usually admitted. Well attested instances that 
 this is the case might be produced, and which to some might apjjcar al- 
 most incredil)le. That they are capal)le of being savingly wrought upon 
 at any age — at the age of eight or ten days, will be adir-itted by all who 
 have scriptural views of the boundh'ss power and grace of (Jod. Such an 
 idea, and such doctrine, that they are not capable of being thus wroui-ht 
 upon, can be ''sliocking to the common sense" of those only who are un- 
 der the darkening and deleterious influence of an unscriptural system. — 
 And so far is it from the case, that this doctrine is "contradictory to all 
 scripture," that, on the contrary, it is amply supported by scriptural facts. 
 The prophet Samuel, while yet a mere child, "was in favour both with the 
 Lord and also with men;" and John the Baptist is said to have been "tilled 
 with the Holy (ihost, even from his mother's womb." And to this I 
 would add, that infants are expressly called disciples in Acts l.i: 10. "Nou 
 
30 
 
 therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, 
 which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." 
 
 The occasion that t^^ave rise to their receiving this appellation is distinct- 
 ly recorded in the beginning of the chapter. In the 1st verse we are in- 
 formed that certain men came from Jerusalem to Antioch, "and taught 
 the brethren (or the Gentile converts) saying, except ye be circumcised 
 after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." And in the 5th verse we 
 are told that in Jerusalem, "there rose up certain of the sect of the Phari- 
 sees which believed saying, that it Avas needful to circumcise them, and 
 to command them to keep the law^ of Moses." A council of the apostles 
 and elders met at Jerusalem "to consider of this matter." "And when 
 there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, men 
 and brethren, ye know how that God a good while ago made choice of us 
 that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and 
 believe. — Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of 
 the discifiles, which neither our fathers, nor we, were able to bear." 
 
 Now, that by the expression "disciples" in this versc,the apostles meant 
 infants as well as adults, will be evident to every one who will but recollect, 
 that under the Mosaic dispensation, not only every adult male, but every 
 male child eight days old were to be circumcised, under the penalty that 
 "the uncircumcised man child was to be cut off from the people of God." 
 But we are told in the 1st and 5th verse , that the Judaizing teachers, as 
 they are usually styled, were for imposing the law of Moses on the Gen- 
 tile converts, and especially circumcision "after the manner of Moses," 
 or to the extent that it had been enjoined under that dispensation. This 
 Peter opposed, both because the Mosaic dispensation had expired by its 
 own limitation, and because circumcision, then superseded by baptism, 
 was a bloody and painful rite, especially to infants, and therefore he said 
 with his usual warmth, "Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of 
 the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" The 
 late and lamented J. P. Campbell has also adduced this same verse as a 
 proof that infants are called disciples, and it seems that a Dr. Lathrop^ 
 whose writings I have not seen, has done the same thing. And how now 
 does Mr.C. who has "rff/fcrf all c/iristendom" meet and confute these formi- 
 dable opponents? at first, indeed, he pays a deserved compliment to his 
 namesake's talents, and then as an answer to his arguments in favour of 
 infant baptism, he calls him a sophist, or charges him with sophistry; but 
 as these are epithets which he liberally bestows on every Pedobaptist wri- 
 ter, we must consider them as words of course. As for the poor Doctor, 
 he pursues him with an unceasing torrent of what he designed as witti- 
 cisms, but which some may call by another name, throughout the whole 
 of the 1 52d page, and part of the next. He tells us, that a "greater sofiliist 
 on this subject, has not appeared for the twenty -five years last past" — 
 and that his arguments for considering infants as included in the word 
 "disciples" in this verse, is "a figment so fiuerile^ so dimi?iunvf," "that had 
 not a Doctor said so, he would have considered it out of all character to 
 reply to it:" for it was only the "brethren mentioned in the 1st verse that 
 are alluded to in the 10th, to the exclusion of their infant children. 
 
 Now this assertion may perhaps pass with Mr. C.'s Iriends and admir- 
 ers, and with superficial readers of the Bible; but the person who wishes 
 to understand what he reads will ask what is meant by those emphatic 
 words, in the 1st verse, "circumcised after the manner of Moses," but 
 which Mr. C, has carefully avoided explaining; and what is intended in the 
 
31 
 
 5lh verse "by keepinij; the law of Moses, and which ho has also as cautious- 
 ly avoided. Such a person will ask, did the ins|)ired j>enn»an mean that 
 only the (ientile converts themselves, and not their children, should he 
 
 circumcised, according to the requisition ol' the Judaizin,g teachers? No 
 
 for if that had been his design he would have simply said so, and the 
 woids "after the manner of Moses" would have I)cen altogether super- 
 fluous. The question will recur, what did he n\ean by the word "manner" 
 in the first verse? If he understands the Greek language, and consults the 
 (ireek Testament, he will find that the original word is ktiiki, which tlie 
 best Lexicographers will tell him, signifies "iins, usage, custom." It 
 cannot but tlien occur to him, that to be "circumcised" after the manner of 
 Moscs,must mean circumcision to the extent that was «.v««/, and customary^ 
 under the Mosaic dispensation. But according to that dispensation the 
 male infants of circumcised parents were to be circumcised also; and if 
 the Judaizing teachers had retjuired that the believing Gentiles were only 
 to be circumcised, and not their children, as Mr. C. asserts was the case, 
 that would not have been circumcision "after the manner of Moses," and 
 that would hav<; been "keeping the law of Moses" only in part, as that 
 law enjoined that rite, or ordinance. In a word, the conclusion which I 
 think every unprejudiced and reflecting reader of the Bible will draw from 
 the whole passage, must be this — that as the words "circumcised after the 
 manner of Moses" in the 1st verse must mean the circumcision of infants 
 and adults, then infants as well as adults must be meant by "the disciples" 
 in the 10th verse. I shall only add on this point, that admitting the in- 
 terpretation I have given to these verses is wrong, and that the conclusion 
 I have drawn from that interpretation is incorrect, still I might insist thai 
 the command of Christ in Mat. 28: 19, to disciple all nations Ijy baptism, 
 is an unanswerable argument, if not a positive prciept,for infant ba|)tism, 
 and that the syllogism which Mr. C. has been so kind as to construct from 
 that passage, for the Pedobaptists, is logically sound and good. It might 
 indeed have been more clearly stated, but I admit it as it is — "All nations 
 are commanded to be baptized, and infants arc a part of all nations; there- 
 fore infants are to be baptized." 
 
 But Mr. C. may say, that I have overlooked his criticism on that pas- 
 sage,iMtended to prove that it was Jiot the nations as composed of adults and 
 infants that wei-e commanded to be baptized, l)ut believing adults only, and 
 that the syllogism was consequently unsound. 
 
 And what now is this learned criticism? This — that the Greek nouns 
 ^'•jianta ta rt/nie," ^<-a/l nations," are in the neuter, and "'■autoi.s," '•ihcm,' or 
 the persons who are to be baptized, is in the masculine gender, and as 
 these words do not agree in gender, then we must look out for some noun 
 that agrees with a!//ow.?, and Mr. C. has found it, where few but himself 
 would have looked for it, in the noun tr.at/ietas, which is not in the pas- 
 sage, but which he tells us is included in the verl) "■maf/irtrusale" 
 
 And what if "f//;;2c," and ''autous" do not agree in gender, are not na- 
 tions composed of males and females; and as according to the grammati- 
 cal statute, the masculine is more worthy than the feminine or neutei- 
 genders; in what other gender than the masculine, could the relative "«f^- 
 /C///.9" be put in a sentence of such a structure? There is a passage of a 
 similar structure in the latter clause of the 19th and 20th verse of the 9th 
 Psalm, on which I would he glad to see Mr. C. exercise his critical accu- 
 men according to his own rule maue and provided for Mat. 28: 19. "Let 
 the hi-(<thcn be judged in thy sight. Put them in fear, O Lord, that the 
 
S2 
 
 Aations itiay knSAv themselves to be but men." Now in the Septuagint 
 translation of this passage the words "heathen" and "nations," is the nea- 
 ter noun ethne, and the word "them" is also "cw^oms;" and until Mr. C. 
 will prove that it is not the heathen in general, but some particular in- 
 dividuals amongst them, that the PsalmJst prayeth unto the Lord "to put 
 in fear," and until he finds those individuals in the verb A-rz^Ae^osan, "let 
 them be judged," he must excuse me if I shall consider his criticism on 
 Mat. 28: 19, to be yery meagre, and very miserable. Perhaps he may 
 choose to connect the words, "put them in fear" with '■'■ethne''' "nations" 
 in the 20th verse. It amounts to the same thing, and the same task is be- 
 fore him; for, according to his own rule, he must find the particular indivi- 
 duals who are "to know themselves to be but men" — (a^zMro/ioz, a noun of 
 the common gender,) in the words katasteson nomotheton^ in our version 
 "put them in fear," butin the Septuagint,"standover themas a lawgiver." 
 I shall leave the arrangement and connexion entirely to hiniself, and when 
 he has performed this task, I shall furnish him with a few more passages 
 of a similar structure. 
 
 I shall only examine another passage, 1 Cor. 7: 14, not only as a proof 
 of infant baptism, but for the purpose of pointing out some of the absurd 
 and distorted views which Baptist writers arc compelled to give of the 
 word of God, in defence of their system. The passage reads thus; "For 
 the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are 
 they holy." 
 
 That we may have correct views of this passage, it will be necessary to 
 recollect that in Deut. 7: 3, the Jews were forbidden to marry Gentile 
 women. And when this took place, then the Gentile woman, and the 
 children born by her Avere to be put away as"unclean," or as not admissi- 
 ble to the Jewish church, and which we are told in the book of Ezra was 
 actually done in his day. Should the Gentile woman however become a 
 proselyte to the Jewish religion, as did Ruth the Moabitess, it altered the 
 case, and she and her children became incorporated with the Jewish nation, 
 and entitled to all their religious privileges. The reason for this strong 
 proliibition, and severe statute,as it may appear to some,was, that the Jews 
 might be kept separate from all other nations, and the lact ascertained 
 that the Messiah sprung from thatnation, and also to prevent their being 
 seduced into idolatry by their Gentile wives. 
 
 It appears from the preceding context, that there were in the church of 
 Corinth believing Avives who had unbelieving husbands, and believing 
 husbands who had unbelieving wives. It would seem that the apostle had 
 been asked the question, whether the Jewish law respecting such mar- 
 riages should be enforced on the Christian churches. He answers the 
 question in the r2th and 13th verses. "If any brother hath a wife that 
 believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her 
 away. And the woman that hath a husband that believeth not, and he 
 be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave hiiB;" and then_ he assigns 
 the reason for this advice, or rather command; "for the unbelieving hus- 
 band is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
 husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe that the Avords "unbelieving hus- 
 bant.,'' ima-ninbelieving wife," plainly imply, and what the apostle says 
 in the 12ih and 13th verses expressly declares, that the law pronouncing 
 thcn^arriae-e of a Jew with a Gentile woman illegitiiTiate has been repealed^ 
 
CJ3 
 
 und is not nnw ol>lit;;ul()iy on the Cluistian churches. It was enacted for 
 llie special and wiho purjiosrs niciitioiifd, and wiicii those purposes were 
 answered, it expii-ed by its own liniitaiion. It is true tliai in 2 Cor. C: 
 16, the apostle says to professing Christians, "Be ye not unecpially yoked 
 lo^;ether with iinhclievcrs;" and assit^ns strong reasons why such connex- 
 ions should not bo formed; but he does not say that such connexions when 
 inadvertently formed, are illegitimate, and the otVspring illegitimate. Ou 
 the contrary, in the passage now under consideration, and in the preceding 
 context, he repeatedly styles the peison who had ftjrmed such a connex- 
 ion. A.'/ .v/;c//f/ unci wife, and the reason why he advises l)elievers n')t to mar- 
 ry unl)elievers, was not, that such marriages arc illegitimate, but on ac- 
 count of the inconveniences resulting from such a connexion to tlie be- 
 lieving party. 
 
 It is admitted l)y both Baptist and Pedobaptist writers, that the Greek 
 words translated "sanctified,'' nnd "holy," in this passage do not denote 
 moral purity; as the Ijelieving luisbaiid or wife cannot confer faith on tlieir 
 unl)e!ieving companions; nor can the l)elieving parent or parents impart 
 regenerating grace to their children; but the idea attached to the words by 
 those parties is very different. Dr. Gill, the great ciiamuion of the J^ap- 
 tists, contends in his commentary-on tlic pU^e, that llie lleijiew word 
 translated "sanctified" signifies "legally espoused," and as a proof he refers 
 us to different Jewish Ka!)l)ies, who used the word in that sense; to which 
 he adds Jolj 1: 5, as so interpreted by the Jews; and tluncc infers that the 
 words translated "unclean," and "holy" must mean, the owe illci^itimately^ 
 and the other It if it i mate I y born. 
 
 That the marriage relation, and the maniage covenant whereby that re- 
 lation is formed, is alluded to, in the word "sanctified" is admitted; but 
 that the apostle meant by it "legally espoused," we cannot admit for this 
 simple reason, that in the preceding context he repeatedly styles the per- 
 sons who are said to be "sanctified," huaband and vjife, and every one 
 knows that the words husband and wife denote those who have been law- 
 fully married to each other, and that the epithet given in the Scriptures 
 to those who cohabit without being lawfully married, is adulterers, and 
 adulteresses. With this recollection in view, every intelligent reader 
 will now see, that this interpretation makes the apostle write and reason 
 very foolishly, or saying that a husband, or a man lawfully married, is 
 ■sanctified^ or lawfully married to his wife, or to a woman that has lieeii 
 lawfully married to him. Such a person will also see that this is not the 
 only absurdity which this interpretation fixes on the reasoning ot the 
 tipostle. He will see that it represents him as proving the legitimacy of 
 the marriage of the parents, I)y the legitimacy of the children; or saying 
 to the unbeliever you arc legally espoused to the believer — why.' — because 
 your children are not illegitimate, but legitimate; "for the unbelieving hus- 
 band is sanctified by the w ife" £<c. "else were your children uticlean, but 
 now are they holy." 
 
 But besides this, ahhough the word translated "sanctified" is used al- 
 nost numberless times in the Septuagint, and in the Greek Testament, it 
 IS yet never used ir> the sense affixed to it l)y Dr. (Jill in this passage. If 
 that was the case, his sagacity, and extensive Bi!>lical knowledge would 
 have certainly discovered it, and he would as certainly have referred to it 
 :ii support of his interpretation. The circumstancL'. of some of the Jewish 
 Habbies using it in that sense is no authority for the script\iral meaning of 
 that, or ol any other word. They not only lived long since tlie New Tes- 
 
 5 
 
S4 
 
 tamentwas written; atid to establish a doctrine by the meaning of the 
 word that conveys it, it must be by the meaning which the inspired pen- 
 men attach to it, and not that of any other writers. As for Job 1: 5, 
 where it is said "that Job sent and sanctified his sons when the days of 
 their feasting- were gone about;" the words that immediately follow, tell 
 «s that that sanctification had not the least reference to his bestowing 
 them in marriage. The words are, "And he rose up early in the morning, 
 and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job 
 said, it m.ay be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts; 
 thus did Job continually." As this was Job's continual, or constant prac- 
 tice, then Job's sons must have been very often '■'■esjioused" according to 
 the interpretation given to the word "sanctified'" by the Jews and Dr. Gill; 
 for it is not to be supposed that he would have produced their authority for 
 the meaning of the Avord, if that meaning had not met with his appro- 
 bation. 
 
 With respect to the words translated "holy," and "unclean," the Dr. 
 has not produced a single instance, from either the Septuagint, or the 
 Greek Testament, nor even from a Jewish Rabbi, where the one is used to 
 signify legitimately^ and the other illegitimately born. The reason was, 
 that no such instance is to be found, and the interpretation he lias given 
 them, is what he was compelled to do in defence of his system, and from 
 the meaning he has attached to the word sanctified. Into such adsurdi- 
 ties and inconsistencies, are even great and learned men led, Avhen they 
 attempt to defend an unscriptural system, which they may have adopted 
 through prejudice, or some other cause. 
 
 Mr. C. differs with Dr. Gill with respect to the meaning of the word 
 "sanctified.'' Dr. Gill applies it to "the very act of marriage, but Mr. 
 C. to the "lawfulness" of marriage itself. He agrees with the Dr. how- 
 ever, with respect to tlie meaning of the words "holy" and "unclean," as 
 denoting legitimate, and illegitimate children; but the ground on which 
 that legitimacy rests, and the source whence illegitimacy flows is as novel 
 and extraordinary, as any thing to be found in his book. In p. 62, he tells 
 us as the meaning of the apostle in this passage-"that the unbelieving par- 
 ty was sanctified in, to, or by the believing party, and that the children 
 born in this connexion were lawful or holy — whereas should thiiy se/^arate-^ 
 the children would according to the marriage covenant be unclean or un- 
 lawful. — Marriage is spoken of in the scriptures, as a covenant relation be- 
 tween the parties — INIal. 2: 14. "She is thy companion, and the wife of thy 
 covenant." There is then a holiness or legitimacy in the relation — there 
 is also an uncleanness or unlawfuhiess in any departure from it. "Mar- 
 riage is honourable in all," consequently lawful, and the bed undifilcd. 
 The character of the parties in this relation aflects, and has ever affected 
 their progeny. Children are either clean or unclean, denied or undefiled, 
 holy or unholy, lawful or iinlawful, according to the conduct or character 
 of their parents with regard to this relation." 
 
 Such is Mr. C.'s interpretation of this passage. But as he has also, 
 not produced a single instance either from the Septuagint or the Greek 
 Testament, where the word translated "holy" when predicated of children 
 signifies that they are legitimate, and that the word translated "unclean" 
 when predicated of the same signifies, that they are illegitimate; and as he. 
 has not assigned any reasons why the nejiaraiion of persons lawfully mar- 
 ried, bastardizes their children, nor produced any statute from either civil 
 or ecclesiastical law to that purport — then until he does this, he must far- 
 
ihcr excuse me if I shall coiisitlcr his inlerprctarKJti ul' ihis pasr.uj^e, us 
 another oftlicsc v/ild and ilk'};;itiniaU' iiitci-|)rL'taUons Aviih which his hook 
 abounds, and anotlior proof that there must be somethini^ radically un- 
 sound in that system, whicli to defend, coiDjiels a man to give such dis- 
 torted vicNVsol the word of (iod. 
 
 Since then neither of the foregoiiiii^ interpretations of this passajje can 
 be admitted i'or tlie reasons assi.c^ned; tlie question now is, what is its true 
 import: To ascertain this, it will be necessary to incjuire into the scriptu- 
 ral meaning of t!ie Clreek words ^'•licsfiunlciiy "•/tajj-Za,'' '•'■akuthafta^" trans- 
 lated '''•sauctijird^" ^'■holij" '■'■unclcun." With respect to the two first ol 
 these words they are frequently used in the Septuagint, whence they aic 
 evidently borrowed, and are applied to diHerent [)ersons and objects, iu 
 this world, and when thus applied, usually, if not uniformly mctii, tiiut 
 those persons and thinpi's have been dcdicdttd, u/i/ifji:ittd, or set a/iart, for 
 some special purpose, let that purpose lie what it may, good or bad, civil 
 or religious. An instance of the verb /laj^iazo being used to signify, to .!e- 
 7iole or set apart for a purpose at least bad in itself, occurs in Judges 17: 
 3; where Micah's mother tells him, that the money which he had stolen 
 from her, she had "wholly dedicated to the Lord, to make a graven image, 
 and a molten image." The words in the Septuagint are, ^^■/lui^iazousa he- 
 tfiafia^"* which words as they are usually translated in the New Testament 
 would be, "sanctifying, 1 have sanctified it." In the i^ook of Joshua 20: 7, 
 it is said that the children of .Israel '■'■ci/ifioinfid Kedesh, and other cities, 
 whither the man-slayer might flee from the avenger of blood." In the 
 margin of our liibles it is ''■aanctijied'''' Kedesh, Sec. for although the se- 
 venty have not thought proper to use the verb /lag-iazo, yet in the Hebrew 
 Bible it is Kadosh, which cori-esponds to it, and this is an instance, if not 
 of/iai^nazo, yet of what amounts to the same thing, of its corresponding 
 word in Ilebiew being used to signify fo set u/iart for a civil purpose. In 
 the book of Leviticus^ the tabernacle, the temple, with their furniture, 
 are repeatedly styed "holy," l^ecause they were 4."/ a/iarf for a good, or 
 religious purpose. I he same idea is attached to those words when appli- 
 ed to men whether they were connected with religious siii)jects or i\ut. 
 Thus in Isa. 13: 3, the Medes and Persiatis are styled Jehovah's "sanctifi- 
 ed ones" because they weie selected as the instruments who sliould over- 
 turn the proud, cruel, and idolatrous city of IJabylon; utuI Dr. Campbell iu 
 the 1th part of his preliminary dissertations, to his translation of the lour 
 Evangelists, has shewn by a number of examples that when those words 
 are applied to men connected with religious sulijects, as the Friesls and 
 Levites, they do not denote moral purity, but only that they were selected 
 a.\\d set a/iurt for the service of the (Jod of Israel. From this circum- 
 stance he also justly observes that although these words are frccpJently us- 
 ed in the New 'I'estament to denote moral purity, yet whenever they are 
 predicated of persons who are members of the Christian churches, they 
 are to be understood as meaning only that such persons were "ilevoted" o:- 
 consecrated to the service of Ciod. The necessity of the above imj' -ry, 
 and its use in ascertaining the true meaning of the passage under consi- 
 deration will appear when we come to examine and answer one of .Mr. C.'s 
 objections. 
 
 I trust that I have pioved in my first letter that the Jewish nation wwe 
 constituted a churcli of Ciod Ijy the ordinance of circiimcision, and llvereliy 
 «ct a/iart for his worship and service. It was on that account, and not foj- 
 their moral purity, that they were styled "a kingtlom of priests' — "a holy 
 
30 
 
 nation" — and ''a holy seed;" while the surrounding nations were styled 
 "unclean," because they Avero not within the pale of that covenant, and 
 were moreover v/orshippcrs of idol gods. That the surrounding nations 
 Vere styled "unclean" for the reasons Ccssigned, is evident from Isa. 52: 1, 
 where "the uncircumrised and unclean," are spoken of, and classed toge- 
 ther as tlie same persons; and also from Acts 10: 28. "And he [Peter] said 
 unto them, know ye that it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to 
 keep comp:iny, or to come unto a man of another nation (alluding to Cor- 
 nelius an uncircumcised Roman) but God hath shewed unto me that I 
 should not call any man common, or unclean" — '■'•akatharton'''' — the very 
 word used in the passage we arc now examining. 
 
 From these observations and fucs^you may now see what the apostle 
 meant when he said that the children of a married couple, one of whom is 
 a believer, "«?-c- not unclean but holy.'''' — That as the Jews were constituted 
 a church of God by the ordinance of circumcision, in consequence of 
 which they a>'e styled a "//o/:/ nation, and a holy seed;" and as their chil- 
 dren were admitted into the chr.rch also by the same ordinance, in conse- 
 quence of which they are styled "a godly seed," and "the heritage of the 
 Lord:" so the children of a baptized parent are to be admitted into the 
 church also by the ordinance of baptism, the mean of induction under the 
 present dispensation. The phraseology used Ijy the apostle shews that 
 this was his meaning. The words are the same that are used in the Old 
 Testament, Avhen the Jews and their children are mentioned as being with- 
 in the pale of the covenant of circumcision; and I fearlessly affirm that no 
 man can account for his styling the children of such a parent, "/io/y," and 
 "wof wnc/<°an," but on the principle that as the children of the Jev.'s were 
 entitled to church membership in consequence of their parents being cir- 
 cumcised; so the children of a baptized parent are entitled to the same 
 privilege in consequence of the professed faith of that parent. If this was 
 not his meaning, then he has used language calculated to deceive both Jews 
 and Christians — but this is not to be admitted, nor even supposed of, the 
 inspired apostle. To this I would only add, that the interpretation which 
 I have given to the woids perfectly accords with what he says in Eph 3: 
 6, and elsewhere; "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs [with the Jews] 
 and of the same body, and partakers of his [Jehovah ''s] promises in 
 Christ by the Gospel." — The intelligent reader need not be told that in the 
 New Testament the church is frequently styled "t!ie body of Christ." 
 
 But Mr. C. objects in p. 63, that the apostle's design in the passage was 
 to answer the question, whether married persons, one of whom was a be- 
 liever, should live together as husband and wife, Init we apply it as a proof 
 of infant baptism; and this is a mode of repelling an argument to which 
 he has often recourse, when other means are wanting. 
 
 And what if that was the apostle's main designr Does it follow, that a 
 writer in illustrating his main question, may not introduce other topics 
 connected with, or flowing from it. Nothing is more common with all 
 writers, sacred and profane, and the doctrines introduced thus incidental- 
 ly in the sacred Scriptures are to be received with as much assurance of 
 their truth and importance, as those contained in the main question. The 
 objection is truly silly; and he might as well say, that it was notsanctitica- 
 tion, or purity of heart that the apostle means in those words "who walk 
 not after the flesh, but after the spirit," because his main design in the 
 verse was, to prove the doctrine of justification, or that true believers in 
 Christ are rescued from that condemnation to which they were exposed 
 
pvcvious to tlieir believinjjj. "There is therefore, now no condemnation to 
 to them, th;tt are in Christ Jesus, who walk, not alter the ilesh, but after 
 the Siiirit." Rom. 8: I. 
 
 Mr. C. farther objects in p. 64, that the argument for infant baptism de- 
 duced from the passu<>e now under consideration "proves too much," for 
 accordiiu:^ to ll, the unbelievin.^ husband or wife ou!>ht to be l)apli7.ed al- 
 so, as it is said that they arc "sanctified in, /o, or by the bclievinij Avifc or 
 husband. 
 
 There is mucli reliance placed on tliis ol/'cction by Baptist writer"^, for 
 the reason meiilioni'd by Mr. C. I)ul a recollection of the cpiestlon j)ro]).is- 
 cd to the a]ioslle for soliilion. and a recurrence to the scriptural meaning 
 of the word translated ".ya«f///?rf/" will dissipate the oI)jectiui! i;i a moment. 
 I have shown that that word wlieii |)rcdicated of human persons, sij^'nilies 
 their beiuij .9fV fl//«r/ for a particular purpose, let that p\irposc l)e what it 
 may. It refers to the marriag;e relation in this passage, and the ajjoslle's 
 i-easoninp; and argument is obviously this — that the believing wife is not 
 to depart from the unbelieving husband, "if he is pleased to dwt-ll with 
 her," because he /la/h been set afiart to her as her husband by the mar- 
 riage covenant, which nothing Init adultery, or wilful desertion, or death, 
 can disannul. The same obligation is binding on the believing husband 
 with respect to his unbelieving wile. He is "not to put her away,"'*if she 
 is pleased to dwell with him," for she also hatit been set a/mrt to him as 
 his wife; or as it is expressed in Mai. 2: 14. "She is his comj^anion, and 
 the wife of his covenant;" and let it be here recollected, and ])artirularly 
 noticed that the verl) /ie_q-ia-<itui, or set afiart is not, as it is rendered in our 
 version, in the present, but in the perfect tense. Let it also l)c recolieoted 
 -that this is not the idea attached to the word In- Dr. (iill, and other Bip- 
 tist writers. The Dr. confines the meaning of tlic a])oslle to "//le tvry 
 act 'if marriatrc^'^ or represents him as saying that the beru'ver"is legally 
 espoused" to the unbeliever. This the apostle saith in tbe tcmis "hus- 
 l)and and wife," and then directs their attention to the design, and if I 
 may so speak, to the very eascnrcoS. marriage, as a contract enlertvi inta 
 for life, and which nothing but the causes just now mentioned can destiov. 
 This is the ground of his alignment why persons lawfully married should 
 not separate, and was designed to correct the jjrinciples, and counteract 
 the practices of '.)olh Jews and (ientiles who were in the hal)it of dissolv- 
 ing the marriage covenant on very frivolous pretences. But this is not 
 the whole of his argument. In theciuestion proposed forsolutiun, one of 
 the parties was a believer, and the apostle takes occasion to enforce his 
 argument by that ^:ircumstance, and from that consideration. The chil- 
 dren of such, says he, are not "//;/f/rn«," or unlit sul)jects for the kingdona 
 of God, or the (lospel church, as is the case with the children of those pa- 
 rents both of whom are unbelievers; but"//c/(/," or entitled in consecpience 
 of that parent's faith, to be xvt a/uirt for the service of (iod by the ordi- 
 nance of ba])tism, that they may become "a godly seed," by being trained 
 up by that parent "in the nurture and admonition of llie Lord." This is 
 one of the important i-nds to be answered by that ordinance, and for 
 which it was appointed; and every one may now see. that that end, impor- 
 tant as it is, would be frustrated, at least in part, by the nr/ian.-r.on of the 
 parents, as it is not unusual when such separations take pluce, lor both of 
 the j)arents to claim a part of the children, and those claimed l)y the un- 
 believer, instead of Ijcing trained up in the knowledge and service of the 
 true God, would bo trained up in infidelity with all its concomitant evils. 
 
38 
 
 In a word, as I understand the passage when viewed in connexion with the 
 preceding context, the apostle argues against the separation of husband 
 and wife, first, from the nature, design, and perpetual obligation of the 
 marriage covenant; and secondly, where one of them is a believer, that 
 their children are entitled to be introduced into the church by baptism, 
 that they may be trained up in the knowledge of the true God, but which 
 important purpose might be frustrated by the parents separating the one 
 from the other. 
 
 But besides this, it would be a sufficient answer to the objection to say, 
 that the cases of husbands and wives, and of parents and children, are b\ 
 no means parallel. The unbelieving husband or wife are adult persons, 
 and capable of believing, but this is not the case with their infant children; 
 and it is their not believing when they are capable of it, that unqualifies 
 adults for admission into the church. The relation subsisting between 
 those tv.o parties is also very different. The believing parent, or parents, 
 are the root whence their children derive that federal holiness that enti- 
 tles them to church membership; for as the apostle argues on this very 
 point in Rom. 11: 16. "If the first fruit be holy, so is the lump; if the root 
 be holy, so are the branches; but the believing husband is no where styed 
 the root of the unbelieving wife, nor the believing wife the root of the un- 
 believing husband. To which rnay be added, that the apostle, in the pas- 
 sage, speaks of the holiness of such children as a doctrine with which the 
 church of Cf ;-inth v/ere well acquainted, .and which they had reduced to 
 practice by devoting, or setting apart their children to God in the ordi- 
 nance of baptism — "Else were vour children unclean, but now are they 
 holy." 
 
 Before I dismiss this passage, it may not be unnecessary to observe, 
 that although I have not adopted the interpretation usually given by Pedo- 
 baptist Vv riters to the word "sanctified," yet there is no materal difference 
 betwixt us. The usual interpretaton is, that the cohabitation of the be- 
 lieving husband with the unbelieving wife, and of the believing wife with the 
 unbelieving husband is lawful, or now sanctioned by divine authority. 
 This is indeed true, but it is the consequence of the marriage covenant 
 whereby they wert set apart to each other as husband and wife, and not on 
 account of the faith of one of the parties. The objection Avhich 1 have to 
 the usual interpretation is; that it varies the meaning of the two words 
 "sanctified and holy;" gives to the former of those words a meaning, 
 which I do not know is once given to it in the Septuagint, whence it is 
 borrowed and applied; unnecessarily substitutes the effect for the cause, 
 and thus obscures the reasoning of the apostle. It is true that the 
 former of those words has reference to the marriage relation, and the 
 latter to that federal holiness which entitles the children of a believer to 
 baptism; but the simple idea attached to both appears to be the same — 
 that the unbelieving husband and believing wife have been set afiart to 
 each other for one purpose, and their children are to be set apart for ano- 
 ther purpose, the context in the one case, and the phraseology used in the 
 other ])lainly indicating what those purposes are. 
 
 I shall close my observations on this passage by just remarking, that 
 admitting that the interpretation which I have given to the word sanctifi- 
 ed is wrong, and the usual Pedobaptist interpretation is right; and admit- 
 ting farther that both are wrong, and that the apostle meant something else 
 by the expression; yet that mistake does not, cannot, affect the argument 
 for infant baptism deducible from the words,"Else w^ereyour children un- 
 
39 
 
 clean, but now are they holy." And I ai;^ain ft'arlos«;ly afiii-m, that no in- 
 tciprt'tatioii consistent with the scope of tlie Old aiid New I < Mament, 
 with the settled meaniniior their language, and with tin- c;^nduct <A' Jeho- 
 vah in estulilishing and preserving a church in the world, as the desiimed 
 ed birth ])lace of the children of his grace, can be attached to the m hole 
 passage but this — that as the children of the Jews wcie entitkd to be in- 
 troduced into the church of (iod by the ordinance of ciicumcision, in con- 
 setpience of their parents professing the true religion; so the children of a 
 parent or parents prolcssing Christianity are to be introduced into the same 
 church by the ordinance of baptism; for that what is now called the Chris- 
 tian, was ingiafted into the Jewish church, I trust I have also proved in 
 the foregoing letter. 
 
 That you may have a full and comprehensive view of this important 
 subject, I shall in my next inquire into the nature of that repentance and 
 faith, which is required of adults, to entitle them to admittance into the 
 I'hurch by baptism. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 From the view I have given of the church and her ordinances in my 
 last letters, you will have perceived, that I do not consider circumcision 
 and baptism as primarily designed for the purpose of building up believ- 
 ers in holiness; but as ordinances designed for the conversion of sinners of 
 a certain character. My view of the subject is briefly this: — When a 
 Gentile, or Jew not circumcised, was rationally persuaded that Jehovah 
 was the true (iod — that the ordinances delivered by him to Moses were 
 the only true means of grace, and mediums of acceptable worship — that 
 it was the command of Qod, and his duty and privilege to attend oji these 
 means that he might obtain grace; and under this impression attended 
 with diligence on these means for this important purpf)se; ihcji he was by 
 circumcision to be planted in the church of (iod, and his children with 
 him; and when he, or they, brought forih the fruit of a living faith, then, 
 circumcision was to him or them, as to Abrahani ol old, "a seal of their 
 interest in the righteousness of faith." And by parity of reasoning, wlicn 
 a careless or proiligate sinner, a heathen, or infidel, under the present dis- 
 pensation, is morally convinced that he is a lost and perishing sinner — 
 that Jesus is the only Saviour of sinners — that in order to obtain an inter- 
 est in his atoning blood, and the regenerating influences of his Spirit, it is 
 tUe command of (iod, and his duty and privilege to attend on the means of 
 grace appointed by Christ, and diligently attend on these means for this 
 purpose, then that person is to be planted by baptism in the church of (iod 
 also, and his minor offspring with him; and when he or they bi-ing forth 
 the fruit of a justifying faith, baptism is to them also a seal of their in- 
 terest in the righteousness of faith; and they have, moreover, a right to the. 
 ordinance of the supper, designed to build up believers in holiness, and to 
 strengthen them in their journey through this world to Immanuel's fair 
 Lnd. 
 
 I have no doubt, but that every Baptist, and some Pedobaptists, aie 
 now ready to assail me, and say, does not one apcstle say that "without 
 faith it is impossible to jjlease (iod;" and anotiitr, that '-faith without 
 works," or a spe<-.ulative faith, "is dead:" and will you say that suclv-a 
 faith, though attended witli a conviction of sin, entitles a j)ersou to ad- 
 
40 
 
 mittance into the church of God? To this I reply, that I believe as firmly 
 as any of you, that there is no work really good that does not proceed from 
 a livin£> faith; that without it^ there can be no acceptable approach to the 
 table of the Lord: and that without it, no adult person can be saved: but it 
 does not follow that a speculative faith accompanied with a deep sense of 
 guilt, may not, by divine appointment, answer the end of a qualification 
 for admittance into the visible church. We do not differ about the im- 
 portance and necessity of a living faith; our difference is concerning the 
 nature and design of the church. You consider it as designed for the re- 
 ception of regenerated persons only; I consider it as designed not only for 
 the reception of such, but as primarily designed for the regeneration of sin- 
 ners of a certain character through baptism, as the appointed mean. A 
 speculative faith and sense of guilt, in adults, is necessary, in the nature of 
 of things, for this purpose. Considered abstractly, they are not evil exer- 
 cises of mind, in themselves, and answer a valuable purpose as far as they 
 go; for you will grant that it is exceedingly wicked not to believe that 
 there is a God, and that Christis the Son of God; and not to be sensible of 
 our miserable situation as guilty and morally polluted sinners. Now that 
 this faith and this feeling entitles adults to admittance into the church by 
 baptism, I hope to make appear from an examination of the terms of ad- 
 mittance into both under the former, and present dispensations of grace. 
 For this purpose I would now observe, that when it pleased God that 
 the church should assume a more visible and compact form in the days of 
 Abraham, he expressly commanded that not only that distinguished pa- 
 ti'iarch himself, "with all his seed," but that all born in his house, or bought 
 with his money of any strangers, should be introduced into the church by 
 circumcision, declaring at the same time, "that the man-child, the flesh of 
 whose foreskin was not circumcised, should be cut ofi' from the people of 
 God;" or should not be considered as belonging to his church. I would 
 now ask my Pedobaptist readers, who believe with Stephen, that "Moses 
 was in the church in the wilderness," if you can believe that all these, 
 with all their countless offspring, to the coming of the Messiah, were 
 true believers. But the command was given by God, who knew the heart 
 and could not be deceived. There is no way of accounting for this matter, 
 but by admitting that circumcision was appointed as a mean for produc- 
 ing "the circumcision of the heart." And, indeed, this view of the sub- 
 ject perfectly corresponds with what Jehovah himself says of his vineyard, 
 or his church, in the 5th chapter of Isaiah, already alluded to. "My be- 
 loved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill; and he fenced it, and gathered 
 out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built 
 a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine-press therein. And he 
 looked that it should bring forth grafies." Whatever difference of opinion 
 there may be about the meaning of the icncing, gathering out the stones, 
 the tower, and the wine-press; one thing is incontestable, that all this care 
 and apparatus was, that the vine planted therein should bring forth gra/ies. 
 Our blessed Lord's parable of the vineyard, in the 13th chapter of Luke, 
 corresponds also with this view of the church under that dispensation, 
 and is almost a copy of the foregoing allegory. "A certain m.an," says he, 
 "/;«f/ a lig-tree planted in his vineyard, and he cam.e, and sought fruit thereon 
 but found none. Then said lie to tiie dresser of the vineyard; behold these 
 three years I came seeking fj uit on this fig-tree, and find none; cut it doAvn, 
 why cumbereth it the ground. And he answering, said unto him. Lord, 
 let it alone this year al-.o, ui:til I dig about it, and dung it. And if it bear 
 
41 
 
 fiuit,well; and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." Let it here he 
 recollected, thul llieharren fi<>^-trec,in this |)ariibli',is not threatened heciusc 
 it was there; for it is expressly said, that it was planted l)y the orders ot the 
 owner of the vineyard. "And a certain mm /md a fi^ tree planted in his 
 vineyard:" hut threatened because, planted and dup^ around, and duniijed, 
 it did not i)rinj^ forih fruit. How opposite is this view of thede^^i^n of 
 the church, as given by (iod and liis Son, to that view which Mr. C and 
 even some Pedobaptists, tj^ive us of it: and how op|>osile the conduct of 
 Baptists in planting the church, to that of the husbandman, when he is 
 about to plant an orchard or vineyard! The husbandman looks for young 
 trees or plants of the fruit-bearing kind, that have not yet brought forth 
 fruit, and plants, and digs abotit and dungs them, that they may bring 
 forth fruit; but should they happen to find a tree of the fruit-bearing kind, 
 bearing fruit in the wilderness, they root it up, and then plant it in the 
 vineyard, or the church. How opposite, also, to what is said in the Scrip- 
 tures, of Zion,or the church. "And of Zion it shall lie said, this and that 
 man was born in her." Psalm 87. And Jerusalem, (another epithet of the 
 church) which is above, and is free, is said to be "the mother of us all:" 
 but according to their plan, the church is not the mother, but only the 
 nurse of her children. 'Vo which I would add the declaration I'f the apos- 
 tle respecting the good olive tree, or the Jewish church, in the 1 1th chap- 
 ter of his epistle to the Romans, already adduced. The Jews, whom he 
 styles natural Ijranches, were broken off, he tells us, by unbelief; and the 
 Gentiles, by faith, grafted in their stead. "Weil; because of unbelief, they 
 were broken oflT, and thou standest by faith, lie not high-minded, but fear." 
 Now it follows by fair consequence, that the lailh by whicii the Jews stood, 
 was a faith that could be, and was lost; but this is not the case with the 
 faith of God's elect: and that the Gentiles were grafted into the good 
 olive tree, by the same kind of faith Iiy which the Jews were once grafted 
 in, and by which they stood, but which finally degenerated into what the 
 apostle styles "unbelief" 
 
 And when we look at the history, of that nati;jn, it perfectly comports 
 with what the apostle says in that chapter. They fell into idolatry at va- 
 rious times; but as they still worshipped Jehovah in conjunction with their 
 idol gods, and for which they were severely and justly punishc^d, at dilfer- 
 ent times, they were not broken off. Hence, then, we find Jehovah calling 
 them his people, and a people in covenatit with him; when at the same 
 time he charges them with the basest idolatry. Hosea 5: 12. '■'■ iMy fico/ile 
 ask counsel at their stocks, and their stafl" declanth unto them; for the 
 spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err, and they have gone a whor- 
 ing from under their God." They trusted in the promise of God that he 
 would send them a Redeemer; but when that Htdeemer came, "they receiv- 
 ed him not," l)ul crucified him as an im|)ost()r; in consequence ol which, 
 with the exception of a small remnant, "who received him," they were 
 broken oft'from the good olive tree, and the Cientiles grafted in their stead. 
 Their rejecting Jesus as the promised Messiah, was the un'>elief, on ac- 
 count of whirh they were broken off; and the Gentiles receiving him as 
 such, was the faith on account of which they were grafted in, and by « hich 
 they stand; and although this general faith is not of a saving kind, yet it is 
 involved in it, and a saving faith cannot be, nor exist without it. 
 
 To this it may be objected — that the Mosaic dispensation being typical, 
 only a shadow of good things to come, was therefore comjjaratively ol>- 
 scnre, and the qualifications of admittance into the church more general 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 and inidefined: but the gospel dispensation being the substance of these- 
 shadows, the qualifications are therefore more distinctly defined. Hence 
 then, "faith and repentance, it not always, yet most frequently, are requir- 
 ed as prerequisite qualifications of admittance into the church by baptism;'' 
 and it has generally been admitted that this faith, and this repentance, 
 mean a living faith, and evangelical repentance. 1 shall now examine this 
 point. 
 
 The first passage which occurs on this point, is the memorable address 
 of Peter to the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, already adduced for ano- 
 ther purpose. "Repent, says he, and be baptized, every one of you, in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 I need scarcely observe to those who are acquainted with the Greek 
 language, that the Greek noun, metatwia, and the verb metanoeo, which 
 are uniformly translated in our Bibles "repentance," and "to repent," are 
 used in the New Testament in at least three different senses; or rather, 
 that in some places they are used in a more extended sense than in others. 
 This is the case in all languages, on account of the poverty of words; and 
 it is from the drift and design of the writer or speaker, the character and 
 circumstances of the hearers, and other considerations, that we are to as- 
 certain in what sense the word is used. For instance, in Heb. 12: 17, the 
 Greek noun 7«e^a770w which is translated repentance, signifies simply "a 
 change of mind," and this is the first and primary meaning of the word. 
 "Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one mor- 
 sel of meat sold his birth-right. For ye know, that afterwards, when he 
 would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place of 
 rejientance^ though he sought it carefully with tears." I need scarcely 
 observe, that the repentance mentioned in this passage, is not predicated 
 of Esau, who is styled "a profane person;" but a change of mind in his fa- 
 ther Isaac, who, by a divine impulse, had given the blessing of the birth- 
 right to his brother Jacob, because Esau had sold it to him for a morsel of 
 meat. Again: it is used to signify a sorrow for sin, as exposing to punish- 
 ment. This, I presume, is its meaning in Mat. 12: 41, when it is said of 
 the men of Nineveh, "that they repented at the preaching of the prophet 
 Jonah." It is also used to signify a sorrow for sin, as not only exposing to 
 deserved punishment; but as offensive to God, and defiling in itself, and 
 which issues in a reformation of heart, and of life. In this sense it is 
 used, 2 Cor. 7: 10. "Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, not 
 to be repented of;" and when used in this extensive sense, there is often 
 some accompanying word, that fixes its meaning, as in this passage, and 
 in Acts 3: 19. "Repent and be converted^ that your sins may be blotted 
 out." 
 
 With these remarks in view, let us now inquire from the design of the 
 speaker, and the character and circumstances of the persons addressed, 
 in which of these senses, we are to understand the verb ?ne(anoeo, in the 
 passage now under consideration. The Jev/s, shortly before had crucifi- 
 ed Jesus as an impostor, because he affirmed that he was the Son of God, 
 and their promised Messiah. Pe^er, by comparing his character with 
 the character given of the Messiah by the prophets, succeeded in convinc- 
 ing them, that he was really the promised Messiah, whom they expected. 
 The guilt of crucifying as an impostor, their expected Messiah, "prick- 
 ed" tiiem to the heart; and they said to Peter and to the rest of the apos- 
 tles, "men and brethren, what shall we do:" Peter says, Metanoesatc;— 
 
46 
 
 " ch Ml ge yom- minds" witl\ respect to this Jesus of Xuzareth, whom you 
 have considerod as an impostor, and crucitiel as such: and, as an cvil-ncc 
 that your chanp^c of mind is real, "be baptized everyone of you in the 
 name of Jesus Christ," or submit to that oidinance which he hath ap- 
 pointed as tlie l)ad.q;e of discipk^sliip to himself. And to encoura^^e them 
 so to do, he adds, "this l)aptisni is lor the remission of sins," or a mean ap- 
 pointed by him, that you may receive the remission of your sins, and the 
 gift of the Holy (ihost in his sanctifyint^ iniluences; for, as I have already 
 observed, there is no i^round to conclude, fron\ what is said of those who 
 were baptized on this occasion, that they all leceivetl tlie c^ift of the !I.j|y 
 Ghost in his extraordinary influences in the gift of tongues. This, I 
 think, is the plain, obvious and unsophisticated meaning of the passage, 
 and of the words "for the remission of sins." And what now is the nean- 
 ing which those who contend that the repentance here mentioned means 
 an evangelical repentance, give to the words "for the remission of sinsr" 
 This: that baptism would l)e to them a seal or evidence that their sins 
 were remitted, and that they had received the gift of the Holy (ihost. I 
 would ask such to produce any similar phiaseology from the New Testa- 
 ment that conveys that idea; and further — do such think there is any per- 
 son whose mind has not been perverted Ijy a system, who would ever 
 dream that the phrase "for the remission of sins," means a seal or evidence 
 o( the "remission of sins." \Vhcn the apostle Paul wished to tell us that 
 ^'Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
 of faith which he had, l)eingyet uncircumcised," he uses the words "sign 
 and seal;" and if Peter, who was under the inlhtencc of the same S])irit of 
 truth, when he addressed the Jews, designed to cotivey that idea, lie could 
 not possibly use words more unsuitable than those he has used on that oc- 
 casion. 
 
 It may be objected, that the Jews are said to be pricked to the heart, 
 previous to their being baptized — but this surely is only an evidence of 
 their being deeply convinced of sin, but not a scriptural evidence of an 
 evangelical repentance; and the expressions arc no stronger than those of 
 Cain, when he said, "my punishment is greater than I can bear;" or than 
 those of J'ldas, when he said, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the 
 innocent blood." 
 
 It may be further oI)jected, that in verses 4 1, A2, it is said of those per- 
 sons "that they gladly received the word," and that after their baptism 
 "they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and 
 in breaking of bread, and in prayers." If from this it is argued, that they 
 were true Ixdievers, (and I will not contest the point,) it rather strengthens 
 than weakens my aigument, as this is said of them after they were baptiz- 
 ed; God, according to the words of Peter blessing his own ordinance for 
 this important purpose. And if it is replied, that it is said of them "that 
 they gladly received the word" previous to their being baptized; this is no 
 stronger an expression than what is said of the stony grouiul hearers, in 
 the parable of the sower; nor is it strange that those who had crucified the 
 Lord ot life and ol glory, as an Impostor, would gladly receive the news 
 of a mean for removing the guilt of such an atrocious act. 
 
 There is another circumstance attentling this remarkable event, which, 
 when duly considered may go far in fixing the meaning of the word "re- 
 pent." Peter, we are told, began his sermon at tiie sixth houi-, or at nine 
 o'clock of our reckoning. How long he preached we are not told, as wc 
 have only a skeleton of his sermon. Although there were pnc hundred 
 
44 
 
 and twenty disciples present, we are not told that any of them were clothed 
 with the ministerial character, or had a right to baptize except the twelve 
 apostles. Now, as an evidence of an evangelical repentance could be on- 
 ly obtained by conversing with those persons, I would ask, had the apos- 
 tles time to converse with three thousand, so as to obtain a ground of hope 
 that they were true penitents, and baptize them the same day in any mode; 
 for let it be recollected, that the Jewish day began and ended at the setting 
 of the sun. But as their saying to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, 
 "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" and their readiness to submit to 
 an ordinance appointed by the despised Nazarene, was an evidence of their 
 change of mind respecting .Tesus of Nazareth, and that they were con- 
 vinced sinners; the way was clear for baptizing them immediately, accord- 
 ing to my view of the subject; and there was time enough for the twelve 
 to do so by affusion, but surely not by immersion. 
 
 If to this it is objected, that a proft-ssion of the religion of Jesus, was, 
 in those troublous days, a strong evidence of an evangelical repentance; 
 and that the apostles were more competent to decide on the character of 
 men than their successors; I reply — that there was no persecution of the 
 Christians at that time, nor until after tlie martyrdom of Stephen; and 
 the apostles in such cases were not discerners of the spirits of others. Pe- 
 ter himself had it not in the case of Simon Magus; and only came to the 
 knowledge, that he was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniqui- 
 ty, by his ofi'ering the apostles money for the purchase of the Spirit's ex- 
 traoidinary influences. 
 
 Although it belongs not immediately to the subject in hand, nor affects 
 my present argument; I would observe, before I dismiss the point, that the 
 observations I have made on the foregoing passage may help to fix the 
 meaning of the repentance connected with the baptism of John. It was 
 a baptism "unto repentance," or designed to produce a change of mind in 
 the Jews respecting the Messiah who was shortly to appear. They expect- 
 ed him as a magnificent conqueror who was to deliver them from the Ro- 
 mon yoke; and were accordingly scandalized at his poor and mean appear- 
 ance. Besides; they supposed that their relation to Abraham was all that 
 was necessary for salvation. Hence said John to the Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees who came to his baptism, "O! generation of vipers, who hath warn- 
 ed you to flee from the wrath to come? bring forth therefore fruits meet for ?t- 
 Jientance"(ov evidential of a change of mind in the important point that con- 
 cerns your salvation) "and think not to say within yoursehes,we have .Abra- 
 ham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to 
 raise up children to Abraham." But should it be contended, that the re- 
 pentance preached by John, as connected with his baptism was an evan- 
 gelical repentance: this, however, must be granted, that it was a baptism 
 "unto repentance," or designed to produce that grace in the heart — under- 
 stand the word as you may, it affects not my argument. 
 
 Having thus ascertained the nature of the repentance required in order 
 to baptism, I shall now inquiie into the nature of that faith, that is requir- 
 ed for the same purpose. The first place we r'^ad of faith as a prerequisite 
 for baptism is in the 8th chapter. We are told in verses 12 and 13, that 
 when the Samaritans believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
 kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, they were baptized both men 
 and women. "Then Simon himself believed also, and was baptized." 
 
 It may be sufficient for my purpose, here just to observe, that there is 
 nothing said of the faith on account of which these persons were baptiz- 
 
45 
 
 ed that fixes it down to a living fuiih. The reverse is strongly implied; 
 for the exjiression is, that ''when tliey Iielieved Philip prearliintr the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," or when 
 they proiVssed an assent to the general doctrine, tiiai Jesus of Nazareth 
 was the only Saviour of sinners, 'Hhey were liaptized hoth men and wo- 
 men " Aiid indeed the character and conduct of Simon aHbrds a strong 
 presumption, that Philip had not required of him an evidence of a living 
 faith; for can it l)e supposed, that a person possessed of this faith could 
 suppose that the Spirit's extraordinary influence could be purchased by 
 money? 
 
 But those who difler from me on this subject, no doubt, are now ready 
 to say, there is a baptism recorded in this very chapter — that of the eu- 
 nuch of the queen of Ethiojjia, wherein the faith recpiired is fixed in its 
 meaning to a living failh, for Philip's words are — "If thou believest with 
 all thine heart, thou mayest." 
 
 Before I would make any remarks on this memorable transaction, it ia 
 necessary to observe, that the question is not, have true believers a right 
 to baptism? for they have a right to all the ordinances of the dispensation 
 ol grace under which they live; and the ordinances which were apj)ointed 
 and designed for the conviction and conversion of sinners, were designed 
 for building them up in holiness. I have assigned my reasons why I consi- 
 der the Jews who were baptized on the day of Pentecost, were sinners 
 jirevious to their baptism. It is certain this was the character of Simon 
 Magus; and more than prol)a!)le, the character of the Samaritans; for it is 
 said of them, "that they all gave heed to his sorceries, and said — this man 
 is the great power of God." But what now is the character which is gi- 
 ven in this chapter to the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia? If not a Jew, 
 he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, and he had travelled from Ethio- 
 pia to Jerusalem, for the purpose of worshipping the true God according 
 to his own appointments. How was he employeu in his chariot on his re- 
 turn? — Reading the prophecy of Isaiah, one of the greatest of the Jewish 
 prophets. What was his conduct, when Philip, a poor man, and proba- 
 bly in mean apparel, joined the chariot, and said, one would think rather 
 abruptly "understandest thou what thou readestr" Did he frown upon, and 
 repulse him as an impertinent iiupiisitor? No: he candidly acknowledged 
 his ignorance, and manifested the tcachal)le disposition of a child of (iod, 
 by desiring Philip to come up, and sit witii him in the chariot, for the pur- 
 pose of instructing him in the meaning of what he read. I have indeed 
 frequently heard IVom the pulpit, of the "rowvrr.9/o«" of this eunuch; but 
 for my own part, I can see the features of an hunil)le and zealous worship- 
 per of the true ( Jod, in the short history given of him. And if we must 
 have the word; his "covvkrsion" was of the secondary kind, from the 
 Je^Msh to the Christian dispensations of the grace of (iod. Whilst at Jeru- 
 salem, he had heard, no doubt, from the chief priest, that Jesus was a vile 
 impostor, and was returning to his own country with that peniicious im- 
 pression. God, in his good providence, sent Philip his way in a miracu- 
 lous manner, to undeceive him, and preach Jesus to him as the Messiah 
 that was now come. It is implied in what follows, that Philip unfolded 
 to him the nature and design of the ordinance of baptism, and the obliga- 
 tions on all who acknowledge Christ as Lord and Master,to be baptized into 
 his name. "And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water, 
 and the eunuch said, sec here is water — what doth hinder me to be baptiz- 
 
46 
 
 ed? And Philip said, if thou believesl with all thine heart, thou raayest 
 And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 
 
 And now, what is there in this interesting historical fact, that militates 
 against the doctrine I am defending? Was there any thing more in his 
 profession than a sincere persuasion, that Jesus, whom he had, no doubt, 
 been led to consider as an impostor, was the Son of God? which I need 
 not tell you, a man may believe, and thousands do sincerely believe, and 
 yet are destitute of the faith of God's elect. The argument of those who 
 contend, from this passage, that a profession of living faith is required in 
 order to baptism, is founded on the assumption, that this man was a sin- 
 ner, and that "to believe with all the heart" means a justifying faith; 
 as it is elsewhere said, "that with the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
 ness." But admitting that he had been a sinner, I must contend, that to 
 believe with all the heart, imports nothing more than sincerity; and I need 
 not say, that we sincerely believe, on competent evidence, a hundred his- 
 toi'ical facts, as well as that Jesus is the Son of God: and it is not so much 
 believing "with the heart," as believing unto righteousness, that defines 
 the character of faith in that passage. Thus a minute consideration of 
 that interesting baptism, instead of militating against, supports the posi- 
 tion I am defending. 
 
 The observations made on the baptism of the eunuch, are equally ap- 
 plicable to the baptism of Lydia, recorded in the 16th chapter. Her con- 
 version as an unregenerated person, is also often spoken of, as implied in 
 these words, "the Lord opened her heart, that she attended to the things 
 spoken by Paul." Although there is not perhaps as full evidence of her 
 saintship as that of the eunuch; yet there is that said of her that affords 
 strong presumptive evidence that she was a saint previous to her being 
 baptized. It is said of her that she "worshipped God," and was one of 
 those women who resorted to the river side for prayer, which was usual 
 "with the pious Jews when in heathen lands. "By the rivers of Babylon 
 there we sat down, yea, we wept when we remembered Zion." Psalm 139. 
 From these considerations, then it appears, that if not a Jewess, she was 
 a proselyte to the Jewish religion, and the expression, "that the Lord open- 
 ed her heart, that she attended to the things spoken by Paul," can mean 
 nothing more, than that, like the eunuch, she was convinced by the preach- 
 ing of Paul, of the change of the dispensation of grace from Judaism to 
 Christianity, inconsequence of which "she was baptized and her house." 
 I shall now return to an examination of the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, 
 recorded in the 9th, and of Cornelius and his friends, mentioned in the 
 following chapter. With respect to Saul, there is nothing said of his 
 faith and repentance previous to his being baptized. But from what he 
 tells us in the 22d chapter, Ananias said to him on that occasion, the in- 
 ference I think is just, that in that oi;dinance he received the remission of 
 his sins. "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and ije hajitized, and wash 
 AWAY THY SINS," — au expressiou similar to that of Peter on the day of 
 Pentecost, "Be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye 
 shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." It appears that Saul, from the 
 time he was struckdown on his journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, was 
 in the spirit of bondage,until after his baptism. Such was the agony of his 
 soul, that he neither eat nor drank, for three days; and it would seem that, 
 according to the words of Ananias, that in that ordinance he received the 
 internal evidence of the Spirit, of the washing of regeneration, and of 
 
47 
 
 Ms interest in Christ; for avc are told, that imniediately after his baptism, 
 "he received itieat and v us stir ngthened." 
 
 What 1 have said respecting the baptism of Saul of Tarsus, is the case 
 with the baptism of Cornelius and his fiiends. There is nolhinjj^ said 
 abotit their faith and repentance previous to their bein^ baptized. 1 ru(^ 
 indeed, it is said that while Fett r was preaching to them, and previous to 
 their iiajnism, "the Holy Cihost fell on them that heard the word;" but we 
 are expressly told that it was in his miraculous p;ift of toni^ues. "And they 
 of the circumcision which believed were astonished; as many as came with 
 Peter; because that on the (ientiles also, was poured out the pfil't of the 
 Holy (ihost. For they heard them speak with tonj^ues, and mat;;nify (Jod." 
 And I need scarcely observe, that this p;ift was conferred on some who 
 were destitute of saving grace, and remained so. But admitting that his 
 saving influences were given at the same time with his extraordinary gifts, 
 what is the conseciuence? This only — that true believers have a right to 
 the ordinance of baptism, wherever found, as Abraham had to the ordi- 
 nance of circumcision. 
 
 'I'he baptism of the jailer, recorded in the 16th chapter, now remains 
 only for examination. We are told, that alarmed by the earthtjuake that 
 shook the foundations of the prison, "he called for a light, sprang in, and 
 came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out 
 and said. Sirs, what must I do to be saved:* And they said, believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they 
 spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 
 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, 
 and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." 
 
 Let it now be observed, that there is nothing said of this man previous 
 to his baptism, "his trembling, and falling down before Paul and Silas," 
 that is indicative of any thing more than a deep sense of guilt; and not 
 stronger than that of Cain and Judas. And although Paul and Silas exhort 
 him to Ijclieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, that he might be saved, they do 
 not say that this faith was a prerequisite (lualificatiou for baptism.* When 
 "they spake the word of the Lord to him, and to all that were in his house," 
 
 *Thatthe word "saveiV in lliifs passage must be understood in the limited sense I have 
 mentioned in the second letter will I think be admitted for the reasons there assigned. IL 
 may be worth while to in([uire whetlier the word "believe,'" should not be understood in a 
 restricted sense also; and if any unanswerable reason can be assigned; why we must un- 
 derstand by it a justifying faith, and not as importing only an assent to the scriptural 
 proposition that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and the only Saviour of sinners, which a per- 
 son may do, and yet be destitute of the faith of God's elect. In this inquiry the 
 character of the jailer as a very ignorant heathen should be kept in view, and tnc inquir- 
 er will ask if the jailer's mind was furnished at that instant with such previous know- 
 ledge as is necessary in the nature of thuigs for imderstanding such a complex idea as 
 justifying faitli; and if Paul and Silas would not deem it necessary to inculcate first, an 
 assent to the elementary proposition that .Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of sinners, be- 
 fore they proceeded to inform him of the necessity of receiving him as a prophtt pricn 
 and kin;,', in order to salvation. In this manner, I presume. Missionaries to the heathen 
 proceed. !• this manner Paul himself proceeded with the peojijc of Athens; and if he 
 and his colleague proceeded in this way on that occasion; then it follows that by the 
 faith recommended, they did not mean a justifying faith, but an as<ent to the elementary 
 principle tlial .Josus is the only Saviour of sinners^ and as what would entitle himself and 
 family to be brou;;ht under the means of salvation by baptism. That thcv did afterwards 
 unfold the naiiire. and inculcate the necessity of a justifying faith is implied in what wc 
 are told in the following verse, '-.And they sp"ake unto him the word of the Lord, and to 
 all that were in his house." The intelligent reader will however see. thai supposing thc\ 
 nieant a justifying faith, that circumstance docs not aflcct my pre=enl argument, nor mV 
 views of the caturo and design of the ordinance of baptism, a's cxhiliilcd in tlnsi- I« '■ 
 
48 
 
 they, no doubt, explained the nature and obligations of baptism; and that 
 he received through that ordinance, as the appointed medium, "peace in 
 believing," and "joy in the Holy Ghost," is apparent from what is said 
 of him after being baptized. "And v\^hen he had brought them into his 
 house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, he]ie\ing in God with all his 
 house." It may perhaps not be unnecessary, to observe in this place,that 
 although the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, Saul of Tarsus, and thisman, 
 received the remission of sins, and peace in believing, through the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, yet itwas not the case with Simon Magus. The duty 
 is ours, and we must leave it to a sovereign God, when, and to whom, he 
 will bless his own ordinance. 
 
 Having thus examined all the baptisms recorded in the New Testament, 
 it does not appear that there is one of them wherein the profession of a 
 living faith, and of an evangelical repentance, was required of the person 
 baptized. And not only is this the case; but 1 have showed that there is 
 clear intrinsic evidence in these places, that baptism is spoken of as a 
 mean of grace for convinced adults. And to this I would add, that the 
 element of water to be used in this ordinance, is a strong presumptive evi- 
 dence that it was designed for that purpose. In the ordinance of the sup- 
 per, bread and wine, that strengthen and refresh the wearied body, are the 
 appointed symbols; an evidence that it was designed for strengthening 
 and refreshing the true believer in his journey to Immanuel's land: 
 but in baptism, the symbol is water, which was designed, and is us- 
 ed, for washing away the filth of the body, an evidence that it was design- 
 ed, through the influences of the Spirit, to wush away the filth of the soul: 
 and I know not what else Christ could mean when he says, "Except a man 
 be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God."" John 3: 5. 
 
 From the whole it appears, that circumcision and baptism was designed 
 for the same purposes — that the latter has taken the place of the former; 
 and that the ordinance of the supper has taken the place of the Jewish 
 passover. That baptism has taken the place of circumcision, is evident 
 from the epistle to the Colossians 2: 10, 1 1. "Ye are complete in him who 
 is the head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised 
 with the circumcision made without hands, bij the circumcison of Christ." 
 That the circumcision made Avithout hands, means renovation of heart, 
 will not be disputed; l)ut this, the apostle says, was effected by the circum- 
 cision of Christ, as the mean; and what he meant by the circumcision of 
 Christ, he tells us in the next words — "buried with him in baptism;'" 
 another proof, you will perceive, that baptism, besides being the appoint- 
 ed mean of initiation into the church at present, was designed for pro- 
 ducing renovation ol heart. That the Lord's supper has taken the place 
 of the passover, is also evident, from 1 Cor. 5: 7, 8, already adduced. "For 
 even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us kce/i (he 
 feaat; not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wicked- 
 ness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." From this 
 passage it appears, that the paschal lamb, in the manner of his death, uot 
 only typified Christ, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, for 
 the sins of manv, but the manner prescribed for eating it, with unleavened 
 bread, sii^nified the necessity of "sincerity aid truth;" with the absence of 
 "malice and wickedness," in eating the Lord's supper, to which the apos- 
 tle evidently alludes in this chapter. 
 
49 
 
 Mr. C however, and otlior Baptist writers object, by sayinp there are 
 some circiinistaTices in which (irtiiinc\>ion and baptism, and the passo- 
 veraiid the Lord's supper, do not resem!)le <'a( h otlu-r; and that the pass- 
 over was eaten by little children as well as by adults. That tb<'re would 
 not be a perfect reseml)lance betwixt the type and the thinq; tyijified, is im- 
 plied in the veiy nature of the thinj>:. If there was, then a type wr>'ild 
 cease to l)e a type, and all would be "substance," and there could not be 
 any "shadow of t^ood thintjs to come." And that little cliildren eat ot" 
 the passover, is, perhai)s, rather an assumption than a fact. The directions 
 of Jehovah respectint^ this circumstance are these — "And it shall come to 
 pass when your children shall say unto you, what mean you by this ser- 
 vice? that ye shall say, it is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who pass- 
 ed over the houses of the children of Israel, in K.t'ypt, whi-n he smote the 
 Ki>;yptians and delivered our houses." Exodus 12: 26, 27. Here, then, 
 these children were such as were capable of askin(> a pertinent ^piesLion, 
 and of receiving and understanding a suital)lc answer, fiut admitting 
 that they did — what then? The passover was not only typical of Christ, 
 our passover, or of the Christian passover, but was also commemorative 
 of the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage; little 
 children therefore might with propriety eat o^ it, as it ha 1 respect to that 
 event, while the intelligent adult saw in it a more interesting ddiverauce- 
 the redemption of guilty men by the sacrifice of the Son of God. 
 
 But to all this it is ol)jected, that Christ himself has said, "that he that 
 believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." And what is tl.e argument de- 
 duced from these words that a living faith is indispensubly necessary in 
 adults to entitle them to baptism? This — the faith here mentioned is of 
 the saving kind, because salvation is promised to it; but it is prefixed to 
 baptism; therefore a saving faith is necessary for baptism. Wei!, accord- 
 ing to this manner of reasoning, baptism is necessary for salvation, fui- it 
 is also prefixed to salvation. This will prove too much, not only fo\ I) i j- 
 tists, but for Pedobaptists, who difier with me on this point. But tltese 
 important words have a meaning; and what is it? This simply — that true 
 believers have a right to baptism, if not baptized, and shall be saved; not 
 because they have been baptized, but l)ecuiise tiiey have believed. 
 
 It may be also objected, that my view of the subject opens the door of 
 the church to all indiscriminately. The reverse is the case. It excludes 
 the grossly ignorant, and immoral, and admits oidy the inquiring and 
 praying sinner: for to say that a person who has seen his lost and perish- 
 ing state as a sinner, and his need of an interest in the atoning blood of 
 Christ, and of the renewing inlluences of his Spirit, will not pray for lliesc 
 all-important I)Iessings, is a contradiction in terms. It is said of Saul of 
 Tarsus, while in the spirit of l)ondage, "Behold he prayethl" 
 
 It may be farther objected, that at best, il is calculated to fill the church 
 with unrcgenerate persons. Those who make the objection, in makitjg it 
 siill keep in their eye their own views of the church, as designed for the 
 admittance of regenerated persons only, or persons professing that they 
 have "])assed from death unto life;" and Mr. C. tells us that in the debate 
 with Air. W. he read, in support of this position, the addresses of the 
 apostles in their epistles to the different churches, wherein they uniformly 
 address them as saints oi- regenerated jjersons. He also tells us, that he 
 highly esteems the writings of the late Dr. Campl)ell of Aberdeen — that 
 lie considers him as one of the greatest critics of modern times — and that 
 ill the debate with Mr. W. he read extracts from his preliminary disserta- 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 tions, and critical notes in support of part of his system. Now if he will 
 turn to that part of Dr. Cannpbell's dissertations already referred to, Dr. 
 Campbell will tell him what every good linguist also knows to be the fact; 
 that there are two words, kadosh^ and c/iasid, in Hebrew, and /lagios, and 
 hosiosy in Greek, which, although they are uniformly translated holy^ are 
 very different in their real meaning — that kadosk in Hebrew, and its cor- 
 responding word hagios in Greek, when applied to persons, means only 
 persons "devoted to, or destined" for a sacred purpose; and that chasid in 
 Hebrew, and its corresponding word, /losios in Greek, has reference to 
 character, and means "pious, or devout." And if he will turn to his Greek 
 Testament, he will find, that the apostles never address the members of 
 the churches to which they wrote, as Aosiois, or pious, but as hagiois en 
 Christo, or persons, who, by being baptized, were devoted to a sacred use, 
 or under obligations to become pio'is, or pure in heart. This judicious 
 criticism, which will not be disputed, dissipates the oljjection, overturns 
 Mr. C.'s view of the structure of the church of God, and all the argu- 
 ments he has used to support that view, and you will perceive, exactly ac- 
 cords with that view of it, I have attempted to exhibit and defend. 
 
 As for that portion of the church which consists of communicants or 
 those who profess godliness, the view I have given is, in my opinion, best 
 calculated to preserve its honour and purity. As it is expected, and in 
 some churches required, of those who are baptized on the contrary system, 
 that they come to the ordinance of the supper; and from the strong desire 
 that some unbaptized persons have to be accounted church members, and 
 of some parents to have their children baptized, a snare is laid in their 
 way, to profess having experienced what they never felt, and thus impro- 
 per persons are introduced amongst communicants, and the ensnared per- 
 son eats and drinks judgment to himself, at the table of the Lord. Let this 
 important subject be strictly examined, and let the ministers of the Gos- 
 pel candidly and carefully tell those whom they baptize, or parents who 
 have their children baptized, thiit they are thereby brought under the 
 strongest obligations to avoid the pollutions of the world, "and to seek the 
 Lord until they find him;" — that although by baptism they and their chil- 
 dren are planted in the vineyard of the Lord, and what is styled by Christ, 
 "digging about and dunging" is secured to them by the seal of God him- 
 self; yet they are not to rest contented until they experimentally find the 
 thing signified by baptism, the washing of regeneration by the Spirit of the. 
 Most High. And if they or their children when they grow up, fall into 
 the pollutions of the world, or become careless in their attendance on the 
 means ot grace, then let the discipline of the church, in admonition or re- 
 buke, be exercised upon them; and if they refuse to be reclaimed, let them 
 be finally cast out of the church. I know, and regret that this is not usu- 
 ally the case; henee then a mistaken view of the design of the church, to- 
 gether with the negligence of her officers, has led Mr. C. and others to 
 represent infant baptism as a useless and inefficient ordinance, and his 
 own distorted views of the subject, has also led him to pour unsparing 
 contempt on that "church oi God which he purchased with his own 
 l)lood " 
 
 And now, if that view of the church in her commencement, structure, 
 design and ordinances, which I have endeavoured to give is scriptural, as 
 I think it is; then you will have perceived, that the right of those infants, 
 whose parents are members of the church, to l)e introduced therein by 
 baptism, follows by irresistible consequence; and that all Mr. C.'s arg\»- 
 
merits against their ris^^ht, from liis uiiscripuiral views of the church, to- 
 q;ether willi Wis New liapti.sl Catechism, to use one of his borrowed poeti- 
 cal exi)ressiotis,"vanisli like tlie Iniscless faljiic of a vision, and leave not 
 u wreck beliind." In my next 1 will consider "the mode," or as Mr. C 
 expresses ii, "ihc action of baptism." 
 
 PosTsctniT. That some of my Ijrethren have difl'erenl views of this 
 subject I know, and I also know, that I have been condemned by some of 
 them for advancin;^' and piil)lisliint^ a new and sinj<ular system of church 
 discipline. The tjuestion s'loiild not have I)een, and should not be. Is it 
 newr but is it scriptural!' That it is not new to myself, my intimate friends 
 with whom I have been in the haliit of conversini^- fieely for near twi-nly 
 years do know, and that I am not singular in the opinion I now holi, is 
 apparent from the followint!^ extract from a sermon by Ur. ALKXAxriKu of 
 Princeton, preached at the openinrj of the, (ieneral Assembly of the I'res- 
 Ijyterian Church in 1808, and which has fjllen into my hands, since tlii.s 
 letter was pui)lislied in the Presbyteriun Mag-uzine. As it is a i>;enerai, 
 and I believe a correct piinciple, that whatever a man publishes to the 
 world, becomes thereby public property, I trust therefore that there is no 
 impropriety in my publishing the follow in;^ extract. I am not however 
 to be undeistood an iiisinualinj^ that Dr. Alexander holds and advocates 
 all the opinions and views which I have advanced in this letter: I mean on- 
 ly to say, that 1 think he has advocated the niuin principle 1 have juid 
 down, and attempted to defend. Si)eakinj^ in his sermon of the ''plan of 
 discipline," of those who arc lor admitting into the church those only who 
 exhibit evidences of vital piety," he observes in a Note — 
 
 "In reality, this plan of discipline, if it could be carried into comj)letc 
 effect, would contravene one principal end for which the visible church 
 was estal)lished, that is, to serve as a school in which disciples might be 
 instructed in the Christian religion from the veiy rudiment-.; or as a nur- 
 sery in which the seeds of genuine piety might be implanted. Can we ad- 
 mit the idea that after the church is established, the most important in- 
 structions and the greatest blessings ot the gospel covenant must be re- 
 ceived without her pale? And I ask where received? In the world, in 
 the kingdom of darknessl Surely the ordinary birth place of (Jod's chil- 
 dren is his own house, which is the church. It is Zion which brings forth 
 children when she travails. To her appertain the promises, the ordinances 
 of the Gospel, the ministers of the word and all the usual and stated means 
 of grace. But it may be asked what advantage is there in leceiving or 
 retaining those in the church who are not regenerate. I answer, w/mcA 
 every r.'ciy, chiolly because they are hereby placed in the situation most fa- 
 vourable to their salvation. But ought nol all members of the church to 
 be truly pious? They ought; and liuU they may become so, they sliMiild !)o 
 continued in her connexion If casting them out would hasten their con- 
 version, then it ought to be done; but how can this be supposed." 
 
 "The question :uay Ri-ise, who are then to be admitted into the visible 
 church? and when is it pi-oper to exclude any from this society? 1 answer 
 all those who acknowledge Christ to be the anointed prophet of (Jod and 
 Saviour of the world, and who profess a desire to be instructed in his re- 
 ligion, may and ought to be received into the visible church; and as we 
 are capable of receiving instructions and deriving benefit from Christ 
 as a teacher and Saviour, before wc are competent to judge and act for 
 ourselves, all infants or minors under the cai** and tuition of members of 
 
52 
 
 the church Vvho are \villiii,e;to undertake to give them a Christian education, 
 oisght to be received as disciples into the school of Christ, that from their 
 infancy they may grow vp in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And 
 as to exclusion from the church, it should be regulated by the same prin- 
 ciple. When the authority of the head of the church is denied, or his 
 word and ordinances openly contemned, or when such a course of conduct 
 is pursued as tends to the dissolution and destruction of the socitty, then, 
 and not till then, is it proper to excommunicate a member from the visible 
 church of Christ. 
 
 "Some may perhaps infer from wliat has been said on this subject, that 
 a foundation is laid for the indiscriminate admission of all baptized per- 
 sons to the table of the Lord; but this consequence does by no means fo!- 
 'low. The admission of a person into a society does not entitle him at. 
 once to attend on all the mysteries of that society. Many things may be 
 necessary to be first learned, and many steps to be taken, before the novice 
 is prepared for the higher privileges of the society. In the Christian' 
 church, there is no ordinance or duty concerning which there are such so- 
 lemn cautions left on record as that of the Lord's supper. An unworthy 
 attendance contracts the guilt of "crucifying the Lord afresh," and every 
 man is required "to examine hlmseU" before he approaches the sacred ta- 
 ble. This subject it is probable has been much misunderstood by many 
 serious people, who have been kept back from this important duty rathei* 
 by a superstitious dread than godly fear; but still there is great necessity 
 to warn the members of the church not to approach rashly, nor without 
 due preparation. All who are in the church arc no doubt under solemn 
 obligations to obey this dying command of their Saviour; but there is an 
 order to be observed in the performance of duties, and according to this 
 order preparation precedes attendance. As in the case of the passover, 
 the outy was obligatory on all the people of Israel, but if by any means 
 the pieparation of the sanctuary were wanting, it was judged expedient to 
 defer the performance of the duty until it could be obtained; so with re- 
 spect to the Lord's supper, it is a duty incumbent on all, but not al\\ ays as 
 soon as they becotrie members of the church, but when they aie suffi- 
 ciently instructed and duly prepared to discern the Lord's body.'' 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Having in my last letters briefly reviewed Mr. C.'s book so far as re- 
 spects the church of God, and the right of infants to baptism, before I en- 
 ter upon a review of the mode., or action of baptism, it may not be amiss 
 to present you aigainwith some of his ?'z//(°s respecting positive institutes, 
 that you may see how far he is himself governed by them on this part of 
 the subject. "In positive institutes wt are not authorized to reason what 
 we should do, but implicitly to obey — and can there be a positive institu- 
 tion without a positive precept or precedent authorizing it?" It may also 
 not be amiss to set before you the 99th cpiestion of his new catechism,with 
 its answer. " Q. How do you view all Pedol)aptists with regard to this 
 ordinance of baptism? Can you, according to the Scriptures, consider 
 them baptized persons, or do you consider them as unbaptized? J. There 
 is only one baptism, and all who have not been immersed in the name of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, after professing the faith of the Gospel, 
 have never been baptized, and are now in an unbafitized state." 
 
08 
 
 You will have perceived, that arcordinf*' to this answer, not only infant 
 baptism, but tlie baptism of adults, if not by immersion, is u nullity; and 
 consequently, that there is no church of (iud — no lawful ministry, amon};;8t 
 Pedobaptisls; and you will reasonably expect, that for the purjxjse of show- 
 ing us our exceedini^ j^reat error, accordiniij to his own rule made and pro- 
 vided for this case, he will tell us the chapter and verse in which it is said, 
 that baptism is to be administered by immersion only; and that baptism 
 administered in any other mode is null and void: and further, you will al- 
 so exp«ct, the words of this chapter and verse to be so clear, and distinct- 
 ly deHned, as to admit of no other meaning, and I'ke axioms to involve 
 their own evidence. And is not this the case? Not at all; bis rule of ''po- 
 sitive precept and precedent," is only to be urt^ed when little children are 
 to be driven out of the church, where they had been planted by Jehovah 
 himself; but abandoned, as of no manner of use, when the right of women 
 to the Lord's supper, or immersion, is the question. He reasons too, and 
 infers, like any Pedobaptist; and instead of telling us where the ''posi- 
 tive precept or precedent" for immersion is, he appeals to lexicographers 
 and biblical critics, in support of his opinion. You Avill not understand 
 me as condemning a recourse to tlie foi-cgoing authorities, when under the 
 direction of a sound knowledge; but you cannot but see how inconsistent, 
 if not ridiculous, it is in Mr. C. who tells us, that "in positive institutions 
 we are not authorized to reason what we should do, but implicitly to 
 obey;" and more especially when he tells us, that the very existence of the 
 church depends upon baptism being administered by immersion, as it is 
 admitted on both sides that baptism is the mode of initiation. But let 
 us hear him and Mr. W. on the jjoinl. 
 
 Mr. C. tells us that Mr. W. alleged in favour of administering baptism 
 by pouring the water on the subject, that the Greek verb ba/itizo, which 
 is translated in our Bil)lfs da/iiize^ does not necessarily signify to di/i^ but 
 to s/irinklc or Jiour — that the word is used in this sense in Luke 11:39. 
 "A certain Pharisee asked Jt'siis to dine with him, and he went and sat 
 down to meat; and when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that he had not 
 first washed (ebafiisthe) before dinner:" — that it was not his whole body, 
 but his hands, that were alluded to in this passage: — that this was done 
 by pourin^ water on the hands; aiul as a ])roof, he mentioned what is said 
 of Elisha, that he poured water on the hands of Elijah. Mr. W. also al- 
 leged, that "u.viTo," the root of "baitizo," is sometimes used in this 
 sense, and as a proof of this, mcmtioned the case of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 whose body is said, Dan. 4: 33, (eha/thr) to be wet with the dew of hea- 
 ven; but this could not be by immersion, but by the dew being sprinkled 
 uj)(»n him. 
 
 To this Mr. C. replied by producing, 1. The opinion of Dr. C.vMpnF.i.i. 
 of Aberdeen, who, in his notes critical and explanatory to his translation 
 of the four evangelists, translates the verb bajtizo "to dip, to plunge, to 
 immerse." 2. The authority of Scapula, who also rendeis the word "tr» 
 plunge, to immerse, to dye, because colouring is done l)y immersion." J. 
 The authority of Stockius, who says, that "generally it obtains by the na- 
 tural import of the word, the idea of dipping in, or immersing. Specially 
 and properly, it signifies to immerse, or to dip — figuratively it signifies to 
 wash, because any thing that is washed is usually dipped or immersed in 
 water." And to these he adds the authority of Parkhurst, who renders it, 
 1. "To dip, immerse, or plungr in water. 2. To wash one's self, to *r 
 washed, liush^ i.e.xXxc hands by immersion or plunging in water. 3. To 
 
64 
 
 baptize, to immerse, or to wach with water in token of purification.** 
 Whence Mr. C. infers that immersio7\ is the uniform meaning of the term, 
 and "that there cannot be found one solitary instance in all the dictionaries 
 of the Greek language, nor in classical use, iha.t baji to or Oajitizo signifies 
 to sprinkle or to pour." let this be remembered. 
 
 With respect to his first authority, Dr. Campbell, who says, "that al- 
 though the words baptein, and baptizein often occur in the SepUiagint and 
 Apocryphal writings, and are always rendered to dip, to vv^ash, and to 
 plunge, the instance adduced by Mr. W. of Nebuchadnezzar's body being 
 lovt with the dew of heaven, is a proof that he was mistaken. But this is 
 not all. The late Rev. John P. Campbell, of Kentucky, in his book, in an- 
 swer to Mr. Jones p. 29, 36, by a minute examination, and detailed view 
 of all the places where the words are used in the Septuagint, has proved 
 inconlrovertibly that their primary meaning in that translation of the 
 Old Testament, is, "to smear, to tinge, to wet with some liquid;" and that 
 to immerse is only a secondary meaning; and that the vulgate translation 
 ot the Scriptures, with Pagninus, Buxtorf, and Tromius, critics of high 
 reputation, render the words in the foregoing primary meaning. Mr. C. 
 has animadverted on some places in this book; but for very prudential rea- 
 sons has overlooked that part of it I have alluded to. 
 
 As to his second authorities, Scapula and Stockius, as I have not access 
 to them at present, I must allow Mr. C. all the force he can derive from 
 their opinion. With respect to Parkhurst, his last authority, he ai first 
 garbles his definition of the word bajitizo; though for what reason, 1 will 
 not positively say, he afterwards acknowledges it. Mr. C.'s quotation from 
 Parkhurst's Lexicon, is, "to dip, to immerse, to plunge in water:" but 
 Parkhurst's words are, 1. To dip, immerse, or plunge in water: but in the 
 Aew Testament it occurs not strictly in this sense, unless so fur as this is in* 
 eluded in se?isc 1 and 3, below; and this is in perfect accordance with the 
 definition of Schleusner, one of the best and most esteemed lexicogra- 
 phers of modern times. His definition is this. Bafitizo — 1, Properly to 
 immerse and dye, to dip into water, "/« this sense, indeed, it is never used 
 in the Aew Testament, but it is so used with some frequency in Greek au- 
 thors," "as it is not unfreqiient to dip or immerse something in water in 
 order to wash it." As the limits assigned to this letter will not permit me 
 to enter into a fuller investigation of the word BAPTizo,in the New Testa- 
 ment,! would only further observe, that from the definitions of it given by 
 Parkhurst and Schleusner, confessedly the ablest lexicographers of mo- 
 dern times, it fully appears, that although it was used frequently by Greek 
 writers to denote immersion, yet it is never used in this sense in the New 
 Testament: and I boldly afiirm that there is not a good Greek linguist who 
 has read, or will read, Mr. J. P. Campbell's book but will be fully convinc- 
 ed that this is the case. Nor is it strange that the writers of the New 
 Testament should affix a meaning to it different from the Greek writers 
 of the day. The Greek writers, says Schleusner, used it not unfrequent- 
 iy, though not always, to devote washing by immersion; but the writers 
 of the New Testament use it in a figurative sense, denoting the applica- 
 tion of water to the body as a religious rite, and a divine ordinance ap- 
 pointed for the purpose of initiating into the church, and for obtaining the 
 remission of sins, and the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. Hence 
 said Peter on the day of Pentecost, "Be baptized every one of you for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." It fol- 
 lows then, that unless other words and circumstances connected with bap- 
 
65 
 
 lism dnteniiinc the mode of applying water to the subject, the word fiafttl- 
 xo cannot. 
 
 But in addition to the foree-oinplexicograhers and critics respecting the 
 mc'-ning of the verb ba/uizo, Nr. C. tells us that the Cireck prepositions 
 rn, r;V,', cJc, and 0//0, which arc connected v ith it, show that its nu\ining is 
 "to immerse;" as en and (is, he says, signify in and iri/o; and < f: and a/wy 
 '<out of." In Matthew 3: 6, r w is, indeed, translated in; "and were bap- 
 tized of him in Jordan, conlessing their sins." But in the 11th verse, and 
 in Mark 1: 8, and in John 1: 26,' it is translated "tc/V/;." "1 indeed baptize 
 you '•u'if/i (en) water." But why might not f ;/ be translated in, in the 1 Ith 
 as well in the 6th verse. To have done so, would have made the passage 
 say some thing worse than nonsense. The whole verse reads thus: "I in- 
 deed baptize you with (en) water unto repentance: but he that cometh af- 
 ter me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall 
 baptize you ivi/'/i (<■;/) the Holy Ghost, and ifiJi fire." I need not lell you 
 what a gross impropriety it would have been to have translated the latter 
 clause of this verse thus: he shall baptize, (or according to Mr. C. ?;;;- 
 7iierse) you in the Holy Ghost, and in fire. But not only does this prepo- 
 sition signify z« and w;7/(,but according to Schleusner, and Parkhurst,one 
 of Mr. C's high authorities, it signifies also at, ni^h, by; and Mr. J. P. 
 Campbell has detailed several passages from the Septuagint, and nine or 
 ten from the New Testament, wherein it must necessarily be so under- 
 stood. Mr. C. however, says, p. 15i, that J. P. Campbell "has found one 
 or two passages" only, where rn may be translated "«/," and his reducing 
 twenty instances to one or two, tells us with what caution his quotations 
 from the writings of other men arc to be received. 
 
 The observations I have made respecting the preposition en, are also 
 ap|)licable to the preposition eis. It signifies in, info, at near, tovjards. 
 And althougii in Mark 1: 9, it is translated //;, in connexion witli baptism; 
 and in .Acts 8: .19, into; yet every reader may see, that in the first of these 
 places, it may with propriety be translated at, and in the second, to; and 
 Mr. Campbell, of Kentucky, has detailed in his book, p. 53, no less than 
 nineteen or twenty passages from the New Testament where it must ne- 
 cessarily signify at, near, to, or toiuardn. 
 
 The same observations are also applicable to the preposition ek. It is 
 equally indefinite in its meaning. Mr. C. indeed, tells us, that Mr. Moor, 
 professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow, defines it "as denoting 
 that a person departs out of a place, or that any thing is taken out of ano- 
 ther thing." But Parkhurst, another of his authorities, defines it thus: 
 "e-X- 1, governing a genitive case, 1. Il denotes motion/ro7;i a place, out of, 
 from;" and according to this definition, the words "rX- tou hudatos," m 
 Acts 8: 39, which are translated "they came u/i out of the water," should 
 have been rendered, "they came \\\i from the water." 
 
 Asfor the other preposition ufio, which is used in connexion with baj)- 
 tism, Mr. C:.'s authority, profissor Moor, defines it "the departure, or thi 
 distance of one person or thing/ro.vj the place of another." This is the 
 word that is used in Mark I: 10, where it is said of Jesus, that "coming 
 outof(ff//o) the water, he saw the heavens opened;'' and accordi.ig to Mr. 
 C's own authority, should have been translated "comingyVo;;; the water he 
 saw the heavens opened." And although it may be used in other senses, 
 yet 'from" is its primary meaning, and as Mr. Campi)ell, of Kentucky, 
 justly observes, "if afio, when u.sed in connexion with baptism, be ren- 
 «<ered from, then tk, in parallel passages must mi>:ni tbr si'.uie thin^; 
 
56 
 
 and eis, and en, conjoined m ith them in the same description, cannot ex- 
 press more than at, or to." p. 53. 
 
 But with the doctrine contained in the above quotation, Mr. C. is high- 
 ly displeased, and in the fulness of his soul, and the exuberance of his 
 zeal for soundness in the faith he charges him and Peter Edwards, who 
 made the same observation, "with shutting the gates of heaven and of hell 
 by their criticisms," and virtually saying "that when a person is in the house 
 he is only at the door; and when in bed is only at the side of it:" after 
 which he demolishes this monstrous doctrine, and refutes these dangerous 
 criticisms, by the following irresistible argument. "Excellent critics — O 
 bigotry! O prejudice! Not Egyptian darkness was half so fatal to Egyp- 
 tian eyes, as thy sable sceptre to the eyes of the mind." p. 154, 5. 
 
 Now the whole of this powerful argument is dissipated in a moment, 
 when the reader reflects that it was not the meaning of the prepositions 
 en and eis, as connected with heaven and hell, but as connected with bap- 
 tism, that the late Mr. Campbell alludes to in the above quotation. He 
 does not say that "fi« Ouranon" does not signify into heaven; nor that 
 "eis Geennan" does not signify into hell: but he says that as Bethabara 
 was not a river, but a place in the vicinity of Jordan; then as "en Bethaba- 
 ra," ui John 1:26, necessarily means at Bethabara; so en Jordanee, Sind eis 
 ton Jordanon, in Mark 1: 5 — 9, should have been translated not in, but at, 
 Jordan, because those passages have reference to the same thing — the 
 place where John Avas baptizing: that as '•^afio tou hudatos," in Mat. 3: 6, 
 necessarily means '■'•from the water," according to Mr. C 's own authority, 
 so "eA: tou hudatos" in Acts 8: 39, should have been translated '■'■from the 
 water'' also, because both passages have reference to the situation of the 
 persons baptized. And it now rests upon Mr. C. to prove, if he can, that 
 en, and eis, and afio, and ek, when relating to the same thing in those pas- 
 sages, must necessarily have a different meaning. This would be far more 
 satisfactory to the public, and honourable to himself, than such tremen- 
 dous apostrophising. Such things in the present day will not be accept- 
 ed in the place of argument, much less for "a positive precept or prece- 
 dent" for immersion, in administering the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 And now what is the result of this part of the review? This — that no- 
 thing perfectly decisive respecting the mode of administering baptism, 
 can be legitimately inferred from the word fia/j/iro; nor from the preposi- 
 tions connected Avkh it. That although that word is used by Greek writers 
 to signify "to wash by immersion," yet they use it also to signify to wash 
 by other means: — that although there have been, and are men distinguish- 
 ed for literature, who understand it in its first and literal sense when used 
 to denote the mode of initiation into the church; yet there have been, and 
 are men of as great critical acumen and literary attainments, who contend, 
 that it is not used in the New Testament in its literal, but in a figurative 
 sense; in consequence of Avhich it has changed its meaning from Avashing 
 bv immersion, to washing l)y pouring water on the sul^ject, in allusion to 
 the pouring out the Spirit as a spirit of regeneration; and every man of 
 reading knows, that the number of the latter far exceeds that of the for- 
 mer.* A;.d certainly if a doctrine is to be established by the meaning of 
 the word that conveys it, it must be by the meaning that the inspired pen- 
 men dttach to it, and not that of Heathen writers. So far, then, as we 
 
 * It wou)d perhaps be more proper to say U^it in the New T'-.st;iment. "inp.'hc" is used 
 in its secondarv meaning. 
 
67 
 
 have conducted our review, there has nothins^ appeared to authorize Mr. 
 C. to assert so roundly as he has done, that baptism is to l)e administered 
 by immersion, and by immersion only. 
 
 But Avc are told in the New 'I'estainint of difVerent persons bcint; bap- 
 tized at different times, by different buptizcrs; perha])s an exuminaiidii of 
 those passat>;es may shed faiiher lit;ht (.n the subject. To this I ha.e no 
 objection, if" you are wiliini^ to attend mi'. 
 
 The first upon record is the bapiisTn of John, mentioned by all the van- 
 Sfelists. Matthew inloi ms us, that in those days (the reit^n of I i- ■ ius, 
 emperor of Home) ''came John the Baptist, preachini^ in th<' wiKle: ; s of , 
 Judea" — "and there went out to him, Jerusalem, and all Judea, and tlie 
 region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in (ov at) Jordan, 
 confessinc^ their sins." The cpiestion now is, why did Johfi choose the 
 banks of the Jordan for preachini^ and baptizing? 'I'he Baptist atisner, or 
 rather hypothesis is, that he might have a sufficient depth of water for 
 immersing. But another may be assigned. It was foretold of John that 
 he should confine his ministry to the wilderness; "I am, says he, tlie voice 
 of one crying in the wilderness." What now distinguishes a wilderness 
 from other places? This — that the soil is sterile, and destitute of springs 
 of water. Jordan ran through this wilderness, and the hypothesis that 
 John chose the l)anks of Jordan for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient 
 supply of water for the vast multitudes that resorted to his minis- 
 try, is, for any thing that hath yet a|:)peared, just as good, and 
 as probable as that of the Baptists. This hypothesis is considerably 
 strengthened by what is said of him, John 3: 23, "that he was ijaptizingat 
 vflnon, near Salim, because there was diuc/i water l/ierc." This transhvtion 
 does not exactly express the meaning of the original. The Greek words 
 are, '■'■/lol/a /ludata," which, although sometimes used to denote rivers, as 
 rivers are a collection of springs, yet every linguist knows, that many 
 springs of water, are their literal and primary meaning. It is not pretehd- 
 ed that there was, or is any river at jEnon, and Robinson, the Baptist !iis- 
 torian, dextrous as he is at evading eveiy argument that favours i)aplism 
 by affusion, cannot tell, after all his research, whether .^Knon Avas a natu- 
 ral spring, an artificial reservoir, or a cavernous temple of the sun. — 
 Schleusner, however, tells us that the word signifies a fountain, and that it 
 was not far from Jordan; and this circumstance added to the description 
 ■'/lol/a /luclata,'' or many spiingsof water, is a proof that John chose it for 
 the purpose I have mentioned; for on the Baptist hypothesis, the river 
 Jordan was far preferable for bajitizing by immersion. 
 
 lUit there is ajiolher circumstance that militates strongly against the 
 Baptist hypothesis. It is this. Both .Matthew and Mark tell usx "that 
 Jerusalem, and ailJudea, and the region round about Jordan went out to 
 John's baplisiu, and were baptized of him." What the exact population 
 of Judea was at that time, I will not precisely say. But Josej)hus, 
 iheirown historian, tells us, that seventy years afterwards, 1,350,000 of 
 them were cut off in their wars with the Romans, as many more led cap- 
 tive, besides those that escaped, which proljably amounted to more than 
 one tliird of the whole i)0])ulution. ^^'e may therefore say, that there 
 were four or five millions of inhabitants in Judea, in the days of John the 
 Baptist. We will also sup])ose that only one nnllion of them were bap- 
 tized l>y him, althougli the words of the evangelists intimate that the 
 greatest number were. It is the opinion of the best chronologisls, that 
 Jolm did not exercise his ministrv longer than ei^jhiccn months, and at 
 
 9 
 
68 
 
 farthest not longer than two years. I would now ask any thinking person 
 if it was possible for him to baptize one million, or near one million of 
 persons, in that space of time, by immersion. But it was practicable by 
 effusion, and upon the supposition that a number of them stood before him 
 in ranks, and that he poured the water upon them from his hand, or from 
 some suitable vessel.* 
 
 But this is not all. John tells us that his baptism Was figurative of the 
 baptism "with the Holy Ghost and with fire;" and which the apostles ex- 
 perienced on the day of Pentecost, when "there appeared unto them clo- 
 ven tongues, like as of fire, and sat upon each of them.. And they were all 
 filled with the Holy Ghost', and began to speak with other tongues as the- 
 Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2: 3, 4. But this as foretold by the pro- 
 phet Joel, is styled "a pouring out the Spirit on all flesh;" and had John's 
 baptism been administered by immersion, it could not have been a proper 
 figure' of this extraordinary "baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire." 
 And to this I would just add, that admitting it could be incontrovertibly 
 proved, that John's baptism was adminstered by immersion, yet it would 
 not thence follow that Christian baptism was to be administered in the 
 same manner. John's baptism belonged not to the Christian, but to the 
 Jewish dispensation qf grace; but the certain mode of administering 
 Christian baptism is to be sought for from an examination of the baptisms 
 recorded under that dispensation. This I shall also now attempt. 
 
 The first of these that occurs, is the baptism of the three thousand on 
 the day of Pentecost, recorded in the second chapter of the Acts of the 
 Apostles. The scene is laid in Jerusalem. The followers of Christ, 
 amounting to 120 men and women, were assembled in one place agreeably 
 to his orders. According to his promise, the Holy Ghost in the form of 
 cloven tongues, as of fire, fell, or was poured out upon them, and they 
 spake with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. When this was 
 noised abroad, the multitude came together. Peter preached to them. 
 They were deeply convinced of their guilt in crucifying the Son of God 
 as an impostor; "and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, men 
 and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter exhorted them "to be baptized in 
 the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." They complied; and 
 as many as received the word gladly were baptized; "and the same day 
 there added unto them about three thousand souls." 
 
 I have said in my third letter, that none but the twelve apostles had au- 
 thority at that time to administer the ordinance of baptism; and as all this 
 happened in the space of seven or eight hours, that there was not time for 
 the twelve apostles to baptize three thousand persons by immersion, though 
 practicable by affusion. To this it may be objected, that the seventy dis- 
 ciples of whom we read in the gospel by J&hn, were no doubt present, and 
 had a right to baptize as well as the twelve apostles. Be it so — but where 
 was the water for the immersion of three thousand persons, many of 
 ■whom must, even according to this hypothesis, be immersed at the same 
 point of time. Some tell us in the brook Kidron; but this brook was ve- 
 ry small, and dry a considerable part of the year. Others tell us, that 
 they could have been baptized in the Molten sea of the temple. But is it 
 
 *Robinson, the Baptist historian, p. 32, Bendt. ed. tells us that John baptized but very 
 i«w persons. What reason does he assign for this assertion in opposition to the express 
 declaration of the evangelists to the contrary? His own ipse dixit. What could induce 
 him to such a bold measure? He saw the force of the argument I have mentioned above, 
 »nd had no other way of evading it. 
 
03 
 
 Ht all jji-obable that the chief priests, who had the ovcij^iii^ht and command 
 of the temple, wovild suiVcr them to jiollute it, by udmiiiisteriii^j an ordi- 
 nance of tlic abhorred Nazarinc? IJesicU's; tlicrc is not tiie l<'ast intimation 
 in the sacred history, that they removed fi-om the place where thi.-y had at 
 first assembhd; and all could be done where they were, and without confu- 
 sion, and with a few quarts of watm-, if done by alTusion. From these fevf 
 sugt^estioDs, and other circumstances that will naturally occur to the read- 
 er^ lie will draw his own inference, whether these three thousand were bap- 
 1ized by immersion, or by affusion, or pourin;^ water on the head of the 
 subject. 
 
 The baptism of the Samaritans and of the Eunuch of the queen of 
 Ethiopia, present themselves next for examination. There is nothins^ said 
 of the manner of the l)aptism of the Sam iritans; but of the Eunuch it is 
 said, "thev went down into the water, !)oth Philip and the Eunuch, and 
 he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spi- 
 rit of the Lord caui^ht Philip away that he saw him no more." 
 
 Mr. C. tells us, p. 131, as a proof I suppose of baptism by immersion, 
 that king James I. of England, ''by whose authority the present version of 
 the scriptures was madt , prohibited the translators from translating into 
 Englisn '/n//(/M/»a and lu/fidzo,- where these v.ords resj)ecled the rite; but 
 ordered them to adojjt those words as they had been adopted l)y the Vul- 
 gate." "And that had the translatot-s been at liberty, instead of the com- 
 mand be bulitizcd every one of you, it would have read he di/i/ied cvvry 
 one of you — "and instead of /le ba/itizcd him, it would have rend, he im- 
 mersed him." 
 
 What Mr. C. says is true history. The depraved licait of man is 
 strongly opposed to the simplicity of the gospel, and the simplicity of its 
 ordinances. Hence then, not only new rites have been ad led to those in- 
 stituted by Christ, but additions made to those he has appointed. This 
 was the case with the ordinance of baptism. In the days of Tertullian, if 
 not before, an idea began to prevail from some unguarded, and pei-haps hy- 
 perbolical expressions of that father, or from his mistaking tlie sign for the 
 thing s.gnified, and the means for the f.iing to be obtained, and which de- 
 pends entirely on sovereign grace, that there was a regeneraiing inlluence 
 in baptismal water.* Hence then it is easy to sec, that pouring a small 
 quantity of watei-on the head of the pers:)n to be I)aptized would not !)e 
 considered as eflicacious as immersing the whole body in the jiurifying 
 element; nor are (evidences wanting in the present day of the <!« lelerious 
 effect of that opinion. In the dark at^es of Popery this opinion "grew 
 with its growth, and strengthened with its strength," and infected almost 
 all the churches of Christendom, and the Anglican church with the rest; 
 nor did it lose ground until the revival of learning at the era of the refor- 
 mation. King James, though somewhat pedantic, was yet a learned man, 
 "being .educated by the celebrated CiiiOUfiF. Blchaxnax. He knew the im- 
 posing idea of immersion In baj)tism was the prevailing idea in Englatid; 
 and therefore gave the orders mentioned by Mr. C rightly judging, that 
 the light of iuorei'.sing literature, and the cultivation of Biblical criticism 
 would, in due time, settle the meaning of the words bafiti-sma, and ha/aizo, 
 in the New Testament. Nor was he mistaken '1 he voie given not forty 
 years afterwards in the Westminster Assembly, alluded to by Mi\ C. in 
 
 * fchx sacramentum aqu3e no:<trac, quia ablulis delictis pristinie escitafis in vitani 
 Uiternam liberainur — sed nos fasciculi secundum iciitltvn nostrum .Jesum Christum in 
 aqua naicimur. 
 
60 
 
 the following page, is a proof how much ground the doctrine of immep' 
 sion had lost in that space of time, hy the increase of sound literature. 
 The translators obeyed the king; but who is there acquainted with the 
 Greek language, and who has read the New Testament in that language, 
 but must have seen that not an opportunity offered itself of translating in 
 favour of immersion that they did not embrace. Although they translate 
 "fj.v" to, and '•'eXr" from, in different places, yet whenever they met with 
 them in connexion with baptism, they invariably render the one into, and 
 the other out of. B'tt strong as their prejudices and prepossessions Avere, 
 it is astonishing that the circumstances of the baptism now under consi- 
 deration, and the language of the inspired historian, did not induce them 
 to translate "fzs" ?o, ■awA^'-fk'" from. Philip and the Eunuch were together 
 in the chariot, and according to Jerome, Sandys, and other travellers, who 
 have visited the place, a small stream of water {ti hudoor) ran beneath 
 them. And instead of translating the passage they went down to the wa- 
 ter, and came up /ro/,v the water; they have rendered it, "they went down 
 into the water." They evidently designed to convey the idea, and make 
 the impression, that there was immersion in the case; and I have frequent- 
 ly heard these -words quoted as a proof of it; and Mr. C. seems, in p. 154, 
 to understand the words as conveying this idea But such do not reflect, 
 that the w^ords thus understood, imply that Philip was immersed as well 
 as the Eunuch; for it is said that 'Hhcy went down into the water, <^o//2 
 Phili[i and the Eunuch; and they came up out of the water." 
 
 But read the passage as it ought to have been translated; "they went 
 down to the water; and they came m^ from the water;" and all the al)sur- 
 dity of the baptizer being immersed as well as the person baptized, disap- 
 pears; and the passage is rational, solemn, and instructive. I deem it un- 
 necessary to say a word more respecting this interesting baptism, as I am 
 persuaded that there is not a person whose mind is not prepossessed by a 
 system, and who will weigh the circumstances attending it, but will be 
 constrained to say that the Eunuch was baptized by affusion, and not by 
 immersion. 
 
 The baptism of Saul of Tarsus, recorded in the 8th, and of Cornelius 
 and his friends, mentioned in the lollowing chapter of the Acts, were ad- 
 ministered, the one in the city of Damascus, and the other in Cornelius's 
 own house. It is merely said of Saul, that when Ananias laid his hands 
 upon him, "there fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he received 
 his sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." It is also said of Cor- 
 nelius and his friends, that when the Holy Ghost in his miraculous gift of 
 tongues fell upon them, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, that these 
 should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as v/e? 
 and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." I would 
 only here remark, that what is said of these baptisms, conveys the idea 
 that they were baptized in the places where they were — Saul in the house 
 of Judas, and Cornelius and his friends in Cornelius's house; and that im- 
 mediatelv too, on Saul's receiving his sight, and after the Holy Ghost had 
 been poured out on Cornelius and his friends. Every circumstance con- 
 veys the impression that they were baptized by affusion; nor is there a sin- 
 gle circumstance that favours immersion. 
 
 As for the baptism ot Lydia, and of her hou.'is., recorded in the 16th 
 chapter, it is not said where it was adm.inistered. There is, indeed men- 
 tion made of her resorting to one of the Jews iiroseuche, or places of pray- 
 er, by a river side; but there is not the least intimation that she and her 
 
liouaewere baptized at or in that river. But I think itis corlaiH tiiat tl»c 
 jailor and liis houscy mentioned in the same chapter, wrre baptized in tlie 
 prison, and the strong presumption is, by aff'usion and t\ot l)y immerMion. 
 For although it appears that there was a river near the cily of Philip])i, 
 it is not to lie supposed that he would leave his chari^c, and at midni'^ht 
 go with liis house, and Paul and Silas, to that river, for the purpose ol be- 
 ing baptized. Besides; it is said, that after the alarm by the eariluiuake; 
 and after they had spoken the word of the Lord to liim, and all that wt-re 
 in his house; and after he had washed their stripes, "he was baptized, and 
 all his straightway," or immediately. The refusal of Paul and Silas on 
 the nextday to leave the prison, until the magistrates thimselves "would 
 come and fetch them out," is a strong presumptioti that they would not, 
 and did not, leave it in the night. Merc again every circumslani:e aitend- 
 ing this extraordinary Ijajuism, affords the strongest pi-csumptioii that it 
 was administered by affusion; nor is there a single circumstance in favour 
 of its being administered by immersion. 
 
 Having thusexamined all the instances of Christian baptism that are 
 mentioned with any degree of detail in the New Testament, you will have 
 perceived that there is not a circumstance attending any one of them that 
 favours immersion; and you will '..Iso have perceived with what caution 
 Mr. C.'s assertions and conclusions on this point are to be received. In 
 p. 141, when summing up his arguments in favour of immersion, he men- 
 tions this one: "the places where this rite was administered — i/i rivcrsy 
 and where there w as much water." Theie is no river, nor even much wa- 
 ter mentioned in any of them, the baptism by John excepted. The liiree 
 thousand on the day of Pentecost wtie baptized in the city of Jeiusalem, 
 where there was no river, nor even much water; Saul in the city of Damas- 
 cus, and in the house of Judas; Cornelius and his friends in Cornelius's 
 house: and you and the reader will draw the conclusion whether the jailer 
 and his /louse wcvo baptized in the prison, or elsewhere. 
 
 I have intentionally postponed a consideration of Christ's baptism by 
 John, to this place, because it had not the most remote resemblance in its 
 design to John's baptism as admitiislered to the Jews; nor yet to the bap- 
 tism afterwards appointed by himself; and to reason from it, with respect 
 to either the nature or mode of Christian baptism, is something worse 
 than preposterous. John's baptism was a baptism unto repentance, or a 
 mean designed to produce repentance; and Christian baptism was a mean 
 appointed for oljtaining "tiie remission of sins, and the gift of the Holv 
 Ghost:" and 1 need not tell you, that to say that Christ was baptized that 
 he might obtain repentance, and the remission of sins, would be blasphe- 
 my of a very atrocious kind. What was it then? It was his solemn in- 
 auguration to his priestly ofHce. The Jewish high j)iiest was a type of 
 him in this respect; and hence we find Jehovah, in the 'lOlh chapter of Exo- 
 dus, giving Moses this charge, respecting the inauguiation of Aaron and 
 his sons to this important office. ".And thou shalt bring Aaron and his 
 sons unto the doo?- of the tabernacle of the couirregation^ and thou shalt 
 iiuish them ivith ivaier. And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy gar- 
 ments, and anoint and sanctify him, that he may minister unto me in the 
 priest's oflice." Now the whole of this typical transaction was exactly 
 fulfilled in Christ's baptism, or his being washed with water by John. 
 When Jesus was baptized, we are told, that Jerusalem, and all Judea, and 
 the region round about Jordan, had resorted to John's baptism — here 
 then was the congregation of Israel. .\n(] when he was baptized, tlu*. 
 
62 
 
 Spirit of God, prefigured by the holy anointing oil, descended like a dove^ 
 and lighted upon him. Then, and not till then, did he enter upon his me- 
 diatorial work, which is an additional proof of the propriety of the expli- 
 cation I have given to that memorable transaction. And here I cannot but 
 observe, that those ministei-s who call upon their hearers to go down into 
 the water in imitation of Christ; and those persons who say they have 
 followed their Lord and master in his baptism, know not what they are 
 saying. I would only farther remark on this point, that as the Jewish high 
 priests were washed with water before the door o{ the tabernacle of the 
 con.8:regation, we may safely infer that it was not by immersion, as we do 
 not read of any sufficient bath provided for the purpose; and that the type 
 might be fulfilled in all its parts, another fair inference follows, that 
 Jesus was not baptized by immersion; and to this 1 would add, that here 
 is another instance of the verb bajitizo being used in another sense than 
 *'to immerse." 
 
 I shall only notice another argument of Mr. W.'s on this point, with 
 Mr. C.'s reply. As a proof that pouring or sprinkling, are scriptural 
 iTKodes of applying water in baptism, Mr. W. says Mr. C. p 124, argued, 
 that baptism had not only a reference to the Spirit's influences, which are 
 frequently said to be "poured out;" but to the blood of Christ, which is 
 called "the blood of sprinkling." Mr. C. admits that water in baptism is 
 an emblem of the Spirit s influences; but denies that it is an emblem of the 
 blood of Christ. I admit that it is not so, directly, but indirectly, it is; as 
 ■it was in consequence of Christ's obedience unto death, that the Spirit's 
 influences are given for the purpose of regeneration and iuture holiness. 
 And that it is so, is evident from the words of Peter on the day of Pente- 
 cost — "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here 
 the obtaining the remission of sins, the consequence of receiving the blood 
 of Christ by faith, and the renewing influences of the Spirit are conjoin- 
 ed by the apostle, and urged as an argument to induce the Jews to submit 
 feo the ordinance of baptism. But although Mr. C admits that water in 
 baptism is an emblem of the Spirit's influences; yet he tells us, that "when 
 baptism is spoken of in relation to the influence of the Holy Spirit, it de- 
 notes the overxvhilming influences of that Almighty agent, in consequence 
 of which all the faculties of the mind are imbued by it." 1 h^'^'-o-vtrwhelm- 
 ing" influences of the Spirit, is not a scripture expression, and you may 
 be ready to ask what he means by it. I will not positively say that he 
 means the same thing as imtyiersing ; but as he pleads for baptism by im- 
 mersion, and as immersion is a being literally overwhelmed in water, and 
 is so termed by Baptist writers; then I may suppose that he means the 
 same thing as being "i»n«er«ec/" in the Spirit's influences. But why not 
 use the word '■^immersed" in the Spirit's influences. That would have 
 stai'tled, and had an unfavourable effect on the reader of the Bible, who 
 has met with the words, "the blood of sprinkling" — "the sprinkling of the 
 blood of Jesus Christ" — "the sprinkling of clean water upon the church 
 that she might be clean" — "the pouring out a Spirit of grace and suppli- 
 cation" — "the pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh" — "the pouring out 
 the Spirit on the seed and off'spring of the people of God" — and "the 
 pouring out the gift of the Holy Ghost;" but never once of any being i/«- 
 viersed in the blood of Christ, or being i/w?nercprf in the Spirit's influences. 
 
 You will now judge, to vhich of the two systems, the argument of bap- 
 tismal water being an emblem ol the Spirit's renovating influences, be.- 
 
C3 
 
 tOTijrs. You will also judp^e Avhetlicr Mr. C. has produrcd such "positive 
 precept, or piecedont," as authorized him to sdv, "tlial all who iiave not 
 bt*ei» immers! d in the Tihnie^ of the Father, Son, and Holy S|>irit. afier 
 professin;^ the faith of the ij,ospeI, ha\e never heen i)aptized, and aie yet 
 in an unl)ui)tized state;" thereby wnchurehing all the churches in the 
 ■world, the Baptist church excepted, and the Bajjtist church too, unless he 
 can prove unecjuivocally, that the apostles baptized by immersion, and hy 
 immersion only; and also trace a succession of Baptist churches from their 
 time to the ])resent day. "Hie labor, hoc opus est;'' Mr. C. is in honou. 
 bound to do so in defence of his new catechism; and the public cxjiecta- 
 tion will be, that if this is ever done, it will be by the theological hero who, 
 on the subjeci of baptism, has "defied all Christendom." But ere he 
 attempts (his, let me beg leave to observe to him, that the proof of the 
 apostles I);iptizing by immersion only, must be (according to his own rule,) 
 "by positive precept or precedent:" and with respect to the latter, there 
 must not be a bi-okeii link in the chain. For as not only iniant baptism, 
 but the baptism of adults, if not by immersion, is according to his cate- 
 chism a nullity; then, as persons baptized in either of these ways, "are still 
 in an unbaptized stale," they have no right to preach the gospel, much 
 less to administer the ordinances of the Christian dispensation to others. 
 I am persuaded that there is not a moderate and intelligent Baptist, who 
 will say with him, that a mistake in the mode of administering Iwiptism, 
 infers this sweeping and inadmissible consequence. As well might it be 
 said, that the death of Christ is not commemorated by the humble com- 
 municant in the ordinance of the Supper, because, instead of a full meal 
 or supper, he eats only a small piece of bread, and drinks but a spoonful 
 of wine; as that baptism is null and void, because water is applied to only 
 a pai t, and not to the whole of the body. Nor can the above consequence 
 be infeiTed from a mistake respecting some of the subjects. For, admit- 
 ting that Fedobaptists are mistaken with respect to the right of the infant 
 chilJren of church members to baptism, the utmost that could be lawful- 
 ly inferred is, that in those cases they misapply the ordinance. I repeat 
 my persuasion, that there is not a moderate and intelligent Baptist who 
 will admit of the foregoing consecpiences, and who will not consider their 
 cause weakened l)y those novel and crude doctrines,wheuce he has attempt- 
 ed to draw these illegitimate conclusions. 
 
 I shall close this review, with brietly noticing a number of heavy chargcj., 
 which Mr. C. brings against the Pedobaptist system, as a system, in the 
 3d No. of the Appendix to his l)ook. 
 
 1. "It is will worship, or founded on the will of man, and not on the will 
 of God." 
 
 2. "It has carnalized and secularized the church." 
 
 o. "It imposes a religion upon the subjects of it, before they are awarr 
 of it." 
 
 4. "It has uniformly inspired a persecuting spirit." 
 
 5. "That it inspires the subject as soon as he recognises the action, and 
 understands it as his parents explain it, with an idea that he is better than 
 a heathen, or now in a state differing from an unbaptized person." 
 
 The first and fifth of these charges have been incidentally noticed, and 
 I trust fully ol)viated, in the preceding letters. The second can never 
 happen, butwiiere the church and state are amalgamated; and we are not. 
 to argue against a thing, from the abuse of it. The third is silly, as it is 
 well kno\vn» that the prejudice of education is as strong 'u\ the children -f 
 
64 
 
 Baptists, as of Pedabaptists. The fourth, "that it has utiiformly inspired 
 a persecuting spirit," is indeed a serious charge, and if well founded,w juld 
 be a strong argument that it is ''founded on the will of man, and not on 
 the will of God." But what is the proof which Mr C. adduces in support 
 of this heavy charge.'' A detailed account from Benedict's History of the 
 Baptists, of seven persons being ill-treated in Virginia, and three or four 
 in Massachusetts, on account of their opposing and probably vilifying in- 
 fant baptism. I think I am as much opposed as Mr. C. can possibly be, 
 to persecution of any kind, and to any degree, on account of religious 
 tenets; but who can refrain from smiling when he reads this mighty proof 
 of Mr. C.'s unqualified assertion, "that infant sprinkling (as he is pleased 
 to term it) has unformly inspired a persecuting spirit?" 
 
 As principles, however acquired, are the sources of action, it may be 
 worth while to inquire if there is any thing in the Pedobaptist system, that 
 has a tendency to beget and cheiish the hateful spirit of persecution. — 
 According to the Pedobaptist system the minor children of church mem- 
 bers are filanted by baptism in the vineyard or visible church of God; and 
 their parents are thereby brought under obligations, and voluntarily pro- 
 mise in the more immediate presence of God, and of the assembled 
 church, "to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 
 Now one would think that children thus educated, bid as fair to imbibe the 
 mild and benevolent principles ot the gospel, as the children of Baptists 
 v/hose parents are not under the influence of the foregoing obligations. 
 Again: according to the Pedobaptist system, baptized minors are taught, 
 or ought to be taught, that in consequence of their being planted in the 
 vineyard of the Lord, they are under special obligations "to avoid the pol- 
 lutions of the world, and to seek by prayer and a diligent attendance ou 
 the means of grace the thing signified by baptism," the washing of regene- 
 ration, "l)y the Holy Spirit." Now I should also think, that children thus 
 instructed, and whose minds are imbued with this principle, bid as fair, if 
 not fairer, to be respecters of things divine, and to be as humane, benevo- 
 lent, and orderly members of society, as the children of those who are 
 taught, that they are under no such obligations from the aforesaid privi- 
 leges; but taught that they are in the visible kingdom of darkness, and if 
 God- converts them it is well, if not, they are not blamable; for Mr. C. 
 tells them in p. 297, that "for his own part, he conceives it to be as rea- 
 sonable to blame a man for being black, or for not being seven feet high, as 
 to blame him for not being a Christian." And I will venture to affirm, 
 that children thus educated, and thus early impressed, will bear a compa- 
 ris'on in the aggregate with the children of Baptist families, for a respect 
 for things divine, and for all those charities that are the support of socie- 
 ty, and the sweeteners of social life. I will venture to affirm more, that 
 ihree-fourths, if not nine-tenths of those who are at present engaged in 
 suppressing the current of abounding immorality, and in spreading the 
 !)enign principles of the gospel of peace, and of love, are those v/ho have 
 been baptized in infancy. Facts are stubborn arguments, and all theories 
 and speculations, however specious, must give way to, and bow before 
 them. 1 freely admit, that many baptized in infancy were persecutors, and 
 addicted to all kinds of wickedness; but the question is, was this the con- 
 seipience of their being bapiizcd in infancy, or of the Pedobaptist system 
 as a system; or the abuse of it in those churches that are unhappily amal- 
 gamated with the stale; or in those churches that have departed from the 
 truth; or in those where the doctrine of baptism isnot correctly understood: 
 
an 
 
 After Mr. C. had thus roundly and iinqlialificdly asserted "that infant 
 sprinkling- has uniformly inspired a persecuting spirit;" he also ijifornis us, 
 "■'that every body knows, lliat Quakers uiid Baptists have never persecut- 
 t'd." Quakers have nothiut^ to do with the present (jueslion, but it may 
 i)e also worth while to inquire into the fact as it respects Baptists; and al- 
 so to examine whether or no, there is any thinp; in the Baptist system, that 
 has a natural tendency to produce this hateful and wicked spirit. 
 
 Baptist historians are veiy fond of telling; us, that they are descended 
 from the Paki horhussians, and other ancient sects, who are usually con- 
 sidered amoni^st the witnesses for the truth in the dark afjes of I'opery. 
 Be that as it may, it is unquestionably certain that the present Bajjtist 
 churches, both in Europe and Ameiica, are spiuT>5^ from the Anabaptists, 
 who started up in (Jermany at the commencement of the Refoi-mation. 
 Their peculiar principles are distinctly recorded, and transmitted to us 
 by MoshKiM,and other ecclesiastical historians. "They held," says Mo- 
 sHKiM, "that the church of Christ ought to be exemfxi from all sin: that all 
 things ought to be common amongst the faithful: that all usury, tithes, and 
 tril)ute, ought to be entirely abolished: that the bajitism of infants was an 
 invention of the devil: that every Christian was invested with power to 
 preach the gospel: and consequently, that the chuich stood in no need of 
 miiftsters or pastors: that in the kingdom of Christ cicil jnagistrates ivere 
 useless: and that God still continuecl to reveal his will to chosen persons 
 by dreams and visions.'' Eccl. Hist. London ed. vol. iv. p. 440. 
 
 And what was the practical operation and eHect of these principles, and 
 especially of the leading princi])le of a spotless church, whence all the 
 others naturally and necessarily sprung? Was it a high respect for things 
 divine, and humanity, and benevolence, and orderly obedience to the laws? 
 No: but the most unparalleled blasphemy, anarchy, and licentiousness, 
 with an attempt under Mi nzek, Stuhnkh, and Stokck, and other leaders, 
 ;o overturn all government in church and state; and after disturhintr the 
 peace of (iermany, and of the surrounding countries for a consideralile 
 time, and wouTiding the Keformation in its very viials, they were at Kist 
 with considerable difficulty discomfited, and dispersed by the (ierman 
 princes. 
 
 And who is there, who has carefully read Mr. C.'s book, but must have 
 noticed the leading and distinguishing principles of those turbulent fana- 
 tics? They pled for a spotless church, and so docs Mr. C. — a plausible and 
 imposing idea indeed, but which I trust I have shown is contrary to the 
 design of Jehovah in erecting a church amongst guilty men. They hated 
 and despised the Pedobaptisi clergy of the day; and who has read Mr. C.'s 
 Catechism* and other parts of his book, but has been struck by the ran- 
 our manifested therein against the Pedobaptist clergy of the present 
 ime, and the attempts he has made to bring them into contempt and 
 lisrcputer They called "infant baptism an invention of the devil;" und al- 
 io\igh Mr. C. has not used the same language, yet he has given the fullest 
 •vidence that he hates it as cordially as ever the Cierman Anabai)tists did, 
 ly the unceasing ridicule he has attempted to pour u])on it in almost eve- 
 ypage. And it it is a fact, (as I believe it is,) that he is the writer of 
 everal essays published in the Washington Hr/iortrr, with the signature 
 •i ('axdidus, against moral societies, and the laws of Pennsvlvania against 
 \r<: and immorality, who is there who h-.ts read these essays, but must 
 
 'Vide Quest. 11. 16. 18. 19. 58. 60. 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 have seen that he has imbibed all the leading theological, and political' 
 principlesof Munzkr, STVEKER,and Storck; and that should those prin- 
 ciples be generally imbibed, then as similar cavses produce similar efiects, 
 the orderly, happy, and respectable state of f ennsylvania would soon ex- 
 perience all the calamities that Germany and the low countries once ex- 
 perienced from the Anabaptists under the specious pretence of erecting 
 a spotless church. - 
 
 As these letters may be read by some who are not acquainted with Mr. 
 C. or who know not his general moral character, I feel it to be a duty which 
 I owe to him to say, that I do not think he has any such designs, and that 
 should such an event take place, his moral habits would not suffer him 
 to take any part in scenes of anarchy, licentiousness and blood. It is a 
 plausible and unscriptural theory that has led him to speak and write as 
 he has done, and what is no uncommon thing with even good men, his 
 head is at variance with his heart. But although I believe that Mr. C. 
 would take no part in the practical operation of his own principles, yet 
 as human nature is the same in all ages, and in all countries, I have no 
 doubt that there are daring and unprincipled men amongst us, who, if a 
 favourable opportunity offered, would re-act the scenes of Germany in the 
 16th century, under the plausible pretext of erecting a spotless church here 
 below. I have not hov^ever any apprehension of present danger from the 
 principles inculcated in the essays alluded to, as they have been encoun- 
 tered by a writer with the signature of Timothy, whose strictures have 
 completely neutralized their deleterious tendency to all, the grossly igno- 
 rant and the lawless excepted, the number of which, when compared with 
 the mass of our citizens, is, I truSt but 'jmall. 
 
 It was with reluctance that I have introduced the German Anabaptists 
 at all into this review. It was not with the design of hurting the feelings, 
 or casting a reflection on the present Baptist Church. For although I think 
 them mistaken on the subject of baptism, with respect to the infants of 
 church members, and the mode of administering that ordinance, yet I feel 
 happy in saying, that they have evinced for upwards of a century past, 
 that they have renounced the anarchical principles of their predecessors, 
 and that they are as firm supporters of lawful civil government as any 
 other religious denomination. It was to point out to Mr. C. the danger- 
 ous tendency of those principles he has imbibed and avowed; to induce 
 him to reviirw his present creed; and to induce those who have read his 
 book to reflect before they adopt those principles. His book has been 
 published atamost inauspicious time. For some years past, Christians 
 of different denominations were gradually approaching each other, and a 
 hope wcs entertained, that all who held the doctrines of grace, would at 
 no very distant day be consolidated into one impenetrable phalanx, and be 
 to the enemies of God, and of his Christ, "as terrible as an army witli ban- 
 ners." The writings of Dr. Mason of this country, and of Dr. Hall of 
 the Baptist Church in England, on Christian communion, were producing 
 a happy efiect: but Mr. C.'s inflammatory publication is directly calculat- 
 ed to widen the breach, as far as it may have efYect, to set those who hold 
 the same fundamental ai tides of religion, in bitter hostile array against 
 each other. I hope, however, that the time will come when he will re- 
 flect on this part of his conduct with regret: that he will retrace his steps 
 and repair the evil which I am persuaded he has done to the church of 
 God, and the intcre-.t of a bcnevclent religion. 
 
67 
 
 1 have now fitushccl my brief review of Mi-. C.'s book. Mr. C. may per- 
 haps SLiy ibut it is a brief review indeed; for there are many ihint^s in his 
 book wliirb 1 have not even t^lanced at. That is iiuh'ed true; but I ex- 
 pect that it will be admitted, that I have noticed all his prominent points, 
 and princi])al art^iiments at^ainst I'edobaiJtism; and if I have overturned 
 these,tiien the minor poinls and arguments must necessarily fall with them, 
 for when the foundation is removed, the s\ip,erstructuie must fall to the 
 ground. It is his^hly probable that he w ill reply to these letters, and I 
 would just conclude In* observing, that should 1 reply to him, it will be up- 
 on the following conditions only. 1. 'I'hat my arguments are to l)e met 
 and coml)atted by the word of Clod, or sound logical reasoning; and not 
 by such apostrophes as I have already noticed, and the following addressed 
 to Pedobaptists in his l)'jok. "O human tradition, how hast thou biassed 
 the judgment, and blinded the eyes of them that should know; under thy 
 influence we strain at a gnat and swallow a camell" — "What a compoMud 
 of inconsistencies is necessary to constitute a Pedobaptist 1 1 1" 2. That 
 we are to hear no more al>out sponsors in baptism, nor of parents promiv 
 ing that their children shall be religious: such things are as absurd and 
 ridiculous in the eyes of Presljyterian Pedobaptists, as they are in his. 
 Nor any more bills of fare for dinner on occasion of the baptism of the 
 children ol right honourable or dishonourable men. An intelligent pub- 
 lic should never Ije insulted with such miserable stuH" instead of argument. 
 Perhaps Mr. C. thinks himself entitled to a little indulgence in such 
 things, as he tells us in the conclusion of his book, that he has a dash of 
 satire in his constitution, and which he finds it difficult to suppress; or to 
 use his own language, he has a "■,i,'-r»?\7.y naturally inclined to irony, which 
 he has often to deny." Well, although ridicule is not a test of truth- vet 
 as it is of use, for ex|)osing and correcting bullbonery, pedantry, extrava- 
 gant opinions, and extravagant and inunnjodcst pretensions to superior 
 talents and attainments, he has my full and fiee consent to indulge it li- 
 berally against any thing of that kind in these letters, or any thing else, 
 that deserves the satiric lash. Rut it must be irony; for genuine satire i? 
 one thing, and punning on letters in the alphabet, quibbling on single 
 words, horrific apostrophising, and eir^pty declamation, are another. To 
 such things or such like things, I will assuredly never again reply. Once 
 is enough; perhaps too mucli. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 1 have said in the close of the last letter that should Mr. C. reply, I 
 would reply to him on the following conditions only; that we should have 
 jio more of that empty and tremendous ajiostiophising to Pedobajnists in 
 general, and to the Pedobaplibt clergy in particular, with which his Ijook 
 abounds, with other extraneous matter then mentioned and which oud not 
 the most distant relation to the subject ol controversy. After much threa- 
 tening,and a lapse and labour of twelve months, Mr. C. has at length pub- 
 lished "Strictures" on three of the foregoing letters, and called to liis aiil 
 another writer with the signature of Philathes. As Mr. C. with a single 
 exception, has substantially complied with the proposed conditions, I 
 therefore feel myself at liberty, and am induced by other considerations to 
 reply to >hose strictures; Philathes shall also l)e noticed in the proper 
 place. It is true that Mr. C.has given full scope to what he calls his ^\t;(riius 
 for irony," or ridicule, Init as I trust 1 shall shew by sound argument that 
 
68 
 
 it is pointless and harmless, I shall overlook it at present, and not i-eply in 
 the same style. For although ridicule is of use when genuine, and applied 
 to proper subjects, and although I think I could manage that weapon full 
 as well as he can, and I v/ould not wish for a better mark than Mr. C, as a 
 writer, either in his style, or manner of reasoning, yet the sacredness and 
 importance of the subject and of the cause which I plead, forbid it on the 
 present occasion. But when I say so, 1 am not to be understood as saying, 
 that if in the course of the examination of his strictures^ any thing ab- 
 surb or silly, or injurious to the character of Jehovah, and of his holy 
 word, or to the interests of his church, should present itself, that I shall 
 not pourtray it in what I consider its true colours, and in such language 
 as the occasion may demand. 
 
 Mr. C. commences his attack by saving that I have apostrophised as 
 much in my letters as he has done in his book, and that 1 have misrepresent- 
 ed him in no less than eight diffVrent instances. Those who have read my 
 letters know, that there is not in any or all of them, a single apostrophe to 
 ^ither Baptists, or Baptist ministers. I have indeed made a few occa- 
 sional reflections, or rather drawn a few consequences from some of his 
 arguments against infant baptism, I)utif those consecp'ences do not natur- 
 ally and necessarily flow from those arguments, or if they are clothed in 
 indecorous or unsuitable language, then they have operated, and will ope- 
 rate against myself,and not against Mr. C.but of this the public have judg- 
 ed, and will judge. Having made these prefatory observations, 1 shall 
 now examine the alleged misrepresentations. 
 
 '"'' Misrcfiresentation 1st." p. 6. "Mr. R. says, Mr. Q, {or very prudential. 
 reasons as respects his system has entirely overlooked in that catalogue of 
 covenants which he has given us in his book, another and distinct cove- 
 nant recorded in Gen. 15;" but this Mr. C. denies, and refers us to pages 
 157, and 169, where he tells us,he has mentioned and considered that cove- 
 nant as the same as the covenant of circumcision. 
 
 I have again examined those pages, and there is not the least mention, 
 nor yet reference to the covenant recorded in the 15th chapter of (ienesis. 
 That that covenant and the covenant recorded in the 17th chapter were 
 distinct covenants, is evident from this — that they were made at different 
 periods, for different purposes, and were ratified by different seals. Ac- 
 cording to the chronology of Dr. Scott the covenant recorded in the 15th 
 chapter, was made 15 years before that recorded in the 17th chapter. The 
 first of these covenants had for its object the securing of the land of Canaan 
 to the seed of Abraham, nor is there anything else mentioned; in the se- 
 cond this is indeed recognised for the strengthening of Abraham's faith,but 
 its principal provision, as I have shewn from the 4th chapter to the Ro- 
 mans, and the 3d chapter to the Galatians, compared with Gen. 12: 3, and 
 17th chapter, 4, 7, secured the sending a Redeemer of his seed into the 
 world, together with the establishing of a church in his family as the me- 
 dium of redemption until that Redeemer would come; when the Gentiles 
 should be taken into that church equally with the Jews. The first was 
 sealed in this manner; "and it came to pass that when the sun went down, 
 and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace and a burning lamp that pass- 
 ed between those pieces. In the same day the Lord made a covenant with 
 Abram saying,unto thy seed have I given this land,from the river of Egypt 
 nnto the great river,the river Euphrates;" but the second was sealed by the 
 rite of circumcision. Now Mr. C. saw all this in my first letter, and if 
 my reasonings, references, and deductions from the passages just now 
 
69 
 
 mentioned were wrone?, why did he not point them out, and not simply say. 
 as he has doiie,thut I have misrepresented him. From these <)l)servation8, 
 his '■'■firudential reasons" for overlooking the covenant recorded in the 15th 
 chapter are very evident and very obvious. For as the land of Canaan 
 was secured to the seed of Abraham by that covenant, then it was not se- 
 cured by the covenant of circumcision, as he so often and boldly affirms, 
 unless he can prove that God made two covenants at different times, and 
 confirmed by different seals, for the same puipose. That the land of Ca- 
 naan would be mentioned or recoR:nised in the covenant of circumcision is 
 what was to be expected for the reason assigned; but I have proved by 
 the apostle Paul that that covenant had respect to Christ and his church, 
 consequently there was a church of (iod in the Jewish nation, and how 
 strongly this operates against the Baptist system Mr. C. is fully aware. 
 
 Mr. C. also ol)jects in this, and the following page, that I have said that 
 the covenant of circumcision secured "spiritual blessings" to the Jews, 
 whereas he tells ns these consist "in the regenerating influences of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit, pardon, justification, and eternal life." I have not used the word 
 "spiritual" in that sense. I used it in the sense the apostle Paul uses it in 
 his 1st epistle to the Corinthians, 9th chapter, and 1 1th verse, where speak- 
 ingof his preaching and other ministrations among them he says, "If we 
 have sown unto you */Hr/n/a/ things, is it a great matter if we shall reap 
 your carnal tilings?" And if I had not the apostle's authority for the use 
 of the expression, the sense in which I used it, is so obvious to every 
 reader, that Mr. C.'s objection shews a want of argument, and an attempt 
 to supply that want by a "sorry quibbling" in words. 
 
 1 shall consider the 2d, 3d, and 4th alleged misrepresentations together, 
 as they are connected with one another, and refer to the same thing. The 
 charge is this — that I represent him as saying that there was no church ol' 
 God in the world until the day of Pentecost, without referring to the page 
 or pages where he has said so; but which he denies, and refers us to p. 40, 
 and elsewhere, where he tells us he has said that there was such a church 
 in the world. I did consider, and I still do consider him as saying so. Mr. 
 W. had produced Acts 7: 36 — "This is he that was in the church in the 
 wilderness," as a proof that the Jewish nation were a church of (iod in 
 the fullest extent of the word, or a people set apart for the worship and 
 service of Jehovah, and to whom were given for this purpose ordinances 
 of divino appointment as the means of grace, and the medium of accepta- 
 ble worship. If Mr. C. acknowledged, and now acknowledges this, where 
 was the use of the criticism on the word ecclesia in p. 41, as signifying 
 any kind of an assembly, lawful or utdawful; and what the meaning of the 
 following ([notation from page 42. "Thus the word ecc/csia, or church, 
 was used by the holy penmen of the New Testament to denote any sort of 
 an assembly. Like the word synagogue, the epithet made it either an as- 
 sembly of Jews, "or a synagogue of Satan" — this criticism I am confident 
 neither my opponent nor any man accpiainted with the (Jreek will deny. 
 Hence it follows that this quotation from the 7th of Acts proves nothintr 
 favourable to his views^ inasmuch as it means no more than an assembly 
 or congregation in the wilderness, ivitliout any regard to the character of it. 
 It was an assembly or church of Jews, and not an assembly of Christians, 
 or a church of Jesus Christ." 
 
 Without noticing any farther the silliness of the observation, "that the 
 church in tlie wilderness" could not be "an assembly of Christians;" I ap- 
 peal now to any reader, and to every reader, if I had not ground for saying; 
 
that Mr. C. denied that there was a church of God in the Jewish nation, in 
 the sense in whicli 1 have explained the word. But Mr. C. to use one of 
 his own classical ex/iressions, has his "come ofllV for he tells us that there 
 is a ijreat difference betwixt the phrase "a church of God," and the phrase 
 *'the church of Jesus Christ;" and he refers me to Murray's Enp!;iish 
 Grammar who will tell me that there is a g'reat difference betwixt the 
 phrase ";/2e son of a king" and "« son of a king." There is a difference 
 with respect to the designation of the individuals, but none whatever that 
 affects, or can affect their character and relation as sons; for "a son of a 
 king,'' is as much the son of a king, as the person who nxay be designated 
 as "'■the son of a king;" or in other words the article the, or a, affects not 
 their sonship. Mr. C. is offended because I called such things quibbling, 
 and if it is not, I know not what quibbling is. But as he places so much 
 stress on the definite article the in this case, I hope it will end this part of 
 the controversy, and convince him that the church in the wilderness was a 
 church of God in the fullest extent of the word, when I tell him that in 
 the Septuagint the word translated church, has the definite article the at- 
 tached to it. It is te ecclesia, the very word used in Ads 2: 47, and 20: 28, 
 to denote what Mr. C. calls "the church of Jesus Christ." 
 
 But Mr. C. has another distinction in support of his hypothesis; for it 
 is not only an hypothesis, but as I shall shew in the proper place, it is 
 worse than an hypothesis. It is this — "the Jews were the ty/ilcal congre- 
 gation or church of God, but christans are the real congregation or church 
 of God." And does the circumstance of the Jewish church being typical 
 prove that it was a false church of God,for real is opposed to that which is 
 false. But passing by this, lest it should be called quibbling, be might 
 as well say that the sacrifices offered by Abel, Abraham, Job, and others, 
 were not real sacrifices, and not acceptable to Jehovah, because they were 
 typical of the sacrifice of the son of God in our nature. Perhaps he 
 means by the word "Christians," regenerated persons. These are indeed 
 a component part of the church of God, and constitute what is called the 
 invisible church, but there never was, and perhaps never will be a period 
 xvherein the church was entirely composed of such, no, not even amongst 
 Mr. C.'s friends, the Baptists. Shrewd and intelligent deceivers can 
 thrust themselves into any Church, and even the well-meaning are often 
 deceived, and suppose that to be a work of saving grace in their hearts, 
 which they afterwards find proceeded from another cause. But why all 
 this contemptible quibbling about definite and indefinite articles; and why 
 all this saying, and unsaying, and saying the same thing again? This I 
 apprehend — he saw that it would be dangerous even with some of his 
 friends, to deny positively that there was a church of God in the Jewish 
 nation, and to admit it, sapped the foundation of his system. But we will 
 meet with this subject again wherein Mr. C's views of the Jews and of 
 the Jewish church will be more fully developed. 
 
 '■"Misrepresentation 5th." — "Mr. R. declares that Mr. C. says that the 
 church of Christ was built upon the apostles alone." — I have shewn that 
 Mr. C. says that there was no real church of God in the Jewish nation, it 
 follows then by inevitable consequence that what Mr. C. calls the real 
 church of God could not be built upon the Jewish prophets; but the apos- 
 tle says that it was"built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 Jesus Christ himself himself being the chief corner stone." 
 
 *■<■ Misr( presentation 6th." — "Mr. R. writes, Mr. C. has another argument 
 against infant baptism which he pronounces p. 30 (31) and elsewhere, as 
 
71 
 
 srttlmp- the jioint at once. It cmoiints to this. The srripture directioa 
 rts] < ctiiiK IJi*! "!~"1 is, btlievc and be bi^ptizcd, but iniants aro incapublc 
 ol" Inlieving, thoiTforc tht-y aro rot to be baptizctl." "Now Mr. H. why 
 did you not (|iiot(' my words? but you could rot, for there is no such pro- 
 nounced in .U) til (3 1st) paire — no, nor in any other ])a}^e as you stated it." 
 
 I did not say that the syllogism is there in the very words I have stated, 
 but the ])H'n>ises oi" the syllogism art there, or 1 am gieatly mistaken. In 
 p. '22, Mr. W' . adduced the I 1th chapter to the Romans as a proof that the 
 Jewish nation under the metaphor of a good olive tree were constituted a 
 church of (iod l)y the ordinance of circumcision, and that the christian 
 church was ingrafted into it. In reply Mr. C. says in page 31, "that in- 
 fants are excluded from any participation in this good olive, seeiin^ that 
 faith is required to any enjoyment of its roc t and fatness,and the only means 
 of ingrafting into it." Vou will now judge who it is that has misrepre- 
 sented the other; and how he could bring foi ward such a charge, when his 
 whole I)ook, and the whole Baptist system is predicated on the principle 
 that infants ought not to be baptized, because they are incapable of be- 
 lieving. 
 
 '■'■ Misrefireseyi tat 1071 7th." — That I represent him as "defying all Chris- 
 tendom on the subject of baptism." — So I understood him in more places 
 than one, and I think that there is scarcely a person who has read his l>ook, 
 but will say that they have understood him as I have. It seems however 
 that he confines the '■'■defying ivoi-ds," to one particular point, but us that 
 point has a strong bearing on the subject, it is no misrepresentation, nor 
 statement that can aflect his arguments in the smallest degree. 
 
 ^■^ Misrcftreseritation 8th." — That I represent him as saying that the pri- 
 mitive fathers of the church were incompetent and incredible witnesses 
 for facts; whereas he has said in p. 1 10, "that many of them were good men, 
 luul faithful witnesses of facts". 
 
 I acknowledge that I had read, and recollected Mr. C.'s words now 
 quoted when I wrote that he represents those fathers as witnesses not 
 worthy of credit; nor had I the most distant apprehension that either he 
 or any other person who had read his book would ever charge me with 
 misrepresenting him; as I considered them as words without meaning,orat 
 best as words of mere finesse, designed to cover, and render somewhat pa- 
 latal)le the torrent of abuse he was pouring out on their characters; and 
 that every otiier reader would I)e of the same opinion The point in issue 
 at the time betwixt him and Mr. W. was this. Mr. \V. produced ex- 
 tracts from the writings oi those fathers as they are usually styled, for Ihc 
 purpose of ])roving that infant baptism was practised in the c!iurch ii> 
 their day. Mr. C. endeavoured to make those extracts speak a diflereni 
 language. This was fair, provided he could do so, without perverting' 
 their words; i)ut no farther should he have gone, if he believed them to be 
 "'good men, and faithful witnesses of facts." lUiti))stead of this, he assails 
 them w ith, and ihi ows upon them all that moral filth, w ith which the his- 
 tory of the Socinian Robinson alx)unds, although he knew at the sam«- 
 time that Mr. J. R. Campbell has repeatedly detected Robinson of false- 
 hood, and with slandering the character of those fathers. I would now 
 ask, what was the meaning of all this, and what possible relevancy coulijl/ 
 it have on the part of Mr. C. but to destroy or lessen tJieir character a^' 
 witnesses, for the credibility of a w'itne>;s may be completely destroy*! 
 without charging him in direct terms with lying, or a disregard lor triifii. 
 And indeed Mr. C. himself in p, 108, sj)eaks of thost fathers i;i 'ucls te/ras 
 
72 
 
 as impeaches at the same time their competency and credibility as wit- 
 nesses. "Suppose these very men themselves (says he) had taught and 
 practised infant bafitism (which however with all their errors they did not) 
 would it have been farther from the doctrine taught in the New Testa- 
 ment than the notions they entertained; and how much is their testimony 
 worth on any doctrinal point not clearly revealed in the New Testament." 
 Again — ^"The most orthodox of the fathers were full of wild notions and 
 extravagant fancies that would dishonour the lonvest grade of Christians 
 a7nongst us.'" Here let it be remembered that Mr. C. affirms, that suppos- 
 ing they had "taught and practised infant baptism," yet their "testimony 
 is of no worth" on account of the wild notions which they held. Some of 
 them indeed held some "fanciful theories," and I have no objection to say 
 errors, but none of them denied the doctrine of original sin, the divinity 
 of Christ, and the doctrine of the atonement for sin by the merit of his 
 blood, which the Baptist historian Robinson denied, and whose slanderous 
 filth he pours upon them with an unsparing hand. And now it Mr. C. will 
 produce one or two candid, disinterested and intelligent persons who have 
 read that part of the debate, and who will say that they did not understand 
 him as endeavouring to destroy or lessen the credibility of those fathers, 
 then I will promptly acknowledge my mistake, and as promptly repair any 
 injury I may be convinced his moral character may have received by what 
 I have written on that point. I may have mistaken him, and I may mis- 
 take him again, but I have not to my knoAvledge misrepresented him in a 
 single iota. I will only add that I am sensible that the foregoing charges, 
 and replications have very little reference to the main question, and that 
 they must be uninteresting to the reader. I will only say that I would not 
 have noticed the alleged misrepresentations at all as they respected my- 
 self, had I not been aware that my not noticing ihem would have been in- 
 terpreted as so many arguments for the Baptist, and against the Pedobap- 
 tist system. Whatever concerns myself individually shall be avoided as 
 much as possible in this, and the following letters. 
 
 In pages 11, 12, Mr. C. asks me in his own manner, but which I shall 
 not imitate, "by what authority I have said that the covenant ol circum- 
 cision was an ecclesiastical covenant whereby Jehovah was pleased to bind 
 himself by the seal of circumcision to send a Redeemer of the family of 
 Abraham into the world," "when no such thing is once mentioned nor even 
 J)inted at, in the whole transaction; nor is such covenanted by the seal of 
 circumcision in the whole Bible?" 
 
 I answer by the authority ot the apostle Paul who in Gal. 3: 8, quotes 
 one of the provisions of that covenant and applies it to Christ. "And the 
 scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith 
 preached bcfoi'C the Gospel to Abraham saying,in thee shall all nations be 
 blessed." The heathen, says the apostle, should be justified through faith; 
 not surely in Abraham, but by faith in Christ designated in the words, "In 
 ihee shall nations be blessed," because he descended from Abraham accord- 
 ing to the flesh. In pursuing his subject the Apostle styles this very cove- 
 nant, "the covenant of (lod in Christ" (eis Chrision) because it had relation 
 not oniy to Christ himscH'jbut to his church, as is clear from the words of 8th 
 verse — "preaching- the fjospelto Abraham." All this I havesaid inmy first 
 ifctter.and it behooved Mr.C. to have ovcrturnedit if he could. As the views 
 1 h-dve given of these pasiiages overturn the very foundation of his system 
 liis friends ?nd the public undoubtedly expected this from bin), or at least 
 that he wojsld make the atten>pt. But he has carefully avoided it, and tries 
 
73 
 
 t,V) divert tliclr minds from tlie point by snccringat wlr.it he calls "my nrw 
 ^liscovery." 
 
 But ^ir. C may say, tluit the passatj^es I havo cjuoted from the cpi^lle 
 fo the (ialutiaus have reference to the covenant recorded iji the l::ih, 
 uhereas the covenant of circumcison is recorded in the 17l!i chaotei" of 
 Genesis. 1 have assii^ned my reasons why I consider those two covenants 
 as he styles them, to be one and the same, and it Ijehooved him also to 
 liavc overturned my arguments if he could. But this he has ndt even at- 
 temjited, but taken the shorter, and to himself the more convenier.t method 
 of jiointless ridicule His friends must feel mortified and disappointed. 
 As for my styling that covenant "an ecci.ksiask'al covknant," I caimot 
 see any impropriety in doint^ so. The words "covenant of circumcision," 
 as it is styled by Stephen, are rather indefinite, implying' only that circum- 
 cision was the seal of this covenant, and it is incumbent on every man 
 who writes so as to be understood, to tell his readers in what sense he un- 
 derstands such expressions. 
 
 In p. 13, Mr. C. calls upon me for the proof of a syllogism in favour of 
 infant baptism extracted from the writings of Mr. Peter Kdwaids. 
 
 A syllogism if fairly constructed, like an axiom involves its own evi- 
 dence; if not, it is sophistical. The syllogism alluded to was, and is be,- 
 fore him. If it is sophistical, he should have shewn it. TJjis, his friends 
 also expected from him; but instead of this, he calls upcjn me to jmovc 
 what if correctly stated proves itself. The rea'^!)n of this silly proceeding 
 doubtless was, that he found it intangilile, at least by himself. 
 
 I have said in my first letter that in the time of Abrahtim "the piivileges 
 of the chtirch were enlarged by the appointment of circumcision as a 
 mode of initiation for the males, infinite wisdom seeing that the ancient 
 mode of sacrifice answered all the purpose to the females, females as well 
 as males being permitted to eat of the sacrifices." From this Mr. C. draws 
 the following consequences in page 1.". "1st, no infants in the church for 
 2400 years — 2d, no females in the Jewish church if circumcision were the 
 initiatory rite;" after which he tries to ridicule the idea of circumcision 
 being an initiatory lite for the males, because it v. as painful. 
 
 The first of the foregoing conseijucnces is founded on the assumption 
 that by males and females I meant adults only. But I have not said so, 
 and that I meant infants as well as adults IMr. C. might have known from 
 a preceding sentence, where speaking of the church in the Patriarchal age, 
 I have said, "that every head of a family was king and priest of ihe/rrwi- 
 /(/, and oflered \ip sacrifice l/ic only mode of iiiitiaUon^ medium of worship, 
 and mean of grace, that we read of at that time, both on his own behalf, 
 a!id on behalf of hxsfamili/' — a word that implies, and includes in it, the 
 infantas well as the adult, the female as well as the male. The second 
 consequence is llatly contradicted by these words, "infinite wisdom seeing 
 that sacrifice answered all the purpose to the females, females as well as 
 males being permitted to eat of the sacrifices." And if the circumstance 
 of circumcision being a"painful rite," was a reason why it should not have 
 >oeti ap|)oinled as a mode of initiation into the church for males, the same 
 reason if good, will prove that it should not have been a])iH/inted for any 
 ])urpose whatever. The objection is nott)nly silly, but somewhat imjjious, 
 telling Jehovah what kind of ordinitnces he should not have ap])ointed in 
 iiis church. 
 
 In pages 14, 15, If-, Mr. C. bdldly defends what he has said in the 28lh 
 pai;e af his book, — '•^ihui JuJuLsm mid (!cfi(i/is/n were both dislinct from, 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 and essentialhj opposite tv Christianity." He draws his materials of de- 
 fence from the Avorthlessriess cf the Jewish dispeisatior! and ordinances,— 
 as styled by the ai;ostle Y-ixyxX^*-^ the ministration ofdtath and condemnation** 
 — "W(?f/A- and beggarly elements'" — carnal ' ommandn.tnts irrfiosed upon them 
 till the time of the reformation — "■a yoke of bondage'' — and at best but 
 the "shadow of good things to come'' and which '■'■made nothing perfect'^ — 
 that the same apostle hath said, "z/ye be circuynciscd, Christ shall profit 
 you nothing;" — from the corruption of the Jewish doctrines by the Phari- 
 sees and Sijdducees — and from the wickedness of the Jews who crucified 
 Christ, and jiersecuted his followers. 
 
 This is indeed a horrible picture of Judaism as drawn by the pencil of 
 Mr. C. and as it seems he understands, and would wish us to understand 
 some of the foregoing quotations: and if true, it is no wonder that he class- 
 es it with "Gentilism, and as essentially opposite to Christianity;" and if I 
 viewed it as he does, I could not believe that Jehovah the author of it was 
 a holy Being, yea more, 1 would join with Thomas Paine, in saying that the 
 Old Testament Avas '^the w ord of the devil." — But let us examine the pic-' 
 ture a little. 
 
 In 2 Cor. 3: 7, the apostle does indeed style the Jewish dispensation, 
 comprehending in it the covenant at Sinai, "a ministration of death and 
 condemnation written and engraven in sti nes." But why does he style it 
 so? Does he mean, or could he mean that the whole of it led down to eter- 
 nal death all who embraced it. This, as has been observed would reflect 
 on the character of the God of Israel, as promulgating and enjoining a 
 dispensation that w ould lead down to eternal death and condemnation all 
 who received it. \\ hat then was his meaning? This — that the moral law^ 
 requiring justly, perfect obedience, and as justly denouncing the curse of 
 the Law giver for the least disobedience was promulgated, as it was^ 
 amidst terrible thunderiiigs and lightnings, for the purpose of convincing 
 not only the Jews but us, that ''by the deeds of the law no flesh can be jus- 
 tified," because "all have sinned;" and to induce the Jews to look unto him 
 who was promised to come, "to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself, 
 typified in the various sacrifices enjoined upon them; — and us to look to 
 ^the same Redeemer as come, and who has shed his blood for the remission 
 of sin, and whose blood when received by faith "cleanseth from all sin." 
 That this was the meaning of the apostle in the passage is evident from 
 this,that in the words that immediately follow he styles this \^vy '■'■ministra- 
 tion" 'glorious," but the ministration of the spirit, or the Gospel dispen- 
 sation, as more "glorious;" because the one as typical was only a "shadow 
 of good things to come," but the other holds out to our view "the lamb 
 slain from the foundation of the world" as come, and dving the just for the 
 unjust I 
 
 In Gal. 3: 9. The apostle also styles the ordinances of the Jewish dis- 
 pensation and church, "weak and beggarly elements." But in what sense 
 were they so? and on what occasion did he say so? They were weak and 
 beggarly onlyAvhcn compared with the simpler and more significant ordi- 
 nances of the Christian dispensation. In the one, they had reference to 
 a Redeemer who was to come; in the other they rcsject him as already 
 come; and in this sense, I apprehend, "the least in the kingdom of heaven 
 is greater than John Bt.ptist," because he died before the Christian dis- 
 pensation commenced. Besides, the persons to whom the apostle address- 
 ed those words were Gentiles by extraction, and had been seduced by the 
 Judaizing teachers to observe the Jewish in conjunction with the ordi- 
 
15 
 
 iuinces of tl»c Christiati flispcnsiilioii; the aposilc tliorcforc used as strong' 
 language as the sul)ject coiilcl possiljly admit, lor the puipu^e of couviiic- 
 ing them of their ftdly and mistake. 
 
 In Ilel). ii; 10, the same f)i iliiiances are styled ^'carnal ordinances" impos- 
 ed on the .lews "until the lime of refcji'mation." 
 
 The wold '^'cainal" or tleshly, is used in the scrii)tnres in diiTercnt mean- 
 ings or acceptations. In Exekiel ofS: 26, it is used losii^nij'y a jjenilent and 
 believing heart. — "I will take away the heart of stone, and give you an 
 heart of flesh." In the writings of Paul it is l'iT(|ueu;ly used to denote 
 the depravity of t!ie human heui-t — "The carnal mind is enmity ag.iinst 
 God." As ISIr. C.'s object is to prove that Judaism was as wicked a thing 
 as (ientilism, it would seem tliut in the pieceding (juolation he understood 
 the words in this last sense, lor it it had reference to cvny thing spiritual 
 and divine, then Judaism could not have been as bad as (ientilism; and in- 
 deed 1 liave met with the words "carnal ordinances'' so styled by Baptist 
 writers, that it appeared to me that they meant by them something wicked 
 and depraved. But that the words have reference to the val'ious 7i\7.vA//;.^s 
 enjoined by the Levitical law, and which signified the necessity of tlie 
 cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit, is evident from the words imme- 
 diately preceding. The design of llie apostle in the cluipter was to shew 
 that the Jewish ordinances were superseded l)y those appointed by Christ, 
 and alluding to those of tliem that consisted in the observation of clean 
 and unclean meats, aiui their dilfercnt a!)luiions, he says, "which stood on- 
 ly in meats and driidis, and diverse -ivuff/ii/ii^-s, an:! carnal ordinances im- 
 posed upon them until the time of i-( formation." Some interprciers un- 
 derstand by the "meats and diiidis" in this verse, the meat and d; iidi offer- 
 ings that accompanied the sacrifices, and by the "diverse waslun.:,'S," the 
 washing of the sacrifices, and also those enjoined oti the priests and peo- 
 ple; but in whichever of those senses wc understand the apostle, t'lose or- 
 dinances weie not wicked things in themselves, nor designed to lead tj 
 wickedness, but to lead to the i)lood of the atonement for pardon, and to 
 the spirit of grace for purification. And although they are said to 
 have been "imposed on the Jews until the time of reform^.tion," 
 or until the Messiah should come; and although ihey are c;dfed 
 "a yoke of bondage,'' because they were numerous and expensive, 
 yet as they were aj)pointed by infinite wisdv)m, they were doulitless 
 best suited to that age of the world, and to the characterof the Jewish 
 nation. As for what the apostle says to the (iaiatians (5: 2.)"^ ye !)e cir- 
 cumcised Christ shall profit you nothing;" it is evident from the preceding 
 and subsecpient contexts, that he alluded to the docliine taught liy the Ju- 
 daizing teachers and which some of them embraced, that to be circumcis- 
 ed, entitled the circumcised person to salvation, as some think in the pre- 
 sent day that they shall be saved because they have been baptized. Both 
 opinions are founded on a dangerous error, and lead from Christ, and is a 
 virtual renunciation of the mei-it of his blood. Circumcision was appoint- 
 ed as a i-pean of induction lor the males into the Jewisij church, and fur ob- 
 taining the circumcision of the heart, and liaptism is nothiiu; more, ex- 
 cept that like circumcision it is a seal of the baptized believer's inlerest in the 
 righieousness of faiih. These observations explain what the apo-,iIe meant 
 when he says in the following verse, "he thai was circumcised wasadei)t- 
 orto do the whole law," moral and ceremonial, or to keep it without fail- 
 ure in a single instance, if he expected life by it, anl which constrained 
 him to say iu the next followijij^- verse, "CJiiisi is betoiue of uo effect uuLo 
 
76 
 
 you, whosoever of yon are justified l^y the law; ye are fallen from ^racs."-— 
 Mr. C. iiii'lersiands the words "if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit 
 you liotliin ;■," as implyinii,- that there was no profit whatever in circunn- 
 cision, yea, he tells us in p.l4,lhiit it w3ls '■h-e/iugnant lo Christianity. ''' KoW 
 this is setting the apostle in opposition to himself, for he says in l^om. 3: 
 1,2, that it was of much profit v/hile the Jewish dispensation lasted. 
 "What advantage then hath tlie Jew, and what firq/It is thete in circum- 
 cision? Much every nvay, but chiefly because that unto them were commit- 
 ted ihe oracles of God." Such is the deleterious influence of Mr. C.'s 
 system, that it has led him flatly to contradict the apostle, and to represent 
 Jehovah as a])pointing- an ordinance that in itself was 'M-epugnant to Chris- 
 tianity." I will add on this point that 1 have ail along said that circumci- 
 sion was a type of l)aptism, and Mr. C. cannot point to the place wliere I 
 have said "that it was not a type of baptism." I have also said that bap- 
 tism has taken the '"•room of circumcision" in the church of Clod, and pro- 
 duced Col. 2: 11, 12, as a proof, and Mr. C. has not dared lo exanjine that 
 proof. 
 
 To Mr. C.'s other objections to Judaism — the wickedness of the Jews in 
 the days of Christ — their crucifying him, and persecuting his followers, 
 and the con-u])tions introduced into the Jewish system by the Pharisees 
 and Sadducecs, I shall just only observe, that wicked as the Jews wei-e, it 
 should be rem^embered that they did not cruelly Christ as their Messiah, 
 but an impostor and that they persecuted his followers, as the followers of an 
 impostor. The Pha''isees had also much corrupted the Jewish theology 
 by their traditions, but not so far as to affect its fundamental principles; 
 else Christ would not have said, as be did, to his disciples, the scribes and 
 Pharisees sit in Moses's seat, all therefore whatsoever they bid you ob- 
 serve, that observe and do, but do ye not after their works; for they say 
 and do not; nor would he have attended as he did, on the various ordinances 
 of that dispensation. Mr. C. seems very angry with me l>ecanse I noticed 
 his saying that ''Judaism and Gentilism were both distinct from, and es- 
 sentially opposiie to Christianity;" and because I called this degradation 
 of Judaism blasphemy. Kis system does indeed necessai'ily lead to this, 
 and I noticed it, that he might see that it was unscriptural and dangerous, 
 and I expected that he would have recanted what he has said on that 
 point, or explain it so, as not to afiect the purity of Jehovah the a\ithor of 
 Judaism, lie has given us his explanation and instead of recanting 
 whatl consider as blasphemy in terms, he tells lis p. IG, that "he will yet 
 be more blanphemous^^ and as an evidence, he adds, that Judaism "in its 
 effects and practical bearings is more averse from Christianity than sheer 
 GemUifsm. But how much more blasphemous he can be 1 know not, unless 
 he denies the Old Testament to be the word of God; and indeed his present 
 system in its legitimate consequences leads to this, and I would not be 
 surprised to hear one day that that was the case. 
 
 Before I dismiss that point it may not be amiss to observe that Mr. C. 
 tells us in p. 14, that it is not Judaism as "once instituted by the Creator.'' 
 but as "mixed with Pharisaism and Sadduceism, and corrupted with the 
 traditions oi" the elders'' that he opposes and vilifies. And is not tins the 
 case? No — they are words without meaniiip; — words of mere finesse, like 
 those he used in regard to the ancient fathers of the church. The corrup- 
 tions introduced by the Pharisees,and Saddiicees,are particularly mention- 
 ed and exposed by Christ in his sermon on the mount and elsewhere; but 
 you will have observed that Mr. C. docs not mention, nor refer to one of 
 
77 
 
 those rornii^tions, but directs his 1"uhiiiiiations a£>;ainst JikUiisiu "as once 
 insii tilled !)y tl-.c (Creator" — u;^aii)st clrciiincisioii, which was not intro- 
 duced by the ll'.arisees or Sadducc( s, but app<jintcd hy Jehovah himself in 
 the time of Abialiain, and against t!ie varicnis sacrifices and washinj!;s ap- 
 pointed by the same authority in the days of Moses, and styled liy Paul 
 carnal ordinances, for the i-easons just now assigned. But why all t'.iis 
 artifice, and shameful, but thin v«'il of deception? It was doubtless design- 
 ed to answer a double purpose. If. the picture he has dra\vi\ would be 
 found too strong for, or displeasing to the public eye, then he could retrt at 
 by sayin.gthat it was not pure Judaism, but the corruptions of it he oppos- 
 ed; and if the picture would l)c found to !)e not displeasing, then it wo-ild 
 counteract the strong argument for Pedobaplism drawn from the existence 
 of a church of God in the Jewish nation; but rather than admit this, Mr. 
 ('. is willing that the Jews previous to the coming of Christ sliould go . 
 down to etei-nal "death and wo," as it appears he wishes his readers to 
 understand the words '■'ministration of death and condemnation " 
 
 That Mr. C. either believes, oi- aifects to ijelieve that the Jewish dispen- 
 sation and ordinances were not calculated for, nor designed as means for 
 producing regeneration and purity oi heart is not oidy evident f.-oni the 
 picture of Judaism which he has drawn, but from his challenging me in 
 p. 15,'*to produce one instance of a Jew being admitted into the Christian 
 chuich from its first exhibition on the day of Pentecost, without professing 
 repentance or conversion;" to uhich he adds, "that 1 cannot do it, and he 
 is sure I cannot." 1 have mentioned in the third letter the eunuch of the 
 queen of Ethiopia, and Lydia, who were either Jews or proselytes to the 
 Jewish religion; and who in my apprehension were gracious persons, au'.l 
 were baptized without any profession of rclientance and convemion being 
 n^iuired of them, understanding those words in their utmost extent of 
 meaning. Mr. C. has seen this, why did he not shew that I was mistaken 
 if he could? But that is not his manner of condu;.ting the controversy. 
 His manner you have seen is, to deal in general expressions, and to call 
 for proof on subjects already discussed and proved, without attem[)ting to 
 shew the invalidity of the proof offered That there were a num!)er of 
 persons in the Jewish churidi in the days of Christ, (perhaps the wicked- 
 est period of the Jewish history) and who were regenerated in that church, 
 is evident not only fiom the particular mention made of some of them,but 
 from what John says in his Gospel respecting Christ. 1: 11 — 13, "He 
 came to his own, and his own received him not. But to as many as re- 
 ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of Ciod,cven to 
 them that believe on his name; which vjcre born, not of blood, nor of the 
 will of the flesh, nor of the will of maiv,^/// of God."'' Here the persons 
 ■who received Christ, are said to have been"Z>o?vi of Ciocl^'' and iiorn again 
 under that dispensation and its ordinances which Mr. C. tells us, "was 
 more averse from Chi-istianity than ulieer Gentilism.'''' The discussion of 
 this point brings to my recollection what he says in his book p. 27, re- 
 specting Nathaniel — "that he exercised u 7ie'U) faith, and had c/lier disco- 
 veries, wiiich he never before possessed, jjrevious to his becoming a Chris- 
 tian.'" I suppose that l)y this ?2(.ii' faith Mr. C. means a justifying faith. 
 Now I had always thought that this faith was the same wiih respect to its 
 essence, operations, and object, in the pious Jew, and the j)ious Chiistian, 
 with this circumstantial and immaterial dilVerence, that the faith of the 
 pious Jew was directed to a Redeemer who was to come, l)ut the fuith of 
 the pious Christian is directed to him as already come. That Nathaniel 
 
IS 
 
 had new discoveries is readily admitted, because he saw and conversed 
 "with the Redeemer in the flesh, but that he had a new faith with respet t to 
 its nature and operations we deny — If so, then he could not have been styl- 
 ed, Hs he was I>y Christ himself, "an Israelite indeed, in whom there was 
 no guile. ■" — Mr. C should never have talked about "quacks in tJieoloQ^y." 
 
 The Socratic method o\ asking questions is an ensnaring way of con- 
 ducting an argument.. In the debate with Mr. W. Mr. C. conducted his 
 argument generally in this way, and supposing that he has gained m ich 
 advantage by it, he has also asked me a number of questions in pages IT, 
 . 18, expecting no doubt, that I would be thereby ensnared. I mi.;-ht with 
 the greatest propriety refuse to answer those questions, as the subject-mat- 
 ter of them has been discussed in the first letter, and it was his province 
 as a disputer and vvriter to have rejected that iliscussion if he could. How- 
 ever to cut ott" every pretension of avoiding any thing that bears on the 
 point in issue, I shall answer those questions, taking the liberty for the 
 sake of brevity, of compressing the longest of them, but retaining every 
 thing that is relevant; and also the liberty of asking him in my turn a few 
 questions, not for the purpose of ensnaring- hiin, but that he may see the 
 real stale of the question betwixt us in a clear point of light, and if it may 
 be, convinced of his error. 
 
 "Query 1. With what firo/iriety could Mr. I?, say that the whole promise 
 of Joel's prophecy was fultilled in the miraculous gift of tongues confer- 
 red on the apostles — when no such miraculous gift of tongues is mention- 
 ed in the promise." 
 
 A. 1 have not said that the whole of Joel's prophecy was fulfilled in the 
 gift of tuugues. That prophecy contains two distinct things — a predic- 
 tion of pouring out the spirit on the Gentiles as well as the Jews, express- 
 ed in these words, "and it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour 
 out my spirit on all fiesh\"^ and a particular promise to the Jews which 
 ^vas to taixe place at the commencement of the Gospel dispensation, ex- 
 pies^ed tnus, "and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," and 
 which was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when "cloven tongues like as 
 fire sat on che followers of Jesus, and they were all filled with the Holy 
 Ghost; and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them ut- 
 terance." This was astonishing to the multitude who came together on 
 the occasion, but Peter accounted for it by saying "Mis is that which was 
 spoken l)y the prophet Joel." Your objection that the words "the gift of 
 tongues^' are noc mentioned by Joel is of no force. It was included in 
 the word "prophesy," and in this sense the word appears to be used in 1 
 Cor. 14: 31. If it was not included, then Peter did not say truth when he 
 said, '-'this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." But we will 
 m^et with this subject again, under another query, where the absurdity of 
 your explication and application of this prophecy will appear in a glaring 
 
 light. 
 
 '"Query 2. With what truth can Mr. R. in the same page say that Pe- 
 ter urged this promise as an argument why the Jews and their children 
 should be baptized—when Peter says not one word directly or indirectly 
 concerning the baptism of their children." 
 
 A. I have not said so at all— l)ut my answer to your next query wiI3 
 more fully explain the matter. 
 
 "Query 3. Why should Mr. R. endeavour to prove that although Peter 
 cited Joel 2, he meant Gen. 17: 7. 
 
79 
 
 A. I have not said so. Alluding to your oxplaiiution and applicatinu 
 of the words "///t'/iro7/j/if" in Acts 2: 39, as havinj^ lofcrenre only to the 
 piophccy of Joel, I have said ''that whatever that promise was.it is >uidenia- 
 bk, that reter\u^fd it as an argument why tlie Jews and their children 
 should be baptized,'' and at the same lime I ofleied several reasoir why he 
 nuist have referred to Cen. 17: 7, 1 produced Rom. 9: 8, and C;«l. r>: 29, 
 as a proof of this. This you have seen, and why did you not shew if you 
 could, that I missapplied these passages. To this I now add, that the 
 words of Jehovah in (ien 17: 7, and the words of Peter in Acts 2: 29, when 
 compared sul)stantiate this position. The wor(\^ of Jehovah are, ''I will 
 be a (iod to ihce, and to thy seed alter thee;" and the words of Peter arc, 
 " 1 he promise is to you and to your childicn." The diHerence of the two 
 passages is only verbal and immaterial, and the argument for infant bap- 
 tism deducible from them, I have [jointed out pretty fully in my first letter. 
 Before I dismiss this (|uery, you must excuse me for telling you, that you 
 have shrunk dishonourably from the examination of this interesting pas- 
 sage, for instead oi' meeting my arguments, and discussing them fairly, 
 you have passed over them, and diverted the minds of your readers from 
 the point by boldly (I was about to write another word) asserting what I 
 have not said — I repeat it, your friends must feel disappointed and morti- 
 fied. 
 
 "Query 4. Why does Mr. R. represci\t the piomise of the Holy Spirit 
 as exclusively rcferi ing to extraordinary operations, whereas the promise 
 of the Spirit as a Spirit of illumination, of wisdom, of prophecy, of com- 
 fort, is that promise which distinguishes the ministration of the Spirit from 
 the mmialrcitiij?! of co!icJe?n?iation,iu a degree, and to an extent unknown to 
 the Jews and Patriarchs; more es])ecially as Peter applies the promise iu 
 Joel to the jjromise which Jesus gave to his disciples, concerning the 
 communication of liis Spirit, as a convincer, and a comforter, after his as- 
 cension into heaven." 
 
 A. It is somewhat strange to meet with the Jews and their religion, as 
 possessing any thing good or spiritual, after the dreadf il anathemas you 
 have lately poured out on them, and their "ministation of death and con- 
 demnation." But passing this by, that part of the prophecy of Joel that 
 has reference to the Jews is confined to "prophesying, dreaming dreams, 
 and seeing visions," to which is added "wonders in the heavens and in the 
 earth, blood, and fire and pillars of smoke; of the sun being turned into 
 darkness, and the mocjn into blood," which latter portended the destruc- 
 tion of the Jewish nation and polity; and I have shewn in the fourth letter 
 in this pamphlet that the Anal)aptists in (Jeimany, with whom I have also 
 shewn, you so closely fraternize, ijoth in jjolitical and theological princi- 
 ples, had their dreams and vibions before they attempted to overturn all 
 government in church and state; but 1 deny that dreams and supposed vi- 
 sions are the medium through which the Spirit of (iod, since the close of 
 the canon of divine levelation, communicates his illuminating, convincing, 
 and sanctifying infiuences. "By the law (says one apostle) is the know- 
 ledge of sin," "and sanctify them by thy truth, thy word is truth," is one 
 of the petitions which Christ put up to his Heavenly Father, for the sanc- 
 tification of his peojde. 
 
 \ ou confound. Sir, two distinct pronuses that has led you into the dan- 
 gerous system you have adopted, and blinded your eyes against the clear, 
 and forcible argument for infant baptism conluined in Acts 2: .19. The 
 promise of the Holy Spirit as a Cf^nvincer, s:inctifier and comf-rlor, was 
 
80 
 
 given by Christ previous to his death, and is contained and detailed in 
 the 16lh, and 17th chapters of John; but by tuining to Acts 1:4, 5, you 
 will there find that the promise of the Holy Ghost as foretold by Joel, and 
 s^iven to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, had reference to the mira- 
 culous gift of tongues, and foretold by John Baptist as a baptism "with 
 the Holy Ghost, and with fire," as is particularly mentioned by Luke the 
 inspired historian. I have no doubt but that it was by amistaken appli- 
 cation of that prophecy that the German Anabaptists were led into all 
 the extravagancies and atrocities which they committed: and it concerns 
 you. Sir, seriously to inq\iire, if your exposition and application of that 
 prophecy may not lead your followers to the same atrocities. I will only 
 farther observe that although the prophecy of Joel as it respected the Jews 
 was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost to the apostles in the gift of tongues, 
 yet I do not say that the general part of the prophecy was not fulfilled in 
 part at that time, or shortly after. That it was fulfilled to the guilty mul- 
 titude who assembled on the occasion, so as to convince them of sin is 
 certain, for we are told that they were "pricked in their hearts;" and also 
 to their conversion through baptism as the mean, as is apparent from the 
 42d verse, but let it be remembered that the gift of tongues expressed by 
 "prophesying" See. was conferred on the disciples only, and that Peter in 
 the 16lh verse, applied it to that circumstance, and that only, and that he 
 tlid not, could not refer to it in the 39th verse, as you say he did, I shall 
 shortly prove in answering the 6th query. 
 
 "Query 5. Why does Mr. R. say that the Baptists teach, "Be baptized 
 every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, — 
 for the promise is to you, but not to your children — when there is not one 
 of them so ignorant of scripture as to say that this promise meant bap- 
 tism, for baptism is -Acommand,, not a promise." 
 
 A. I am not so ignorant as to say, nor did I say, that the word "promise" 
 meant baptism; but I have said, and I still say, that "the promise" which 
 I have shewn refers to Gen. 17: 7, is urged by Peter as an argument to in- 
 duce those Jews whom he addressed to submit to that ordinance. Their 
 children are included in the promise, but you say that although they are 
 included in the promise they were not to be baptized. I drew my con- 
 clusion from the exposition which you and every other Baptist give to the 
 passage — il it is fulsely drawn shew it to me and I will recant it. You 
 should have done this, instead of covering your incompetency with what 
 you supposed to be a perplexing, but really is a silly question. 
 
 "Query 6. Why does Mr. R. say that I explained the words "afar off" 
 as relating to the remnant of the Jews only; when my words which he 
 viisrcjircsents are p. 55, "for saith Peter, the promise is to you, and to your 
 children'' — "all fiesh" — "your sons and your daughters,or your children." 
 Joel says 32d verse, "and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call" — Peter 
 says, "to them afar off"— "even as many as the Lord shall call;" "whether 
 Jews or Gentiles." 
 
 A. Passing over the confused and clouded manner in which you state 
 this query, I would observe, that you apply tbe prophecy of Joel to the 
 words of 'Peter Acts 2: 39, and you tell us in the 55th page of your book, 
 that no two passages "were evermore cleaily identified," but when exa- 
 mined and compared, never was a proi)hccy w'ith what you call its fulfil- 
 ment so unlike each other. The prophecy, as I have observed, is intro- 
 duced with a general indefinite promise of "pouring out the Spirit on all 
 JieshP This you apply to the particuia." promise to the Jews, "that their 
 
81 
 
 sons and tluir daug;htors should prophesy." Now no application can be 
 more alisunl than this, for tho Jews and tlieir children are not *"aUJlvah" 
 or all mankind. Besides, in your ap[)lication you omit "the servants and 
 the hand-maidens" on whom the Spirit was also to i)e poured, because as 
 they were not the children ol' the Jews, that part of '.ht prophecy could 
 not possil)Iy be applied to Peter's words verse 39lh — "ibe promise is to you, 
 and to your children."— The latter part of the propliecy in wl ich you 
 say I have "wwrcZ/rfscnrfrf" you have stated thus. "Joel says 3?d vevse, 
 ''and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call"' — I'ett-r says "to them afar 
 off", even as many as the Lord shall call." I have shewn in my first letter 
 that the "remnant" means that part oi the .U-wish nation who .ulievcd in 
 Christ, and that the "afar off"" denoted the (.ci.tilc s, I would now ask yoii 
 Sir, if you have not identified the words of Jotl and Peicr, or applied ilie 
 words "afar off" to the "i-emnant." Pciliips you may say that in your 
 "Strictukks" you have added the words "Jews and C.n ules" to the 
 words "afar off"." But they are not in your book Sir. and 1 urn only ac- 
 countable for the application of what 1 have quoted from your book. "SVho 
 is the misreprcscnter now? I will only just add, that if you will look at the 
 prophecy of Joel ai^ain, you will find that the promise to the "rcmnajit" is 
 not the promise of "pouring out the Spirit" upon them, but tlie promise 
 of deliverance from the dreadful judgments that were awaiting the Jews 
 for their not receiving Christ as the Messiah, and cannot therefore be ap- 
 plied, as you do, to Peter's words "for the promise is to you and to your 
 children." 
 
 In page 18, you ask me "what is the difference betwixt saving that the 
 covenant of circumcision "is the covenant confirmed of Ciod in relation to 
 
 Christ and his chujch, and affirming that it is the covenant of grace" 
 
 you add that "my answer is humbly looked for;" and you presume that 
 my ''nc-u>(rround'" is no better than Mr.\V.''s old ground,nay that it is the 
 3;imc ground ol uncertainty and conjecture." 
 
 A. It would seem that you calculate highly on my answer to thisnues- 
 tion, from the manner in which it is asked; and that there is some stibtle 
 strong. snare concealed in it, but which is not pervious to my obtuse under- 
 standing. But I shall answer it with the same promj)tn» ss and candour 
 w^ith which I have answered those already noticed. My answer is this. 
 The covenant of grace sccutes justification,' sanctificatior, and eternal life 
 roall who are interested in it; but the covenant of circumcision secured 
 only the ordinances of religion as the means of grace to the circumcised; 
 and as I have shewn in my first letter that the church of Clod is one and' 
 indivisible, under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations of 
 grace, and that baptism has taken the place of circumcision under the pre- 
 sent dispensation, then the same privileges are secured by that covenant 
 to the baptized. That this ''n<"iv ffroumP'' as you si vie it, is not a ground 
 of "uncertainty ai:d conjecture," but founded upon,' and agreeable to the 
 word of God, is apparent from the following passages. It will be admit- 
 ted that a living !aith, and a living faith onlv is what interests in the bless- 
 ings of the covenant of grace, but Christ himself who purchased these 
 blessings has said "he that believeth, shall be .saved; but he that believeth 
 not shall be divmned." What now are the blessings secured by the cove- 
 nantoi circumcision to those who are uiteresled iu itr The apovtle an- 
 swers the question Rom. 3: 1, '2, lately adduced for another purpose. 
 '^\\ hatadvaiaage hath the Jew.? or what profit is there of < ircumcision? 
 v-uch evrry way; rfiitJif because that unto thejn w-r'' rnnimittcd thcora- 
 
 n 
 
82 
 
 ules of God " Here the apostle tells us in plain lerms, that the chief d,^- 
 vantage resulting from the covenant of circumcision to the Jews was; that 
 the oracles of God were thereby secured to them, and which you absurdly 
 tell us, imported the land of Canaan, and which neither you nor any other 
 man will contend imported justification, sanctification and eternal life, and 
 what they really imported the same apostle tells specifically in the 9th 
 chapter 4th and 5th verses, and which I have particularly mentioned in 
 my first letter. And here I cannot but observe, that in this same page 
 you have asserted, what every person who has read that letter knows to be 
 untrue. You have asserted that I have represented what is called the co- 
 venant of circumcision, and the covenant of God in Christ, as one and the 
 same, ^''oii viy oivn authority.'^'' You know. Sir, as I have already observ- 
 ed, that I produced Rom 4: 17, and Gal. 3: 8, 17, as a proof that this is the 
 fact.-This was apostolical,and not my "own authority." You have asserted 
 also that Ihave said that this covenant was "made 430 years before the 
 law, and confirmed only 400 year^j before the law." Now you and every 
 other reader cannot but know that I have not said one word respecting ei- 
 th<;r the year it was made or confirmed I have said that it was first inti- 
 mated in the 12th chapter of Genesis and confirmed, thirty years after- 
 "vvaids, and what is more common amongst men, than for a covenant to be 
 made at one time, and confirmed or ratified at another: and yet you make 
 a loud outcry about my misrepresenting you, but upon what ground the 
 reader has seen. 
 
 And now Sir, as I consider your strictures on my first letter as closed, 
 (for the stories of James Orthodox, and William Biblicus are a pi oof 
 of nothing but of a want of argument) and as the subject of the means of 
 grace, and of baptism as one of those means will present itself in my ex- 
 amination of your "strictures" on what is now the third letter; and as we 
 have fallen into a kind of "tete a tete," or familiar conversation, permit me 
 to ask you in my turn, if you have conducted your "strictures" thus far, 
 either in style or manner, as the laws of the public investigation of an 
 important and interesting subject demand, and the public had reason to 
 expect. My views on the subject of baptism differ from yours. I pre- 
 sented those views to the public in as clear a manner as I could, and the 
 medium through which they were first presented would admit, accompa- 
 nied by those arguments from the word of God as I then thought, and 
 as I still think supported those views. Have you taken up those argu- 
 ments one by one, and endeavoured to point out their weakness or sophis- 
 try? No — you have not looked at them in this way, but asked what you 
 supposed were ensnaring questions on points which I had spread broadly 
 before you, and the public; but I trust that you have now seen that your 
 snares are no stronger than a spider's web. Have you met, and attempted 
 to overthrow my argument drawn from the 1 1th chapter of the epistle to the 
 Romans, and the 2d chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, not only for the 
 existence of a church of God in the JeAvishnation,but for the identity of that 
 and the Christian Church. This, 1 need not tell you is the pivot on which 
 the whole controversy turns; and since you have overlooked that argu- 
 ment, am I not warranted in saying, that I have fully established that 
 point? I objected to what you deemed yonr strong argument against in- 
 fant baptism — "that in positive institutes we are not authorized to reason 
 what Ave should do, but implicitly to ol^ey," and — "that positive laws im- 
 ply their neg;''.ives:'' I objected because it excluded every woman hov/e- 
 ver pious from the table of the Lord. Have you noticed my obje-ction 
 
ami cndeavoiii'o.l V*"* iiKiliiUun your uryinncnt? Nu — you liave Imt ont^fe 
 glitnced ut i I iti all indirect manner ill p. ly, wlicn irroniu^ to h jusr-h >ld 
 i)aplisni, I)ul which 1 shall not now notice, as I have examined thit poi it 
 in the second lettL-r. Am I not also warranted to say that you have j^iven 
 up that stronsi: irrosistil)!e arg-ument as yon once coasidered it, and that it 
 is descended into the tomb of Mr. Hooth, from whom you bono wed it, 
 without acknowledging; the favoui? This narrows considera!)ly the q;'ound 
 of controversy Ijetwixt us; and it is possible that it may be narrowed siill 
 more, before I have (inishcd my examination of your "Stkictuuks.'' I 
 shall take my leave of you personally at present, rescrvin.;^ the privile;^e 
 of ai^-ain addressinp^ directly, if I shall think that the most expeditious 
 way of brin,;^in|:j the cuntroversy to an issue. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 That baptism is the appointed mean for the induction of adult persons 
 into the church, is a principle common to Baptists a-id Fedobaptists; bat 
 there is a diversity of opinion with respect to the character of tiiose .vho 
 are to !)e thus inducted. Some Baptists, amon<^st whom Mr. C. is to be 
 sometimes ranked, (for he is not uniform on this |)oint) conteud that a liv- 
 ing faitli iii Christ is indispensably necessary. But how is this to l)e as- 
 certained by the officers of the church? — By its fruits. But there may be, 
 and often is "a form ot godliness" where "the power thereof'' is Wanting; 
 and if this faith was designed as the on/ij terms of admissirwi, then the 
 Head of the church would have certainly given tliem some infalli!)le stand- 
 ard whereby this might be ascertained; but he has not, and tnerefoi-e "a 
 s])olless church" is at the same time impracticable and chimerical. Aware 
 of this, others tell us that it is a profession of this fait't that is only re- 
 quired. This also excludes the idea of a spotless church, for professions 
 of faith in Christ too often turn out to be only mere professions, both 
 amoiigst Baptists and Fedobaptists. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to obser\-c that 1 consider a profession of faith 
 in Christ as the only Saviour o!' sinners accompanied with a sense'of guilt, 
 and a respect for and attesidance oii the preached tiobpel, &c. as the ap- 
 pointed means of grace as entitling an adult to the ordinance of baptism; 
 and a profession of a hope that they have -'passed from death unto life," 
 as entitling baptized persons to the ordinance of the Supper, for every 
 person who has read the New Testament with care, must hav^ observed a 
 marked distinction with respect to the two ordinances. They cannot but 
 have observed that the apostles themselves baptized persons of marked 
 depravity on their acknowledging tiieir guilt, and that Jesus was the only 
 Saviour of sinners, without waiting to see if this sense of guilt would is- 
 sue in a hopeful conversion. They must have also observed with what 
 caution the apostle Paul in 11th chapter of hi's 1st epistle to the Corin- 
 thians and elsewhere, guards the ordinance of the Supper against those 
 who are ignorant of its nature and design, and have not experienced that 
 faith in Christ that purifies the heart, nor felt that love to God that in the 
 very nature of things is necessary for a worthy participation of that feast 
 of love. These obvious circumstances, cannot I think, be satisfactorily 
 accounted for on any other prijiciple than that the church was designed not 
 only for the reception of godly persons that they may become more godly 
 trUrough the means appointed for that purpose, but as the usual birth-place 
 
^4 
 
 bt those whom God designed to regenerate. It will be remembered that I 
 have examined and discussed this point pretty fully in my third letter; and 
 ris tlie principle there laid down and advocated,erases the very foundation oi 
 the Baptist system, it was therefore to be expected that Mr. C. would ex- 
 amine that principle with the greatest minuteness. This, his friends, and 
 the pu!)Iic expected from him; but you have seen that so far is this from 
 being the case, that he has not noticed the principal arguments at all; and 
 those he has noticed, some he dismisses in a very summary way bv saving 
 that they are too absurd to be noticed, and against others'hc has directed 
 a few pointless shafts of sometimes insipid, and sometimes unmeaning ri- 
 dicule. His objections are scattered here and there from the 25th to the 
 35th page, amidst much irrelevant matter; I shall collect them however 
 as well as I can, and try their weight and force. 
 
 In the letter referred to 1 have said that I consider circumcision and 
 baptism as appointed means of conversion for convinced adults, and who 
 have a competent knowledge of the plan of redemption revealed in the 
 Scriptures. In p. 25, Mr. C. calls upon me for a proof of this, and "fear- 
 lessly affirms, that I cannot produce one instance from the whole volume 
 of inspiration of one person being converted by cither circumcision or 
 baptism." This I confess is astonishing, as I have produced both "pie- 
 cept aiid precedent," one of which he tells us, is indispensably necessary 
 with respect to "positive institutes." I produced Col. 2: 1 1, 12*, as a proof 
 that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and that they are both 
 represented in that passage, as the means through which what is styled 
 '•the circumcision made without hands" is produced. I produced also 
 John 3: 5, "Except a man be born of nvuler and of the S/iirit, he cannot 
 euier into the kingdom of God.'' I produced farther Acts 2: 3, 8. "Be 
 baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
 the gifc of the Holy Ghost," to which I added the words of Ananias to 
 Saul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins;" and at the same 
 time I offered reasons why I considered those passages as teaching- the 
 doctrine that circumcision and baptism were desigried as n^eans of re- 
 generation and conversion. Mr. C. has seen and read all this, and yet he 
 calls upon me for proof. If these passages, and others that might be pro- 
 duced were not a proof of the position in his estimation, it was incumbent 
 upon him to have shev/n it, and that I either misunderstood, or gave them 
 a false interpretation; and uniil he does so, I must consider him as unable, 
 and admitting that the interpretation which I have given them is correct. 
 With respect to my being unable "to produce one instance from all the vo- 
 lume of inspiration of one person being converted by either circumcision 
 or baptism," I adduced the three thousand who were baptized on the day 
 of Pentecost, the apostle Paul, and the Jailor of the city of Philippi. I did 
 not mention these in general terms, but I assigned the reasons why I think 
 they establish the doctrine which I have advocated in that letter. These 
 reasons were also spread broadly before him, why did he not shew their 
 invalidity if -iie could? On this he is also as silent as death; from which I 
 am also warranted to draw the conclusion that he could not, but tries to 
 veil his incompetency under the following apostrophe, which every reader 
 will see has not the most distant reseml)laHce to the point discussed, and 
 Avhich every intelligent reader will perceive, is more respectful to Maho- 
 met than to Christ. "What! should a person of a distempered mind in 
 some reverie assert that the name Jesus Christ was equivalent to Maho- 
 rnety and denoted the same person, ought we to attempt to disprove itl!" 
 
84 
 
 As the piTCcding points involve in them the matter in isiur, I mij^ht 
 here lawfully close my examination of his strictures on that IcMer; but to 
 cut off every cavil I shall examine some other objections Ihouf^h of an in- 
 feriornole. I have said that when a circumcised Jew, or a baptized (.en- 
 tile became the subjects of a living faith, that circumcision became lo the 
 one, and baptism to the other, a seal of their interest in the righteousness 
 of faith, as ciicumcision was to Abraham of old. Rom. 4: 11. In p. 26, 
 Mr. C. thinks this "shocking," and in the style of William Cobbet bids 
 his readers "mark it well." Why "shocking" — Because they were not 
 made the su!)jectsof this faith while uncircumcised, or unbaptized. I con- 
 fess I cannot see why that circumstance should alter the case, jis it is by 
 the divine appointment alone, that circumcision, or baptism, or any other 
 ordinance is the external seal of an interest in the righteousness of Chri;>t, 
 apprehended by faith; but I can clearly sec, that to admit that any aw; 
 "born again" in the church of (iod, would not ovAy s/iocL-, but overturn the 
 Baptist system. 
 
 In p. :37, Mr. C. objects that 1 have said that some are morally convinced 
 of the truth of Christii.nity, who are not regenerated. He does not, as 
 is very usual with him, assign any reason for the objection. It is perhaps 
 founded on the words "morally convinced," as those words are used by 
 some writers, to denote s/z/rZ/ua/ illumination. I did not use them in that 
 sense, and on reflection I see that the word "rationally" would have bet n 
 better, and not liable to misrepresentation; and are there not thousands 
 who are ra^io7zc//j/ convinced of the truths of Christianity, and are yet not 
 regenerated? 
 
 In the next sentence he objects that it follows from my view of the sub- 
 ject, "that the unregenerate are commanded by God to make use of cer- 
 tain means that they may be regenerated, or those destitute of the Spirit, 
 are to make use of means without the Spirit, to obtain the Spirit." 
 
 Now I had always thought that this doctrine was clearly and expressly 
 taught in Ezekiel 36: 25, 26, 27, connected with the .SZth verse, ^^'hether 
 the passage 1 am about to quote has l)een accomplished to the J**ws, or is 
 yet to be accomplished; or whether Mr. C. will admit that the very first 
 words ol this passage are prophetical of the mode in which baptism was 
 to be admii/Istered when it shtnild be appointed, as I think is the case, al- 
 ters not the main doctrine taught therein. — "Then will I n/irinkle clean wa- 
 ter ution you^ and ye shall be clean — a clean heart also will I give you — 
 and I ivill fiut my Sjiirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, 
 and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. — Thus saith the i.ord God; 
 I will yet for this be i/ii/uned of by the house of Israel to do it for them." 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe iliai we are taught in this passage, in the 
 clearest language, that "to obtain the Spirit," as Mr. C. expresses it, we are 
 to inquire at the Lord for this purpose — incjuire at him in the way he has 
 himself appointed. I have also thoui^ht thut Christ has taught the same 
 doctrine in Mat. 6: 33. "5Ve/:ye first the kingdom of God and his righte- 
 ousness; and all these things [temporal blessings] shall be added unto 
 you." I have farther thought that Peter taught this ductrinc to Simon 
 Magus in Acts 8: 22. "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray 
 God, if perha/is the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." 1 have 
 thought that the word "repent" in this passage does not mean evangelical 
 repentance; for the apostle intimates that he might rcficnt in the sense he 
 uses the word, and "pray God," and urges him to do so, and yet it is a 
 ^^fierhafis" if the thought of his heart might be forgiven himj but for- 
 
86 
 
 g-iveiiess is promised to evangelical repentance, and that regcticratin.o, 
 grace is communicated through prayer, or any other mean appointed lor 
 the purpose, depends entirely on sovereign grace. I shall pass over at 
 present the doctrme implied in Mr. C.'s objection, as we will meet with it 
 again, in a more plain, bold, but not less dangerous form. 
 
 In support of the principle that the church was designed to be the usual 
 birth place of the children of grace, I produced Isaiah 5: J — 4, and Luke 
 IS: 6 — 9, where the church is describedby both Jehovah and his Son under 
 the allegory of a vineyard, and the trees planted therein, are represented 
 as planted that they might bring forth fruit in due season, and condemned 
 and threatened, because planted and tended, they did not bring forth fruit; 
 to which I added Psalm 87: 5, where it is said of Zion, or the Church, 
 "that this and that man was born in her," and Gal. 4: 26, where "Jerusa- 
 lem," or the Church, is said to be "the mother of us all." 
 
 And what now is Mr. C.'s answer to these arguments? He never once 
 glances at the two last of these passages, but tries to set aside the force of 
 the two first, by comparing the unregenerate sinner to a dead plant, in 
 ■which every principle of vegetable life is destroyed, whence he draws the 
 conclusion that as dead plants though planted and dug about and dunged, 
 cannot by such meatisbe brought to live again; so Baptists know that no 
 means can bring a sinner dead in trespasses and sins to spiritual life; after 
 "which he tries to ridicule myself for visiting the families of my congrega- 
 tions which he compares to "digging about,'' and for catechising the 
 young which he compares to "dunging," and then tells m.e more than once, 
 "that he understands that not any of them have by these means been 
 brought to life." 
 
 That any of their hearers have "passed from death unto life," cannot be 
 known with absolute certainty by any pastor of a congregation. A strong 
 hope however may be entertained by their professing godliness, and their 
 walking answerably to their profession; and this hope we have of a consi- 
 derable number baptized by us; and if it is ridiculous to visit the families 
 ol my congregations for religious conference, ainl to catechise the young; 
 persons amongst them, I am only sorry that I am not more ridiculous in 
 Mr. C.'s eyes than it seems I am on that account. But to return from this 
 digression to the point immediately in hand. Is Mr. C.'s comparison of 
 anunregenerate sinnir to a dead tree or plant, just, and scriptural? There 
 is no principle whatever in a dead tree that can be acted upon, by digging 
 about and dunging it; but this is not the case with the unregenerate sinner. 
 Though the powers of the soul in the understanding, will, and affections 
 are by sin turned away from God and things divine as the supreme good; 
 yet they are capable of being acted upon, and directed aright by an ade- 
 quate agent. The Spirit of God is that agent, and in regenerating the 
 sinner, he acts upon the physical powers of his soul by means suited to his 
 nature as a rational creature. "By the law (says one apostle) is the know- 
 ledge of sin;" "Being born again (says another,) not of corruptible seed, 
 but of incorruptible, by i/ie word of God which liveth and abideth for- 
 ever," and that baptism is one of the means through which what is styled 
 "the incorruptible seed" is conveyed, I have already shewn, and that the 
 author of regeneration is capable of doiiigso, will be admitted by all who 
 believe him to be a divine person. Indeed, it requires the same power to 
 implant it in the heart of an adult person whose physical powers are in 
 action, as in the heart of an infant; and we might say greater, because in 
 the adult there is a strong b]as to sin, and opposition to holiness; but still 
 
87 
 
 U't it 1)0 recollictod that if any adults or infants arc regenerated, it is en«- 
 tirrly of sovrrc-i.;;n and omnipotent },'racc. 
 
 A«. Mr. C.'s comparison of an unrt-^cniTatc sinner to a dead tree goes 
 to excuse the sinner for his sinfulness, and which he does in the plainest 
 terms in p. 197 of his hook, and which he has neitlier retracted nor ex- 
 plained; and as this conse(juentIy renders the use of all means unneces- 
 sary, it is therefore not surprisinti^ to hear him say in p. r>l, of his Stric- 
 tures, "that toenjoin the forms of religion," "such as prayer, ])raise," Stc. 
 on the unrei^enerate is "an error of the most pernicious tendency to true 
 godliness" — is "full of deadly poison," and "a relic of Popery," and whicli 
 constrained him to "pray for a second Luther to lash the Popery of false 
 Protestants, and to expose the legerdemain of interested Priests," by 
 whom, I have no doubt, he meant the Pedobaptist clergy. 
 
 As this with the preceding sentence i« the only apostrophe to the "in- 
 terested priests" which I have observed in his Strictures, it may be excus- 
 ed, but it is somewhat strange to hear him praying for a second Luther, as 
 the first Lulhcr was not only a Pedobaptist, and Avaged a long war with 
 his brethren the Anal)aptists of Clermany in the 16th century, but also in 
 his writings enjoined it on siimers to attend on the means of grace, that 
 Ihey might oi)tain grace. But we have a greater authority than Luther 
 on this point. Besides the passages already adduced from the word of 
 God, we add the following. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call 
 ye upon liimwhile he is near: let the v:ickcd forsake his way and the unrigh- 
 teous man his thoughts, and let !iim return unto tiu' Lord and he will have 
 mercy upon hian, and to our (iod, for he will abundantly pardon." Isaiah 
 55: 6, 7. Who now are the persons who in these verses are enjoined to 
 seek the Lord while he may l)e found, and to forsake their evil ways and 
 unrighteous thoughts? " I he wicked and the unrighteoiis," and who aixi 
 characterized in a foregoing verse, as "spending their money for that 
 which is not bread, and their laI)our for that which satisfieth not." In the 
 148th Psalm, the Psalmist calls upon"tl)e kings of the earth, and all peo- 
 ple; princes, and all judges of the earlh; l)olh young men, and maiden«; 
 old men and children," without sjiecifying their character as pious, or i ot 
 pious, to praise the Lord because of the excellency of his character. We 
 are told \n Mat. 21: 9, that wlien Christ made his public entry into Jerusa- 
 lem, "the multitudes that went i)efore, and that followed, cried, sajing, 
 Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
 the Lord; Hosanna in the highest." We are also told that when he <Mi1cr- 
 ed into the temple, the children cried, and said, "Hosanna t<j the Son cf 
 David." And who were those multitudes and their children? 'J'hose Jews 
 whom Mr. C. classes with the (ientiles. And was Christ displeased with 
 their Hosannas, and did he forbid them as acts "fiill of deadly poison," 
 and "pernicious to the interests of true godliness:" No — thechiel priests 
 were displeased, l)ut Jesus said, "ha\e yene\er read, out of the mouths ol' 
 habi}i\.\\o\x hast perft cted praise." The conclusion to be drawn from the 
 foregoing circumstances and facts is. 1 think, this; — that it is not a thitig 
 "full of deadly poison" and "pernici.ius to the interests of true godliness." 
 for sinners to praise Ciod with all the soirinnity they are capable of, for 
 sending a Redeemer into the W(/rld and to pray for an interest in the re- 
 demption purchas 'd hy hu I)lood; and to tell them they aie not to do so, is 
 in my opinion rank Antiiioinianism, and is a doctrine "full of deadly poi- 
 son," and peri'icious to the ^ouls of men. 'Ph. it none can he interested in 
 the "^reat salvuliou" wiiliout faith is certain; i>nt thi^^faith cometh by 
 
88 
 
 hearing, and hearings by the word of God;" from which I draw another 
 conclusion, that it is their duty to attend upon the preaching of the Gospel, 
 and other appointed means, and that this should be enjoined upon thenj by 
 parents and ministers. How Mr. C. acts in this respect I do not know, 
 but consistently with his principles, he should tell sinners that it is an act 
 "full of deadly poison,'' to read the word, or hear it preached, or to pray 
 with the publican of old, "God be merciful to me a sinner." 
 
 The matter of an act maybe good, or such as the divine law requires, 
 while the principle that can render it truly acceptable to the lawgiver is 
 wanting. But are we not to do that act, nor perform the required duty 
 until we are sure that we are possessed of the proper principle, and is that 
 the way in which we are to expect that principle? No — It is our duty to 
 abstain from all manner of evil, and to be conformed to the requisitions 
 of the law as far as possible, looking at the same lime lo God through 
 Christ for the renewing influences of his Spirit, that we may do all his 
 will with cheerfulness and delight As well might Mr. C. say that the 
 husbandman should not plough nor sow,that he may procurebread for him- 
 self and family, because God can create and rain down manna from hea- 
 ven, as he did to the Israelites in the wilderness; as that a sinner who has 
 access to the means of grace should not attend on those means, that he 
 may become gracious, until he believes that that is his character. There 
 is indeed no necessary connexion betwixt ploughing,and sowing, and reap- 
 ing; that is, it depends entirely on the divine blessing, on God's giving "the 
 former, and latter rain," but there is such a connexion by divine appoint- 
 ment as encourages his hope, and stimulates to industry. So it is with 
 the sinner. His reading, and hearing, and praying, do not deserve the en- 
 lightening and quickening energies of the Holy Spirit, nor has God bound 
 himself by promise to answer their prayers, as he has bound himself to an- 
 swer the prayer of faith; still it is through the means of his own appoint- 
 ment that the enriching blessing is to be expected, and is usually obtain- 
 ed; for "of his own will begat he us, ivith t/ie tvord of truth" saith the 
 apostle James; "and the publican who would not lift up his eyes to hea- 
 ven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner,'' "went 
 down to his house justified rather than the Pharisee," who in fact did not, 
 or would not pray at all. But as Mr. C. in this page makes a severe at- 
 tack on Constanline the first Christian Emperor of Rome, for enjoining on 
 his army a foi m of prayer at stated times, he may say that it is praying, 
 praising, and attending on the preaching of the Gospel, when enjoined by 
 civil authority that he condemns. This we condemn as much as he does; 
 but if that was his meaning, what relevancy or bearing has it on the subject 
 'rte are investigating, as the magistracy of our country have no such pow- 
 er, and we hope they never shall, as such things have been found rather 
 inimical, than advantageous to the Christian religion; and we would have 
 thought that that was lus meaning had he not charged it upon me as an 
 error, that I have said, "that God has commanded the unregenerate to 
 make use of certain means that they may be regenerated." But you may 
 be ready to ask, what induces him to cry down the use of means in the 
 strong manner he has done? It is the legitimate oil'spring of his system, 
 for to admit that sinners are regenerated through the use of means, is a 
 strung argument why they should be introduced into the church, which I 
 have shewn is the usual birth-place (f the children of grace, and this he 
 .^saw erased the ^■ery foundation of tlie Baptist systejij. 
 
89 
 
 As a proof tliat the visible church was desigjiied to embrace not only 
 lliose who arc born a^ain, but others tliut they may be n-^cncrated there, 
 I produced in mv first letter Mat. 13. 47, where the church under tlie ap- 
 pellati' n of "the kingdom of heaven," is compared to a "net cast into the 
 sea, which leathered of every kind," '■\LfOoct and bad." I produced also 
 Mat. '28: 1, 2, where the same kinp^doni of heaven, or the church is com- 
 pared "to t(Mi viri^ins, live of which were wise, and five foolish." Mr. C. 
 has not controverted, but by his silence admitted, that the application of 
 those passages to the church is just and correct. For the purpose of as- 
 certaining the true meaning of tlie (ireek words "//a^'/o/y and hefriaaame- 
 nois," translated '■".suinfa" and often applied to the members of the church, 
 in the New Testament, T produced the authority of Dr. Campbell who in 
 his dissertations referred to more than once, has proved by a number of 
 examples that those words in the Septuarrint wlien applied to human per- 
 sons do not denote moral purity, but only that they were set apart for some 
 special purpose — that although those words are iVecpiently used in the 
 New Testament to denote mor.il purity, yet whenever they are applied to 
 the members of the Christian churches, they should be understood as im- 
 porting nothing more, than that such persons were by baptism "devoted 
 or consecrated to the service of God." 
 
 Against this, Mr. C. produces the authority of Dr. Owen, who he says 
 "teaches, that the, apostles always addressed the churciies as rca/, not as 
 firnftsacd saints, for it would have been a violation uf C'hristian charity, to 
 have thought otherwise;" to which he adds t!ie authority of Mr. Walker 
 of Trinity College, Dublin, who in his letters to AlexanJer Knox Esq. 
 says that those words with their corresponding words in Hebrew, "meau 
 in the sacred dialect, that all believers in Christ are perfectly aanctijicd^ the 
 moment they believe the Ciospel." 
 
 Whether this be true, or the reverse, it has nothing to do with the point 
 in hand, and it required no great degree of penetration to see that it did 
 not. The point is, did the apostle Paul for instance, mean that all the 
 members of those churches whom he addressed under the appellation of 
 ''saints," were all "rca/ saints, ' or l)orn again of the Spirit of Ciod? Mr. C, 
 .says yes, on the authority of Dr. Owen as he says, for he has not referred 
 to the book, nor page. If that was the apostle's meaning, then he must 
 have allowed, and l)elieved that the incestuous person mentioned in his 
 hrst epistle, and those who countenanced him in his unnatural incest were 
 real, and not //ro/f^s^v/ saints," even while they continued insensible of the 
 atrocity of the crime; and he must have believed that the churches of Ga- 
 latia, w ho he says chapter 3d, were so "6rw/.'c/;ff/," as to renounce the doc- 
 trine of salvation by grace, and to look for salvation by the works of the 
 law, were "?•(■«/ saints" also. y\nd it is worthy of particular notice, that 
 although the apostle addresses the Corinthians as "saints;" yet in his epis- 
 tle to the Kphosians and Colossians, he adds to the word ".saints," and 
 '•faithful," or believing "brethren," which is a proof that he did not be- 
 lieve all the ineml)ers of those churches to be "/r.// saints;" lor if he did, 
 then the rlistinction was a mere tautology, and altogether superfluous. 
 But this is not all; in his epistle to the Cialatians, he omits even the word 
 '•saints," and simply says — "'I'o the churche? of (ialatia." And why this 
 nnjre marked distinction again' Douljtiess, from this cause: that although 
 he had reason to fear that tiiere were few true believers in the church at Co- 
 I'inth at the time he wrote his first epistle to them, yet he had reason to 
 fear for the reasons assigned, that there were still fewer in the churches 
 
90 
 
 of Galatia; notwithstanding which he addresses them both as churches, 
 and churches too of Jesus Christ. It is true that he omits the word 
 "saints" in his epistles to the churches of the Thessalonians, but he speaks 
 of them in the very beginning of both epistles, as that he had reason to 
 believe that they were generally "rec/ saints," which is not the case in his 
 epistle to the churches of Galatia. Perhaps it rnay be said, that the apostle 
 did not know their hearts, and might be mistaken, as there is often grace 
 in the heart, where there is much defection in faith and in practice. Well — 
 it will be admitted that Christ knows the true state of all churches, and 
 the hearts of all the members. Through his servant John he wrote and 
 directed a particular epistle to the seven churches of Asia. And what is 
 the character which this Searcher of hearts gives us of some of those 
 churches? With the exception of "a few names," the church of Sardis 
 "had a name to live while yet they were dead." The state of the church 
 of Laodicea was still more deplorable. They said that they were "rich, 
 and increased in goods, and had need of nothing," while he tells them that 
 they were "wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind and naked;" and 
 yet he addresses and styles them as churches as well as those whom he 
 commends — anotiier prooi that the church was designed to embrace others 
 besides those who were '•'■real saints." 
 
 It would seem that Mr. C. was sensible that the authorities he has pro- 
 duced, were inadequate to set aside the judicious criticism of Dr. Camp- 
 bell; and therefore he adds one of his ov/n, which he tells us settles the 
 point. It is this — that the phraseology "in Christ," denotes a vital union 
 to him; but the apostle addresses the Corinthians as '■'■hegiasamenois en 
 Christo,''^ or ^^sanctlfted in Christ" and the Philippians as '''•hagiois en Chris- 
 to^' or '"'•saints in Christ." 
 
 Without referring again to the character which the apostle himself 
 gives of the church of Corinth in his first epistle, I would reply that it is 
 admitted that the w ords "in Christ," mean a vital union to him, but not 
 always. One text to the point is equal to twenty, or an hundred. In John 
 15: 1 2, Christ styles himself "the true vine, and his Father the husband- 
 man," and then adds, "every branch nz me that beareth not fruit he taketh 
 away; and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth, that it may bring 
 forth more fruit," Here the unfruitful branch is expressly said to be "in 
 Christ," as well as the fruitful branch; and the question now is, how was it 
 united to Christ? The apostle Paul answers the question; "as many of you 
 as have been baptized itito C'/irist, have put on Christ" — "and as many as 
 have been baptized into Jesus Christ, have been baptized into his death" — 
 that is, they are thereby brought under obligations to live to his glory,and 
 to look for salvation by the merit of his "obedience unto death." This 
 must be his meaning, for Mr. C. himself will not contend that all who have 
 been baptized even by immersion were true believers; nor will he say that 
 baptism forms a vital union between the baptized unbeliever, and Chiist. 
 
 From these observations I think it will be admitted that the opinion of 
 Dr. Campbell that when the apostles addressed the Christian churches 
 they had not allusion exclusively to their moral purity, but to the circum- 
 stance ol their being "devoted, or consecrated to the service of God by 
 their bccptisni; and that they are styled "saints," or holy, in the sense that 
 the Jewish nation are styled so, because they were consecrated or set apart 
 to the service of the God of Israel by the ordinance of circumcision. 
 From the whole this appears to me to be the true state of the case. The 
 visible church was erected, is, and will be preserved in the world to the end 
 
91 
 
 «)!' lime, as the pUirc where those wliom Cud designed to save throujjh 
 Christ arc usiiully ''boin aicaiii," or 1kh-ii of (iod. Tho-se wlio are thus 
 b()rn a.!j:ain arc styled in the Sfriptmcj "the childriu of God'' and 
 "hranches in Clirist that boar fiiiit,'' witli other appropriate apprllaiivi.s, 
 B t a.- these cannot br distint^iiisiiod with alisolute certainty l)y rm;u from 
 those who have "the form of },'odline'ss, but arc destitute of the power 
 thereol," l)oth, for the reasonr, assi«;ncd are addressed by the apostles by 
 the j>:eiieral ajipclhition of "saints/^ of "the cliurr.h," and "the chiirr.h of 
 God''' "wliicli he hath boui*fht w iili his own blood," l)ccause it cost Christ 
 who is God, tlie shedding of his Idood, to pirparc the way whereby evi-u 
 this medium of rechMiijirion mi.nht be erected in tliis our woild, and espe- 
 cially wherei)y j\istification and eternal Ufe miijht !>e conferred on those 
 who truly I)elievo in his name. 
 
 Havint,' now finished the exaniination (jf I'.ic strictures on mv third let- 
 ter, I shall take the liberty of a little direi.t conversation with Mr. C. him- 
 self. And now Sir, yourself beinpf judtje, has not what you call my "new 
 g;roiind," and "new discovery," jiroduced confusion in the Baptist camp, 
 and disarmed you of your former i>oasted artillery? Is !»ut your having 
 recourse to a pithless and toothless irony, and a l>ombastical and sojuc- 
 timcs uninlelli.i^iI)lo apostrophisintj;, instead of argument aj^ainst this new 
 p^round, a proof that tliis is the case; and were you not aware, that every 
 intellii.'ent reader would consider it in that i)oinl of light? If this "new 
 ground," and "new di!*covcry" is as absurd as you say it is, the refutation 
 of it by ari^umcnt would have been the easier, and your former artillery 
 would not have been, as it is now useless; but if it is scriptural, as I believe 
 it is, tlien. you cannot but see, that one day (to use one of your own ex- 
 pressions) it will "ttimble your system to the k' t)iind." At any rate'is not 
 the g-rouiid of controversy narrowed still more by this new discovery as 
 yo\j style it? In proof of the position assumed in the lietjinnin;^ ot tl:at 
 letter, that bajuism was desitjned as a mean of admission into the church, 
 for awakened iiujuiring and prayinij adults wlio had a competent know- 
 k'dji^e of the fundamental doctrines of the Ciospel, as well as for the ad- 
 mission of true believers; I examined all the baptisms that are recorded in 
 the New Testament with any deijree of detail, and shewed, or endeavour- 
 ed to shew, that there is no evidence that a profession of a liviii,^; faith, 
 and evan.ijelical repentance was recjuiredof the persons baptized, and who 
 appear to have be<n unrei^encraie. 1 his was not wonderingl nur ajjostru. 
 phisin.'^I nor dealing in general and inde'inile terms, as you have done in 
 your reply, but comin.u^ to the point at once; and in this way, and this alone 
 can any dis])uled point be satisfactorily settled. Did you examine those 
 cases also, uiul endeavour to point out iheinconclusivenessofmy ari^^uments? 
 No Sir — you lune cautiously av oided them, and referred to one or two of 
 them only in t^eneral and indistinct terms. Am I not warranted then to 
 conclude that you could not overturn those arijumenls? for if you could, 
 your zeal for tlie system you h.ave adopted, and your own character as a 
 disputer and writer imperiously demanded this from you. 1 w(juld also 
 ask you if that oblo(|uy, and I must add that blasphemy at least in terms, 
 which the defence of your system compelled you to j)our on the Jewish dis- 
 pensation, at)d the Jewish theolot^y and ordinances which Clwist himself 
 attended upon, is not a evidence that there is something "rotten" — I must 
 repeat it, — "rotten to the very core" in that system that requires sucli ii 
 defence? I would hope that you would not deliberately blasphem»* the 
 character, and doings of the Most High God, and that what you liave 
 
92 
 
 ■written, was written under t'lie deleterious influence of an unscriptural sys- 
 tem, and the desperate defence of a cause that you felt was sinking un- 
 der vour feet, and that you will obtain pardon throuirh that blood that was 
 typified by those very sacrifices which you so much undervalue and de- 
 spise. I would farther ask you, is not your doctrine respecting- the mrans 
 of grace, calculated to hai'den the sinner in his sinfulness, and to tell him 
 that he is not blameable although he may neglect all the means appointed 
 for his illumination and conversion? How contrary it is to the tenor of 
 the Old and Nev/ Testament, I think I have clearly shewn. You were also 
 Jed to this by your system. Should it not induce you to examine it more 
 carefulJvthan you have hitherto done? You appear to be ignorant of the 
 obvious diyliuction between the natural and moral ability and inability of 
 man. Was I to direct you fur inrormalion on that subject, to any Pedo- 
 baptist writer, I suppose you would spurn at the idea of being instructed 
 by the '^interested priests." Well,! will take the liberty of directing you 
 to a Baptist writer — t.be modest and acu-te Fuller, or to his book entitled 
 "The Gospel worthy of all acceptation." But I will direct you to a great- 
 er — to Christ, who complains-cf sinners tlius, "and ye will not come unto 
 me that you might have life;" the ground of which blame he expresses in 
 these words, "tliey have eyes but tliey see not,and ears but they hear not, 
 and understandings but they perceive not.'' And I would here finally ask 
 you, are not the stories vv'hich you have published in your strictures re- 
 pecting some Pedobaptist preachers in the State of Ohio truly ridiculous, 
 Vinworthy of the press, and degrading to any man who publishes such mi- 
 serable stuff? Admitting them to be true, they are no argument for the 
 Baptist, nor yet against the Pedobaptist system. But 1 am persuaded that 
 was it worth while to inquire after them they would be found to be false — 
 as false as what you have asserted in p. 30, that not one of those I have 
 baptized have given any evidence of "having passcil from death unto life." 
 My own hearero M'ould not, could not say so, nor can I think that any indi- 
 vidual of the Baptist church who are amongst us and around us would 
 tell you what hundreds know not to be true; and if true, what had it to 
 do with the question under coiisiclcration? If your system cannot be sup- 
 ported but by sUch means it is time "to cast it to the moles, and to the 
 bats." I may pel haps avail myself of the opportunity of addressing you 
 again. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 As INIr. C. affirms "that immersion is the only baptism," and as I hare 
 called in question in my fourth letter the truth of such a position, that in- 
 volves in it the sweeping consequence of unchurching all the churches in 
 the world, the Baptist church excepted, it was therefore to be expected 
 that he would support this position by arguments strong and clear. The 
 substance of all he has said on this point, so very interesting in itself, may 
 be reduced to the following items, as you may see by reading from the 
 36th to the 43d page of his strictures — tliat I have contradicted myself — 
 that his friends and followers "can perfectly decide trom the New Testa- 
 ment, that the Eunuch was baptized by immersion, because it is said that 
 "He and Philip went both down into the ivate)\andcame ufi out of the water'' — 
 that bafitizo signifies to immerse, and nothing else, for if it does not, then 
 the inspired writers "have used ambiguous or equivocal words that have 
 
9J 
 
 no flrcided moaning;" whereas Paul say<?, "we use p^rcat plainness of 
 si)i'och" — thai I have not produced, nor cannot produce any instance from 
 "authors sucred or prolane" where the word is used "to sitijuify to pour 
 oi SiM-iniile;*' after which he closes the whole with a dt-tuijcd list of Pedo« 
 baptist and Baptist writers who use the word to si^r,,ijy to invnerse, 
 whence he concludes "that I am conch-mncd, by nnj orjti Iradcra and fnendt^ 
 and his opponents themselves beint^ judges." p. 4.3. As Mr. C. has not 
 told me wherein I have contradicted myself I can therefore neither defend 
 myself, nor explain, and must consequently pass it over at present; 
 an-1 admitting that I have, is it a proof that "immersion is the only bap- 
 tism?" 
 
 It is unnecessary to say any thing more respecting the i)aptibm of the 
 Eunuch, than I have said in my fouith letter. If the words "they went 
 down holh into the water, bfi'.h Philip and the Eunuch" signify immersion, 
 as Mr.C. says they do, and as he tells us Baptists understand these words, 
 then as I have already remarked in that letler, Philip must have been im- 
 mersed as well as the Eunuch — the baptizci, as well as the baptized. In- 
 stead of appealing to the prejudices and prfposessions of his friends, Mr. 
 C. should have shewn if he could, that such a consequence does not fol- 
 low from those words, as he an»l they understand them. 
 
 With respect to that part of his i-eply that bafitizo must signify "to im- 
 merse" and nothing else, otiienvise the apostle could not say that he used 
 "great plainness of speech," it is truly silly; and is a j)roof either that he is 
 embarked in an indefensible cause,or that he is unacquainted with the lan- 
 guage of the sacred Oracles. I have had occasion to observe more than 
 once, what every intelligent and rellecting reader must have observed, that 
 from the poverty of words in every language, and in the Cireek language 
 copious as it is, the same word is used in different acceptations, and some- 
 times in meanings diametrically opposite to each other. I have shewn in 
 the foregoing letters that the Greek words translated faithy rr/it nlancr^ 
 sanrtijicutioii and salvation are used in the sacred Oracles in different 
 meanings, or that in some places, they arc used in a more, or less extended 
 sense than in others; and Mr. C. might as well say that the insjjired pen- 
 men did not use "great plainness of s])eech" when they used those words, 
 as when they used the words ha/itizma and ha/ilizo. The fart and truth is, 
 that the writers of the New Testament used these woi-ds in the sense in 
 •which tliey had been used in the Septuagint, whence they are borrowed, 
 leaving it to the reader, as every writer must (\o, to determine from the na- 
 ture of the sul)ject they discussed, and from other circumstances in which 
 of all the received meanings, lliey were to understand the words thty 
 used. 
 
 But Mr. C. tells me p. o9, that I have not produced, and cannot pioduce 
 an instance from either "the New Testament," nor yet from "classical wri- 
 ters," where the words /u//i/'o and bufui-o arc used to signify "to pour, or 
 sbi inkle.'' 
 
 Every person who has read my fourth letter must be astonished at the 
 first of these assertions, and which 1 will notice in the proper place. 
 Classical authority I did not produce, as I then thought, and still think, 
 "that if a doctrine is to be ascertained by the meaning of the word that 
 conveys it, it must be by the meaning which the inspired penmen attach 
 to it, and not that of heathen writers." However as Mr. C demands it, 
 and as it may possi')ly be the means of rescuing him IV om'his present er- 
 ror, and at any rate must silence him on this point, I will give him classi- 
 
94 
 
 cal authority. I expect that he will admit, that Homer is good classical 
 authority, and in the poem of the battle of the frogs and mice, he says 
 of one of the wounded frogs, '■'■ebafiteto de aimati iimne fiorfihureo" — '■'■the 
 lake ivas bes/irinkled, or besmeared with his fiur file blcod." Whether Ho- 
 mer was the author of that poem, or not, is a matter of no consequence in 
 the present inquiry. It is admitted to be very ancient, and in the above 
 quotation bajito the very root of baptizo, must mean to sprinkle, or besmear, 
 for Mr. C. daring as he is in his positions and assumptions, will not pre- 
 tend to say that the lake was immersed in the blood of a frog. Mr. Syden- 
 ham quotes an oracle as giving the following directions. '■^Bafuize; dunai 
 de toi oil themis estC — "Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to im- 
 merse, or plunge him wholly in water.'' It is scarcely necessary to ob- 
 serve that bajitize in this passage is used in opposition to immerse or 
 Jilungc^ and therefore cannot mean the same thing. Other instances of 
 bapto and bajuizo being used by very ancient Greek writers, to signify to 
 sjirinkle or besmear, are in readiness should Mr. C. ever call for them 
 in a proper manner. Those I have now produced, with others ot a simi- 
 lar import, have been frequently produced by Pcdobaptist writers, and 
 should have settled the question with respect to classical authority, and 
 prevented the bold and confident assertion that no such authority can be 
 produced. 
 
 But to return to Mr. C.'s extraordinary assertion that I have not produc- 
 ed one instance from the New Testament, where "(5c/zrizo" is used to sig- 
 nify "to pour, or sprinkle." Has he forgotten that I have examined all 
 the baptisms in the New Testament that are recorded with any degree of 
 detail, and that the result of that examination was; that in every instance 
 the ordinance must have been administered by affusion, and not by immer- 
 sion. This brought the controversy at once "to the law, and to the testi- 
 mony," and where I am persuaded, it must and will be brought when it is 
 finally settled. Has Mr. C. examined those passages also, and endeavour- 
 ed to shew that my conclusions were deduced from false premises; and that 
 all those baptisms must have been administered by immersion? His own 
 character as a writer, the expectation of his friends, and the defence of his 
 system imperiously demanded this also irom him; but I need not tell you, 
 that he has not even glanced at one of them, the baptism of the Eunuch 
 ■excepted, and what a poor and feeble reply he has made to my observa- 
 tions on that interesting baptism, you and other readers have seen. 
 
 I might reasonably rest the question here, until Mr. C. shall shew that 
 the conclusions I have drawn from those baptisms are incorrect. But I 
 will do more. I will now present him with a few more passages from the 
 New Testament, Avhercin bafitisma must necessarily mean ' apouring out," 
 or "sprinkling," and bajitizo "to pour out," or "sprinkle." The first 
 which I shall adduce is Heb. 9:10, already considered for another purpose. 
 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings {bajitismous) 
 and carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation." 
 Here the washings or baptisms prescribed by the Levitical ritual are re- 
 ferred to; and it is scarcely necessary to observe that although some of 
 these washings required the immersion of the whole body, yet others of 
 them prescribed only the sfirinkling of water on the persons to be washed, 
 whether priests or people. And it is worthy of particular notice, that in 
 the loth verse the apostle expressly mentions the mode of washing by 
 sjirinklingy as one of those divers washings or baptisms. "For if the blood 
 of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sjirinkling the unclean. 
 
9d 
 
 ^anctificlh to the piirifyin}^ of the flesh, how tnuch more shall the blood ot 
 Cluist (wliicli is elsewhere i>lyk-d "the blood of.v//ri//^/;«f,'-,^') wlio through 
 thf eleniul Si)iiit uHered himself without spot to God, purge your con- 
 /Bcience from dead works to serve the living Ciod." 
 
 In 1 Cor. 10, '2, it is said of the Israelites, "that they were all baptized 
 (cba/itizanfo) unto Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea." Whatever the 
 baptism unto Moses meant, here was a baptism however, without immer- 
 sion. There was indeed immersion on the occasion, but it was of the 
 Egyptians, for we are told that the children of Israel "walked on dryland 
 in the midst of the sea, and the waters were as a wall unto them, on their 
 right hand, and un their left; their baptism then must have been by the 
 sprinkliiii^ of water upon them from the cloud or from the spray of thesea> 
 I have indeed heard it alkged that this was a baptism by immersion, as the 
 cloud was above them and the waters of the sea on each side But this 
 like many other fanciful theories has a very material delect. Immersion 
 -signifies a being literally overwhelmed in, and wetted with water, but the 
 Israelites walked on clnj lund^ nor is it said that they were immersed in 
 the cloud, nor could it be so, as the cloud ">\ as above them. I will only add 
 tiiat whatever that bapiism meant, or was intended to jjrefigure, the little 
 children and infants were baptized as well as the men and women. 
 
 There is another passage 1 Peter 3: 21, already adduced, in which bap- 
 tism, and Ciiristian baptism too, is mentioned, but which cannot mean 
 the application of water by immersion, but by some othermodc. "Eight 
 souls (says the apostle) were saved by vjutcr."^' ''The like figure whereun- 
 X.O eve7i baptism, {hajuisma) doth also now save us." In this passage the 
 apostle evidently draws the comparison, betwixt the tem])oral salvation of 
 Noah and his family by nvalcr in the ark (probably a type of the church) 
 and ba])tismal water, as a mean of spiritual salvation. Now how were 
 Noah and his family saved by li'ater, was it by being immcr.sed in itr No — 
 that was the case with the antediluvians who despised the church of God 
 in thefamilyof Noah; but by beingborne up by it; and during the time they 
 were in the ark they were doubtless spiinkled like the Israelites in the Red 
 Sea, by the spray of the mighty ocean tumbling and breaking around 
 them. This, as it resj^ects the mode of applying water in baptism, must 
 be the apostle's point of comparison, and to apply it to '.mmersion is con- 
 trary to truth, and to fact; or to understand the word ba/iiism in this pas- 
 sage as meaning immersion destroys the comparison ukogclher, for it was 
 the antediluvians who were immersed, as were the Egyptians in the Red 
 Sea. 
 
 I shall mention another passage, Luke 12: 50, wherein bapiism is men- 
 tioned, but where there can be no allusion to immersion. "I have a bap- 
 tism (ba/ituinu) to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be 
 accomplished." 13y the bapiism in this place some commentators under- 
 stand the tears and blood which Christ shed durin;; the time of his scourg- 
 ing and ci-ucifixion; and others those vials of divine wraih that were pour- 
 ed out upon him when suftering for guilty men. But understand this bap- 
 tism as having referenie to either of these circumstances, or to both, the 
 most fruitful imagination cannot conceive of any thing like immersion; 
 for Christ was not, could not, be immersed in his own tears and blood, and 
 was only sprinkled or besmeared by them; and the vial.-, of divine wrath 
 arc represented in the Scriptures, as being ''poured out," but no where is 
 it said, that any were immersed in tho'^-- • inls. S'"> Jf renr:'h !'^: '^' 
 
 <;lations 16: 1. 
 
96 
 
 I shall only adduce another passage, 1 Cor. 12: 13, in which the word 
 ^'baptized" cannot mean "immersed," but the allusion must be to pouring 
 out, or sprinkling. "For by one Spirit we all baptized {ebaptisthtmen) in- 
 to one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, or whether we be bond or 
 free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." That by the "one 
 body" in this passage, the apostle meant true believers who are elsewhere 
 styled "the body of Christ;" and that by the "one Spirit" he nieant the 
 Holy Spirit, will not I think be controverted. But he says that true be- 
 lievers are all baptized into this "One Body," by this "One Spirit." How? 
 — By his regenerating influences — "unless a man be bom of water, and 
 the Spirit, he cannot fn^er into the kingdom of God." And how are be- 
 lievers said to be regenerated by the Spirit's influences? Is it by being im- 
 mersed in those influences? So it would be according to Mr. C. for he 
 tells us that bafitizo signifies to immerse, and nothing else, and should 
 have been always so translated. But is there such a phraseology as being 
 immersed in the Spirit's influences? — No. The phraseology is "I will 
 pour out my Spirit," and this in the passage is styled "being baptized by 
 the one Spirit into one body." I have alluded to this very consideration 
 in my fourth letter, as an argument for baptism by afPusion and not by im- 
 mersion. In p. 43, Mr. C. replies by telling me, "that a child might put it 
 to silence by asking me, "if baptism signify sprinkling, how could a per- 
 son be said to be sprinkled into the Holy Spirit?" It may sufiice to say, 
 that there is no such phraseology in Scripture as persons being immersed 
 into tht Spirit, or his influences, or sprinkled into the Spirit, or his influ- 
 ences. The phraseology is "lo sprinkle ivith, or upon." "I will sprinkle 
 clean water tijton you, and ye shall be clean— and I will put my Spirit with- 
 in you;" and how the Spirit is put within us, Jehovah tells us in another 
 place — "I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry 
 ground; I will pour out my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon 
 thy offspring; and they shtiU spring up as among the grass, and as wil- 
 lows by the water courses.'' It may be necessary to observe here, that I 
 have not adduced the foregoing passages as a proof that Christian bap- 
 tism is to be administered by att'usion. That I have already done in the 
 fourth letter; and the last of these passages when duly considered is also 
 full to the point. I have adduced them only that the reader may see that 
 notwithstanding Mr. C.'s repeated and confident assertions that baptisma 
 and bcptizo always signify "immersion,''and to "immerse" in the New Tes- 
 tiiment,yet 1 trust, I have shewn that nothing is more contrary to truth and 
 to fact. 
 
 In the fourth letter I produced the authority of Schleusner confessedly 
 one of the ablest Lexicographe)'s of ancient or modern times, assaying. 
 that although bafitizo is used with some frequency in Greek authors to 
 signify "to immerse and dye, to -dip into water, yet in this sense it is never 
 used in the Ch-eek Testament." Mr. C. is very angry at this, as Avas to bt' 
 expected, and in p. 39, demands his authority for saying so. It mightsuffice 
 to say that it is not to be expected that in a Lexicon every place v/herc the v/ord 
 is used in the New Testamcnt,would be particularly mentioned,aTid the rea 
 fjpns assigned for its propei- or necessviry meaning in that place. Thi3,hoM- 
 <-ver has been dene by Dr. llivc of Richmond in the first number of his Pam- 
 i'nLKrEi:'.R,w hich we recommend to the perusal of all v.'ho wish ibr informa- 
 tion on that subject, and to none more than to Mr. C. and his friend Phila- 
 Icthes— it may do them. good. The words "baptism" and "buj)tize," r.' 
 lie tells us in the close of- his pamphet, occur ninety times in the Ne\' 
 
97 
 
 Testament. "Of these sixty five arc wholly itvletfrmiiiate; sixteen on the 
 whole favour the mode by sprinkling or affusion, iwo or thn-e of tliese 
 make it morally certain that the ordinance was thus administered; and of 
 tlie remainini^ nine passaj^es, not one of them, nor all together, however 
 they may have Iieen relied on, prove that baptism was administered by 
 immersion." The late Mr. J. P. Campbell as I have already observe 1 in 
 the fourth lettei has examined all the places where these words occur in the 
 Scptuagint, and proved I think incontroverlibly, that their primary meyn- 
 ing is "to smear, to tinge, to wet with some liquid,"' and that to immi-vse 
 is only a secondary meaning: this we also recommend to the perusal of 
 Mr. C.and his friend. Mr. C. has said more than once that the I'edobup- 
 tist clergy in general, and myself in particular have "taken away the key 
 of knowledge" on this important subject, and in p. ;59, he recjuests me to 
 tell him where he may find it. I cheerfully comply with his refpiest, and I 
 now tell him that it is not to be found in the writings of eitlier Boom, or 
 the Socinian Robinson, but in those passages of the New Testament that 
 speak of baptism as an ordinance of the Christian dispensation, and par- 
 ticularly in those passages that record the time, place, and circumstances 
 of the persons who were baptized Ijy the apostles This is the only key 
 that can unlock the cabinet of truth to him on this subject. If Mr. C. 
 will apply it aright, I have no doubt of his soon changing his present opi- 
 nions. Near twenty years ago my own mind was agitated respecting this 
 subject, and I was once not far from embracing the same opinions, but by 
 studying those passages in the original language, and reflecting closely on 
 the subject, I was led to cmliracc those which I now advocate I placed 
 this key before him in my fourth letter, but either he did not see it, or 
 found thatit would not suit tlie lock constructed by Booth and Robinsov, 
 and therefore the cabinet is still to him unopened. If he would bear it, I 
 would advise him to make another trial. It might be profitable to him; 
 and certainly more honourable than to l)e pul)lishing indiscriminate abuse 
 on the Pedobaptist clergy, as "interested priests," "who have taken away 
 I he key of knowledge from the people." 
 
 As for the detailed list of Pedol)aptist writers which Mr. C. has given 
 iS, in pp. 40—43, from Booth's "Pkdobaitism Examined," and who he 
 .ays acknowledge that bafitisma signifies immersion, and bafitizo to im- 
 merse, it is nothing whatever to the point in issue — it is mere sophistry, 
 .uid as I will shew something worse than sophistry. If I was worthy to 
 )c ranked with such respectable company. I should have no objections 
 hat he would add my name to the list, for I have no where said that hafi' 
 zo signifies to sprinkle only, nor is there any thing in the preceding* et- 
 •.ers whence such an inference can be legitimately drawn. That those words 
 ire used i)y Creek writers to signify to wash bv immersion is acknowledg- 
 ed by Pedobaptist writers, but it is contended that they use it to signily tOy 
 viish by other means, and for this they have the autiiority of the best Lexi- 
 ".ograi)hers and critics, both ancient and modern. Besides those already ad- 
 duced Schrevclius defines those words thus — ^'bu/itisma, ba/itisma, baptism" 
 — ^^/}:i/i(isrnos, htio, washing — ba/itizo. ba/iti-o, to baptize, im-rtro., to 
 plunge, /rtuo, to waih,'' and Stockius one or Mr. C.'s own authorities,and 
 to whom I have had lately access, gives lavo, to wash, tint^o^ to tinge, a:i 
 the first, and inimcrgo, to immerse as the secondary meaning of ba/itizo. 
 \mongst the Pedobaptist authorities adduced by Mr. C. we see the name 
 )f Dr. Owen, who, he says, in his posthumous works p. 581, defines the 
 .vord thus, "to dip, to dye, to wash, to cleanse." Now, this is just what 
 
 13 
 
98 
 
 Ppdobaptists say, that although it is used by Creek writers to wash by 
 immersicn, yet it is used also to signify to wash by other means, tnd ac- 
 cordingly Mr. Owen in his exposition of Heb. 9: 10, tells us, that '-bap- 
 tism IS any kind of washing by dipping or sprinkling." It may not be 
 amiss however to observe h< re, that there is an oitiission or rather suppres- 
 sion of the Doctor's words as quoted by Mr. C. whether by him or Mr. 
 Booth, from whom he borrowed it, I do not know, nor is it material. Mr. 
 C. quotes Dr. Ouen as saying, "that no honest man who understands the 
 Greek tongue can deny the word to signify to dip;" whereas the Doctor's 
 words are, "no honest man who understands the Greek tongue can deny 
 the word to signify to fvash as ivellas to dip." And not only is this the case 
 but the same great critic and erudite scholar says in the same place, that 
 Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Phavorinus and Eustachius, critics of high re- 
 putation, render the word "to wash"— that Scapula and Stephanas render 
 It by lavo or abluo, which Latin words signify to wash also; and that 
 SuiDAS renders it by madtfacio, lavo, ab/uo, /lurgo, 7nu?ido, slU of which 
 signify to wash by other means than by immersion; and I know of no 
 other means than by pouring or sprinkling water on whatever is to be 
 washed. We also see amongst Mr. C.'s Pedobaptist authorities the names 
 ot Calvin, Beza, Mastricht. and Leigh, who he says acknowledge in their 
 writings that bafuizo signifies to dip. This is not denied, but they also 
 say that it signifies to sprinkle. Thus Calvin in his Lvstitutes vol. 3. p. 
 o43, ed. N. Haven, says, "whether the person baptized be wholly immers- 
 ed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only fioured or sprin- 
 kled upon him is of no importance." Beza as quoted in Reed's Apology, 
 says, "They are ri^/?^/j/ baptized who are baptized by sprinkling." Mas- 
 tricht as quoted by the same, says, "Baptism signifies.washing, either by 
 sprinkling or dipping." To the same purpose is his quotation from Leigh; 
 "Baptism is such a kind of Avashing as is by plunging; and yet it is taken 
 more largely for any kind of washing, even where there is no dipping at 
 all." Such are some of the Pedobaptist authorities which Mr. C. has 
 produced, for the purpose of proving that baptizo signifies to dip, and no- 
 thing else. This must be his design, for any acknowledgment from them 
 that would not am,ount to this could be of no service to him in the present 
 controversy. If the limits assigned to this letter would admit, and if we 
 had access to all the other authorities he has brought forward, the result 
 we are pursuaded would be the same. Indeed the very consideration that 
 they were Pedobaptists proves that their opinion with respect to the mean- 
 ing of the word baptizo was the same as Dr. Owen's,Calvin's, Beza's, Mas- 
 tricht's, and Leigh's; unless we believe that they were the very worst of 
 men, who practised in divine things contrary to their belii f — but that was 
 not their character. 1 he list which Mr. C. has given us has the air of ex- 
 tensive reading, and great research, and with some will give him the cha- 
 racter of a very learned man. But if my recollection serves me right, it 
 is transcribed if not altogether, yet pretty generally from Mr. Booth's 
 "Pedobaptism Examined;" but he has not Mr. Booth's candour; for Mr. 
 Booth as quoted by Mr. Reed in his apology p. 1 10, "desired his reader to 
 observe that no inconsiderable part of these learned authors, have asserted, 
 that the word baptism signifies pouring or sprinkling as well as immer- 
 sion." Then, my opponent Mr. Booth being judge, I am not "condemned 
 by my own leaders and friends," as Mr C. says I am; but in the mean time, 
 where is Mr. C.'s candour as a writer, and honesty in quoting other men's 
 writings? 
 
Some of my readers may now be ready to ask; why does Mr. C. con- 
 tend us Iciiai iously as lie docs, that /xi/idzo signifies to dij), -tnd to dip on- 
 ly; and wliydocs he resort to means not the most lionourable for the sup- 
 port of that position? The ciuanlity of water applied lo the l)ody in thdl 
 ordinance cannot of itself have any efl'icacy on the person baptizetl, as tho 
 efficacy depends entirely on sovcreii^n grace. The ordinance of the Sup- 
 p-'r is styled ''f/t'/7/«o«, a word tliat signifies a full meal, and IJ iptisis them- 
 selves do not contend that in celebrating that ordinance the communicant 
 should eat a full meal; and admit that where there is a Ixdieving and con- 
 trite state of heart the communicants "shew forth the Lord's death," and 
 hold communion with Christ and one another, although they eat only a 
 small piece of l)read, and drinl; but a small (juantity of wine. — Why it 
 may lie asked all this; and how is this strange an 1 inconsistent conduct to 
 be accounted for? In this way— If the word in (J reek wrilerR is used to signify 
 to wash by other means than by dipping, as I have shewn fiom the highest 
 authority ancient and modern, that ibis is the case; and if it is used in the 
 New Testament to signify washing by pouring or sprinkling, as 1 have al- 
 so shewn is the fact; then the Baptist system as it respects this point 
 ^'■tumbles <o the ground;" and Mr. C.'s position that "immersion is the on- 
 ly baptism," is not only unscriptural, but comes under the character of 
 what the apostle Phil. 3: 2, styles "the concision," or a position that in- 
 stead of uniting, has a tendency to cut, a-wd rend the church, and of which 
 he cautions us to beware. — "Beware of the concision. For we are the 
 circumcision, who worship tiod in the Spirit, rejoice in Ciirist Jesus, and 
 have no confidence in the flesh " It is true that the caution was given 
 with respect to the Judaizing teachers who enjoined circumcision as well 
 as liaptisin on the (ientile converts, but it is applicable to all who teach 
 and enjoin systems that tend to cut and rend "the Body of Christ," or his 
 church. It may not be amiss here to oi)serve, that there are two other 
 Creek words duuo, and du/ito, from the latter of which comes our English 
 word ^'■di/i" and which are used to signify to immerse and immerse only, 
 and it cannot but have struck every rellecting person who is acjuuiiued 
 with the (Ireek tongue, that if baptism was to be administered l)y immer- 
 sion, and by immersion only; and if immersion was necessary to consti- 
 tute the validity of baptism; then Christ who appointed this ordinance 
 would have certainly used one or both of these words, and not a word that 
 signifies to wash by both dipping, or pouring or sprinkling water on the 
 thing or person to be washed. It it is said that ^'■duuo" is used sonie- 
 times lo signify "to drown," or "to sink lo the bottoni like a stone," ihis 
 is however not the case with ^^du/ito," it simply signifies "to dip," and how 
 many things are dipped in water, and immediately drawn out again. 
 These observations shew the silliness of one of Mr. C. s arguments in 
 p. 37, for administering Ijaptism by i-ninersion, that as the Greek words 
 ^'■raino''' and runtizo siignify to sprinkle or asperse, and bu/ito or ba/iiizo, 
 to dip, plunge, or immerse; now as iu Englisli we never use "to dtp,'' to 
 signify the same as ''to sprinkle," so never does raino in Greek signify 
 ba/ito, nor ba/ito, raino.''' It is enough to say lo this ludicro'is argument, 
 partly in dull prose, and partly in metrical verse, that it is founded on what 
 logicians call, "/jcn'n'o /<r/«ci/j»," or begging the question. It takes for 
 granted that ba/ito and ba^tizo signify to dip, and to dip only; but I have 
 shewn fro>n both sacred and profane writers that that is not tUe case. 
 
 Before I close the examination of Mr. C.'s strictures on this point it may 
 be necessary to observe that when the heathen Greek writers used bajitiama 
 
100 
 
 to denote wffshinc: by immersion, they meant a literal washing from con' 
 traded filth, but when it is used in the New Testament to denote the initiat- 
 ing ordinance into the Christian church, it is used figuratively, to dmote 
 the removal of guilt and moral pollution by the blood and Spirit of Christ, 
 th." former of which is styled "the blood of sprinkling'' and the latter "a 
 pouring out," or sprinkling clean water upon us that we might be clean; 
 and this accounts for its being used not in its primary, but secondary 
 sense, that it might be a fit emblem of the all-important things to which 
 it directs the attention of the person baptized. I have sometimes thought 
 that an inattention to this circumstance is what has led Mr C. and other 
 Baptist writers to contend so tenaciously as they do, for da/z^is?;; by immer- 
 sion. Because the primary meaning of the word i:s washing by immersion 
 in some Greek writings, they have thence drawn the conclusion that it 
 should be so understood when denoting the initiating ordinance into the 
 church, without reflecting that it is not used in a literal but figurative 
 sense. But as 1 have ali-eady observed the point in dispute must be final- 
 ly settled by the meaning which the inspired penmen haAeaffixed to it, and 
 \vhat that meaning is 1 have endeavoured to ascertain by an examination 
 of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament. Mr. C. may now, if he 
 pleases, bring forward all the instances he can collect from Cireek writers 
 ■who use the word bafitizo to denote to wash by immersion, and all the 
 other instances which Mr. Booth has collected from Pedobaptist writers 
 of every denomination who have said the same thing, provided he will not 
 suppress or omit their words as he has done those of Dr. Owen; and 
 when he has done this, Presbyterian Pedobaptists will say to him as Chil- 
 lingworth once said to the Roman Catholic writers respecting the Bible. 
 *'The Bible,the Bible, (said that great man) is the religion of Protestants:" 
 — so say we, The New Testament, the New Testament, is the creed of 
 Presbyterian Pedobaptists, both with respect to the subjects, and mode of 
 administering the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 That the New Testament when examined in the original language, 
 speaks of baptism as administered by affusion, I trust, I have proved in 
 the fourth letter. And indeed this was to be expected from the greater 
 spirituality, simplicity, and mildness of the Christian dispensation of 
 grace. Although I admit that baptism administered by immersion is va- 
 lid as the mode of applying the water is only a circumstance, and enters 
 not into the essence of the ordinance, yet I may confidently say, that it is 
 not suited like affusion to all climates, to all ages, and to persons under all 
 possible circumstances. Baptism administered by immersion, in the mild- 
 est climate, would be attended with immediale death, to persons labouring 
 tmder some diseases, and reduced to great debility of body. But it can be 
 adivinistered by affusion or sprinkling, with the greatest safety to such, in 
 the coldest climate, and in the coldest season of the year — under the Arc- 
 tic or Antarctic circles, as well a? under the Equator. 1 shall select as an 
 example the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. When Ananias was sent by the 
 Lord Jesus, for the purpose of baptizing him, and that he might receive 
 his sight, Saul had neither eat, nor drank for the three preceding days; 
 would it have been safe, to have led him away under those circumstances, 
 to a river, and immerse him in cold water, or is there the most distant hint 
 that that was the case? On the contrruy, we are told, that after he receiv- 
 ed his sight, Ananias said unto him ^'■anastas cbaiitisthe^'' wliich literally 
 -mtdins^'''-standingiith be baptized;"' and this, as already observed is an in- 
 stance of a baptism, that could not be administered by immersion, for we 
 
101 
 
 afeexpresslv told that he was ^^stavditiff,'*' at the time thr ordinance was 
 adininistered unto him. It may not be umiss to o'jscrvc, ihiii the tiunsla- 
 tion which I have given to the participle '^anastas," is not forced, for the 
 purposeof supporting a particular poini, for the same word is translated in 
 the same manner in Acts 1: 15. '•'■Jnaslaa rdros," "Peler stood up," or 
 ''Peter standing up," and in chapter 5: 34, it is also said, '■'•anastaa dc tut 
 I'/un a los,'' — Then there stood up a certain Pharisee, &c. 
 
 I shall close this letter liy just farther observing, that in Acts 1 5: 10, Pe- 
 ter styles circumcision "a yoke of bondage," which neither the Jews of 
 that day, "nor their fathers were able to bear;" and it was doubtless a part 
 of that "handwriting of ordinances," which Paul speaking in the nam© 
 of the Jewish nation says, "was against us, which was contrary to us," 
 but which he tells them, Christ "took out of the way, nailing it to his 
 cross.'' Col. 2: 14. But why was circumcision such a "yoke of uondagc" 
 to the Jews? Doubtless because the administiation of it, was attended 
 ■with pain; but every person must see, that as "a yoke" there is r.o com- 
 parison betwixt the administration of that ordinance, and baptism adminis- 
 tered by immersion in northern climates, to persons labouring under dan- 
 gerous maladies; for painful as circumcision was, it was not attended with 
 danger to the life of the subject; but not so with baptism administered by 
 in^mersion under the circumstances which i have mentioned. Let it not 
 be said, that we are loexjject the divine protection in the discharge of in- 
 cumbent duty, although life may be endangered or K.st, in the discharge 
 of that duty. They question is, are we to suppose that Christ who came 
 into the world, not to abridge the privileges his church, by casting out 
 those he had once planted therein, but to enlarge those privileges; and not 
 to add to, but to take away those burdens which he had imposed upon 
 her, for wise reasons, for a certain time, would appoint an ordinance bind- 
 ing "on all nations,'' the attendance on which in many cases, would re- 
 quire the miraculous interposition of his providence for the preservation 
 of life, when the end to be answered thereby, could be obtained without 
 that miraculous interposition. I shall only add, that I do not ofTer the 
 precedmg observations as a positive proof that baptism is to be adminis- 
 tered by affusion or sprinkling. That is to be ascertained by the New Tes- 
 tament, and to that I have appealed, and do appeal; but they arc certainly 
 entitled to serious consideiution, as they go to shew, that to administer 
 that ordinance by afl'usion is agreeable to the establislu'd order of nature 
 and fitness of things, l)ut to administer it by immersion, would in manv in- 
 stances, be contrary to that order and fitness, i'rom the whole, you will 
 now judge, whether "immeision is the oidy bapiism," and that baptism 
 administered by af^^ision is null, and void; and consecjuently that there ne- 
 ver was, nor is, a church of God in the world, but the Baptist church. 
 We will inquiieinlo the origin of that church in the next letter. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 To wipe off, as he tells us, "rAe baae calumm/* which I have cast upon 
 the Baptist denomination, Mr. C. from page 45, to 57, attempts to prove 
 that the Baptist church existed in the days of the apostles, and that there 
 has been a regular unbroken chain of Baptist churches from that time to 
 the present day. 
 
102 
 
 How any man who has the least regard for his character, and who has 
 read the fourth letter, could say that I have calumniated the Biptist deno- 
 mination, is, I confess, what I cannot account for. I have said in that let- 
 ter that "it was with reluctance that I have introduced the Gorman Ana- 
 baptists at all into the review — "that it was not with a design of casting 
 reflections on the present Baptist church: for although I think them mis- 
 taken on the subject of baptism with respect to the infants ol church mem- 
 bers, and the mode of administering that ordinance, yet I feel happy in say- 
 ing, that tliL-y have evinced for upwards of a century past, that they have 
 renounced the anarchical principles of their predecessors, and that they 
 are as firm supporters of lawful civil government, as any other religious 
 denomination." Nor have I calumniated the Anab:4ptists of Germany, 
 nor introduced them wantonly, or unnecessarily into the "Review," Mr. 
 C. had affirmed in the appendix to his book, that "infant sprinkling" as 
 he ^coffingly calls infant baptism, "has uniformly inspired a persecuting 
 spirit." This heavy and serious charge I have examined, by an inquiry 
 into the docirines held by Presbyterian Pedobaptists on that point, and 
 shelved, I trust, that their principles instead of inspiring that hateful and 
 wicked spirit, lead to benevolence, and to the cultivation of all the social 
 virtues. If my reasoning was wrong, Mr. C. should have pointed it out; 
 but instead of this he makes a most furious attack on the characters of 
 Calvin, and of John Knox, the Scotch reformer, because they were Pedo- 
 baptists; and because as he says, they behaved intolerantly in some instances, 
 to Socinians and Papists — resumes the subject in p. 60, and then finishes 
 his Strictures with a detailed list of the sufferings of the Baptists, or 
 rather of the anarchical Anabaptists under the kings of England. 
 
 I have no disposition, nor am I under any necessity of defending any in- 
 tolerant acts of Calvin, or Knox, or of the kings of England. Mr. C. has 
 not proved, nor can any man prove, as far as actions are connected with 
 the principles whence they flow, that the principles of Pedobaptism as 
 held by Presbyterian Pedobaptists lead to persecution. If Calvin acted 
 intolerantly to the Socinian Servetus (and that is justly disputed,) and 
 if Knox did not disapprove of the murder of the blood thirsty and perse- 
 cuting Cardinal Beaton (but he had no agency in it,) it is to be imputed to 
 the ignorance of the age in which they lived, respecting the rights of man, 
 and the rights of conscience, together with their recent sufferings from 
 Papal Rome; and not to the circumstance of their being Pedobaptists. 
 Whatever their spots and faiUngs were in this respect, it is to their zeal 
 and intrepidity that we are indebted for the civil and religious liberty, 
 •which we in this day so richly enjoy. I am persuaded however that Mr. 
 C. would not have introduced Calvin and Knox into his "Strictures," 
 had I not introduced the German Anabaptists into the Review. But as I 
 have already said I did not introduce them wantonly, nor unnecessarily. 
 Principles are the sources of actions. I traced their actions up to their 
 principles, and shewed at the same time, that the political and theological 
 principles avowed and published by Mr. C. in his book and in his essays 
 against moral societies, and the laws of Pennsylvania against vice and im- 
 morality, are the same that were avowed and practised upon by those tur- 
 bulent and disorganizing people. — "It was to point out to Mr. C. the dan- 
 gerous tendency of those principles — to induce him to review h\s/irese77t 
 creed; and to induce those who read his book to reflect before they adopted 
 those principles." It was this that induced me to introduce the German 
 ♦Anabaptists, and to mention their conduct as the result of their principles-. 
 
103 
 
 He has made no recantation, nor f»ivcn any explanation respecting: those 
 principles, biii by way of retaliation j)Oured indiscriminate al)iise on I'e- 
 d(jl)aptists as persecutors, without shewing that their principles lead to, 
 beget, and foster that nialignant spirit. 1 am sorry for his own sake that 
 I have failed in my benevolent intentions. Since then this is ll,c case, I 
 will only say what his friend Philalkthf.s has said to myself more than 
 once, whether justly or unjustly the public will judge, and with the varia- 
 tion of sui)sliluting Pennsylvania for Israel — 'To your tents, O Pennsyl- 
 vaiiiaiisl" — what have your to do with this man whose principles if im- 
 bibed, lead to anarchy, licentiousness and blood; and who in his writings 
 has given the fullest evidence, that he hates the Pedobaptist clergy with 
 the most cordial hatred. It is well for them that his power extends no 
 farther thati defamation; for every reflecting person who has read his 
 Book and ''Stkicti'kf.s," must have seen,that the spirit manifested in both, 
 if indulged, and an opportunity offered, would push him on to persecute 
 them farther, shall I say — even unto death. I had thought, or hoped 
 otherwise when I wrote the fourth letter, but he has compelled me to 
 change my opinion. 
 
 Having made these necessary preliminary observations I will now exa- 
 mine Mr. C.'s testimony for the existence of a Baptist church in the apos- 
 tolic age, aiid from that time to the present day. But before we enter upon 
 this, it will be necessary to state the question fairly, and to shew with pre- 
 cision wherein the Baptist and Pedobaptist church agree, and wherein 
 they differ; fori still believe that there is a church of God amongst the 
 Pedobaptists. I would therefore obseive that it is a principle agreed upon 
 betwixt Baptists and Pedobaptists, that when adult persons who have not 
 been baptized, profess faith in Christ, they ought to be baptized on that 
 profession. This is a principle common to both, and on this principle 
 both parties act. This ol)servalion is the more necessary, because I am 
 persuaded that many serious and well meaning Baptists have imposed up- 
 on themselves by supposing that all those passages in the New Testament 
 which s[)eak of adult persons being baptized on a profession of faith in 
 Christ, are so many proofs for the Baptist, and so many arguments against 
 the Pedobaptist system and Church. Peter Edwards mentions a Baptist 
 minister who for many yeoi's had imposed upon himself in this manner; 
 and I am sometimes inclined to think that this may lie the case with Mr. 
 C. But let it be recollected that the difference Iictwixt the two parties v- 
 this — that while Pedobaptists agree with Baptists, that unbaptizcd per- 
 sons prolessing faith in Christ ought to be baptized, they contend that the 
 minor offspring of such should also be baptized, and that pouring water 
 on the subject is a scrij)lural, if not the only scriptural mode of admini.'*- 
 tering that ordinance: but Baptists .»ay, that the baptism of such infants is 
 a nullity, and not only so,but that the baptism of adults if not administered 
 by immersion is a nullity also. There area few sects amongst llic Bap- 
 tists who do not go so far; but according to Mr. C.'s creed "immersion i«: 
 the only baptism." It is also ncrcssary to observe farther, that for 
 llic pur])oseof shewing Mr. C. the aiisurdity of this tenet, lobs'M-ved to 
 him in the fourth letter that it was incumbent upon him to pro\e une(|ui- 
 vocally, or by "positive precept or precedent," that the apostles baptized 
 by immersion and by immersion ordy; and to trace a succession of Bap- 
 tist churches from their time to the present day; "and that there must not 
 be a broken link in the chain; for as not only infant baptism, but the bap- 
 tism of adults if not by immersion, is arroiding to his New Catechism a . 
 
104 
 
 nullity; then as persons baptized in either of these ways "are still in an 
 unbaptized state, they have consequently no right to administer the ordi- 
 nances of the Christian dispensation to others. This, Mr, C. has under- 
 taken to do, and let us now attend to, and examine the testimony. 
 
 '■''First Century. Anno Domini 33, we read in a well attested history of 
 a large Baptist church which was formed on a grand model by the imme- 
 diate agency of the Holy Spirit. On the day ot Pentecost 3000 souls 
 were illumined, led to repentance, and added to the church?'' 
 
 "Added to the church" — What church? — The Jewish church certainly; 
 for there was no other church in the world, and this, according to Mr. C.'s 
 own acknowledgment, is a proof that the Christian was "added to," or in- 
 grafted into the Jewish church. But passing this by; the baptizing of 
 these 3000 is just what Pedobaptists would have done, had such an extra- 
 ordinary circumstance taken place amongst them, and what their Mission- 
 aries amongst the Jews and Gentiles do every day, whenever any profess 
 faith in Christ, and request to be baptized. The church at Jerusalem then 
 has not as yet one single feature of being a Baptist church. To prove it a 
 Baptist church, Mr. C. should have proved, 1st, that those three thousand 
 Jews were baptized by immersion, and 2dly, that although their male 
 children had previous to this, been admitted into the church of God by 
 circumcision, and the female children by sacrifice, that they were no lon- 
 ger entitled to that privilege. In the fourth letter, I have assigned reasons 
 why it is apparent to myself, that they must have been baptized by affu- 
 sion, and Mr. C. should have shewn the invalidity of those reasons, before 
 he could claim the church at Jerusalem as a Baptist Church. I have also 
 argued fr-om the words '''•the firomue is to you, and to your children,^' that 
 Peter urged and enjoined the baptism of their children on that occasion, 
 as well as ot themselves. Mr. C. should have also shewn that my infer- 
 ence from these wor-ds was wr'ong. But this he has cautiously avoided; and 
 until he does so; I must, and do claim the church at Jerusalem, as a Pedo- 
 baptist church in the fullest sense of the word. 
 
 Mr. C.'s next testimony is as follows. — "The second church that wa? 
 planted was at Samaria — PnrLrp went down into Samaria and preached 
 Christ unto thena. And the people with one accord gave heed unto the. 
 things which PniLtp spake. M'hen (not befor-e) they believed Philip pr-each- 
 ing the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
 Christ, they wer-e baptized Ooth men and womerr." "The second churxh 
 planted on earth was also composed of men and women who professed 
 faith befoi'c baptism; consequently a Baptist church." 
 
 The Samaritans were a mongr-el people, partly Jews, and partly Gentiles. 
 "What Philip did on that occasion Pedobaptists have done, and would do 
 in similar circumstances. Mr. C.'s infer-ciice therefore that the church at 
 Samaria was a Baptist church is what logicians call "a 7ion sequitur;" or a 
 syllogism in which the conclusion does not legitimately flow from the pre- 
 mises: for all that he has told us concer-ning this church is as applicable to 
 a Pedobaptist, as to a Baptist church. It may not be amiss however to ob- 
 serve, that the conduct of Pnir.rp in planting the church at Samaria was 
 calculated to destroy that '■'■sjdritual" and '■'•a^iotless'' church for which Mr. 
 C. and his brethr-en the Cierman Anabaptists contend. Simon Magus was 
 one of the persons baptir.ed on that occasion, and it will not be contended 
 that he was a spiritual ma^n at the time he was baptized. But the German 
 Anabaptists had the advantage of Philip; inasmuch as they laid claim to 
 the o-ift of discerning the spirits of others, or of ascertaining the real state 
 
105 
 
 »t' ilieir t'l'llow nuMi. I do not know tliut Mr. C. l-ivs clalnn to ilii- ),'ilt; 
 but sure I am thai if he is nut possessed of it, he can never raise up that 
 spiritual church for which he conti-nds. 
 
 iNlr. C.'s third testimony is the church of C?esarea. "It is (says he) a 
 church inleresiini"^ to us, inasmuch as it was a (ientih- churc'.i, or a Cientile 
 people composed it" — ^" i his church (he adds^l was evidently a /]j/triit 
 c/iurrh" — "while I'eter spake these words the Holy (i'lost //// [i/iry were r 
 lii/i/icd in the Holy Ghost, or his influcnccN^ on all t!iem tliat heard the 
 word — ''Then said Peter, can any ni;in forhid water that thesis should not 
 he l)aptized as well as we, and he commanded ihe.n to be bapti;ied in the 
 n;'.me of the Lord." 
 
 This is also just what a Pcdohaptist niisslv)uary to the lioathcn would do, 
 provided it was now the will of God tu Ijcslow upon those to whom he 
 preached the ^^ift of tont^ues, as was the case with those who \vere on that 
 occasion in the House of Cornelius; as that would be a sufl\.;ient evidence 
 that God designed such persons for some useful pur|)ose in the church; but 
 it was not then, nor could be now, an evidence that they were true l)elievers; 
 for Christ himsell informs us that that gift was !)estowed on soim* who 
 have eventually perished, Mat. 7:22, 2.5; nothing therefore that this was a 
 Baptist ch'irch can l)e legitimately inferred from that circumstance. But 
 besides this, the expression "can any man forbid water," plainly implies 
 that the water with which they were l)aptiz{?d was brought into the house 
 of CoKVF.Lius, or the apartment where they were. And to this I would add 
 that in the second letter 1 have ortered reasons that to myself are c )nclusive, 
 that the children (0/X:o«) of CoRNKr.ius were baptized in consecpience of his 
 faith.-— This also has the aspect of a Pedobaptist, and not of a Baptist 
 church. 
 
 Mr. C. also claims the churches at Philiimm, at Coni\TH, at Rome, at 
 CoLossE, at Ei'HEst's, and the churches of (ivlativ as Baptist churches, 
 iiccause he says it may be said of all of them, "as was said of the Corin- 
 thians, viz. many of the Corintiiians hearing, believed, an I wei-e ba')tized." 
 
 This, as has been ol)served is no proof that they w>'ie Bipiist cliurches. 
 But there, is something said of the church at Piiilippi and the church at 
 Coiiiith, which Mr. C. should have noticed, but which he has carefully 
 passed over; and which when examined, positively proves that they w.^re 
 Pedobaptist, and not Baptist churches. Lydiu, and the jailor are the fii-st 
 members of the church at Philippion record, but it is positively said that 
 their "//OMsra" or families were I)aptized at the same time with themselves, 
 and what the inspired penman meant by their //owvfs 1 have shewn i:i the se- 
 cond letter. There is indeed nothing said of the manner in which Lydia 
 and \\t\' hoime were baptized, but with respect to the jailor and his houne 
 all the circumstances combine in proving that thev were baptized by aflTu- 
 hion, and not by immersion. Mr. C. has seen all this, and if the inference 
 I have drawn was wrong why did he not point it out? 
 
 With respect to the church at ('orinlh Paul tells us I epistle 1: 16, that 
 he "baptized the house of Stephanas, and iii the Tth clraptL-r he tells us, 
 "that the unljelieving husl)and is sanctified by the wife, and the unbjliev- 
 iug wife is sancliHed l)y tlie husband; else (says he) were tlieir children, 
 nnclean, but now are they holy;" and that in the word "/':;.';/," he refers to 
 the baptism of their children, I trnst I h ive clearly shewn in mv second 
 letter also. This settles the point at oiuts and the vci-y first linlc in tlie 
 'hain of Baptist churches from the days of the apostles to the present time, 
 is iinhappilv for C wanting. And not onlv is this the case, but there is 
 
 14 
 
106 
 
 Tull and clear evidence that the first churches at Jerusalem— at Cscsarea— > 
 at Philippi, and at Corinth were founded on the Fedobaptist plan of bap- 
 tizing the houses or children of those vvho themselves v/avt baptized on a 
 profession of faith in Christ. And as there was doubtless a uniformity 
 amongst the apostles in this respect, the legitimate conclusion is, that the 
 other churches were founded on the same plan, or "grand model" as Mr. 
 C. expresses it. 
 
 We might here close our examination of Mr. C.'s "Strictures," for it is 
 of no moment when, or where, the Baptist system and church first ap- 
 peared, since it is no where to be found in the sacred records. But as he 
 has brought forward human testimony in support of his hypothesis that 
 the Baptist church existed in this and the following centuries, we will ex- 
 amine this testimony for a few centuries, that he may not say, that we 
 shunned the inquiry, and that if we cannot find the Baptist church, v/e may 
 perhaps in the way. find the matrix whence it sprung in process of time. 
 
 The human testimony of this century are "The Magdeburgenses de- 
 mons, — Ignatius, and D. Balthazar Lidius." As for the writers of the 
 Magdeburgh History, their testimony, or rather their opinion, "that in- 
 fants were not baptized in this century, and that baptism was administer- 
 ed by clipping, ' it cannot be of any weight in this inquiry, even as hu- 
 man testimony; because they lived some centuries after the apostolic age, 
 and at a time when the church was considerably corrupted. The same may 
 be said of Balthazar Lidius. He lived still later, and his testimony, 
 "that the people afterwards called Waldenses practised believer's bap- 
 tism in this century," is nothing to the purpose; but we will meet with 
 the "Waldenses" hereafter. VVho Clemons was I do not know. Per- 
 haps Mr. C. means Clemens usually styled Romanus, and by some thought 
 to be the Clement, whose name the apostle Paul says "was written in the 
 book of life." Admitting this to be the case, his testimony "that the right 
 subjects of baptism are such as have passed through examination, and re- 
 ceived instruction," does not prove that the children of church members 
 were not baptized, and that baptism is to be administered by immersion, 
 andby immersion only. The testimony of Ignatius who it is said lived in 
 the apostolic age, — "that baptism ought to be accompanied with faith, love, 
 and patience after preaching," is equally indefinite. The whole world at 
 that time was composed of Jews and Gentiles, and Clemens and Ignatius 
 are evidently speaking what was or ought to hu.ve been, the character of 
 those Jews and Gentiles who believed in Christ, previous to their being 
 admitted into the Christian church by baptism. Such is the testimony 
 divine and human which Mr. C. has adduced to prove, that the infants of 
 church members were not baptized in this century; that baptism was ad- 
 ministered by immersion, and by immersion only, and that "immersion is 
 the only baptism;" lor let it be recollected that it is this that distinguishes 
 the Baptist from the Pedobaptist church; and that to baptize Jews or Gen- 
 tiles on a profession of faith in Christ, is a principle and practice common, 
 to both. I think I may say that he has not produced even a shadow of 
 proof, and that his own testimony from the New Testament proves that 
 the church in the first century was formed on the Pedobaptist plan. 
 
 Second Century. The only testimony that Mr. C. produces in proof of 
 a Baptist Church in this century is an extract from the 2d apology of Jus- 
 tin Martyr to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. There is nothing 
 in this extract as given by Mr. C. that bears on the point, but the first sen- 
 tence. It is this — "I will declare unto you how we offer up ourselves unto 
 
107 
 
 tiod,aricr that we arc received througli Christ: those amono^ lis who arc 
 instructed in tlie faith ure brought to the wulcr, then they air bu/uized 
 r/iercin in the nume of the Father, and of tlie Son, and of the Holy (Jhoht." 
 
 I do not object to this extract because it contains any thing unfavoura- 
 ble to the Peduljaptisi system, for you will have observed that it alhtdcs 
 only to those adult persons who were baptized, and I will shortly prove 
 from tliis same I'alher that infants were baptized in his day, whicli was 
 near theveiy age of the Apostles: bull object to it, as not only garlded, 
 but unfairly translated. The original is to be found in J. P. Can)pbe!rs 
 book p. 101, where it is also translated, and which I will also shortly pro- 
 duce lor another purpose, and the reader will then sec, tliat instead of the 
 words ^'■bajitizcd t/iTtiv" which were designed to convey the idea that im- 
 mersion was the mode, the original words are — rn to hndati tote loxitron 
 fioiountai" which literally signify 'Hhty are then made clean in or ivilh 
 water;" and it will be recollected that I have shewn that the words "er/ /;«- 
 rfa/z" in Mark 1: 8, and el.--ewherc, necessarily signifies "with water," and 
 is so rendered by our translators, partial as I have shewn they were to 
 dipping. 
 
 Now, that this father who lived within forty years of the apostolic age, 
 teaches that infants were baptized in his day, is apparent from the follow- 
 ing quotation, theoriginal of which is to be found in J. P. Campbell's book 
 p. 98. '■''^cvtral Jicmons among us sixty or seventy years old, and ol both 
 sexes who were discipled {'•'•cmatlicteuthenau^'>) or made disciples to Christ 
 in \\\k:'\v child hood ^ do remain uncorrupted." It is worthy of particular no- 
 tice that this father uses the very word which our Lord uses in .Mat. IS: 19, 
 when he said, "Cio, disciple {'■'•tnathcteitsatc'' all natiotis, hafuizin;^ them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy (iliost;" and that 
 as the life of man is now confined to "three score and ten years," with a 
 few exceptions; then the nfvcral /irrsons mentioned by this father must 
 have been baptized not only in their infancy, but in the very age of the 
 apostles. Mr. C. inileed in p. 105 of his book ol)ject3 to this testimony 
 for the !)aptism of infants, by saying, that the Greek words ''ci: /saidion" 
 translated '■^c/iihl/iood'' may signify persons of ten or twelve years of age, 
 "and that persons of this ag«! have been admitted to baptism by boih an- 
 cient and modern Baptists." It may sufllce to silence this flimsy objection 
 by observing, that in f-uke 18: 15, the same ])ersons wlio are styled 
 "/;r^///u-" infants, are in the next verse styled "//«jrf/a," or "little children." 
 This same father as quoted and translated by J. P. Campbell says in the 
 same page, "we who by him have had access to God, have not received 
 this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision, which l£xocn and 
 those like him have observed; and we have received it bij ba/itiam, by the 
 mercy of Ciod because we were sinners; and it is etijoineil to all ficnona to 
 receive it thejsatne way'''' — "We are circumcised by baptism M-i'Ji Christ's 
 circtinjcision*." Vou will have observed that this fatber considered cir- 
 cumcision and baptism as imi)orling the same thing, and intended for the 
 same purpose, or for conveying the spiritual circumcision, auil that it w;is 
 erijoined to all persons infants and adults, to receive a by baptism. Mr. C. 
 objects in p 106, by saying that this father's opinion "that it is enjoined 
 ii/ion all persons to leceive the im])ort of circumcision in baptism, is his 
 own; and that infants are not capable of hearkening to, and obeying the 
 injunction.'' I have shewn however that the apostle l*aul in Col. 2: 11, 12, 
 was of the same opinion with this father, and taught the same doctrine. 
 And admitting that the opinion was wrong, it would be nothing to the 
 
108 
 
 piir|)ose; for the qi-rstion is, what was the practice of the church in his 
 day with respect to baptism? ami his words in this, antl the former quota- 
 ticn clearly prove, that it was the rip^ht of infants as well as adults. It 
 may not be amiss to observe farther, that in the above quotation I\Ir. C. 
 has substituted the word '•'•ufion''' for"^o," and this laid the foundation lor 
 the latter part of the objection, "that infants are not capable of hearke:-;- 
 ing to, and obeying the injunction." The word in the original is "e/;/;f ;o," 
 and exactly corresponds with our English word "/?tr/«f/,'' and the last 
 clause of the quotation should I think Ije thus translated — "It \% Jiermittcd 
 to all persons to receive it [spiritual circumcision] in the same way, name- 
 ly by baptism," This not only solves the objectitin, but is another instance 
 of the manner in which Mr. C. treats the words of his opponents, when 
 those words militate against his system. 
 
 Irknakus who wrote about sixty sevrn years afier Christ and war, then 
 an aged man, says cor.cc'ining Christ, "that he cam.e to save all persons 
 who are regenfratcd unto God, infants^ little ones; youths, and elderly 
 persons." That by regeneration he ir'eant baptism, is evident from the 
 following quotation from Justin Martyr, already alluded to, respecting be 
 lieving Jews and Gentiles. "Then they are brought by us to someplace 
 where there is water; and they are regenerated according to the rite of re- 
 generalion by which we ourselves were regenerated; for they are ivaslied 
 with Tjciier (or made clean by water) in the name of ihe Father and Lord 
 of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." 
 This fixes the meaning of the word '•'•Yegcvcraicd''' as used by the Fathers in 
 such a connexion. The phrase was probably taken irom John 3: 5,o/ 
 fi'om Titus 3: 5, v/hcrc "the washing of regeneration" is distinguished from 
 "the renewing of the Holy Ghost," and by which the most eminent di- 
 vines and commentators understand baptism, a)id this is anoiher proof 
 that baptism was desis^ned as a mican of i-egeneiation. 
 
 But to this Mr. C. objects in the same page by saying, that as Pedobap- 
 tists undei'Star.d the word '■'•regenerated'" as used by those fathers, it will 
 follow, that all baptized persor.s shall be saved; for Irenaeus says, "that 
 Christ came to save all pers'ons by himself; all I say who are regenerated 
 (or baptized) unto God, infants, Hltle ones, youths, and elderly persons.'' 
 The expression however is the very same that Peter uses in the following 
 passage, "the like figure Avhereunto baptism doth also nov/ save us;'"' and 
 understanding the passage as I do, that baptism was designed as a mean 
 of regeneration, the passage is clear, and the ol^jection dissipated in a mo- 
 ment. And here I cannot but observe that according to the Baptist sys 
 tem, and indeed the system of some Pedobaptists, baptism is stripped of 
 all efficiency as a divine ordinance, and cut down to a inere symbol. I 
 know not a Pedobaptist or Baptist writer, Mr. C. excepted, l»ut acknow- 
 ledge that prayer, reading the word, and the preaching of the Gospel, were 
 designed as means of grace for the unregcnerate, and that these with the 
 ordinance of the supper Avere designed as means for conferring farther 
 supplies of grace to the regenerated; and why baptism should not be a 
 mean of grace also, is w hat I do not understand, and for which I have ne- 
 ver heard any reason assigned. I have more than once observed that the 
 "words "be baptized for the remission of sins, atul ye shall receive the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost" to myself clearly convey the idea that amongst other 
 purposes baptism was designed as a mean of regeneration. — It may be 
 "worth while to those who think otherwise to examine the point seriously 
 and closely. 
 
109 
 
 But T^fr C. hns aiiotluM- objection to the testimony ot those fathers fur 
 infant baptism, — that they heUl a mimbcr of fanciful lluorics and wild 
 conjectures, and so wild, ''as to render their testimony of no vortii on any 
 doctrinal point that is not clearly rev( alcd in the New Testament." A« 
 we will meet with this objectiot\ again, it may be enough to say at pre- 
 sent, that we do not refer to them as standard*; of orthodoxy, but as wil- 
 nebses for facts, the baptism of infants in their day. To this may be add- 
 eii that as "it is not a good rule that will not work every way," why did 
 Mr. C. accoiding to liuso!)servation of his own, jiroduco Ji^stin IVIaktvr 
 as a proof for the existence of a Baptist church in the second century. 
 'Jhis was arguing against his own "(/a/w," and not only so, i)ul that father 
 with his colemporary Iicnacus unfortunately for the Baptist system, un- 
 e(|uivocally declare "that ////'u/iM, little ones, youths and elderly persons" 
 were baptized in their day; and conseciuently that in the second century, 
 the church held and practised as Pcdobuptisls do in the prescntdav. — \Vc 
 Jiave not met with even the shadow of the Baptist church as yet. 
 
 Third Cnitury. In support of his affirmation that the Baptist church 
 existed in this century, Mr. C. only tells us that Mr. Baxter in his book 
 entitled "Saints Best," 1 ed. part 1, chap. 8. sect. 8, acknowledges that 
 Tkrtllliax, Ouioen, and Cvpuian who lived in this century do affirm 
 that in the primitive timer, none were baptized^ but such as engaged to 
 obey him," (God.) 
 
 I have not the fust edition of Mr. Baxter's book, and cannot therefore 
 positively say that what Mr. C. says is not true; but this I w ill now prove, 
 that Tertli.i.ian Ohzcen, and CvrKiAx, say the very reverse; and if Mr. 
 Baxter has said what Mr. C rcjiresenls him as saying, he must have had 
 reference to adult persons who were baptized, Init this, let it !)e remem- 
 bered is nothing to the point in hand, and i)elongs not to the present f)ues- 
 lion. This iscoTiHiiiied by the consideration that Mr. BAxrKuwas a warm 
 Pedobaptist. If any ])erson should doubt it, the torrent of abuse which 
 Mr. C. pours upon him through Mr. Booih in the 5th No. of the Appen- 
 dix to his book will convince him of the contrary. 
 
 In the debate Mr. W. read from J. P. Campbell's book a large extract 
 from Ti-.Ri lli.ian's works as a proof that infant baptism was the ])revalent 
 doctrine and practice of the chinch in his day. 1 ha^e not room for the 
 whole of the extract in this letter; the following may answer every pur- 
 pose at present: — "Therefore the delay of baptism is the more expedient, 
 as it respects the condition and disposition, as well as the age of every 
 person to be baptized; and this holds more especially in reference to little 
 o«c*, for what occasion is there excr// if /« case.i of urgent neccssiti/, that the 
 sponsors be brought into danger, who are alike liable through death to fail 
 in accomplishing their promises; and to be deceived by the evolution of 
 some evil disposition" — "Why docs this innocent age, hasten to the remis- 
 sion of sins, i. e. to baptism." 
 
 In p. 108, of his book, Mr. C. admits (for it cannot possibly be denied) 
 that Tertilliax speaks of the baptism of infants in the above extract, but 
 objects to his testimony, because as he says in p. 109, "/;<■ n/iftcars like one 
 o/i/ioHintr an error c/ recent date" — because he speaks of sponsers for in- 
 fants — because he mentions a number of frivolous and superstitious prac- 
 tices that accompanied baptism in his day — and because he held and taught 
 a number of extravagant opinions. 
 
 It is not trie that Ti-htulhan speaks against infant baptism as an inno- 
 vation; nor could he do so, for I have proved that it was the prevalent doc- 
 
no 
 
 trine and practice of the church in the two precediii?*' centuries; and aU 
 though Mr, C. in page WY^'-'-challenges all Christendom" on this very 
 point, I here "challenge" him or any other man to produce any passage 
 from any of Tertullian's works in which he S|)eaks of infant baptism as 
 an innovation in his day. I know all that Historian Robixsox has said 
 about the Latin word "yzarx^w//," and v/hich Mr. C. alludes to in p. 1 17, and 
 am prepared to meet it. Teutullian did indeed advise against infant bap- 
 tism, and also against the baptism of unmarried persons, because he tho't 
 that sins committed after baptism, if not altogether, were next to unpar- 
 donable. But with the singularity of the opinion we have nothing to do 
 in the present inquiry, and his advising against it, is a proof that it did ex- 
 ist in his day; for men do not advise against thai which has no existence. 
 Besides, if according to Mr. C.'s reasoning the circumstance of his advis- 
 ing against it, is a proof that it was "an innovation of recent date," then the 
 same reasoning « ill prove that no unmarried persons were baptized prc> 
 vious to his day, for he advises against the baptism of such, for the same 
 singular reason. Nor is the objection of sponsors for infants being ad- 
 mitted in his day of any more weight, whether they were admitted in the 
 case of orphan children, as is most probable, or of children whose pa- 
 rents were living; the very circumstance is a proof that infants were then 
 baptized, and that is all that concerns us in the present investigation. — 
 The frivolous and superstitious ceremonies mentioned by Mr. C. in p. 
 1 1 1, ahd which form another part of his objection, are as follows. — "Re- 
 nouncing the devil, and all his pomps, and ministers — a being plunged in 
 the water three times — tasting of milk and honey — bathing themselves 
 every day of the whole week — not to fast on Sundays — to pray unto God 
 kneeling — offering yearly oblations in honour of the martyrs — not to suf- 
 fer any part of the wine and consecrated bread to fall to the ground — and 
 to sign themselves with the sign of the cross." Now, how any man could 
 infer the introduction of infant baptism from those superstitious obser- 
 vances, is really surprising. Are these things the actions of infants, or 
 are they in any wise connected with infants, or infant baptism? Who but 
 Mr. C. would ever dream of ascribing the introduction of infant baptism 
 to such a dissimilar and inadequate cause; as there is in the nature of 
 things, and must be, a similarity between cause and effect. That Ter- 
 TULLiAx held and taught a number of wild and extravagant opinions, and 
 which Mr. C. details from p. 109, to p. 115, is readily admitted; but that 
 this disqualifies him ior being a competent witness for facts, and for facts 
 that hap[>ened every day under his own eye, is denied. I agree with Mr. 
 C. that those opinions tended to corrupt the church, already considerably 
 tainted; but that they introduced infant baptism is altogether gratuitous. I 
 have shewn that it was practised in the church in the two first centuries,^ 
 and as I have already observed TertuUian s advising against it, is of itself 
 a proof that it was practised in his day. As he was a very learned, 
 eloquent, and popular writer, his advising against it, foi- the singu- 
 lar reason already mentioned, induced some in process of time to cast 
 infants entirely out of the church, where I have shewn they had been 
 planted by the apostles; and here I think Mr. C. might find the matrix 
 whence the Baptist system in relation to infants naturally and legitimately 
 sprung. 1 have shewn in a Note in the 4th letter, that this same father, 
 taught also that there was a regenerating influence or efficacy in baptismal 
 water. This, as was to be expected, introduced baptism by immersion, as 
 those who embraced his opinion, would naturally conclude, that to apply 
 
Ill 
 
 -^Nater to only a part of the body could produce only a partial, h»it to im- 
 nuTSf thi' \vh()k' i)ody in water would produce a total, or (.iitiro le^tnera- 
 tion. This opinion prevailed, and firmly maintained its g;round in the 
 dark a}?es of l^opery, nor was it ti^enerally expelled until the ie\ivalof li- 
 terature at the auspicious era of the ukformatiov. It still prevails to a 
 great dep;ree in the (iuEKK Chukch which it is well known, is siill im- 
 mersed in much intellectual and moral darkness; and not as Mr. C asserts, 
 to their knowledt^^e of the Greek woid ba/itizo; for few of them are ac- 
 quainted with ancient Greek literature, and it is scarcely necessary to ob- 
 serve that modern Greek is very unlike that which was written by ancient 
 Cireek authors. From the whole of this testimony, every inteirujcnt and 
 reflecting person who has lead the extracts from 'I'ertullian's wriliiip^s 
 which were read in the debate., ^x\(S. also those l)rou.i^ht forward by Mr. C. 
 in his book, will sec, that it is not ti ue that Tertuli.ian S])oke ap^ainst in- 
 fant baptism as an "innovation" in the church, but only advised ai^ainst it 
 for the reasons mentioned; and that no man has ever ascribed edicts to 
 such dissimilar and inadequate causes as Mr. C has done. Such a reader 
 will also judge, whether the causes which I have assigned for casting in- 
 fants out of the church, and for introducing baptism by immersion, are 
 such, as were adequate to, and calculated to produce that eflect. 
 
 To silence, and if possil)le to put to shame such assertions, that infant 
 baptism was intioduced into the church in this century, I w ill subjoin the 
 testimony of Ouior.x, one of the most learned men of the age, who nour- 
 ished from 215, to 252, and who was well acquainted with the state and 
 practice of the church in this and the preceding centuries. An extract 
 or two from his works read at the same time by Mr. W. is all we can ad- 
 mit at present. — "Besides all this, let it be considered, what i.s the reason 
 that whereas the baptism of the church is given for the remission of sins, 
 infants alno are by the usage of the church ba/iiized." — '^Having occasion 
 given by this place, I will mention a matter which excites frequent inquiry 
 among the brethren. Infants are bafitized for the remission of f^^ins. Of 
 what sins, or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of baptism 
 be alleged in their case, unless it be in conformity to the sense just now ex- 
 pressed, namely, that.nonc is free from pollution, though his life be but 
 the length of one day upon the earth; and it is for that reason, because by 
 the sacrament of baptism, the pollutions of our birth are taken away." 
 Perhaps Mr. C. may say to me, as he did to Mr. W. as Ouicf.n held bap- 
 tism to be a purgative fiom all previous sin, "why then do you not hold 
 and teach infant baptism in the same light?'' It is facts, and not opinions 
 that we are now incjuiring after, and here is another indubitable fact that 
 infants were baptized and universally baptized i)i,the third century. And 
 yet I must confess that I have been rather surprised at this last objection, 
 as I have for some considerable tiine strongly suspected that the Baptist 
 clergy are generally infected with the opinions of Tkhtum.iav and 
 Oruii:\, that bajjtism by immersion is a purgative from all previous 
 guilt and sin. I have seen what they have, called, and may have been, a 
 revival ol religion amongst tliem, and heard of others; aJid from all I have 
 seen and heard, the cry, and the i>urden of the pleaching on tliose occa- 
 sions was — Water, water, — To Jordan, to Jordan. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to add to this, the testimony of CvrniAN who 
 flourished also in this century. A single extract fiom a decree made by 
 him and sixty-six other Bishops at Carthage in 252, and ser.r to one Tcnus. 
 IS all wc can admit, and n-^ay be sufficient io;* our purpo;e. "^Ve irad 
 
your letter dear brother. — But vith respect to the case of infants which as 
 you have stated, shoUld not be tafitized within the second and third day af- 
 ter their birth; and as to what you also suggest, that the rule of the an- 
 cient circumcision is to be observed, requiring that none are to be baptiz- 
 ed and sanctified before the eighth day after nativity; it hath appeared far 
 otherwise to us all in council; for as to what you conceived should be done 
 in this affair, not a single person thought with you, but we all gave it as 
 our opinion, that the mercy and grace of God should be denied to none of 
 the human kind." 
 
 I will now only say, that never was a fact better established than that in- 
 fant baptism was the prevalent practice o\ the church in the third century; 
 and that never was a more bold and shameless inference drawn from any 
 premises, than Mr. C. in p. 121, has drawn from the foregoing documents, 
 that infant baptism was first decreed by this council of Carthage. A bare 
 inspection of the decree shews, that the question before the council was 
 not, "shall infants be baptized," but shall they be baptized before the eighth 
 day after their nativity; and the unanimous opinion of the council was, 
 that they should be baptized as soon as it was convenient and practicable. 
 • Fourth Century. As a proof of a Baptist church in this century, Mr. 
 'C. tells us that Jerome, who lived in this century taught that persons 
 must be "instructed before they are baptized; for it cannot be that the 
 body should receive the ordinance of baptism, before the soul has receiv- 
 ed the true faith.'' He adduces Epiphanius bishop of Cyprus to the same 
 purport: and that the council of Laodicea of Neocsesarea ordained, "that 
 whosoever were to be baptized, should give in their names, and after due 
 examination be baptized." But as I have frequently observed this is no- 
 thing to the purpose. The regulations ordained by that council evidently 
 refer to adult unbaptized persons; and that it was of such, that Jerome 
 spoke is equally evident. But this is not all. Reed in his apology p. 277, 
 quotes Jerome as saying, "If infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting 
 their baptism is laid to their parent's charge." 
 
 Ambrose who also lived in the latter end of this century, and as quoted 
 by J. P. Campbell p, 105, speaking of the Pelagian heresy which began 
 then to appear says, that this hypothesis would infer '■'•evacuatlo ba/itinma- 
 tis jiarviilorun.^'' or the nullity of infant baptism." To this I will only 
 add the testimony of Augustine who also flourished in this century, and 
 which was also read in the debate by Mr. W. "And as the thief who by 
 necessity went without baptism, was saved, because by his piety he had it 
 spiritually: so Avhere baptism is had, though the party by necessity \o 
 without that (faith) which the thief had, yet he is saved. Which the nvhole 
 body of tlie church holds as delivered to the?n in the case of little infants ba^i- 
 (ized, who certainly cannot yet believe with the heart unto righteousness." 
 I need scarcely observe that this is proof positive, not only for the bap- 
 tism of infants in this century, but that it was the practice of the body 
 of the church. The oljjection which Mv. C. brings against this testimo- 
 ny in p. 116 of his book is disgraceful to any man. He represents Augus- 
 tine as saying that "the whole body of the church received infant baptism 
 "from the council of Carthage." There are no such words in any of the 
 extracts made from him, nor yet in any of his writings. On the contrary 
 as quoted by J. P. Campbell in p. 90, he says. Blessed Cyprian declared not 
 that no body, but that 720 soul was to be lost, and with a number of his fel- 
 low bishops decreed, that an infant migh* T^'ith profiriety be baptized imme- 
 %lhtejv af'rr the birth; not thereby forminf:: some ne'LV canon, but obscrvinis 
 
113 
 
 *he iiioit Jiriidu established fuith of t/ic church. ~'V\\\^ wcs read in Mr. C.'s 
 hcming; at the dibate. He objects also thai Aujiuslinc held, with Ttrlul- 
 liaii, Origen, and Cyprian, that baptism was a purgative from sin. Be it 
 so, but ^vhat has that to do with the jiresent (|uestionr fur let nie again re- 
 j)eat it, that it is not opinions, btit the fact of the baptism of infants that 
 ve are iiKpiiring ufler. Should a Baptist a hundred years hence ufl'irm, 
 that there uere Baptists, and a Bujitist church in the United States of 
 -America in the year 18'22.and produce Mr. C.'s book as a proof; and should 
 :i Pedoba])list reply, that testimony ir. not to be icgarded, for the author 
 of that book has advanced opinions that would "dishonour the lowest 
 tirade of Christians amon.ust us;" he has said ''that a man is no more 
 bhimable for not being a Christian, than for not being seven feet high;" 
 ''that Judaism was worse than sheer (ienlilism,'' and that it is a thing 
 "•full of deadly poison" for the unregenerate to pray unto CJod, or to praise 
 bim for the mercies they have received Ironi his hand. — The Pedobaptist 
 \voiild reason then, just as Mr. C. reasons in the pi-esent case, for the ex- 
 istence of a Baptist churcli in the present day is no more incumpatil)lc 
 Avith his holding, and publishing the foregoing opinions, wild, and wick- 
 ed and extiavagant as they arc, than the existence of a Pedoliaptist church 
 in the fourlirst centuries is incompatible with the most extravagaiit opi- 
 nions which some of the Fathers held, and published during that period. 
 Never was there a logician more unhappy in the premises whence he has 
 drawn many of his conclusions, than is Mr. C. 
 
 But in addition to the testimony of EriiiVMcs and Jkkomk for the ex- 
 istence of «t Baptist church in this century, Mr.C. tells us in page 51 of his 
 Stiictuies, that a vast number of the children of Iielievers were baptized in 
 this century; amongst whom^ie mentions Basil the great, the son of a 
 Chi'istitm Bishoi),GHi;GoiiY the son ofGuKciouy Bislio;)of Nazianscr, Cox- 
 .lANTiNE the groat, the son of Helena a zealous Ciiristian, Atsrixlhe son 
 'f the gracious Monica, and Tiit.ooosius the emperor of Rome. That 
 !iis was the case I am not disposed to dispute, but before th 'se instances ' 
 could be of any advantage to his system and argument, he shfjuld have 
 previously proved, that the parents of these chiklren had been Christians 
 at the lime these children weie born, and while they were little children; 
 ibr let it be remembered that although the Christian religion had made 
 onsiderabie |)rogress at this i)eiiod, yet a vast num!)er were still in a 
 tatc of Gentilism. I admit also that infant baptism I)egan to be disputed 
 )y a few at this time, but not to the extent claimed by Mr. C. I admit far- 
 ;her that baptism by immersion was pretty ])re\alenl %nd increased every 
 clay, as the writings of Terlullian and Origen wei-e spread, and their opi- 
 nions imbil)ei!; but I have proved l)y undoubted testimony that infant bap- 
 ism was the prevalent practice of the church. 
 
 I deon it unnecessary to pursue this inquiry any farther, as the lesti- 
 •lony which Mr.C. adduces for the existence of a Bap'ist church in the 
 lollowing centuries, is the same which he has adduced fur that purpose for 
 the foregoing centuries, and which I have frecpiently observed has not the 
 least beaiir.g on the point in isstic, as it is a principle common to both 
 Baptists and Pedobaplisls, that \inbapti/.ed adults should profess faith in 
 Christ before ihey can be baptized. Besides, after this century the church 
 ijocame more and more corrujjied, until the once sin)p!e and chaste spouse 
 •)f Christ Ijecame decked with all the trappings of a loathsome harlot, 
 nor was she stripped of them, until Lciukr, Calvin, and John Knox, on 
 whom Mr. C. has poured such u torrent of abuse, iiroscj and unveiled her 
 
 15 
 
114 
 
 abominations at the era of the reformation, I would however just observe 
 thai in the 
 
 lufth Century^ we have undoubted evidence that infant baptism was (ge- 
 nerally practised in the church, although immersion with all its worthy 
 concomitants already mentioned, had in a great degree usurped the place 
 of the simple and unassuming mode of affusion. Besides the testimony of 
 AuGusTiNE,who flourished in the beginning of this century, Pelagius the 
 founder of the heresy known by his name, in his creed which he address- 
 ed to IxNOCENT bishop of Rome, avows the following articles — "We hold 
 one baptism which we say ought to be administered with the same sacra- 
 mental words /o infants^ as it is to elder persons." To this he adds, "men 
 slander me as if I deni-ed the sacrament of baptism to infants^ or did pro- 
 mise the kingdom of heaven to some persons without the redemption of 
 Christ, which is a thing that I never heard, «o, not ei'en any wicked here- 
 tic say." In 412, his co- heresiarch Celestius stood his trial before the 
 council of Carthage, and amongst other things he said, "as for infants I 
 •Iways- said, that they stood in need of baptism, and that they ought to be 
 baptised'' — "and infants are to be baptized, according to the rule of the uni- 
 ■versai chv/rch" 
 
 Tbus have I shewn that infant baptism was practised not only by the 
 apostles, but by the primitive fathers down to the sixth century, with the 
 exception of a few individuals at farthest, who had been led by the writ- 
 ings of Tertullian and Origen to disuse it, and to substitute immersion in 
 tlie place of affusion. Mr; C. who aitentrpts contrary to the svery data 
 which he lays down, to prove that it was introduced in the third century, 
 attempts in p. 122 of his book, to account for the strong hold which it 
 still maintained in the church by saying; "that it is not at all a marvellous 
 thing that Pelagius and others in the 4th (5th) century should say they 
 never heard that baptism was denied to infants," because the art of print- 
 ing was not then known, and knowledge was confined to a few manuscripts." 
 But Mr. C. did not recollect, or did not choose to recollect, that Pelagius 
 though a native of Britain was a great travellei' — that he travelled through. 
 France, Italy, Africa and Asia, or those parts of the latter countries where 
 tlie Christian religion was received, and was consequently well acquainted 
 with the practice of the church in all those countries, as it respected the 
 baptism of infants. And here let me again observe, that the present in- 
 quiry i«y not, what did Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, 
 Augustine, Celestius, and Pelagius, believe and teach, but wha*. do they 
 tell us respecting thiS point, from their own knowledge and practice. Let 
 not the reader suffer his mind to be diverted from this point, for that, and 
 that alone, is- the point in issue at present betwixt Mr. C. and myself. 
 
 As this letter has swelled far beyond my design and expectation, I shall 
 conclude this inquiry with an extract from Dr. Wall's history of infant 
 baptism.,, who, although partial to dipping,, concludes his history thus: — 
 "Lastiy,.for llie first three hundred years there appears only one man, Ter- 
 tullian, tvho advises the delay of infant baptism in some cases, and one 
 Gregory who did perhaps practise such delay in the case of his own 
 children^ but no society of men so thinking, or so practising, or any one 
 m-an saying- that it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven 
 hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found, who either 
 spoke for, or practised such delay, but all the contrary. And when about 
 the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses or Albigenses declared 
 against the baptism of infants as- being incapable of salvation, the main 
 
115 
 
 "body of that people ivjectcd their opinion, and tliey nfthem that hchl thai 
 opinion, .|uukly Iwindled away and disapjicared, there hein^^iio more per- 
 sons holdini; that tenet, until the risiu.ij of the German Awhaitists in 
 the year 1522." 
 
 Such is the result of the researches of the maji who made the study of 
 the history of the Ciiristian cliurch the main busin^'is of his lile; and re- 
 specting; viliose history, Mr. Wmsrov a learned Baptist tt lis liis friends, 
 "that Dr. Wall's history of infant baptism, an to facts, ajjpeared to him 
 most accurately done, and mis^ht he dcjunded it/ion by tkr IJaptists thfin- 
 selves;" and such you will have perceived are the progenitors of our mo- 
 dem Baptists, one of their own learned friends being judge. You will 
 have also perceived, that the assertions of Mi. C. in various places of his 
 "Strictures," that the Wai.dj-.nses were Baptists are without any solid 
 foundation, and that the authorities he has quoted for the support of those 
 assertions, are either spurious, and if not spurious, were ignorant men 
 tainted with the heresies of the day in which they lived. 
 
 I shall close my o^^servations on Mr. C 's Strictures by again taking tlvc 
 liberty of holding a little familiar conversation with him, pcrhips far the 
 last time. And now sir, after reading this and the ])reccding letter, are 
 you not convinced that you are unacquainted with the -subject on which 
 you have so boldly disputed, and as boldly written? What else could have 
 induced you to assert so often as you have dine that bafitizo is used by 
 Greek writers to signify to wash by immersion, and by immersion only— 
 that Pedobaptist writers understand it in this sense, and this sense only; 
 and above all that it is never used in the New 'I'estament in any oilier 
 sense? You must have a very bad opinion of all Pe'loba;itist wh^ri yju 
 assert indirectly, as you do, that they practise contrary to their fuii convic- 
 tion, and settled belief on this point. And what else than ignorance uf 
 the sul)ject could induce you to suppose for a moiiient, that even ten ihoi- 
 sand quotations from the ancient fathers, or any other writers respecting 
 the character and qualifications of those adult Jews or Geniiles whom 
 they admitted to baptism, or who were bapti2>ed, was a proof of the exis- 
 tence of a Baptist church in their day, or even the shadovv of an argument 
 a ainst the baptism of infants, or against the Pedob.iptist system? You 
 Cannot but now see, that the task I have set you of proving- '*by positive 
 precept or precedent," that the apostles l)aptized by imm:Tsiun, and by i.n- 
 inersion only; and of tracing an unbroken chain of Baptist churches from 
 their time to the present day, is so far from i)eing finished, that it is ivA 
 even begun; and that your position in your new Catechism, "that immer- 
 sion is the only baptism," is unscriptural and indefensible. It is what no 
 man can prove, fori have proved the reverse, and by your own testimony. 
 
 That you will reply to this examination of your Strictures is not impro- 
 bable, for you have givtn the public the fullest evidence that you are 
 -seized with what a Uoman satyrist styles "rccof/Ata scridetidi," and which 
 I have somewhere seen not improperly rendered, "^Ac itc/i of scnftb/in^.'* 
 I shall conclude this address to you, by again ol)scrving that should I an- 
 swer, it will be on the fdlowing conditions, and on the following conditions 
 only. Isi, that you take up, and discuss, one by one, iht; arguments con- 
 tained in my first letter, for the existence of a church of God — a church 
 in the fullest sense of the word, both under the Patriarchal, and Abraham- 
 i<- dispensations of grace; and that the Christian church was ingrafted in- 
 to the latter, as deduced from the 11th chapter of the epistle to the Ro- 
 /naus, and ^d chapter of the cpi'^tle to the Ephesians. This was tracijig the 
 
116 
 
 subject to its first principles; but you know that you bave shunned thiii 
 poinl — you have not once referred to it, except by a trifling objecUon de- 
 duced from my words disingenuously separated from each other, and then 
 distorted from their obvious meaning. 2dly; that you discuss in the same 
 manner, and refute if you can,piy arguments for infant baptism, deduced 
 from Acts 2: 38, 39, in that letter, and trom Mat. 28: 19. 1 Cor. 7: 14; and 
 especially from the family baptisms recorded in the New Testament, as ex- 
 hibited in the 2d letter. The latter of these arguments you have not in- 
 deed seen until now, but the former you have seen, and instead of meeting, 
 and discussing it fairly, you have tried to divert the minds of your readers 
 from it, by asking a few immaterial, and in some instances irrelevant ques- 
 tions. I think 1 may say, that I have not shunned any thing like argument 
 in your Book and Strictures that pertained to the subject in dispute, but 
 met, and answered them as I could, and as I thought they deserved. 3dly, 
 that you examine in the same manner also, the arguments in the 3d letter, 
 respecting the qualifications required from those persons who were bap- 
 tized by the apostles themselves. You are conscious that the view which 
 I have given of that part of the subject strikes at the very vitals of your 
 system, and yet you shunned this also, I)y referring to it in a very indeter- 
 minate manner. It cannot Sir, satisfy an inquisitive public to say, as you 
 have said, that it is too absurd .for your notice, for it wiii occur to every 
 reader, that the absurd*>r it is, the easier will be the refutation, and the 
 more signal your triumph, and the more complete my defeat. 4thly, that 
 you examine also in detail the baptisms recorded in the New Testament, 
 and shew that they must have been administered by immersion, and by 
 immersi'.n only; and refute, if you can, the reasons which I have offered in 
 the 4th letter, why I think they were administered by affusion, together 
 •yvith what I have added on that point in the 7th letter. 1 he foregoing con- 
 ditions are neither unfair, nor unreasonable, and what I have a right to 
 claim from you as the assailant in this controversy; from the high ground^ 
 you have assumed; and above all, in defence of your system. Volumes of 
 general and desultory observations can never profit the reader, nor bring 
 the controversy to an issue, and still much less, treating the sacred and 
 important subject with an air of ridicule. And here Sir, permit me to ob- 
 serve to you, that you should forever abandon this last mode of writing; 
 for whatever you call your '^genius'' is, every reader of taste and discern- 
 ment must have seen, that it does not possess a single particle of the '•'•sal 
 aiiicum,''' or ihe true attic salt. I will not disgrace my page by -writing /Ac 
 true name, of what you have mistaken for that delicate, pungent, pleasing, 
 and when properly applied, useful style of writing. In the event of your 
 complying with the preceding conditions, I here again pledge myself, that 
 if I cannot answer you, I will publicly acknowledge my error, and thank 
 you for directing me into the path of truth. But if you refuse these rea- 
 sonable conditions, an intelligent and unprejudiced public will certainly 
 excuse me, for not taking the least notice of what you may publish on this 
 subject— 1 will not carry on a war of words. Your friend Philaletkes 
 now claims my attention, and as he has in some places of his letter to you, 
 addressea me directly, I shall address him directly also, as the most expe- 
 ditious way of bringing this letter to a close. 
 
117 
 
 TO nilLJlLETIIES. 
 
 Who you arc Sir, I do not know with absohitc certainty, nor is it tr.alc- 
 leriul; but ihtrc is intrinsic evidence in your letter that you have been ha- 
 bituated to the peculiar dialect of the Scotch theology — that you live at 
 no great distance, and have been hovering round my congregations, and 
 picking up on iu'ursay, scraps of my sermons, and which you unl)lushing- 
 ly piiblish to the world as credible facts — and that you are very angry w ilh 
 me — as angry, as I have seen adoating father, when a beloved and hopeliil 
 son, happened to l)e discomfited and exjiosed. But passing liiis Oy; I 
 would observe that my addiess to you will be short, as theie is scarcely 
 any thing in \our letter, but what Mr. C. has urged either in his l)ook or 
 in his '^Strictures,'* and what 1 have said in reply to him on those dillt r- 
 enl points, you are to consider as addressed to yourself individually. 
 '1 here are however a lew things in your letter respecting ''the ukvikw,'' 
 which he has not noticed, and on these you will permit me to make a few 
 observations. 
 
 You complain in p. 66, that I have used, "harsh, ill-natured, contemptu- 
 ous, and rtproachful language." I think not Sir, and I also think, that 
 for reasons which you very well know, you would not be allowed to be a 
 dispassionate judge. I have indeed, used language somewhat strong, and 
 which I thought the occasion demanded, when Mi. C. advanced positions, 
 in defence of his system, that degraded the Old Testament scriptures, and 
 are ^^rr/irouc/ifui'" to Jehovah as the author of Judaism; and when he re- 
 presented the Pedobaptist clergy without exception as venal and conupl. 
 and for sinister purposes, "taking away the key of knowledge from the 
 laity," and in which you joined him by saying (p. 70,) that they admit in- 
 to tlic church, "those only whj pay stipends;" but I think that 1 have not 
 used a word that is either indecorous,or scurrilous. If 1 have, I will not justi- 
 fy it, and so far I have injured myself,and not Mr. C;. and l;c that as it may, 
 such a charge comes with a very bad grace from you, and your friend. 
 
 You complain also, that the "uiiviKw" was not an answer to Mr. C.'s 
 book; — that I was afraid that it should be seen, and therefore "huddled it 
 up in a miscellaneuus i)eriodical puolication." That complaint is now re- 
 moved, and the present pui)lication embraces every thing that I consider 
 relevant to the question in his book; but whether my answer is to the 
 point, is another cjueslion; — but of that the unprejudiced public will 
 judge. 
 
 In p. 6r, you afTinn that I have not produced any proof that a Redeemer 
 of the seed of Abraham, aiul a churcii, and her ordinances, were secuVed 
 by the covenant of circumcision; and in the following page, "that from the 
 beginning of the 1 5th chapter of Clenesis, to the end of Deuteronomy, 
 there is not a promise of regeneration, and eternal life, made to the cove 
 nanted seed of Abraham as such." I have assigned reasons in the first 
 letter, why I consider what is called "the covenant of God in Christ," and 
 "the covenant of circumcision," to be one and the same covenant. lf you 
 could have done so, it behooved you, or Mr. C. to have shewn that I was 
 mistaken; but you have both avoided this. I quoted the words in that co- 
 yenant,"In thee shall all nations be blessed" as expressly apjjlied to Christ, 
 in Cial.3: 16 — "And to thy seed which is Christ;" notwithstanding which, 
 you a scrt that that covenant only secured, "that nations and kings should 
 proceed from Abraham." Now, Sir, besides being contradictory to the ex- 
 
118 
 
 position given to the words by the apostle, is not your exposition false ia 
 fact.^ Have all nations, and all kings descended from Abraham: i>ut thifs 
 according to your exposition, must have been the case, or the promise 
 was false; for the promise is, — "In thee shall a// nations be blessed, ' and 
 expressed in Gen. 12: 3, "In thee shall all families of the earth be 
 blessed." Nor is it true that this promise did not belong to that covenant, 
 as you boldly assert in the same page, for the apostle in the same chapter^ 
 and I7th verse, styles it "the covenant confirmed of God in Christ,'' or as 
 it respected Christ. I would also ask you, whether it is a temporal or 
 spiritual b/essing that is promised to the "covenanted seed of Abraham as 
 such," in Deut. 30: 6, "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, 
 and the heart of thine seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live" The very phraseology used 
 in this promise is a proof that the blessing confered on the Jews wus in 
 consequence of their being within the pale of the covenant of circumci- 
 sion; for surely the word '■'•circunicise" which according to your system, 
 conveys the idea of temporal blessings only, would not have been used to 
 denote such a blessing, as to dispose them "to love the Lord their God, 
 with all their heart, and with all their soul; and not only is this the case, 
 bat the word also clearly imports, that circumcision was designed as a 
 mean through which this blessing was conveyed to those, whom Jehovah 
 d!esig<ied thus highly to distinguish. In p. 77, of his book, your friend 
 Mr. C. denies that the phrase "/o circumcise" the heart can in the utmost 
 latitude of interpretation imply all the blessings of the new covenant;" 
 and that this promise could not be given to the Jews as the covenanted 
 seed of Abraham, "because it related to events then future, from the days 
 of Moses. I shall only say, that if that promise does not imply in it all 
 the blessings of the new covenant, then there is no promise in all the book 
 of God that does so. Love to God when supreme holds the first rank 
 amongst "the fruits of the Spirit," Gal. 5: 22; and that faith with which 
 salvation or eternal life is connected by the promise of Christ himself, is 
 said "to work by /ox;e," "and to purify the heart." Mr. C.'s objection that 
 the promise now under consideration "related to events, then future," like 
 many other of his objections, and positions, is truly silly; for is not the 
 accomplishment of a promise, necessarily /Mfwre to the promise itself ? 
 
 In p. 69 you assert, that if bajitiza does not signify to immerse, "then 
 the grand use of language as a medium of communication betwixt hea- 
 ven and earth is made void, and the faith and obedience of the worshipper 
 is rendered impossible." This objection is founded on the assumption, 
 and principle, that as immersion is the primary idea affixed to the verb 
 baptizQ, by heathen writers, it is therefore to be so understood wherever it 
 occurs in the sacred writings. I have shewn that the words faith^ rejien- 
 tan^e, salvation, £cc. are used sometimes in their primary, and sometimes 
 in their secondary sense in the scriptures; and is "the communication be- 
 twixt heaven and earth, thereby made void; and is the faith and obedience 
 of the worshipper, thereby rendered impossible?" Apply your rule. Sir, 
 made and provided for the word ba/itizo, to those and many other words, 
 of always understanding them in their primary, or most extended sense 
 •wherever they occur; and then say, if "the faith and obedience of the wor- 
 shipper would not thereby be rendered impossible," and if your rule 
 would not reduce the Bible to a mass of unintelligible jargon. 
 
 Your criticism on the words, "of such," in Luke 18: 16, is of no use 
 to your systemj for it is undeniable that Christ had reference to the ver^' 
 
119 
 
 children he hold in his arms; and no phraseology is more frequent in 
 common languaj^e, atid a sinj^le exception cannot set aside a gmeral rule. 
 ^ our story, "that 1 have, not very long since, openly declared from the 
 pulpit, that accoiding to the nieaning the Baptists affix to Acts 8: 33; I 
 could not tell whether Philip baptized the eunuch, or the eunuch him," is 
 unworthy of any man who has a respect for his character as a writer; and 
 shews that you cannot defend your system by fair and honouiable argu- 
 ment. No preacher can i-trcollect all he has said in the pulpit, but I am 
 persuaded, that I have never used the identical words which you have pub- 
 lished as mine. But I have said, that as Baptists understand the words, 
 ^^t/icy wfjtt down into the water" as signifying immersion; it will follow, 
 that Philip was immersed as well as the eunuch, for it is said, "that they 
 went (ioivn into the water, 60//1 Philip, and the eunuch." I have said soia 
 the fourth letter, when examining that baptism. Both you and Mr. C. 
 have seen this, and instead of shewing that my inference was wrong, both 
 of you pass it by, and as an answer you uni)kshingly publish to the world 
 as a credible fact, what you have heard from some i)erson or other. AVas 
 not this one reason why you have not given the public, and myself your 
 name? and I would now ask you, if that cause is not desperate, and if it is 
 worth defending, when its advocates must resort to .such shameful means 
 to support it? 
 
 In p. 70, you object that I have said, "that circumcision prefigured bap- 
 tism," and you ask, "whoever heard of one typical or figurative ordinance, 
 prefiguring another?" — A type is an image of something future; and that 
 an antitype cannot be typical of something sliil future is what you deny, 
 but (or which denial you have not assigned any reason whatever. I have 
 shewn that Peter calls baptism the antitype (auiitu/io?i) of the tem[>oral 
 salvation ol Noah and his familj; and that it was also the antitype of cir- 
 cumcision, I have produced Coh 2: 11, 12, as a proof. That your objec- 
 tion might have any force, you should have shewn that my view of that 
 passage was wrong-; and you should have also shewn us, of what baptism 
 is now a type. Although a /(///f differs somewhat from a symbal, or em- 
 biem: the words are yet generally used interchangeal)!y, or as convertiI;le 
 terms. I suppose that it is the typical nature of baptism, that Mr. C. with, 
 whoni you accord in sentiment, alludes to, in the 13th page of bis book, 
 w4iere he tells us, "that baptism \% emblematical o^ ourdeath uuto siu,our 
 burial with Christ, and oui resurrection with him unto newness of lilv." 
 Now as the type must precede the antitype in t!ie order of natuie, and in 
 the order of time; and as none but those "who are dead to sin, and alive 
 to righteousness," are to be baptized, according to your, and Mr. C.'s sys- 
 tem: then the believer's death to sin. and Hie to righteousness, is a tvpeof 
 baptism, and not baptism a type of that all important change. Such, Sir, 
 are the contratiictions, into which un uriscriptural system fiecjuently leads 
 those who attempt to defend it. But view baptism, as I do, as not only aa 
 emblem of the necessity of regeneration, but as a mean appointed, rhrough 
 grace, for producing that important change; and you cunnot but see, that 
 it is agreeable to the order of' nature, to the order of time, and to the de- 
 sign of Jehovah in erecting and preserving a church in our world as the 
 usual birth-place of the children of his grace. — -'iViid of Zion it shall be. 
 said, this and thdt man was bom in her; and the Highest himself shall cs- 
 tablisli her." Psalm 87: 5. 
 
 In the same page, you ol)ject to my saying, "that the passover w^s not 
 QOily commemorative of the deliverance of the cliildren of ijfrae! Wqva 
 
1^0 
 
 Egyptian bondage, but of a far greater deliverance, the deliverance of guil- 
 ty sinners, by the sacrifice of the Son of God.' — I need not tell yoM, Sir, 
 that you have disingenuously garbled the passage which you have quoted 
 from the fourth letter, and the apparent inaccuracy of expression would 
 have disappeared had you stated the whole. But admitting an inaccuracy 
 in the expression, I contend that there is none in the sentiment; for Christ 
 is styled "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." In the pas- 
 sage you have quoted, I produced 1 Cor. 5: 7, "even Christ or/r /lassover is 
 sacrificed for us," as a proof that the passover was typical of the ordinance 
 of the supper, and that the latter has taken the place of the former in the 
 church; and I observed at the same tine, "that the intelligent adulc saw in 
 the ordinance of the passover the deliverance of guilty men, by the sacri- 
 fice of the Son ot God." Both you, and Mr C. have seen this; why did 
 you not shew, if you could, that my interpretation was wrong? But you 
 have both avoided this, and you have contented yourself with a meagre 
 criticism, on what you supposed to be an inaccurate expression. You 
 must allow me to tell you, that you were both afraid to touch that point, 
 and to examine that passage. 
 
 I shall pass over your charges in this and the following page, as they 
 contain nothing but empty declamation against creeds, and confessions, 
 and the venality and corruption of the Pedobaptist clergy; with this sin- 
 gle observation — that you have your creed, and confession, and the present 
 question is concerning baptism, and not, what creeds and confessions are 
 agreeable, or contrary to the word of God. 
 
 In my third letter I produced the 1 1th chapter of the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, as a proof that a church of God existed m the Jewish nation. I ob- 
 served that according to my view of that chapter, the apostle compares 
 the covenant of circumcision, on which that church was founded to a good 
 olive-tree: — Abraham, with whom that covenant was first made to its 
 ^'•roof — the Jews to its"Arcnc/2(?5," and the provisions of that covenant to 
 its ^■'■fatness" — that the Jews, with the exception of a remnant, were bro- 
 ken off irom that good olive-tree, by their rejecting Christ, and that the 
 Gentiles by believing in him were grafted in, in their stead, and nov/ par- 
 take of its "root and fatness.'' 
 
 Instead of meeting and discussing this argument in a fair and becoming 
 manner, you try to turn it into ridicule, by telling ns, "that you have 
 heard of a change of dispensations, but not of one dispensation being 
 s-rafted into another," "and that no person ever heard of a man being call- 
 ed the root of a covenant." If there is any thing ridiculous in the meta- 
 phors of that allegory, the apostle Paul must answer for it, for it is unde- 
 niable that he speaks of the Jewish nation, and it is undeniable that they 
 descended from Abraham. This your friend Mr. C. admits, but I have 
 i-hewn that his interpietation ol that allegory is not only absurd, but seli-. 
 contradictory. Why did you not either attempt to defend your friend's in- 
 terpretation, or give us one of your own, not liable to such objections. Yon 
 have avoided this, and you try to divert the minds of your friends, an(' 
 the public from the interpretation I have given, by directing a few point - 
 Il-ss shafls of insipid ridicule against it. And pray, Sir, what is there ri- 
 diculous or improper in^a man's being styled the root of a covenant? You 
 will admit, I expect, that the covenant, usually styled the covenant of 
 works, was not made only wiih Adam himself, but as the root of his poste- 
 rity; t^nd although I do not recollect that he is styled the root of that cove- 
 nant in the scriptures, yet ilieie isscarcelya systematic divine, who hi: . 
 
 i 
 
131 
 
 not used tlic metaphor in relation to Adam. In John 15: 1, Christ calls 
 liimsc'lf '*lhe tnic vine," and "his father ilie htisbaiulnian." If one of the 
 inspired penmen had used these expressions, you n)ii;ht as 'vtll, and 1 sup- 
 pose you would have denied that ihey referred to Christ and his Father, 
 hecause they were in your opinion improper metaphors. In llom. 4: 11, 
 Abraham is styled "the father of all them that believe," and I would now 
 ask you, is not this metaphorical languajje, accordinj^ to your ideas of 
 >vhat constitutes a proper metai)hor, as ridiculous as the one against which 
 you have ol)jected, and do not forf^et, Sir, that the metaphor is not mine, 
 nor the tree m/n^', but the apostle Paul's. With respect to your ol)jection, 
 that one dispensation cannot be inp^rafted into another,! will only observe, 
 that it will be admitted, that the Jews when converted to the Christian 
 faith, will form a part, and a very distinguished part of the Christian 
 church, or Christian dispensation of grace. Now, Sir, read the 23d, and 
 34th verses of this 1 1th chapter, and l)lush for your ignorance of the sub- 
 ject on which vou have written, and what is more, for your ignorance of 
 the sacred Scriptures, for there is intrinsic evidence in your letter, that 
 you arc a preacher. Speaking of the restoration of that people, the apos- 
 tle says; "and they also if they abide not still in unlielief, shall be graffed 
 in: for God is able to ^ro^them in again." And then addressing the 
 Gentile converts, he adds; "For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree 
 which is wild by nature, and wert grafftd contrary to nature into a good olive 
 tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural l)ranches, be f^raff' 
 e</ into their 07:'« olive-tree.^'' And now Sir, is it possible for language to 
 teach more clearly and fully, than the preceding verses do, that the Chris- 
 tian church or dispensation of grace, is ingrafted into the Jewish church 
 or dispensation. As this is the pivot on which the whole controversy 
 turns, I expected that Mr. C. or some of his friends would have examined 
 this point carefully and minutely. But he has prudently for himself, over- 
 looked it altogether in his "sirictihes:' and the poor, and pithless, and I 
 may say ridiculous manner in vvhich you, on whom it seems he devolved 
 the task, have discharged it, is another proof that the system which you 
 have adopted, is unscriptural, and consequently indefensible. 
 
 Your comparison in p. 74 betwixt the Romish and Protestant Pedobap- 
 tist clergy, is only another proof that there is that in your system, that ge- 
 nerates, and fosters the hateful spirit of persecution; for that spi:it mani- 
 fests itself as unequivocally in slanderous expressions, and in publishing 
 slanderous stories, as in imprisonment, confiscation of property, or depri- 
 vation of life. Your predecessors in (iermany, in the i6th century, gave 
 full evidence of this; and if their followers have not ran into the same ex- 
 tremes, it is because a gracious Pi-ovidence has deprived them of an op- 
 portunity. I am not alluding to the Baptist church in general, but to those 
 of them only, who have imbibed your, and JMr. C.'s political, and theolo- 
 gical principles. 
 
 In the same pnge, you tell us, that the Westminster divines are incon- 
 sistent with themselves; or that the 28th eha]jter of their Confession of 
 Faith, and 91st, 92d and 94th answers in the Shorter, and lG5th and 167th 
 answers in the Larger Catechism, arc inconsistent with infant baptism, or 
 as you twice scofFingly call it ^'-infant n/irinklini^." Why? — Because they 
 say ihat the thing signified by baptism, the washing of regeneration, is 
 applied to believers. Admitted — and what then: — Does it follow, that the 
 sign is not to be applied, until the person is possessed of the thing signi- 
 fied; more especially if the sign was appcinted as a mean through which 
 
 lb" 
 
122 
 
 the thing; signified is conveyed. This 1 have shewn in the third letter is 
 the fact. You and Mr. C. have read that letter, and instead of meeting 
 and investigating the doctrine exhibited and defended therein, you have 
 contented yourselves, by endeavouring to pour a little unmeaning ridicule 
 upon it. That, it seems, suits you both much better, than sober, and seri- 
 ous investigation. I will just add, that you represent those divines as saying 
 Avhat they have not said, and from which you draAv an inference diametri- 
 cally opposite to the doctrine of infant baptism which they have avowed 
 in the most clear and express tei-ms. They say that in baptism, "Christ, 
 and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied 
 to believers;" but you represent them as saying, that those benefits are ap- 
 plied '''•only to believers." This you say excludea infants from baptism as 
 they are not capable of believing. It would so, il they had said so; but it 
 is you. Sir, and not they who have said so. Are you not ashamed of this? 
 and what am I, or others to think ot those men, and their system, that re- 
 quires such disingenuous, yea dishonest means for its support? 
 
 You exclude the argumentative part of your letter, by appealing "to the 
 common sense, and unbiassed reason of mankind, if sprinkling a few drops 
 of water on the face, can in any sense be called a washing;" "and if it can 
 be said of such, as in 1 Cor. 6: 1 1, — "But ye are washed." I answer No — 
 if you consider, with Tertulliax, with whom I have shewn your system 
 began, that there is a purifying efficacy in baptismal water itself; and as 
 your objection to have any force imports, and as the mighty stress which 
 Baptists generally place on baptism by immersion imports also. But as 
 that may not be your opinion, I would farther observe, that I agree with 
 you, that the apostle i*efers to the ordinance of baptism in the passage you 
 have quoted; because the word '■^washed" is prefixed to, and distinguish- 
 ed from the word '■^sancti/icd" — "but ye are washed, but ye arc sanctified;" 
 — because the water in baptism signifies, and points out, the necessity of 
 moral purity; — and because, as I think I have proved, it is one of the 
 means by which the Almighty Spirit produces that important work. — 
 But, Sir, that an application of water to a part of the body only, is a fit, 
 and scriptural emblem of the Spirit's agency in producing that important 
 ■\vork, is attested, as I have already shewn, not only by the prophets and 
 apostles, but by Christ himself. In the 13th chapter of John, we are told 
 that Christ shortly before his passion, poured water into a basin, and began 
 to wash his disciples feet, for the purpose of teaching them and us, that 
 we are not to decline the meanest office, when it can benefit a fellow Chris- 
 tian. When he came to Peter for the purpose of washing his feet, Peter 
 refused the kind office, doubtless from the consideration that such an of- 
 fice was unbefitting the Son of God, to such an unworthy person as he 
 was, and said; — "Lord thou shalt never wash my I'eet." To remove his 
 scruples, Christ informed him, that besides the important lesson which he 
 taught by v/ashing his disciple's feet, the action itself was emblematic of 
 the necessity of the washing of sanctification, and said, "if I wash thee 
 not, thou hast no part with me." These words themselves, and Peter's re- 
 ply shew, that he understood the meaning of the emblematic action, and 
 1 eing at that time of your opinion at present, that a total, must be better, 
 than a partial application of water to the body, he exclaimed, "Lord not 
 my feet only, but my hands and my head." "But Jesus said unto him, he 
 that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." 
 Nov>^, as your friend, and ally Mr. C. has admitted in p. 141, of his book 
 (for it cannot be denied) that the water in baptism is emblematical of the 
 
133 
 
 Spirit's ag;ency on ihc human heart; then v helher you consider the action 
 of Christ's wushinpf the disciple's IVet, as what is to be imitated by his fol- 
 lowers or not, you cannot but see that Christ himself has positively declar- 
 ed, that the application of water to a part of the body only, is a fitter em- 
 blem of his Spirit's purifyinijj influences, than immersing the whole body 
 in that element; because, as I have repeatedly shewn, those influences, are 
 said, "to be sprinkled upon," and "poured out" upon us, but we are never 
 said to be immersed in those influences. You are not however to under- 
 stand me as adducini? that transaction as a proof that baptism is to be ad- 
 ministered by affusion or sprinkling; the water on the subject. That, I 
 think, I have proved from otlier passajjes of the divine records, but which 
 you and Mr. C. have prudently slid over. 1 have adduced it only, as ano- 
 ther instance, that a partial application of water, is a more appropriate 
 emiilcm of the Spirit's purifyinj^ influences, than to apply the water to the 
 whole body by immersion; and as Christ himself has declared that it is so, 
 when the water is oidy ajiplied to the feet, 1 do not know of any reason 
 why it should not be so, when applied to the head or face. But this is not 
 all. As you consider the word '■'•ivaiilicd'" in I Cor. 6: 1 1, as havinsj refer- 
 ence to the ordinance of ba|)tism, and in which you are supported by the 
 best commentators; then let mo observe to you lurlhcr, that the Greek, 
 word used by the apostle in that passatje, is in perfect accordance with the 
 doctrine w^hich Christ has taught in the passage which I have adduced. 
 It is not balttizo^'S'n-^ow which you and other Baptists place so m.uch stress, 
 but Inuo, which signifies to wash by any means; and this is another proof, 
 that immersion is not necessary to constitute a valid baptism. I am per- 
 suaded that you were not awaie of this circumstance, or you would not 
 have adduced that passage to prove "that in-'mersii)n is the only l)aptism;" 
 and I am sure that Mr. C. will not thank you lor meddlinj,' with it at all. 
 
 I have now finished my examination of your letter, and as this may be 
 the last opportunity which I may have of addressing you directly, permit 
 me to ask you, if you are not now convinced, thai your Jiresmt creed is un- 
 scrii)tural, and indefensible? I say your present creed, for there is to me, 
 intrinsic evidence in your letter, that you have not always held it. It sits 
 awkwardly upon you; and if it would not offend you too much, I would say, 
 that you do not understand it. But particularly, let me ask you whence 
 you have imbibed that rancorous, and jjersecuting spirit, which bursts out 
 in almost every page of your letter, against the Pedobaptist clergy. — Is it 
 the fruit of your present creed? — Is it not then time to renounce it, for you 
 cannot but be conscious, that it is as opposite to the spirit of the Gospel, as 
 darkness IS to light; as "the wisdom of this world'' is to that which "is 
 pure, and peaceable, and gentle, and easy to hv. entreated." 1 do not speak 
 thus, on account of that ridicule w hich you have attempted to poui- out 
 on myself individually; for I neither led, nor have felt it, nor has it, nor 
 can it injure me in any manner whatever: but 1 speak thus, because I ain 
 sorry to see such talents, and attainments, as yovi are possessed of, per- 
 verted by a system which you do not understatid; for it is not the Baptist 
 system as purged by the laborious, and humlile Menno, which you and Mr. 
 C have embraced, but as retaining much of the iinpuiilies, jjolitical and 
 theological, of the impure, and ferocious Anal)aptists of the 16th century. 
 It may be worth your while to think seriously of this; and may the Spirit 
 of truth, and of love, guide you, and myself, into the paths of trui"h, and 
 of righteousness. 
 
 Mingo-Crtth, Washli\gton \ SAMUEL RALSTON. 
 
 Counhj,fa. ,1pril l^ii 
 
 on ) 
 
^ 
 
■■^1 
 
 V--;v:;5v>».