A brief vindication of the particular communion of the Baptist churches: being a reply to the remarks of the Rev. Noah Worcester, A.B. in his "Friendly letter" to the author. Wherein the subjects and mode of baptism are particularly considered. / By Thomas Baldwin, Pastor of the Second Baptist Church in Boston. ; [Two lines of Scripture texts]

A BRIEF VINDICATION, &c.

SECTION I. Preliminary Observations on the Subject in Dispute.

REVEREND SIR,

YOUR Friendly Letter, which was published in December, 1791, I could not obtain until several months after; and have not the pleasure of acknowledging your politeness in sending me a copy; although from an apology offered by your generous brothers, I am inclined to hope it was not a designed omission.

In my other Piece I observed, "that it was not the love of controversy which induced me to write." I have the happiness still to believe, that this is not my greatest motive. And had your arguments proved our sentiments and practice respecting communion, to be unscriptural, or in∣consistent with that brotherly affection which the Gospel requires, I should indeed

have been a gainer by the controversy,

and would have ac∣knowledged

myself indebte•• ••o you for the in∣struction. But after I had carefully examined your arguments, I did not find the evidence suf∣ficient to produce conviction: therefore, am obliged in sincerity to abide by my former opinion.

Was the dispute between us to be considered merely personal, and unconnected with the inter∣ests of religion, I should not think myself called upon to attempt a reply. But since the honour of Christ as Head of the church, and Law-giver in his own kingdom, and the peace and tran∣quillity of two denominations of Christians are in some measure involved in this dispute, it appears to me of importance that the ground of the con∣troversy should be fully ascertained. And as you have endeavoured to lay the blame whol∣ly to our denomination, I shall most cheerfully come forward with a vindication of myself and brethren.

In pursuing my present design, I shall be led to remark upon several things, which are offered to consideration in your Friendly Letter. In doing of which, I hope to be governed by a spirit of candour and Christian love; and can assure you, that nothing would give me more sensible regret, than to misconceive, or misrepresent your meaning. In some instances I could have wished that you had been more explicit, which would have relieved me from the fear of mistaking you.

It will not be expected, that I should follow you in the exact order in which you have treated the subject; nor that I should reply to all that you have written. Some of your observations

are agreeable to my views; and some of them appear to be unconnected with the subject in dispute. To avoid prolixity, I shall omit many things which might with propriety be urged in the present controversy.

You have observed, that with some degree of care you had perused the pamphlet which I had written: if so, you must have observed our main objections to free communion to consist, essen∣tially, in two things; viz.

• 1. That Baptism is a divinely appointed pre-requisite to communion at the Lord's table.
• 2. That immersion upon a profession of faith is essential to Gospel baptism.

The first of these I take for granted you have given up: for you observe, (p. 9)

The question is not, whether baptism in some mode be an es∣sential qualification;

you also add, (p. 13)

I do not deny that baptism was prior to coming to the Lord's table in the apostolic practice. I suppose it was: and I also suppose their exam∣ple to be worthy of imitation in like circum∣stances.

Thus, Sir, he who is unbaptized; however amiable his character may appear, is es∣sentially disqualified in your esteem. In this par∣ticular we seem to be agreed, that baptism in some mode is essential to a due qualification for the Lord's table. And I believe this to be the general sense of the two denominations. The other objection remains yet to be disputed; which may be divided into two questions: i. e. Who are the proper subjects of baptism? And, What is the appointed mode? I have said in my other Piece, that we consider "professed believers as the only proper subjects of baptism;" and that

immersion is not a mere circumstance, or mode of baptism, but essential to the ordinance. I have not observed in your Letter that you have dis∣proved these sentiments; but what you have said in this respect, shall be attended to in its place. For the present we shall only say, that you have raised a huge host of suppositions and consequences, and brought them all against our sentiments, as if you were determined to frighten us out of our allegiance to the great Law-giver: but we may say as Saint Paul in another case, None of these things move us.

If I have rightly comprehended your reasoning in favour of free communion, the most material arguments are the following.

• 1.

  That the es∣sence of baptism does not consist in any one particular mode whatever.

  (p. 10.)
• 2. If it should finally appear, that you had missed the divine appointment, yet, as

  godly sincerity is the very SOUL and ESSENCE of conformity to Christ,

  you are therefore

  as well accepted in the sight of God, as though your outward con∣duct had been according to the appointed mode.

  (p. 19, 21.)
• 3.

  Supposing that the Paedo-baptists are really in an error, if Christ does not view the error as so essential but that he will commune with them, why cannot you commune with those at the table, with whom God communes?

  (p. 28, 29.)

These appear to be the main pillars on which your superstructure is built; and shall each of them be particularly considered. Having thus stated the constituent parts of the dispute, we are now prepared to attend to each particular.

SECTION II. Professed Believers the only appointed Subjects of Baptism.

IN your third part you observe,

The question to be disputed is summarily this: Whether, for a person to be baptized by im∣mersion, after believing, be an essential term of communion at the Lord's table?

Of this ques∣tion you inform your readers that I

take the af∣firmative side.

But, my dear Sir, you have not stated the question right: that is, if you mean to have me take the affirmative. Nor will your quotations from me support such a statement. The passages quoted, and from which you make the mistake, are in these words; that "baptism is to be administered only in one mode, and to one kind of subjects." That "professed believ∣ers are the only proper subjects of baptism." I suppose the difference to be easily discerned. I said "professed believers," you say

to be bap∣tized after believing.

The former supposes that a person may satisfy a judgment of charity, and yet be a hypocrite: the latter, that he is in∣fallibly a believer. I conclude, that a person may be baptized according to Christ's institution, and yet be a hypocrite; but he cannot be baptized institutionally, without a profession of faith. We are obliged by the Gospel rule to require a pro∣fession; but we are not obliged to know the sin∣cerity of the person who makes it.

Now, Sir, to some the question may appear to be the same; but it is evident that there is

a very specific difference; and, from the wrong manner in which you have stated it, you have gone on to draw false conclusions, and to saddle a train of disagreeable consequences upon our sentiments, which will appear of no force, when the question is rightly considered.

You inform you readers, (p. 12) that we sup∣pose, "not only that immersion is essential to the ordinance of baptism, but that none are proper subjects of it but visible believers." From this you draw the following inference:

If none are proper subjects but visible believers, none are proper subjects but real believers.

You illus∣trate it as follows:

For although a person's outwardly appearing to be a proper subject, may give him a right in the sight of men, it does not in the sight of God.

You will permit me here to inquire, whether you have any other method to judge of the 'real piety,' the 'godly sincerity,' or the proper quali∣fications of persons for special ordinances, but what is visible, or in the sight of men? If you have, it is a prerogative which we do not claim. I think, Sir, the inference grants, that they have a right in the sight of men; and although God may know them to be hypocrites, as he is not pleased to interpose and make the matter visible, who will dare to challenge their right, and for∣bid their ••roceeding?

That this observation may appear in its proper light, we will bring the matter upon trial; and, if you please, we will borrow an example from the New Testament to illustrate it by. In the eighth chapter of the Acts, we have an account

of Philip's visiting and preaching the Gospel in Samaria, and of the happy effects which follow∣ed. That a people who had long been bewitch∣ed, were now reduced to reason and religion, which was the occasion of great joy in that city; and it is said, "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both Men and Women." It is also added, that Simon believed; that is, he appeared to Philip and others to believe: for we cannot suppose, from the account afterwards given of him, that he was a real believer, though at this time there was nothing appeared to the contrary. Now, what was Philip's duty in the present case? It is evident that he required, as a pre-requisite in his candidates, that they believe with all the heart; as appears from another circumstance recorded in the same chapter. And although Simon appeared to him to be a true believer, yet, in the sight of God, he was nothing but a hypocrite.

It is abundantly evident, that Philip required the same qualifications, in order to baptism, that the Baptists do at the present day. It is equally evident, that he baptized a person, who, in the sight of God, had not those qualifications. The present inquiry is, whether he did right or not? If you should choose to say, he did not act con∣sistent with his principles; this will lead us to inquire again, what reasons could determine him in acting otherwise, as he did not know the heart of Simon? But as this answer would necessarily involve you in a controversy with him, I shall for

the present leave it, to be settled between you. But should you give your opinion in favour of his conduct, by whatever arguments you would vin∣dicate that, the same will serve to vindicate ours, under similar circumstances.

It may be proper here to attend to the conse∣quences you have drawn from the preceding ob∣servations; i. e. that upon our principles

it may be necessary to administer the ordinance of bap∣tism fifty or a hundred times to the same per∣son.

Alarming as these consequences may ap∣pear to you, they do not greatly terrify us: For our principles have had a practical existence for ages past; and yet I can assure you, I have never heard of a person's being baptized five and twenty times. Nor is it common with us to baptize a person more than once. But if we should think it necessary upon any occasion to repeat it, Paedo-baptists do even the same. Some of them have become so liberal, as not only to immerse, or sprinkle, as the candidate may choose; but, to immerse those who have been sprinkled in infancy, and have been members of their churches for many years!* 1.1 If it be necessary to perform it twice, I know not but that some circumstances may render it equally necessary to perform it fifty times.

But, Sir, I wish to bring the instance of Philip and Simon once more into view, as I think it may serve to remove some of your supposed difficul∣ties. It will undoubtedly be granted, that Philip

baptized the sorcerer, upon the same footing which he did the other Samaritan converts, i. e. up••n a profession of faith. But, when Peter and John came to visit the brethren at Samaria, and had laid their hands on a number, by which means the miracu∣lous gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred; Si∣mon beholding, was filled with astonishment, and proceeded to offer them money, in order to ob∣tain this power. This conduct betrayed his ig∣norance of the true sp•••••••• of religion; and expos∣ed him to that most severe reproof from Peter; "Thy money perish with thee,—thou hast nei∣ther part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." He was no longer to be considered as a Christian, but under the reigning power of guilt and unbelief.

Now should we suppose Philip to return this way again in a few weeks, and after inquiring in∣to the state of his young converts, he is informed of the situation of Simon, and from the account he receives is desirous of a personal interview with him:—It is agreed to,—and when the time ar∣rives, Simon comes before him; blushing and confusion appear in his face, shame and sorrow mingle in his eyes; he pauses—he sighs!—at length thus addresses the sweet Evangelist: "I have indeed done dishonour to the Christian name, and have given ample proof to the world, that I was a stranger to the power and divinity of the Gospel: and although my admiration was raised by the miracles I beheld, my passions moved and charmed by the soft cloquence of

your persuasive tongue; yet, alas! I was but in love with myself, instead of a Saviour; but my iniquity has found me out, and now appears hateful to me." He informs Philip, that the exhortation given him by the Apostle Peter to repent, was so accompanied with the divine energy, that he had now reason to hope that he had become a true penitent. Philip, and the church at Samaria, are fully satisfied, that although Simon, when he made a profession, was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, yet that he is now become a true child of God.

You will permit me here in my turn to inquire, Whether Simon can now be looked upon as a visi∣bly qualified member for church fellowship and communion? or whether he is to be baptized again? I do not wish to anticipate your answer; but as it is a difficulty of your own proposing, I think it reasonable to give you the labouring oar; and whatever way you are pleased to decide in this case, will undoubtedly relieve us under simi∣lar circumstances.

Upon the whole, does it not appear evident to every candid reader, that we require no more, nor any other qualifications in our candidates for baptism, than what were required in the apostolic age? They required their candidates to believe with all the heart; we require no more. There∣fore, whatever consequences are fairly deducible from our principles in this point, the same are equally chargeable upon theirs.

Agreeably to the foregoing observations are the sentiments of many Paedo-baptist writers. I will here cite the words of one. "It is manifest

(saith he) that Philip's principles were, to bap∣tize none but what had saving grace, and believed with all their hearts." Also, "It is manifest that the Apostles did not intend to baptize any adult persons, except they had knowledge or satisfac∣tion that they had the seed of grace sown in their hearts. Witness the instance of Philip's baptiz∣ing the eunuch; again, for proof, Peter's baptiz∣ing Cornelius, and those Gentiles that believed, after they had received the Holy Ghost, as well as the believing Jews: So also the instance of the jailor's family. Not to multiply instances, it is well known, or may be well known, that faith is always spoken of in the word of God before bap∣tism, and we all agree that baptism is to be ad∣ministered to a person before the Lord's supper."* 1.2 If this be a just statement of facts, that neither Philip nor the Apostles meant to baptize any adults, but those who believed with all the heart; and that it is well known that faith is always spoken of in the word of God before baptizing; surely the Baptists cannot be reasonably blamed, for endeavouring to imitate apostolic practice.

From the preceding remarks, you may proba∣bly see wherein you have mistaken the matter, in charging our sentiments with ••rror respecting the qualifications of candidates for baptism. You seem to suppose, that because we require them to be visible believers, that we are obliged to know that they are real believers: This is evidently im∣plied in your objection,

That if none are proper subjects but visible believers, none are proper subjects but real believers.

That every man

who professes religion ought to be what he pro∣fesses, no one will deny; but, that we are obliged to know them to be sincere, I have never yet con∣ceived. Were we, for fear of the consequences, to refuse to administer either the ordinance of baptism, or the Lord's supper, until we absolute∣ly knew who were sincere, I believe we should ad∣minister no more until the day of judgment.

But, should we allow all the consequences which you have supposed to be true— (which will by no means be granted) and should we then suppose again, that some imagination, more fer∣tile than yours, might suggest twice as many more—what then? Are we to mutilate or lay aside a positive institution, for fear of conse∣quences which are very unlikely ever to take place? Is our obedience to be measured by our own conveniency, or to be withheld because of some supposed difficulties? Surely not.

Positive institutions require our implicit obe∣dience to the sovereign will of Him who institut∣ed them, without assigning any reasons for their fitness, or making a proviso in case of supposed dif∣ficulties. They are well distinguished from moral precepts, by a late learned writer. His words are as follow: "Moral precepts, are precepts the reason of which we see; positive precepts, are precepts the reason of which we do not see. Mor∣al duties arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external command; positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, but from external command; nor would they be duties at all, were it not for such command, received from

Him whose creatures and subjects we are."* 1.3 Our obligations to precepts of this kind, are well described by President Edwards; his words are— "Such precepts are the greatest and most proper trial of obedience, because in them the mere au∣thority and will of the Legislator is the sole ground of the obligation (and nothing in the natures of the things themselves;) and therefore they are the greatest trial of any person's respect to that authority and will."† 1.4

Had the excellent Mr. Edwards viewed posi∣tive institutions in the same indifferent light which you do, it is not probable he would have written after this manner; but perhaps he had never thought of your happy succedaneum; 'sincerity,' which, like the ancient philosopher's stone, can turn all our external omissions of positive duties into real acts of obedience!

I conclude it will not be denied; that professed believers are proper subjects of baptism: but the question before us is, Whether they are the only proper subjects? When 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the term proper, I mean not, what is become so by tradition; but what is agreeable to the institution, as recorded in the sacred history of baptism. That no other instances are recorded you implicitly acknowledge, when you say;

I would query, Whether the ev∣idence that believers were baptized, is any evi∣dence that infants were not also baptized?

This query, in the first instance, grants, that there is evidence that believers were baptized. Second∣ly, it asks,

Whether that is any evidence that

infants were not also baptized?

It will be granted that it is not positive evidence that they were not; nor is it that they were not anointed with the holy chrism, or signed with the sign of the cross, or twenty other things done to them of which the 'scripture is silent.' But it is circum∣stantial evidence that they were not: for, that the sacred historians, when recording the many in∣stances of the baptism of believers for the space of near sixty years, until the volume of inspira∣tion was closed, and never once mentioning a single instance of an infant, must look like a de∣sign against Infant-baptism, provided it was then in practice. It is not easy to account for their neglecting to record a fact, on which so much de∣pended, as the future peace, and order of the church of Christ. Nor does it appear to us a sufficient apology for an omission so interesting to say, that the right of infants was so well estab∣lished under the Jewish dispensation, that it was unnecessary that any express mention should be made of it in the New Testament: unless bap∣tism is to be considered as a Jewish r••te, rather than a Christian institution. For, under the Gos∣pel dispensation, the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law, with re∣spect to positive institutions.

In order to bring this head to a close, you will permit me to inquire, Whether Paedo-baptists in general do not require, in all unbaptized adults, a personal profession of faith, in order to their be∣ing admitted to the ordinance of baptism? That they do, will appear from their own testimony. "Baptism is not to be administered to any that

are out of the visible church, until they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him."* 1.5

Shall I add to this another, from a late advo∣cate for Infant-baptism, who has complained much of the Baptists for their "assuming" language, in calling the baptism administered by them, by way of distinction, "Believers' Baptism." "Whereas, (saith he) there is no other baptism administered in our churches but the baptism of believers, or those who are accounted such, either upon their per∣sonal profession, or in the repute of the church, and God's gracious acceptation. As to adult persons unbaptized, they are no otherwise admit∣ted to baptism among us, it is known; than up∣on a personal profession of faith."† 1.6

This gentleman, from the general manner of his expressions, must be understood to represent the whole denomination; and evidently carries the matter quite as far as we do. If a profession of faith be the only terms on which you admit adults to baptism; if, after this, they should prove their profession to be false, you are as much obliged to baptize them 'fifty times,' in order to be consist∣ent upon your sentiments, as we are upon ours. The strongest terms you have quoted from me are, "That none are proper subjects of baptism but professed believers." We have just heard, that there is "no other baptism administered in your churches, but the baptism of believers:" not will it relieve the matter for any to say that it is added, "or those who are accounted such upon their personal profession." This is all that we

contend for as answering the rule: for we do not pretend absolutely to know, that those whom, we baptize are real believers, only we account them such upon their personal profession. Nor can it be considered as an exception what is fur∣ther added, That they are believers. "in the re∣pute of the church:" for no church could con∣sistently repute a person to be a believer, without rational evidence, that he was such. But the last, expression seems to carry the matter to a degree of certainty; That they are believers in "God's gracious acceptation:" for although persons may profess, and churches may account them to be believers; yet certainly God, as he cannot be deceived, will not accept any as such but those who are so in reality.

We will next take notice of that very scriptur∣al account given by Dr. Hopkins. When describ∣ing the subjects of baptism, he says, "The proper subjects of baptism, if adult, are those who, by profession and appearance, are believers in Christ and true friends to him. None but they who are really such, do in heart put on Christ: They must therefore be really holy, in order to put on this visibility and profession of it, with propriety and truth, which they do in baptism: for if they be not really such, they are utterly unquali∣fied in the sight of God, to be admitted to bap∣tism, as it is, on their part, only a piece of hypoc∣risy. Therefore none are to be admitted to this ordinance, but those who, in the view of the church, appear to be true friends to Christ or be∣lievers in him, and really holy, and are justly considered by them as such; who can judge only

by outward appearance, and cannot certainly know the heart.

"That none but such, who are thus visibly, and in the charitable judgment of the church, and of those who administer this ordinance, be∣lievers in Christ and really holy, are the proper subjects of this ordinance, and to be admitted to baptism, is abundantly evident from scripture, as well as from the nature of the transaction, and the reason of things. The Apostles, when they first began to administer Christian baptism, and form a church, baptized none but such who gladly received the word. When the eunuch desired to be baptized, Philip said, If thou believ∣est with all thine heart, thou mayest. This implies that he was not qualified for baptism, or a fit subject of that ordinance, unless he were a true believer in Christ: and that he could not baptize him, unless he professed and appeared to be such a believer. Hence all who were baptized, and formed into churches, were considered and ad∣dressed by the Apostles, in their letters to them, an saints for holy persons, believers in Christ, and friends to him; as those who were saved, and heirs of eternal life; or, which is the same, as real Christians: of which every one must be sensible, who reads the Acts of the Apostles, and their epistles."* 1.7 These are words fitly spoken, and are like apples of gold, in pictures of silver.

If indeed it be evident from scripture, and in the charitable judgment of the church, "That none but such, who are thus visibly believers in Christ, and really holy, are the proper subjects of

this ordinance, and to be admitted to baptism," as has just been asserted; and, that the Apostles, when they first began to administer Christian baptism, and form a church, baptized none but such who gladly received the word, we can but wonder that a body of Christians who profess to take the WORD OF GOD, as their only rule of faith and practice, should blame us for so nearly imitating those first builders of the Christian church! For had the gentleman but now quot∣ed, been giving a narrative of the sentiments and practice of the Baptist churches at the present day, he could not have given an account dis∣similar, without contradicting sober fact. If it should be objected to what has new been said, that the preceding is only an account of the true qualifications of adults, it will be readily grant∣ed; and at the same time asserted, that the Bible knows but of one kind of qualifications in can∣didates for baptism; it knows nothing of higher and lower, of positive and negative qualifications.

"Neither the Forerunner, nor the Apostles of Christ have said any thing on which such a dis∣tinction can be founded; as they insisted on re∣pentance and faith as necessary in order to ac∣ceptance with God, and remission of sins, so they insisted upon the profession of them, in order to their being admitted into the visible kingdom or church of CHRIST. They baptized none, but upon this ground. Those who appeared, to a judgment of charity, to have these qualifications, they admitted to baptism, and those only." "In a word, from the whole tenor of the New Testa∣ment, it is plain, that nothing less or lower than

a profession of faith and true repentance was re∣quired in order to a person's enjoying the privi∣lege of baptism." And "the distinction of higher and lower qualifications for the two ordi∣nances, and the notion of negative evidences be∣ing a sufficient qualification for baptism, was never learnt from the New Testament, but is, doubt∣less, of human invention."* 1.8

Evidence of this kind might be multiplied, but it is hoped that what has been offered will give full satisfaction. We hope we shall not be thought obstinate if we should still say, That we think the scripture abundantly justifies the ob∣servation, That professed believers are the only proper subjects of baptism. If you should repeat your former query, 'Whether that is any evi∣dence 'that infants were not also baptized?' you will not think the request unreasonable, if we should call on you to make out scripture proof, that ever one infant was baptized, by Christ or his Apostles. Should you assert it without proof, it will be thought a sufficient answer to ••en•• it without.

We should now be prepared, in a direct way, to treat upon the Mode of baptism, were it not for an objection you have made against St. John's baptism, which it may be necessary first to consider.

SECTION III. Whether JOHN'S Baptism belonged to the Jewish or Christian Dispensation, particularly considered.

YOU ask (p. 10)

By what author∣ity do you make immersion essential to the or∣dinance of baptism, in contradistinction ••o other modes and circumstances?

I answer▪ By the authority of God's word, and the confess••d mean∣ing of the Greek verb (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) to baptize.

You have endeavoured to evade part of the scripture evidence in favour of immersion, by suggesting that the baptism administered by John was not Christian baptism. Your objections are the following. You say,

We have no rea∣son to suppose that John baptized in all respects agreeable to the Christian mode of baptism:

But why not? Because,

it is pretty evident, that he did not baptize in the name of the Trin∣ity.

But suppose, Sir, he had baptized in the name of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednege, it would afford no argument in favour of a differ∣ent mode, or any reason to suppose that the act of baptizing was not the same. John and the Apos∣tles baptized among the same people; hence it is most likely they understood the word in the same sense. In support of your observation, you mention the instance in the nineteenth chapter of Acts. From which you infer, That the twelve disciples would certainly have heard of the Ho∣ly Ghost, and would not have been again bap∣tized, had John's baptism and the Christian in∣stitution been the same.

It appears evident that the question did not respect the ordinary influences, or name of the Ho∣ly Ghost: for, they could not be believers with∣out the former, nor John's disciples without hav∣ing heard of the latter. John expressly declared, at the time of his baptizing, That One should come after him mightier than he, who should baptize with the HOLY GHOST and fire. This was the subject of Paul's inquiry, and had refer∣ence only to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, the bestowment of which they had not yet heard. But, you ask,

Why were these dis∣ciples again baptized?

I shall not undertake to tell why, nor do I believe that they were. I see nothing in the reading which requires this construction: for the passage before us appears not to be Luke's account of Paul, but Paul's ac∣count of John's doctrine and baptism. For it is written, Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, (that is, the people whom John taught) they were baptized (by John) in the name of the Lord Jesus. This concludes▪ Paul's account of John. The historian then takes notice of Paul's conduct, that when he had laid his hands upon them, the Ho∣ly Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

You seem to think that these disciples were re-baptized by Paul in the Christian mode; but did you observe, Sir, that the Holy Ghost is not mentioned in the form of administration here re∣corded? It is only said, They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

That the reader may not consider us to be par∣tial in the explanation now given, I would ob∣serve that many eminent Paedo-baptists have un∣derstood it in the same light which we do. I shall mention but two or three, as sufficient to my present purpose. Dr. Robbins, when speak∣ing of John's baptism, has the following remark upon this passage; "When they heard this, they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS; that is, they were baptized by John himself."* 1.9

In perfect agreement with this are the senti∣ments or Mr. Poole, "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is, the disciples, or those that John preached to, who, when they heard what the Baptist said in the foregoing verse, were baptized." "As for Paul's imposing his hands upon them who are said to be baptized, it might very well be: That the twelve disciples might have been baptized by John, and now receive the Holy Ghost in these extraordinary gifts by the laying on of the hands of St. Paul: For to what end should these dis∣ciples, who had been baptized with St. John's baptism, be again baptized by Paul?" He fur∣ther adds, "It is evident that the Apostles them∣selves were only baptized with the baptism of John, for there were none else to baptize them."† 1.10

As in the mouth of two or three witnesses ev∣ery word shall be established, I will only add the opinion of Calvin. Speaking of these twelve disciples, he saith, "Whereas therefore they an∣swer

that they know not whether there be any Holy Ghost, it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be understood as if they had said, they have no•• yet heard whether the graces of the Spirit, of which Paul asked them, were giv∣en to the disciples of Christ. But I grant that that was the true baptism of John's, and all one and the self-same with the baptism of Christ; but I deny that they were baptized again." And in another place he saith, "Whereby also it is made most certain, that the ministry of John was altogether the same which was afterwards com∣mitted to the Apostles. For the different hands wherewith it was administered, make not the baptism different; but, the same doctrine show∣eth it to be the same baptism. John and the Apostles agreed in one doctrine; both baptized into repentance, both into the forgiveness of sins, both into the name of Christ."* 1.11

Should it still be insisted upon, that they were re-baptized by Paul, it will by no means help your argument, unless proved, that they were sprinkled, or had water poured on them, instead of being immersed. To allow that they were re-baptized, will still be in our favour, and vin∣dicate our conduct in baptizing those who have not been baptized according to the Christian mode.

In concluding your remarks upon this head, you say,

John's baptism was both begun and ended under the Jewish dispensation.

But, may I not inquire by what authority you assert this? Was there any thing in the manner of John's ministry, which resembled a Jewish priest?

Or was there any thing in the Jewish ritual that required John to baptize repenting sinners in Jordan? If so, you will oblige us in making it appear.

If John's baptism belonged to the Jewish dis∣pensation, why were the chief priests and elders so surprisingly ignorant of it, that when Christ asked them, Whether it were from heaven or of men—they said, We cannot tell?* 1.12 You will please to observe, that the persons to whom Christ put this question, were not the ignorant multi∣tude, but the chief priests and elders, and it had particular reference to the authority by which John baptized; which, if received from them, they must certainly have known it, and it would have been much to their advantage in this pinch∣ing case to have owned it.

But, Sir, when you say,

John's ministry was under the Jewish dispensation,

you evidently mean, that he belonged to it. If so, he must have been inaugurated according to their ritual, or otherwise be considered as an impostor. But do the sacred pages any where teach us to believe, that John ever passed under those consecrating cere∣monies, or was ever clad with a priestly vestment? Or, do you consider him only as a Prophet of that dispensation? If the Latter, then the translators made a mistake when they finished the prophe∣cy of Malachi, in saying, "THE END OF THE PROPHETS." For certainly they ought to have included John, otherwise the

ignorant and inat∣tentive

would be very apt to think he belonged to the New Testament dispensation.

But, is it not abundantly evident, that the Jew∣ish clergy considered John as introducing a new dispensation? That this was the case, and that the matter may stand in a fair light, let us con∣sider what is written, John i. 19—25. The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, (John) Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed. I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.* 1.13 Art thou that prophet? (or a prophet?) And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as saith the prophet Esaias. And they asked him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

These inquiries, made by the Jewish clergy re∣specting John's baptism, abundantly manifest ••wo things:

• 1. That they were totally ignorant of John's being a minister of their dispensation.
• 2. That they expected, when either Elias or Christ came, they would introduce a new state of things.

Now as John had come baptizing with water, in a way different from all the requirements of the ceremonial law, and by an authority un∣known to them, they reasonably concluded that he must be one or the other of those persons they were looking for.

I wish to add two passages of scripture, as fully confirming the above observations. The first is Luke xvi. 16. The law and the prophets were un∣til John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. This ob∣servation made by Christ, cannot reasonably be referred to John's birth or death; but evidently respects the beginning of his ministry: for then he began to preach the kingdom of God, and to proclaim the advent of the Saviour; and men in multitudes flocked to this new dispensation, call∣ed the kingdom of God. The other passage is, Mark i. 1—4. THE BEGINNING OF THE GOS∣PEL OF JESUS CHRIST the Son of God: As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my mes∣senger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilder∣ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Thus, Sir, the Evangelist here calls John's min∣istry The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But you inform your readers, that it was under, or belonged to the Jewish dispensation. It will now be lest to the impartial to judge, whether, for the sake of supporting a particular hypothesis, you have not erred from the truth. And although you conclude that every 'candid inquirer' must view the matter in the same light which you do, it is very possible that some who are entitled to that character, may differ from you.

But, Sir, you have left your readers still under one difficulty respecting the matter. As you deny

that John's minisiry belonged to the Christian dis∣pensation, you have not informed them when that begun. From the analogy of your reasoning, we must suppose you begin it at the death of Christ.

You will now permit me to inquire, whether the baptism administered by the Apostles of Christ before his death was Jewish baptism? Or, which dispensation it belonged to? Or, whether to nei∣ther? It is said, John iii. 22—24, After these things' came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and bap∣tized. And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was MUCH water there:— For John was not yet cast into prison. The Phari∣sees also heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.) This baptism was cotem∣porary with John's, and undoubtedly under the same dispensation.

But will Christians in general be willing to al∣low, that both Jesus and John were ministers of the legal dispensation? And that the ordinances instituted, and administered by them, belonged to that dispensation? I said ordinances: for, if bap∣tism is to be considered in this light, undoubtedly the sacred Supper is to be ••ewed upon the same footing; for, this was instituted and administered by Christ before his death, and never instituted by him afterwards.

As Christ was the same divine person before his death, that he was after he arose, it was by his ap∣pointment and authority, that his disciples were sent to teach and baptize. They did not re∣ceive their commission from the chief priests, but

from JESUS. And John's preaching, and bap∣tism, were as independent of the Jewish dispensa∣tion, as that of the disciples of Christ.

The authority by which John the Baptist acted, both in preaching and baptizing, is expressly de∣clared by the Evangelist John, chap. i. verse 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, &c. What St. Paul said of his commission to preach, with a little variation may be said of John's: For he neither received it of man, neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Neither went he up to Jerusalem, to them which were in the priest's office before him;* 1.14 but he went into the wilder∣ness of Judea, and entered upon the work he was appointed unto, by him who sent him to baptize with water.† 1.15

The Jewish rulers knew nothing of John's bap∣tism as belonging to their dispensation; you know nothing of its belonging to the Christian, and perhaps it might puzzle you both, to determine whether it w•••• from heaven or of men!

Upon the whole, if the baptism administered by John, as the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that which was administered by the disciples of Christ, by his authority, and in his presence, were not Christian baptism, we know of none which is deserving of the name.

I have been more particular upon this point, because modern writers lay so much stress upon it. But it really appears, that to consider John's minis∣try as a part of the Jewish dispensation, is both un∣scriptural, and prejudicial to the cause of religion.

Finally, should it even be supposed, that there could be a distinction made between the baptism of John and the Christian institution, respecting the form of words used in the administration, it would by no means affect the case before us. For you will please to remember that the dispute is not about the form of words; but the act of baptizing. Hence if Mahomet had written his Koran in Greek, and had ordered his disciples to be baptized in his name; and had expressed the act by the same Greek verb by which Christian baptism is express∣ed; should we not reasonably conclude that they baptized in the same mode which Christians did, notwithstanding the difference of saith and names into which they were baptized? Let candour judge, and I will abide the decision.

Therefore until you, or some other person, shall prove that John's ministry belonged to the Jewish dispensation, we shall confide in the judg∣ment of the Evangelist, that it was the beginning of the gospel dispensation. And consequently the manner of John's baptizing, may be consistently urged to establish the mode of Christian baptism.

SECTION IV. The Mode of Baptism, and its Connexion with the Subject in Dispute, particularly considered.

BAPTISM, like man in his prime∣val state, when it first came out of the hand of its institutor, was pure. But it has been basely contaminated, and perverted from its original de∣sign,

to very different purposes. It is no longer dependent on original institution; but can be∣come all things to all men, as circumstances may require.

It is evident, Sir, that you and I differ, both in opinion and practice, respecting the mode of baptism. I have ventured to say in my other Piece, that "baptism is to be administered only in one mode," and that "••mmersion is essential to the ordinance." You have given it as your opinion, (p. 10)

That the essence of baptism does not consist in any one particular mode what∣ever;

and that

it may be acceptably perform∣ed either by sprinkling, by pouring on water, or by immersion. In the following page you add, It may be scrupled whether you, or any other man, can ascertain precisely the apostolic mode of baptism.

If this be indeed the case, then we may undoubtedly do as the children of Israel did when they had no king, every man what is right in his own eyes.

But, whether the subject be involved in so much uncertainty as you suggest, is worthy of serious inquiry. We cannot suppose you to be confident with regard to your own mode, nor that you will attempt to prove it to be apostolic; unless you mean to emphasize the adverb

pre∣cisely,

and include in it all those trivial circum∣stances you have mentioned (p. 10): Such as whether

the subjects were put into the water backward or forward, or what length of time they kept them under water, or at what time they called the name of the Trinity over them,

&c. But supposing it should be difficult to de∣termine

upon some of the circumstances you have mentioned, and we should possibly mistake one or more of them,—would any reasonable person conclude, that such an omission would affect the validity of the ordinance, as much as to change it from immersion to sprinkling?

But, Sir, you say the

essence of baptism does not consist in any one particular mode whatever.

What you mean by 'essence' without, or independ∣ent of mode, or of any particular mode, appears unintelligible. For, if the essence of baptism can exist without the instituted mode, it can undoubt∣edly in any mode, or without any. But by what chymical art you extract the essence of baptism from the mode, you have not yet told us. We cannot suppose by essence, that you mean the holy desires or gracious dispositions of the subjects of baptism: for, from the infant-condition of the greater part of those whom you baptize, it is pre∣sumed there can be no evidence of their being possessed of such holy tempers. If by the essence of baptism, you mean the form of words used in the administration of it, then undoubtedly that must be considered valid where the due form of words is used, although water be wholly left out: which if we may credit history, has been the case in several instances.

In the dark ages of superstition, when new-born infants dying unbaptized were doomed to eternal death, a priest was obliged to attend at the call of a midwife; and sometimes, when the infant was likely immediately to expire, they not having wa∣ter prepared made use of wine.* 1.16

An instance is mentioned by Nicephorus, a Greek historian of the 14th century, of "a certain Jew, performing a journey in company with Christians, and being suddenly seized with a dangerous ill∣ness, who earnestly desired baptism at the hands of his fellow travellers. They not having a priest in their company, and being destitute of water, were at first reluctant; but he conjuring them not to deny him the favour, they yielded to his request. On which, taking off his cloaths, they sprinkled him thrice with sand, instead of water; adding that they baptized him in the name of the Father, and so on."* 1.17 The same author informs us, both from Deylingius and Seckendorf, that a little before the reformation, there were, in Upper Saxony, and in some other places, those who taught and practised baptism, upon sickly new∣born infants, with only using the baptismal form of words, without the application of water, in any form whatever!—"TO BAPTIZE, by sprink∣ling a few drops of water, to BAPTIZE, by sprinkling of sand without any water; to BAP∣TIZE, by merely pronouncing a form of words; —what an improvement upon the institution of Christ!"† 1.18

"In the twelfth century, a council in Ireland ordained, that children should be baptized in pure water by trine immersion; but, as a history of facts cannot be collected from mere laws, it may be observed, that some of the Irish baptized by plunging their children in milk, and were super∣stitious

enough to imagine, that every part so plunged became invulnerable."* 1.19

I might go on to multiply instances of this kind, but the preceding are sufficient to show the absurdity of placing the essence of baptism in a mere form of words.

Although we would not attempt, or even wish to dictate to our Paedo-baptist brethren with re∣gard to their practice; yet we claim it as a privi∣lege, to judge for ourselves what is essential. Christians in different periods have had their dif∣ferent opinions of it. Tertullian in the begin∣ning of the third century, and Agrippinus and Cy∣prian after him, with many more, re-baptized those who came to them, not merely because they had been baptized by heretics, (as they were pleas∣ed to call them) but because they lacked what they considered essential to the ordinance: for they "considered the probity and good faith of the person baptized the very essence of baptism; and if a professor of Christianity were an unholy man, they adjudged his baptism like his profes∣sion, vain and invalid, and himself not a weak be∣liever of Christianity, but a mere unprincipled pagan."† 1.20

The Council of Nice, in the 4th century, seemed to consider the essence of baptism as consisting in the form of words used in the administration; and accordingly directed, that such as came to them from the Paulianists, both men and women, should be re-baptized, because the ordinance had not been administered in the name of the Trinity:

While they admitted the Novatians with only laying on of hands.

The Bohemians considered the essence of baptism as consisting in the virtue or competency of the administrator; and consequently re-baptized those who had every other requisite of baptism, only a corrupt administrator.

The Greeks place the assence of baptism in dip∣ping in water; and had a person been sprinkled ever so decently in any period of life, they would not therefore think him baptized; because, in their opinion, to baptize is to dip, and nothing else.* 1.21

The Baptist churches in America, and those of Great-Britain, Poland, Lithuania, Transylvania, and many more, all hold that immersion in wa∣ter, and a personal profession of faith and repent∣ance, are essential to baptism.

But, Sir, whatever you are pleased to consider as essential to baptism, that being omitted, would undoubtedly invalidate the ordinance in your view; at least this is the case with us. And why we should think some circumstances essential to baptism which you do not, will more fully appear in the sequel.

Many writers on your side the question, have endeavoured to prove Christian baptism to have had its origin in the washing of Jewish prose∣lytes; which may reasonably be considered as a Jewish fable, unknown in the ritual of Moses, or any part of the Old Testament. A practice not to be found in the writings of Jose∣phus and Philo, those two great historians, but is

principally taken from writers of a much later date, and particularly from the Yad Chazaka of Maimonides.* 1.22

It is worthy of observation, that the Paedo∣baptist writers in this controversy rarely, if over, mention the baptism administered by John, un∣less in some negative sense, or to answer some ar∣guments drawn from it against their sentiments. But the washing of Jewish proselytes is frequent∣ly mentioned, as an indisputable auxiliary to In∣fant-baptism, by many noted writers on that side.† 1.23

A question here naturally suggests itself to the mind; Why do Paedo-baptists go back to Jewish tradition, or forward to the death of the Saviour, in order to ascertain the origin of gospel baptism, and cautiously omit the first accounts given of it in the sacred history? Perhaps the most natural answer is, because that appears incongruous with their practice. It will require a large stock of art and ingenuity, to persuade a candid inquirer that John baptized any beside aduits, or adminis∣tered the ordinance in any other way than by im∣mersion. The particular places which he chose for the conveniency of baptizing, must afford a strong argument in favour of immersion; nor can there be a very rational account given of his conduct upon any other footing. Had John ad∣ministered in the present popular mode, I pre∣sume a single cask of water would have been suf∣ficient for all he ever baptized!—and in whatever

place people had lived, there could have been no want of water sufficient to baptize.

In order to evade the force of this argument, many things have been said. One time we are told, that Jordan was so shallow that there was not a sufficient depth of water to immerse, or bury a person in; again, that the large quantity of water was necessary, for the people and their beasts to drink; again, when John baptized in Enon because there was much water there, we are told that (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.24) many waters, means many little springs, not sufficient to immerse in. Now as to the first of these, no person who is ac∣quainted with that ancient geographical account drawn by the pen of inspiration, can possibly be∣lieve it. If any are at a loss, let them observe, that it was only fordable at particular places, as appears by Ehud, Gideon and the Gileadites tak∣ing those passages.† 1.25 And also David's crossing it with his family in a ferry-boat.‡ 1.26 As to the second observation, if there was much water, it was necessary to "supply the multitudes that came to John's baptism, for drink for themselves, and their horses and camels."‖ 1.27 If John's preach∣ing had been such, that it had broken up the city of Jerusalem, and collected all the people from the region round about, and they had all gather∣ed to him in one day, yet still it would not be true, that they needed a river half as large as Jor∣dan to have supplied them all with drink; unless they drank like Job's behemoth!¶ 1.28 I do not re∣member ever to have heard, that when any large

gathering of people has been proposed, either for a military review, or for the sacred purpose of an ordination, that they have once men∣tioned the propriety of having it near some large river or fountain of water, in order to accommo∣date the people and their horses for drink; and yet it is highly probable, that upon some such oc∣casion, there have been as many together as ever at one time collected round the ancient Baptist.

The fact appears to be this, that John's mini∣stry continued for a considerable time, and that the people from time to time went out to hear him, and often we may suppose he had crowded assemblies. It is said he preached in the wilder∣ness of Judea, but he baptized in Jordan.

Having thus mentioned the places chosen by John, we shall next take notice of the place where Philip baptized the eunuch, which you suppose to be a matter of necessity rather than choice; be that as it may, the account informs us,—they came unto a certain water;—supposed by Mr. Poole to be a fountain in a town called Bethsora, or a river called Eleutherus, which in that road must be pass∣ed over.* 1.29

Jerom describes the town of Bethsoron, and men∣tions the fountain in it, in which he saith, "the Acts of the Apostles relate, that the eunuch of queen Candaece was baptized here by Philip,"† 1.30

Borchardus is of opinion, that it was "Nehel Escol, that is, The Brook of the Cluster, from whence the spies carried the grapes; to the left of this valley, for the space of a mile, runs a river, in

which Philip baptized the eunuch of queen Can∣dace, not far from Sicelech."* 1.31

Thus we have traced John and his candidates, and Philip and the eunuch, to the water-side; we are now prepared to consider the consequent ac∣tion. It is said of John that the people who went out to him, were baptized of him IN Jordan.— And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight∣way OUT OF THE WATER.† 1.32 It is added by Mark—And it came to pass in those days, that Je∣sus come from Galilee, and was baptized of John IN Jordan, and straightway COMING UP OUT OF THE WATER. It is said of Philip and the eu∣nuch. —they went down both INTO THE WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him; and when they were come up out of the water, he went on his way rejoicing.

Now, Sir, can any person compare these ac∣counts for a moment, and not see the manifest agreement in the action of John and Philip. Let the rite be performed in what mode soever, it is evident it was the same in the people whom John baptized, and in the Saviour, and in the eunuch. You observe in this last instance, there is

no account of any particular mode whatever.

I must take the liberty here, again to dissent from you: for, I conclude it is a very particular ac∣count of the mode of plunging. Were you to be informed by a person of your acquaintance, that he saw a minister who was a stranger to him, go down into the water with a candidate, and that he baptized him, and that they came up out

of the water,—I am persuaded, without hesita∣tion, you would conclude that they were Baptists; and the account here given would decide the point in your mind, and perhaps in any other person's, in what mode the ordinance was admin∣istered. Again, if instead of saying they went down both into the water, it had been said that the candidate ascended, or was carried up the pulpit stairs, (which is now the custom in many places) it would afford a strong presumption in favour of affusion.

You observe the instance abovementioned is the only one,

recorded in scripture, of going to a river, pond, pool, or brook, to baptize with Christian baptism.

Sir, you will please also to observe, that this is the only instance recorded, after the death of the Saviour, in which the act of baptizing is described; and here it evidently de∣scribes immersion.

But you say,

If we admit, according to out translation, that they both of them went down into the water, this is no evidence that either of them were plunged all under water. You will not suppose, that this text is a proof that Philip went all under water. But why not? If going into the water proves immersion, it proves that both were immersed; for they went down both into the water.

To some of your readers, this criticism does not appear in the most logical light; for no person ever supposed, that for Philip and the eunuch to go into the water up to the knees or loins, would be to immerse either; but when they had got into the water, there was evi∣dently something done to one, that was not to

the other; i. e. Philip baptized or immersed the eunuch; but he did not baptize Philip. There∣fore for the sake of immersing the eunuch, they went both into the water, as that could not be consistently performed without. In this light their going into the water will appear rational; but in every other view, totally inconsistent. Had the object been only to sprinkle the eunuch, this could have been performed at the water side, without going down into it; yea, probably it might have been done decently in the chariot: for it is most reasonable to suppose, that a person of his distinction and equipage would not travel that desert country, without some vessels to ob∣tain and convey water, when he came to it; un∣less he meant to serve himself in the way that Gideon's men did.

Upon the whole, does it not appear to be the most easy and natural construction of the passage, to suppose the baptism of the eunuch to be an immersion? I might here, if necessary, produce a cloud of witnesses from Paedo-baptist exposi∣tors, full to my purpose; but I omit them for the present. And although I would not address you in that full strain of assurance, which the great Apostle did king Agrippa, yet I may mod∣estly inquire, Believest thou not these things thyself? yea, I doubt not but thou believest.

You take notice of this as a single instance, in which Christian baptism has the appearance of im∣mersion. But, Sir, would you think it reasona∣ble, that in every instance where it is said that persons 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••aptized, that all the circumstances relating to the act should be particularly describ∣ed?

Surely you could not. You might as rea∣sonably suppose, that where circumcision is mention∣ed, and the act not formally described, that it was performed upon a different part, or in a different way from what the institution pointed out, as, that baptism was administered in a different mode from the specimens given of it.

It may be profitable here to reflect upon the subject a moment, and put a few circumstances together, which may afford some light in the present case.

When John, that bright morning star, appear∣ed, to give knowledge of salvation, he came to prepare the way, and proclaim the approach of the Sun of righteousness. In order to this, he came preaching repentance for the remission of sins, and baptizing with (or in* 1.33) water. The manner in which John baptized is so particularly described, that very few Christians, of any de∣nomination, have doubted its being by immer∣sion. This was the beginning of the institution; therefore it was proper to describe it. The act was performed in Jordan. But, as the Baptist had informed the people, that there would come one after him mightier than he, who should bap∣tize with the Holy Ghost and fire,—therefore, to avoid the danger of a mistake which might possi∣bly be made from this, in supposing that Christ, when he came, would introduce a different mode of baptism from what John practised,—we are expressly told, not only that he was baptized by John, but that it was administered in the same

way to him, as to the people. He, also, was baptized in Jordan, and came up straightway out of it.

After Jesus had passed in triumph through the dark domains of death, he came to his disciples vested with all power in heaven and earth, and enlarged their commission, and sent them to preach to Gentiles as well as Jews; with an ex∣press command, to baptize in the name of the triune God. Now, lest we should look for soma alteration in the mode of baptism, it is again ex∣emplified, and here we see it to be the same as be∣fore; Philip and the candidate go down into the water, he is baptized, and they come up again out of it. Thus we see the baptism administered by John, in the beginning of the Christian dispen∣sation, before Christ began his personal ministry; and that administered to Christ himself; and that administered after he gave the great commission, as to the mode, were uniformly the same.

From this, we think it r••••ional to conclude, that those instances of baptism mentioned in the New Testament, where the act is not described, were performed in the same manner as those were of which an account is given.

Incompetent as this evidence may appear to you, we think it a sufficient answer to your ques∣tion, wherein you ask by what authority we make immersion essential to baptism, &c. I would al∣so assure you, that whenever you will make out as much proof from scripture for sprinkling, as being an instituted mode of baptism, a•• has now been produced in favour of immersion, I will lay down my pen, and for ever drop the dispute.

Although what has been offered may be con∣sidered as ample proof of the question in dispute, yet being desirous of giving you full satisfaction, I shall proceed to lay before you one consideration more, which appears to us of considerable weight in the present case; and that is, the native sig∣nification of the Greek verb, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to baptize, which we suppose necessarily requires dipping. We are fully sensible at the same time, that this sense has been controverted by many men of emi∣nent abilities; notwithstanding, we think the evi∣dence greatly preponderates in our favour. Nor shall we think it a difficult task to prove the sense for which we plead, from Paedo-baptists them∣selves; and that too, from some as learned and ju∣dicious as any whose names adorn the biographi∣cal page. This kind of evidence I conclude you can have no reasonable objection to, because you cannot suspect them of any design against them∣selves, nor will they make any concessions to sen∣timents which they oppose, further than truth obliges them to; therefore, I may say of their evidence in the present case, as David did of Goliah's sword, there is none like it.

I may have occasion hereafter to mention some writers of a much earlier date, but I shall here be∣gin with Luther. In his translation of the New Testament, he has rendered the Greek word to baptize by the German taufen, and in his works he hath expressly declared, that the baptismal verb taufen, signifies to immerse, or to plunge in∣to the water.* 1.34 Thus Matt. iii. 1. Zuder zeit kam Johannes der tauffer;—In those days came

John the dipper. To this we may add the testi∣mony of the Genevian oracle, Calvin, who says, "The word baptize signifies to dip; and it is certain that the manner of dipping was used of the ancient church."* 1.35 Shall I add to this, the testimony of that celebrated Professor of divinity, Witsius. "It cannot be denied (saith he) that the native signification of the word Baptein and Baptizein, is, to plunge, to dip."† 1.36 Full to the same point are also the words of Vitringa. "The act of baptizing, is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and his Apostles‡ 1.37

If you please, we will now look at the ancient Helvetia Confession, first written in the year 1536, by or under the direction of Bucer, ten years be∣fore the death of Luther, and afterwards publish∣ed again by the pastors of Zurich, in 1566: In which we have the following unequivocal decla∣ration: "Baptism was instituted and consecrat∣ed by God, and the first that baptized was Jehn, who DIPPED CHRIST IN THE WATER IN Jor∣dan; from him it came to the Apostles, who al∣so did baptize with water."

The Confession of Saxony, written by Melancthon, in the year 1551, perfectly agrees with the above; I will now transcribe it. "Baptism is an entire action, to wit, a DIPPING, and the pronouncing of these words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Fa∣ther," and so on.‖ 1.38 These two last are not to be

considered merely as the testimony of two men, or two particular churches, but as including a number of churches in two large districts.

As Mr. Poole was justly esteemed a learned and critical expositor, you will perhaps be willing to hear his opinion in the present case. "A great part (saith he) of those who went out to hear John were baptized, that is, dipped in Jordan." "To be baptized is to be dipped in water; metaphori∣cally, to be plunged in affictions: I am, saith Christ, to be—overwhelmed with sufferings and afflictions."* 1.39 To this we may add the testimo∣ny of Mr. Daniel Rogers: "None (saith he) of old were wont to be sprinkled; and I confess my∣self unconvinced by demonstration from scripture for Infant-sprinkling. It ought to be the church's part to cleave to the institution, which is dipping; and he betrays the church, whose officer he is, to a disorderly error, if he cleave not to the institu∣tion, which is to dip. That the minister is to dip in water as the meetest act, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes it. For the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other act beside dipping, if the institution could bear it." "To dip therefore is exceeding material to the ordinance; which was the usage of old, whithout exception of countries, hot or cold."† 1.40

The above quotations are all made from Pae∣do-baptist writers, to which I wish to add one observation from a late learned historian:—"A linguist (says he) determines himself by his own knowledge of the Greek language, and an il∣literate man, by the best evidence he can obtain

from the testimony of others, whom by his con∣dition he is obliged to trust.

"To the latter it is sufficient to observe, that the word is confessedly Greek, that native Greeks must understand their own language better than foreigners, and that they have always baptized, and do yet baptize, by immersion. This is an authority for the meaning of the word infinitely preferable to that of European lexicographers; so that a man, who is obliged to trust human tes∣timony, and who baptizes by immersion, because the Greeks do, understands a Greek word exactly as the Greeks themselves understand it; and in this case the Greeks are unexceptionable guides, and their practice is in this instance safe ground of action."* 1.41 This last remark is confirmed by Dr. Wall, who assures us that "The Greek church, in all the branches of it, in Europe, Asia, Egypt and Ethiopia, has always preserved the cus∣tom of dipping infants in baptism, that were in health, and able to bear it."† 1.42 By the term al∣ways, we must understand from the time when they first began to baptize infants.

I will not for the present trouble you with any more quotations from Paedo-baptists, but will hold myself engaged to produce five times as many, whenever there shall be a reasonable demand. I conclude, if human testimony can establish any point, we must allow, from the disinterested nature of the evidence now considered, that the native sig∣nification of the Greek verb Baptizo, (which must determine the proper sense of our English word to baptize) to be fairly settled.

Should it be objected that any, or all the per∣sons above quoted, held, notwithstanding, that baptism might be lawfully administered, either by pouring or sprinkling, in ordinary, or at least in particular cases; this would by no means invali∣date their evidence, with respect to the point in hand; it would only prove them inconsistent with themselves, and that they supposed that they had a right to depart from the instituted way, and adopt one which, in their view, appeared better calculated to serve the interests of religion.

Should we suppose a number of persons, of established veracity, to appear before a court of judicature, to give evidence upon oath in a certain case, and they should all jointly agree in confirming a particular fact; but at the same time should add, that it was their opinion, that there might be other circumstances connected with the attested fact, which, if true, would be equally important to the case in hand, although they could not be positively proved;—no person would be at a loss how to decide a case of this nature, nor would he put this supposititious evi∣dence upon an equal footing with sober fact, un∣less he were governed by interest or prejudice.

Thus, Sir, we have traced the MODE of bap∣tism up to its origin: and have found it first in the bands of John the Baptist, who had his com∣mission from heaven.* 1.43 He administered it to the Saviour, and probably to the disciples,† 1.44 who by virtue of the great commission baptized oth∣ers; and whereever the act is described, it cer∣tainly has the appearance of immersion.

We have also heard the testimony of several celebrated writers, in establishing the meaning of the word to baptize. These declarations, taken from Paedo-baptists, must always remain in our favour, notwithstanding all that may be said of their practising in a different way.

Hence we conceive that immersion, as the ap∣pointed mode of baptism, has been fairly made out, both from scripture and reason, and from the full concessions of the writers upon your own side. And if what has now been said, should not convince you or any of your brethren, yet it will undoubtedly suggest some of our reasons for dif∣fering from you in our practice.

If the mode of applying the water of baptism be indifferent, then the dispute is at an end; but, if it be important, the necessity of one condemns the other. But to me it appears inconsistent to suppose, that there can be a positive command, and the mode of our obedience be indifferent: for this at once takes off the authority of the command. Yet here, Sir, we have not the hap∣piness to be agreed in opinion: for you suppose the matter to be indifferent, and attempt to il∣lustrate it by the posture of the body in prayer. But a moment's reflection must convince you, that the cases are not parallel. The posture of the body makes no part of prayer, any more than the place does where the man is when he prays: for prayer is properly a mental exercise, and not immediately connected with any position of the body whatever. But this can by no means be said of the application of water in baptism: for this makes a material part of the ordinance, and is essential to its very existence.

If the institution require no more than to sprin∣kle a few drops of water in the face, any person must be strangely superstitious to be immersed. And on the other hand, if it does really require immersion, then those who only sprinkle must fall materially short, and have scarcely the shadow of the ordinance. To suppose that sprinkling, pour∣ing, or immersion, are all indifferent, is in fact to suppose that nothing is commanded; or at least no more than sprinkling.* 1.45 When persons be∣lieve this, there is an end to immersion; for men are not generally fond of doing more than is required. This, Sir, your practice demonstrates. You believe either way answers the institution; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you with other Paedo-baptists in general, choose sprinkling; I think it probable that I should do the same, could I be convinced that your views were right. It is also probable, that John the Baptist, Christ and his Apostles, Philip, and the ancient Christians, had they viewed the mat∣ter in the same light which you do, would have invariably administered it by sprinkling: for there could have been no possible occasion which would

have required immersion, in case the other way would equally well express the design.

From a careful retrospection of the arguments made use of in the course of this lengthy Section, the candid will be able to judge, whether we are unreasonable, in saying that immersion is essential to the right administration of the ordinance. That I have not exaggerated sober fact, will be made evident by a quotation which I shall now subjoin. Dr. Wall, who has before been mention∣ed, was so highly esteemed by the English clergy for his learning and zeal in defending Infant-baptism, that in a general convocation, Feb. 9, 1706, they passed the following vote; "Ordered, That the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, Vicar of Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written concern∣ing Infant-baptism." Yet not withstanding this gentleman's profound learning, and all the advan∣tages he had derived from his painful research into the remotest depths of antiquity, to procure materials of defence,—he was obliged to acknowl∣edge, that Dr. Gale had drawn him into a dispute upon the mode of baptism, "wherein (saith he) he knew, that the examples of scripture and other antiquity, and the full persuation of that peo∣ple, and of all the Eastern church to this day, is on his side; and I had the disadvantage to plead for a way of baptism, of which the best I could say, was, that it was sufficient for the essence of baptism; but could not deny the other (except in the case of danger of health) to be the fittest."* 1.46 It must be acknowledged, that Dr. Wall was un∣der

most painful disadvantages in vindicating his cause: for he had not only to oppose the learn∣ed Dr. Gale, but the full conviction of his own mind, that scripture example, and the whole current of antiquity, were against him.

Upon the whole, this much is certain, that there is neither express command, or example, either in the law of Moses, or in the gospel of Jesus Christ, to sprinkle water upon new-born infants, as an initiating feal of any covenant whatever.* 1.47 There∣fore, we may say with Dr. Whitby, whose words shall close this Section—"The argument is al∣ways ways good: We read of no such doctrine in the scripture; therefore it neither is, nor can be any article of faith, because we have no other rule of faith besides the holy scriptures."† 1.48

SECTION V. The Mode of Baptism farther illustrated, from the Practice of the primitive Christians; and the Manner in which it was reduced from Immersion to Sprinkling, briefly pointed out.

MUCH has been already said upon the mode of baptism; but as it is evidently a constituent part in the present dispute, it appears necessary to set it in the clearest light. Hence

we shall proceed to consider the practice of the ancient Christians.

The primitive Christians not only understood the word in the sense for which we plead, but they practised accordingly. This has been touched upon already, but will be more fully illustrated in what follows.

Dr. Cave, who wrote about a hundred and twenty years ago, (not particularly as a disputant, but as a historian) in describing the religion of the fathers, after mentioning several things which they connected with baptism, he saith; "The action having proceeded thus far, the party to be baptiz∣ed was wholly immersed or put under water, which was the almost universal custom of those times, whereby they did more notabl••, and significantly express the three great ends and effects of baptism; for as in immersion there are in a manner three several acts, the putting the person into the water, his obiding there for a little time, and his rising again: so by these were represented Christs death, burial, and resurrection to a new course of life. By the person's being put into the water, was live∣ly represented the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh;—by his abode under it, which was a kind of burial in the water, his entering upon a state of death or mortification; like as Christ re∣mained for some time under the state or power of death; therefore as many as are baptized into Christ, are said to be baptized into his death, and to be buried with him by baptism into death, that the old man being crucified with him, the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth he might not serve sin; for he that is dead is freed

from sin, as the Apostle clearly explains the mean∣ing of this rife. And then, by his emersion, or rising up out of the water, was signified his enter∣ing upon a new course of life."* 1.49

The words of Mr. Locke are very similar to the above; "We Christians (saith he) who by bap∣tism were admitted into all the kingdom and church of Christ, were baptized into a similitude of his death; we did own some kind of death by being BURIED UNDER WATER; which being buried with him, i. e. in conformity to his burial, as a confession of our being dead, was to signify, that as Christ was raised up from the dead into a glorious life with his Father, even so we, being raised from our typical death and burial in baptism, should lead a new sort of life, wholly different from our former, in some approaches towards that heavenly life that Christ is risen to."‡ 1.50

Mr. Burkit also, fully acknowledges this to be the practice of the ancient church, when he says, "The Apostle no doubt alludes to the ancient manner and way of baptizing persons in those hot countries, which was by immersion, or putting them under water for a time, and then raising them up again out of the water; which rise had also a mystical signification, representing the bu∣rial of our old man sin in us, and our resurrection to newness of life."‡ 1.51 Mr. Poole's words are near∣ly verbatim.‖ 1.52

But, Sir, you are sensible that very few ex∣positors have written concerning the practice of

the first Christian church, who have not acknowl∣edged, that it was the almost universal custom of those times to baptize by immersion. This fact will manifest itself as we proceed.

You will undoubtedly recollect, that the first instances to be met with in ancient history, where∣in they pretended to baptize otherwise than by immersion, were in cases of supposed necessity; and considered even in those cases as not fully answering the institution.

The baptizing of sick or dying persons by affu∣sion, originated in the third century* 1.53 (a period fruitful of religious inventions) and had its found∣dation in error.

Several things united in bringing it into ex∣istence: as 1. Misconstruing that passage of the Apostle, where it is said, If they who have once been enlightened, (which at this time, by many, was understood of baptism) shall fall away, it is impos∣sible to renew them again to repentance. This led Constantine, and many other serious persons, to de∣lay their baptism until near the close of life. 2. Another sentiment equally erroneous arose, from a misapplication of the words of Christ —Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Thus on the one hand, they fearing a fatal relapse after baptism, and on the other, (as Dr. Cave. observes) "Not daring to pass into another world without this badge of their initiation into Christ,—they pres∣ently signified their earnest desire to be baptized, which was accordingly done, as well as the circum∣stances of a sick bed would permit. These were

called Clinici, (of whom there is frequent mention in the ancient writers of the church) because bap∣tized as the lay along in their beds." "This (con∣tinues the Doctor) was accounted a less solemn and perfect kind of baptism; partly because it was done not by immersion, but by sprinkling, partly because persons were supposed at such a time to desire it chiefly out of fear of death."* 1.54 This kind of bap∣tism was considered so imperfect, that if the per∣sons recovered, they were by the Neocaesarean Council, rendered ordinarily incapable of being admitted to the degree of presbyters in the church.

We have a fair specimen of this in the instance of Novatus, the Greek philosopher.† 1.55 According to Eusebius, "He fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immedi∣ately, he received baptism (being besprinkled with water) on the bed whereon he lay: (if that can be called baptism)."‡ 1.56 Thus it appears, that this ancient father will hardly allow sprinkling to be called baptism. This took place near the middle of the third century, and serves to show in what light sprinkling, even in cases of necessity, was view∣ed in that day.

It may afford us further light in our present in∣quiries, to consider the case of Constantine. He has generally been honoured as the first Christian Emperor. But if according to your argument, a man is not to be considered as a Christian with∣out baptism, then he must be looked upon as a heathen, long after he fought under the banner of

the cross. And consequently, must be considered as a Christian but a few hours before his death. But, to suppose this, is to suppose, that baptizing a man makes him a Christian, which is too absurd to be admitted in this enlightened period. We may as well argue that the epelette worn by an of∣ficer, is what makes him an officer; as, that bap∣tism makes the person baptized a Christian. Whereas a person must be an officer before he can have any right to wear the badge; so a person ought to be a Christian, before he takes upon him the sacred badge of that profession.

It appears that Constantine was brought to be∣lieve the Christian doctrine in the beginning of his reign, which continued upwards of thirty years; but he was not baptized until a little before his death.* 1.57 Being at this time in an ill state of health, he repaired to the warm baths at Constantinople; but his complaints increasing, he went from thence to Helenopolis, and from thence to the suburbs of Nicomedia; where he called the Bishops together, and spake to them in the following manner. "This was the time long since hoped for by me, when I thirsted and prayed, that I might obtain salvation in God. This is the hour, wherein even we may also enjoy that seal which confers immor∣tality. —I had heretofore taken a resolution of doing this in the stream of the river Jordan, where our Saviour himself, in likeness to us, is recorded to have partaken of the laver."† 1.58 After this we are told, that they performed the rites, and com∣pleted

the divine ceremonies. It is a given point that he was baptized by immersion; but, if it had then been considered as a matter of such indifferency, as is plead for in the present day, he would undoubtedly have excused himself from going into the water, in his ill state of health.

This instance must carry a degree of evidence to every unprejudiced mind, in favour of immer∣sion: for in this we have the opinion of this great man, in what mode the Saviour was baptized; and of his determination to imitate him in it, both as to the manner and place.* 1.59

Perhaps some into whose hands these sheets may fall, may wish to be informed, how immersion came to be laid aside, and another rite so entirely

different, generally practised in its room? In an∣swer to this, the reader is desired to call to mind what has already been said, that sprinkling first made its appearance in Africa, in the third century, in favour of Clinicks or bed-ridden peo∣ple. But even African Catholics derided it, and reputed it no baptism, or at least a very imperfect one.* 1.60 They considered it only as a substitute in cases of imminent danger, where baptism in the instituted way could not with safety be admin∣istered. Sprinkling in these cases, appears to have been in use several centuries before pouring was ever practised for baptism.

The first appearance of baptizing by pouring, (which has occurred in my reading) was in the eighth century; when Pope Stephen III. allow∣ed the validity of such a baptism of infants in danger of death.

The question proposed to him was, Whether in case of necessity occasioned by illness of an infant, it were lawful to baptize by pouring water out of the hand, or a cup, on the head of the infant? Stephen answered, if such a baptism were perform∣ed, in such a case of necessity, in the name of the holy Trinity, it should be held valid.

The learned Basnage makes several remarks on the canon of Stephen, referred to above. "Al∣though (saith he) it is accounted the first law for sprinkling, yet it doth not forbid dipping: that it allows sprinkling, only in cases of imminent danger: that the authenticity of it is denied by some Catholics: that many laws were made after this time in Germany, France, and England, to

compel dipping, and without any provision for cases of necessity: therefore, that this law did not alter the mode of dipping in public baptisms. And that it was not until five hundred and fifty-seven years after, that the legislature, in a coun∣cil at Ravena, in the year thirteen hundred and eleven, declared dipping, or sprinkling indifferent."* 1.61

There was indeed in some parts of the Christ∣ian church, long before this, such a ceremony as pouring water upon the head, but was distinct from baptism, and like exorcism considered only as a preparation. This pouring was called capitulavi∣um, or washing of the head; and was usually per∣formed on Palm-Sunday upon the competents, as a preparatory to baptism.

If history can establish any fact, it undoubtedly does this. that baptism was universally adminis∣tered by immersion in the whole Christian church (except in cases of necessity as above) for thirteen hundred years together; and continued so in the English nation until about the middle of the sixteenth century. And how the change was made in the English church, we are sufficiently informed by Dr. Wall. "Calvin (saith he) was, I think, the first in the world, that drew up a form of liturgy, that prescribed pouring water on the infant, absolutely without saying any thing of dipping (this was done in the year 1556.) It was his admirers in England, who in queen Elizabeth's time, brought pouring into ordinary use, which before was used only to weak children. But the succeeding Presbyterians in

England, about the year 1664, (when their reign began) went farther yet from the ancient way; and instead of pouring, brought into use in many places sprinkling. Declaring at the same time against all use of fonts, baptisteries, &c."* 1.62

I wish to add one remark more from Dr. Wall under this head. "There has (saith he) no nov∣elty or alteration, that I know of, in point of bap∣tism, been brought into our church, but in the way or manner of administering it. The way that is now ordinarily used, we cannot deny to have been a novelty, brought into this church by those that learned it in Germany, or at Geneva. And they were not content to follow the exam∣ple of pouring a quantity of water, (which had there been introduced instead of immersion) but improved it (if I may so abuse that word) from pouring to sprinkling; that it might have as lit∣tle resemblance of the ancient way of baptizing as possible."† 1.63

This indefatigable historian has assigned two reasons for this alteration, which are as follow; "I must own in the first place, that many of the clergy seem to be of the opinion of the late bish∣op of Salisbury, That the coldness of our climate is a good reason to change dipping into pouring." Upon which he observes, "That our climate is no colder than it was for those thirteen or fourteen hundred years from the beginning of Christianity here, to queen Elizabeth's time, and not near so cold as Muscovy, and some other coun∣tries, where they do still dip their children in bap∣tism,

and find no inconveniency in it."* 1.64 Al∣though this, with many, might be accounted a sufficient reason for the alteration, the Doctor supposes the following had more influence. That "It was not the coldness of the climate, but the imitation of Calvin and the church at Geneva, and some others thereabouts."

Thus, Sir, from the observations now made, we clearly see what was the practice of the ancient Christians; and how the alteration has been brought about. If the facts now related by Dr. Wall are true, (and he is certainly supported by the current testimony of history) I hardly think you will again ask, By what authority we make immersion essential to baptism.

As sprinkling is acknowledged to be a novelty by those who practise it, and that it was brought in, in "imitation of Calvin," and not in "imita∣tion of the baptism of Jesus Christ,"—we do not see our way clear to acknowledge the validi∣ty of it. The advice given to Israel of old may be applied in the present case; Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see, ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein; and ye shall find rest for your souls.† 1.65

SECTION VI. Godly Sincerity, as connected with external Obe∣dience, considered.

IN my other Piece I have a few times used the term sincere, and its substantive sincerity. I have said, that "sincerity is not the term of communion, but being conformed to the Apos∣tles' doctrine, and continuing stedfastly therein. I have also said, that "whatever we practise which is not according to the will of Christ, is contra∣ry thereto; although we be ever so sincere in do∣ing it." To this you reply,

If I rightly con∣jecture, it exhibits a sentiment which is false in its nature, pernicious in its consequences, and a first principle of your mistake respecting close communion.

Sir, if your conjecture be right, we are now in a fair way to get at the root of the difficulty. You however acknowledge the first part of the sentence. "that whatever we practise which is not according to the will of Christ, is contrary thereto:" This, you say,

is very plain and good doctrine;

but when I added, although we be ever so sincere, you say, I present a difficul∣ty. Really, Sir, it appears to me as you construe the passage, it presents a much greater difficulty: for, if an act were really disagreeable to the will of Christ, and our performing it in sincerity would render it agreeable, we must suppose his will to be dependent on the sincerity of his creatures; if so, his will cannot be a rule of conduct for us, but we must be governed by our own sincerity.

That we may not dispute about words rather than sentiments, it may be proper here to settle

the meaning of the term sincere. You allow that

the word is ambiguous in the customary use of it;

but conclude,

as it is used in scrip∣ture, it generally, if not invariably, implies or intends pure and upright affections of heart.

That it is used in this sense in the epistle to the Philippians, will be granted; but, that it is used in somewhat ••f a different sense by the Apostle Peter, must also be acknowledged: For he speaks of the since e milk of the word, which being of the neuter gender, does not include affections of any kind. These two, are perhaps the only instances in scripture, in which this adjective is used, ex∣cept in the marginal reading.

But should it even be granted that the word, when used in scripture, is constantly used in the sense for which you plead; will you hence argue that I am obliged to use it in this sense? Have I not a right to use it according to common ac∣ceptation? Surely I have not mentioned godly, or scripture sincerity. I have indeed annexed the adverb ever, to sincere; which you are pleased to say,

extends to all kinds and to all degrees of sincerity.

But have you, by the fair rules of criticism, a right to this conclusion? Most cer∣tainly yoy have not. It will be allowed, that the term used will extend to the highest degree; but by no means determines the kind or quality of sincerity.

Should you agree to meet a friend to-morrow evening at eight o'clock, and should say,

I will not fail of being there although it should be ever so dark

—It might with as much proprie∣ty be argued, that this included all kinds of dark∣ness,

natural, preternatural, moral and spiritual; as, that ever so sincere includes all kinds of sin∣cerity.

To prevent any mistake in future, I am wil∣ling to let you know how I understand the word, and how I wish to be understood when I use it. The plain, natural signification of the word ap∣pears to be this—The honest persuasion of the mind, according to the degree of light in the understanding; and in general is to be understood in distinction from hypocrisy. Thus, a man may be a sincere friend to the Federal Constitution. He may be a good man in a moral sense, and yet his sincere attachment to the laws of his country, may be the effect of his political sentiments, rather, than his piety. Another man may sincerely believe the xxxix articles of the Church of England, and as sincerely believe that all the Dissenters are wrong. I shall not pretend to say that this is godly sincerity, or that it is not; but I will ven∣ture to say he may be a good man, and this may be his sincere opinion.

In farther remarking upon this part of the subject you say,

Your words imply, that a per∣son may, in the exercise of godly sincerity, act contrary to the will of Christ.

In order to make a satisfactory reply to this, is will be proper to inquire what is meant by the will of Christ.—When I use the term, I mean his WILL reveal∣ed in his word: For I know nothing of his will farther than he has therein made it known. It is a general maxim with Protestants, that the word of God is a perfect rule of faith and prac∣tice. Therefore, to talk of things as being agree∣able

or disagreeable to the will of Christ, in any other sense than as they are approved or disap∣proved by the word of God, is to talk merely up∣on the footing of conjecture. Hence, Sir, if you understand the will of Christ in this sense, I free∣ly acknowledge it to be my opinion, that a good man may sincerely act contrary to it. You may call this godly sincerity, or by any other name that your please.

If good men cannot be sincerely wrong, or in other words, sincerely erroneous, then all their errors and mistakes, must be considered as agree∣able to the will of Christ; or otherwise, as acts of criminal hypocrisy! But you ask,

Is not godly sincerity the very soul and essence of con∣formity to Christ?

I answer, it is impossible to conform to the will of Christ without sincerity, or uprightness of heart; but mere sincerity is by no means conformity to Christ's will, with re∣spect to positive institutions. It can only be considered as a necessary qualification for con∣formity. Unden the Mosaic economy, a lamb for sacrifice must be without blemish; but the perfection of the lamb did not make it a sacri∣fice, this only rendered it suitable; but it was its being actually offered up. So with regard to our obeying any positive precept, sincerity is ab∣solutely necessary to acceptable obedience. A man may be convinced that it is his duty to re∣lieve a needy brother; and also sincerely deter∣mine at a convenient season to do it; yet cer∣tain circumstances may take place, so as finally to prevent its being accomplished. That God may approve of his sincere intention, will not be

disputed; but we can have fellowship in his char∣ity no farther than we know it, which is only by his acting it out. It will be granted that Christ judges the moral qualities of our actions by the intentions of the heart; but he has not given this as a rule to us, any farther than it discovers itself in the action. Christ pronounces the man guilty of adultery, who looks on a woman crimi∣nally to lust after her; but we have no right, ei∣ther by the laws of God or man, to charge any person with that crime, without the actual com∣mission of it.

I conclude, that a good man may, in one pe∣riod of its, sincerely believe that he is acting ac∣cording to the will of Christ, and at another, as sincerely believe that what he then did, was never commanded, or enjoined by Christ; but was the mere effect of education or tradition.

Nothing can bring the matter more familiar∣ly into view, than the subject now in dispute.—We will suppose, that in the sincerity of your heart, you have desired to open a door for free communion with some of the Baptists; and as

sincerity is the very essence of conformity to Christ,

we must conclude, in this particular you act agreeably to his will. On the other hand, the Baptists to whom you make the friendly pro∣posal, as sincerely believe, that it is not according to the will of Christ, that they should commu∣nicate with you in your present situation. This also contains the essence of conformity to Christ.

Thus, Sir, if I understand your argument, this must be the conclusion; that it is the will of Christ, that the Paedo-baptists should communi∣cate

with the Baptists; and at the same time, it is his will, that the Baptists should not commu∣nicate with them! I shall take it for granted, that the Baptists do in the sincerity of their hearts, refuse to communicate with those whom they look upon as not baptized according to Christ's institution. If this refusal be made with godly sincerity, (and who will dare to say it is not) then according to your argument, it must be

above every thing else pleasing to Christ;

equally so, as communicating with other denominations at the table.

To illustrate your doctrine of sincerity you ask,

Would it be according to the will of Christ, for a person to conform to your mode of baptism, while he really thinks it would be contrary to the will of Christ for him so to do?

To an∣swer this, it will be necessary first to inquire, whe∣ther the mode of baptism practised by us, is ac∣cording to Christ's revealed will? If not, nei∣ther our thinking, or not thinking, can possibly make it so. If it be according to his will, our thinking otherwise cannot alter it, unless his will is entirely dependent on the opinion of his crea∣tures.

Again, you ask,

Would it be according to the will of Christ, for a person to neglect to have his children baptized in our mode, while he real∣ly thinks it is the will of Christ for him thus to bring them to the ordinance?

Answer. If Christ has any where declared it to be his will, that new-born infants should be dedicated to him, by sprinkling water upon them in the name of the sacred Trinity, it can by no means be

duty to neglect it. If not, it may with proprie∣ty be asked, who hath required this service at your hands?

But may we not further inquire, Would it be according to the will of Christ, for a person to neglect to have his male children circumcised, while he really thinks that it is the will of Christ that they should be?

Again, Would it be according to the will of Christ, for a person to neglect to bring his bap∣tized infants to the communion, while he real∣ly thinks that it is his will that they should be brought?* 1.66 In short, to grant your argument, will not this be the consequence, that every thing which a pious person sincerely believes to be according to the will of Christ, is according to it, however absurd or inconsistent it may be?

You have attempted to extricate yourself from this consequence, in your marginal note, (p. 24) wherein you say;

What has been said does not imply, that a man always does right when he thinks he does right; nor that a man's con∣duct is always acceptable to God, when he acts agreeably to his own sentiments.

A man may act according to his own sentiments from selfish desires, as well as from holy desires.

True, Sir; and how are we to know which of these govern his conduct? You have now suggested the dif∣ficulty; but have not proposed a remedy. If men's actions did always represent the sentiments of their hearts, we should not be exposed to the liability of a mistake; but as they do not, we may suppose that they may deceive themselves,

and others, with respect to their motives of sin∣cerity, as well as any thing else.

As you have put your theory of sincerity upon trial, in some of the foregoing instances, we are willing to compare the matter a little farther. We will grant, that the Paedo-baptists, in the sin∣cerity of their hearts, believe it to be the will of Christ, that they should give up their children to him in baptism; and that sprinkling suffici∣ently answers the mode. On the other hand we ••ill allow, that the Baptists, influenced by the same kind of sincerity, really believe that it is the will of Christ, that they should be immersed up∣on a profession of faith (whether they have been sprinkled in infancy or not) and that there is no command to baptize their children; but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Now, sincerity being the very

essence of con∣formity to Christ, and under the exercise of godly sincerity, they cannot act contrary to his will;

they are both in complete conformity to it; unless you will undertake to prove one of them insincere. Hence it follows, that it is the will of Christ, that one part of his church should imitate HIS baptism IN Jordan, by being im∣mersed; and that another part should believe, that the baptism of Jesus Christ is not to be imitat∣ed by Christians. That one branch of his church should give up their children to him in baptism, and thereby initiate them into the school of the sacred mysteries, without their knowledge or con∣sent, at a period of life when they are incapable of acting for themselves; and that another part of his church should, from principle, neglect the

baptism of their infants; whilst they consider Christianity as addressing itself to the consciences of all; and that none can become the disciples of Christ, without their personal consent. How com∣plex! how variable, does this doctrine represent the will of Christ!

But you inform us that you have

one more serious question to ask.

(it shall now be attended to,)

〈◊〉〈◊〉 the will of Christ such, that, while a person is a Paedo-baptist in sentiment, he must be under a natural and unavoidable necessity of disobedience?

This question appears to me, rather more curious than serious. To suppose a person to be under a natural and unavoidable ne∣cessity of disobedience, is to suppose he acts with∣out choice, or that he has not natural ability to do otherwise. I confess I cannot see any natural necessity, which compels one person to be a Pae∣do-baptist, rather than another; or of continu∣ing in those sentiments, rather than to embrace others. Our sentiments ever are, and ever ought to be the effect of choice; and not of natural ne∣cessity. If we choose sentiments contrary to the will of Christ, so long as we retain them, we nec∣essarily disobey hi••; but this is by no means 'natural and unavoidable necessity,' but entirely of a different kind. I humbly conceive, there can be no natural necessity, of either saints or sin∣ners disobeying Christ: For there is a degree of criminality in disobedience, which is not to be found in 'natural unavoidable necessity.'

To illustrate the doctrine of sincerity now un∣der consideration, you introduce the following simile.

A physician may, in certian circum∣stances,

with benevolent intention, through mis∣take, administer a potion to his patient, which may be productive of immediate death. In this case he is not criminal. Here is no evil, but natural evil, to be imputed to his conduct.

— Sir, I have no desire to run the indictment any higher than you do. But, should the patient be so happy as to discover the physician's mistake, would he be under any obligation to take the deadly po••••on, because it was not delivered with criminal intention? Yea, would he not be in the highest sense criminal to do it? To apply this figure. Admitting, that with benevolent intention, you have proposed free communion with us, yet if we really believe it to be incon∣sistant with some part of Christ's revealed will, we cannot with the same purity of intention comply.

But it is time to attend to the application you make from the above observations. You say—

Granting that immersion be the appointed mode of baptism, and believers the, only proper sub∣jects, yet if a Paedo-baptist really think other∣wise, and with an obedient heart offer up his chil∣dren in our mode—the person in so doing, is as well accepted in the sight of God, as though his outward conduct had been according to the appointed mode of baptism.

Granting this, and I beg to know what foundation Paedo-baptism stands upon!—If it be not supported by divine appointment, it can have no other origin than hu∣man tradition; and consequently must fall to the ground; unless you can make it appear, that your sincere opinion is of equal authority with

divine appointments.

If a Paedo-baptist really think otherwise.

—••hat then? Why this su∣persedes the whole force of the divine command, and authorizes his own opinion as the rule of his conduct! And lest he should scruple the valid∣ity of it, he is assured, that in

so doing he is as well accepted in the sight of God, as though his outward conduct had been according to the appointed mode.

According to this argument, divine appointments are of little consequence to Paedo-baptists, if they have a right whenever they think proper to set them aside, and substi∣tute others in their room. Perhaps the follow∣ing words of our Saviour, may not be thought wholly inapplicable to this sentiment. Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.* 1.67

Is it reasonable to suppose, that God would make appointments for his people which he did not think proper for them to observe? Or has he left discretionary orders with any man, or any body of men, to set aside, alter, or amend any of his positive institutions? But I recollect you have said,† 1.68 that

it is not necessary that men should think in all respects as God thinks;

and per∣haps this is one instance where you would apply it. For, if God has thought fit to appoint the mode, and describe the subjects of baptism; and a Paedo-baptist may offer subjects essentially dif∣ferent from those described in the institution, and that in a mode quite unlike the divine ap∣pointment, and yet be 'as well accepted,' as though he had observed the most exact conform∣ity

to God's law; surely then, we may very sin∣cerely make void the commandments of God, and establish our own pious traditions!

To sanction the foregoing argument you say,

This is agreeable to common sense and revela∣tion.

How far common sense may be in favour of your argument I shall not here pretend to say; but if divine revelation fairly establish it, it must be conceded to••. But before we decide upon this point, it may be proper to hear revelation speak for itself. Decked with fovereign majesty it thus addresses us; "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shall not ADD thereto, nor DI∣MINISH from it."* 1.69 What, not if we

really think otherwise?

By no means. But constantly "Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU."† 1.70 Granting this but, if we sincerely think, and act otherwise sha•• we not be•••••• as well accepted?' "To obey••s better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."‡ 1.71 "If ye love me, keep my com∣mandments."‖ 1.72 For "In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."** 1.73

This is the voice of revelation with respect to positive institutions; and notwithstanding you have challenged the judgment of common sense in favour of your sentiments, we are willing to re∣commit the matter, and abide the impartial de∣cision. If it be not a dictate of common sense, that God's commands should be implicitly obey∣ed, and his positive institutions strictly observed,

without the least known deviation; and that the sincere observance of his appointments should be more acceptable to him than the sincere neglect of them; then, of course your argument will be established, and we must conclude, that like the Athenians, in these things we have been too super∣stitious.

You acknowledge, (p. 27) that

integrity of heart does not render the judgment infallible, with respect to ascertaining the will of God.

— This indeed appears to me to be true; but why then do you blame me for supposing a person with godly sincerity, may act contrary to the will of Christ? I think it undeniably follows, that if he may with integrity of heart mistake his will, or not ascertain it, then he may with the same up∣rightness act contrary to it. But did you not tell us above, that

sincerity is the very soul and essence of conformity to Christ?

What, in the heighth of conformity to the will of Christ!—and yet not able to ascertain what it is? This, at best, is but accidental conformity!

The sentiment expressed in my other Piece, of acting contrary to the will of Christ, "although we be ever so sincere," you

conjecture to be false in its nature, and p••rnicious in its conse∣quences.

It is true, conjecture is not the most forcible argument; but yet it may be right.— I am not satisfied however, that you have proved the sentiment to be false; or that it is in your power to do it, after granting the first part of it. As to the pernicious consequences which you have discovered in it, I may have overlooked them; probably, because they are not so high

coloured as the charge. But what pernicious consequences can we imagine from our conform∣ity to the Apostles' doctrine, and stedfast contin∣uance in it?—Or from following the plain di∣rections in God's word, rather than our own sancied notion of sincere obedience, without exter∣nal conformity? I think you will not pretend to say, that I have insisted upon a conformity to the Apostles' doctrine, which did not include sincerity. You cannot say it without injuring me, and contradicting youself.* 1.74

It appears to me, that the particular sentiment now in dispute with come to this point. I am contending for sincere conformity to the positive institutions of Christ, in the exact order in which he has placed them. You are pleading for the acceptableness of sincere deviations from Christ's appointments.

To proceed—You observe, that

it is not the enternal conduct which is pleasing or displeasing to Christ; but it is sincerity or insincerity.

I and far from thinking that the strictest external conformity without sincerity would be pleasing to him. Yet, I think it reasonable to suppose, that a sincere external obedience to the positive commands of Christ, must be more pleasing to him than a sincere omission of them. For, saith he, Whosoever therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall DO and TEACH them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.† 1.75 Should you say

this has special reference to the moral law, it will be granted; but it may not be wholly inappli∣cable to the case before us. Therefore, with a little variation, I may use the language of an in∣spired writer; "Show me thy sincerity without thy external obedience to the appointments of Christ; and I will show thee my sincerity by my external obediencer to them.

Whether sincerety departing from God's posi∣tive commands, be as pleasing to him as sincere external conformity, will more fully appear in what follows.

When God had sent Samuel to ••••••oint Saul king over the chosen tribes, he thought proper to try his loyalty, by sending him to destroy the Amalekites, for their cruelty to his people when they came up out of Egypt. The command was, Utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but stay both man and woman, infant and suckling, o•• and sheep, earned and ass. Saul went with his chosen band, and spread death and car∣nage through Amalek's devoted country! He undoubtedly returned from the victorious fields, in full confidence of meeting the prophet's ap∣probation. But while coming, God made known to Samuel, that Saul had turned back from follow∣ing him. When Samuel came forth in the morn∣ing, Saul met him, and thus addressed him:— "Blessed be thou of the Lord, I have performed the commandment." Although he had not gone to the extent of the commandment, yet he might sincerely think, as he had made ample pro∣vision for one of the richest sacrifices that ever smoaked upon the Jewish altar, that in thus do∣ing,

he should be 'as well accepted,' as though he had wholly followed the divine command.— We may suppose his soul almost in an extasy, fully expecting the prophet's benediction; when, to his surprise, the grieved Seer thus interrogates —What meaneth this bleating of the sheep in mine tars! and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? What meaneth this? Why, the people spared the best of the sheep and oxen, to do sacrifice to the Lord thy God. A very pious design indeed•••• Who would challenge their sincerity? I do not recol∣lect that the prophet charged Saul with hypocri∣sy, or insincerity; but with the want of external obedience. I shall not pretend to say that Saul had any godly sincerity, or that he had not; but it is evident until this time, that his character was unimpeached, and he was honoured as the Lord's anointed.

Another instance still more to our purpose, presents us in the sacred page. When the wick∣ed sons of Eli were slain by the Philistines, they took the ark of the God of Israel, and carried it into the temple of their idol. The uncircumcis∣ed had scarcely began to rejoice, when they found themselves involved in strange and unlooked for calamities. Their idol Dagon fell before the ark, while terror, death and destruction were spreading every where. The ark of God soon became more terrible to them than an army with banners. A general council was called—they resolved to send it back into the land of Israel; but not being ac∣quainted with the sacred oracles, they were at a loss as to the mode of conveyance.—It was final∣ly determined to send it in a new undirected cart,

drawn by two milk-kine. When it was come in∣to the land of Israel, after a short tarry at Be••••∣s••emeth, it was carried to Kirjath-jea••i••, into the house of Abmadah, where it was kept for twenty years, until David was established upon the throne, After this, he assembled thirty thousand chosen men, with a view to bring the ark of the God of Israel up into the city of David.

This ark by divine appointment was to be borne by the priests, by the staves which went through the rings of it. But as the instituted mode might appear rather inconvenient at this time, they might think the one adopted by the Philistines would do as well. And as they might call to mind, that "God delighted more in mercy than in sacrifice;" both David and his people very sincerely concluded, that it would do to carry it in a decent new cart. But the way being rough, and the oxen unaccustomed to this hallowed bu∣siness, so agitated the sacred ark, that Uzzah put forth his hand and took hold of it. And the ••••••∣ger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his ERROR, and there he died by the ark.

What there was, either in the conduct or dispo∣sition of Uzzah, which was so offensive to the Di∣vine Being, as to mark him out as a monument of sacred displeasure, is perhaps unknown to mortals. It is evident that David did not discover, any criminality in the conduct of Uzzah; for if he had, he would not have been displeased because the Lord made a breach upon him. There was at least the appearance of sincere regard, in his at∣tempting to steady the agitated ark. But God

seeth not as man seeth; ••nd has ever been jeal∣ous for his own honour as lawgiver, which glory he will not give to another.

This alarming providence checked their pious joy, and put a sudden period to all their tuneful numbers. An awful fear of the great Jehovah was now impressed upon their minds.—Silent, and sol∣lemn, they retire and leave the ark without the city!

Will any person say that David did not go in the sincerity of his heart? Let those who deny it, make out the proof.

It may perhaps be difficult for us to discover any real difference in the design, or sincerity, of David and his people at this time, or three months after, when they brought up the ark into the city of David with shouting. But, we shall readily dis∣cover a difference in their visible conduct. In the former, they followed their own imaginations. In the latter they went according to divine ap∣pointment. Their departing from the instituted way, (however sincere) drew on them God's dis∣pleasure. Their obedience to it obtained his ap∣probation. If I mistake not, Sir, this instance is a fair trial of your argument, and it appears to me that it fails.

I have one more observation from scripture to make upon this head. If I rightly understand the revealed will of God, we are strictly forbidden to worship any creature, however exalted. For it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him ONLY shalt thou serve.* 1.76

Yet I find that the Apostle John twice sell down to worship an angel! I hardly think you will

scruple the sincerity of the beloved discriple upon this occasion. The question now is, whether it were agreeable to the will of Christ for John to worship the angel? It is evident he thought it to be his duty; and his conduct has every ap∣pearance of sincerity. Allowing John to be sincere, and his conduct in this particular instance agree∣able to the will of Christ, then the above men∣tioned prohibition must be understood condition∣ally. "It is written, thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve;" unless thou shalt sincerely think it duty to worship a crea∣ture. If it were not agreeable to the will of Christ that John should worship the angel, then it neces∣sarity follows, that a good person may, in the ex∣cercise of sincerity, act contrary to his will.

If, to evade the force of this argument, you should say,

Although John sincerely thought it to be his duty to worship the angel, yet he was undoubtedly mistaken,

this it to give up the argument: for we have always been willing to allow, that Christians may be sincere, and yet be mistaken as to the will of Christ. That this was the case, with either John or the angel, is abund∣antly evident. And in order to save your argu∣ment from falling, it appears necessary to be pro∣ved, either that it was agreeable to the will of Christ for John to worship the angel; or, that he was in∣sincere in attempting it. Until one or the other is made out, we shall conclude he sincerely at∣tempted to do that, which was expressly forbid∣den in the revealed will of God. Many more in∣stances might be produced, but the preceding are thought sufficient, to show the absurdity of con∣sidering

sincerity of heart as actual conformity to the will of Christ, with respect to his positive institutions.

In pursuing your argument you conclude, those persons differ from Christ, who

suppose, that a good tree may bring forth corrupt fruit.

They certainly do, if the words are taken in a proper sense. But if by the good tree we under∣stand a Christian, including all his exercises both of flesh and spirit, it is not true, that he cannot bring forth corrupt fruit. To deny this, would be to assert that he is in a state of sinless perfection: for all imperfect and depraved creatures can, and do sin.

Now if good men have some holy, and some selfish desires; and are sometimes governed by pur••, and sometimes by corrupt motives; how are we to know which of these govern their conduct, when they plead their sincerity in departing from God's appointments?

I conclude, Protestants in general look upon Cavin as a good man; but as a tree he bore some fruit, which the taste of a modern Christian would not call good: particularly his unchristian resent∣ment, and inhuman treatment of Servetus.* 1.77. It

in evident that Calvin, in this piece of conduct, thought he was doing God service. To suppose the contrary, and that he was not sincere, would be to suppose him a much greater monster than he represented Servetus. Allowing this to be an act of sincerity, and the question is fair before us, Was it agreeable to the will of Christ, for Calvin thus to persecute Servetus? If you should answer in the negative, you give up your theory; if you should answer in the affirmative, then it will nec∣cessarily follow, that if it were the will of Christ two hundred and forty years ago, that antitrini∣tarians and anabaptists should be burnt, merely for their sentiments, it undoubtedly is agreeable to his will now, as he is the same yesterday; to∣day, and forever.

In the mild reign of Edward VI. king of En∣gland, but two persons suffered for their religious

sentiments. And although these persons were both put to death, I do not find that they were charged with any other crime, than differing in opinion from the ruling party.

The former of these was Joan Bocher, common∣ly called Joan of Kent.* 1.78 Archbishop Cranmer was employed to persuade the young king to sign the warrant against her. He used various reasonings, which served rather to silence, than satisfy the king. But at length he did it with tears in his eyes, telling Cranmer, that if he did wrong, since it was in submission to his authority, he should answer for it to God. This made such an impression upon the mind of the bishop, that he used farther means for her conviction; but as she obstinately continued in her sentiments, she was finally burnt alive.

That Cranmer was sincere in this piece of con∣duct, we have the testimony of bishop Barnet, who says, "One thing was certain, that what he did in this matter flowed from no cruelty of tem∣per in him, no man being farther from that black disposition of mind; but it was truly the effect of those principles by which he governed himself."† 1.79

I confess here is a difficulty in my mind (and probably may be in many others) to conceive, how this conduct could be agreeable to the all∣merciful Redeemer, who came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them. It is not to be believed from any thing which Christ has said; but mere∣ly

because it was the sincere opinion of an arch∣bishop! I have no difficulty in believing the sincerity of Cramner, but I have not yet attained to the faith of assurance, that his conduct was a∣greeable to the revealed will of Christ.

It may also be observed, that Mr. John Rogers, that famous martyr, cordially consented to the burning of Joan of Kent. "For (saith Mr. Fox) when the Protestant bishops had resolved to put her to death, a friend of Mr. John Rogers the di∣vinity-reader in St. Paul's church, came to him, earnestly desiring him to use his interest with the archbishop, that the poor woman's life might be spared, and other means used to prevent the spreading of her opinions.—Rogers on the other hand pleaded, she ought to be put to death.—Well, then, says his friend,* 1.80 if you are resolved to put an end to her life, together with her opinion, choose some other kind of death, more agreeable to the gentleness and mercy prescribed in the gospel; there being no need that such torment∣ing deaths should be taken up in imitation of the papists. Rogers answered, that burning alive was no cruel death, but easy enough. His friend then hearing these words, which expressed so lit∣tle regard to poor creatures' sufferings, answered him with great vehemence—Well, perhaps it may so happen, that you yourself shall have your hands full of this mild burning. And so it came to pass; and Rogers was the first man who was burnt in Queen Mary's time."

"This Rogers (says Pierce) was a nonconformist, and a very excellent man, and died nobly in the

cause of Christ; but this barbarity of his deserves to be exposed: and the rather, because God in his providence seems to have shewn his great dis∣pleasure against it."* 1.81 If this indeed were the case, it could not be agreeable to the will of Christ.

It is quite remarkable, that Cranmer, Ridley, and Rogers, who had a principal hand in burning these two persons in the reign of Edward, were all burnt in the succeeding reign of Mary.

I do not mention these things with a view of glorying in the sufferings of my own denomina∣tion, nor, for the sake of reproaching others; but to show, what enormous cruelties good men may practise, under the specious show of godly sincerity and a zeal for the truth.

SECTION VII. Whether there be any Morality in 'Externals' or 'Sentiments;' and whether sincerity of heart se∣cures the judgment from error; briefly considered.

SIR, you have anticipated an objec∣tion against your theory; i. e.

That a good intention will sanctify a wicked action.

We shall only notice two things in your answer.— First you say,

That mere externals are neither holy nor sinful, is evident from this considera∣tion, that the same modes of external conduct are convertable to both good and bad purposes. * 1.82

But, Sir, is the••e no morality in good and bad purposes? You seem to convert them neither to one or the other, but to a state of indifferency. I suppose the same external modes of conduct may be the

expressions both of holy and sinful affections.

But this by no means proves, that there is no morality in our external conduct. If we are rational agents (and we certainly are) whatever mode of external conduct we pursue, must be our choice, rather than any other; and how this can be without morality, I am totally at a loss.

I conclude, Sir, that you will allow that eating bread and drinking wine, are external acts; but if there be no morality in them, it is hardly worth while to waste our time in a dispute about such trifling things. I do not conclude, however, that the morality of the act is merely in masti∣cating bread, or in swallowing wine, which a brute may do as well as an intelligent agent; but the circumstances which lead us to choose and adopt this particular mode of conduct, undoubt∣edly tinge the act with morality.

Your other observation which I shall take no∣tice of, is the following, that

There is nothing of a moral nature in mere sentiments or mere ex∣ternals.

If by 'mere sentiments,' you mean no more, than those fugitive thoughts which flutter upon the surface of the brain, as butterflies do in the sun-beams, we shall not contend. But, if by sentiment, we understand that result of the mind which leads us on to external acts, we shall undoubtedly find that it is connected with the

heart, as well as the head. The fool hath said, not in his head, but in his heart, there is no God. This is his sentiment, and a very innocent one it is, if destitute of morality!

You will permit me to add a remark from a ve∣ry sentimental writer. Saith he, "Error in judg∣ment and sentiment, especially in things of a moral nature, is always wrong; and does not con∣ust or originate merely in any defect of the moral faculties of the mind; but is of a moral nature, in which the taste, affection, or inclination of the heart is concerned; and therefore is always, in ev∣ery degree of it, morally wrong, and more or less criminal. Were the moral faculties of the mind, were the heart, perfectly right, man would not be capable of error, or of judging wrong, or making any mistake especially in things of religion. The natural faculties of the mind, considered as sepa∣rate from the inclination or will, do not lead, and have no tendency in themselves, to judge wrong, or contrary to the truth of things. To do so, is to judge without evidence, and contrary to it, which the mind never would or could do, were not the inclination or heart concerned in it, so as to have influence, which must be a wrong incli∣nation, and contrary to truth and to evidence; and therefore is morally wrong or criminal."

"Therefore, all the mistakes and wrong opin∣ions which men entertain respecting the doctrines, institutions and duties revealed in the bible, are criminal, and of a bad tendency."* 1.83 If this rea∣soning be true, it cannot be said that there is nothing of a moral nature in our sentiments.

I conclude that the bible exhibits a fair system of truth, supported by rational evidence; and were it not for the blindness of the human heart, and the prejudices occasioned by sinful affections, men would yield their cheerful assent to truth, in exact proportion to the evidence laid before them; and would not choose darkness rather than light. It is believed that good men, (however they may differ in opinion here) in the coming state, will see eye to eye: perhaps not owing so much to the superior light of truth, as to their being de∣livered from those sinful affections which oppose the truth. This observation will appear evident from this consideration, that those who have the greatest advantages to know the truth, often ap∣pear to be most opposed to it. The Jews, who had the oracles of God, and consequently the best information respecting the Messiah, when he was preached to them, opposed and blasphemed, while the Gentiles believed.

Upon supposition, that

there is nothing of a moral nature in mere sentiments,

why is unbe∣lief a crime? or why is a man to blame for being an infidel? this is a mere sentiment. In short, why do we blame the Jews for accusing and de∣livering Christ to be crucified? It is evident they did not believe him to be the Son of God. The Apostle Peter, after charging them with killing the Prince of Life, said to them; Now brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.* 1.84 Saint Paul supposed that they did not know him to be the Messiah: for, said he, None of the princes of this world knew it: for had

they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.* 1.85 No, they would have been shocked at the horrid thought! But their senti∣ments were that he was a deceiver, and a blas∣phemer; and they had a law given them by Mo∣ses against such, and by this law they said he ought to die. And their external conduct was to put him to death. Now where was their crimi∣nality? You will probably say it originated in their hearts,

where all real criminality is to be found.

It will be granted. And did not their sentiments originate there likewise? Out of the HEART proceed evil thoughts, murders, &c. and not out of the head as unconnected with it.

In order to apply the foregoing observations to the subject before us, we are willing to acknow∣ledge, that we do not think a man to blame, for sincerely acting according to his conscience, al∣though it be ever so erroneous. But he may be exceedingly to blame, for having an erroneous conscience. If we do not improve the best means of information which we are favoured with, we are certainly to blame for the neglect.

It is a maxim in civil law, "That a man is obliged to know it at his peril." This holds good with regard to the divine law. The man who transgressed the law of Moses through igno∣rance, however sincere, was nevertheless guilty; and when it came to his knowledge he was oblig∣ed to offer a sacrifice.† 1.86 And he who killed his neighbour at unawares, without in the least de∣signing his death, was nevertheless doomed to suffer a certain punishment; for, to be confined

to a particular city, without permission upon any occasion to go out until the death of the high-priest, cannot be accounted otherwise.* 1.87

Upon the whole, what reason can be given for our construing the divine law differently? Or why should one man see a revealed truth, and another under equal advantages should not; un∣less the latter be under the influence of moral blindness? If the positive institutions of the gos∣pel are sufficiently plain (as they undoubtedly are) why should we read and understand the same bible so very differently? I cannot think we are both right. If Christ has commanded his peo∣ple to dedicate their infant-seed to him in bap∣tism, then we must conclude that all the Bap∣tist churches are in an error in this particular. On the other hand, if the gospel teacheth us, that with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salva∣tion; and that this confession is to be made by every candidate for baptism; then we must sup∣pose our Paedo-baptist brethren are in an error, in not insisting upon the same visible qualifications which the Apostles did. In short, can it be sup∣posed that the same divine law, which enjoins ei∣ther the one or the other, can approve of the neg∣lect? If not, it must necessarily follow, that if you are right, we are wrong; and so vice versa.

But it is often said by our opponents, "We are willing to acknowledge your baptism to be valid, and why cannot you be as liberal with re∣spect to ours?" We are sorry to bear the charge of illiberality; but had much rather do it than

violate our consciences. When persons are so liberal, as to be willing to divide and mangle an institution of Christ, in order to accommodate a painful dispute; while 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seems to show a con∣descending temper in them, it at the fame time excites a suspicion of the justice of their cause. This kind of liberality of sentiment naturally leads us to recollect an instance recorded in an∣cient history, concerning two women who came to a certain king, to decide a controversy between them respecting a living child. Each contended that she was the true mother, and that the child was her's. For a time, their claims appeared equal∣ly well founded, until at length the wise king cal∣led for a sword, and proposed to divide the living child, and give half to the one and half to the other! The woman whose the child was, could by no means consent; but would either have it alive undivided, or else give it up so to the other: but the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. To have divided the child, would have destroyed its existence: So to divide an in∣stitution of Christ, is to make it mean any thing, and every thing, and consequently nothing. For when a divine law is supposed to be condition∣al, and is to be left to the judgment or fancies of men to determine, whether one mode of obe∣dience be not as acceptable as another, it of course loses its authority, and ceases to be a law

From the above argument it will not be con∣cluded, that one man has a right to dictate, or prescribe a mode of obedience for another: for to our own Mafler we stand or fall. Neverthe∣less, the divine law is not conditional, but abso∣lute;

and its requirements must be fixed and de∣terminate, although we may not understand them. ONE LAW shall be to him that is home born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

To conclude this Section, dear Sir, I wish you seriously to consider your arguments upon sincer∣ity, whether you have not carried the matter too far; and whether they are not calculated in some instances, to disserve the cause of Christ, and to strengthen the hands of error. For admitting that either you or we are in an error with respect to one of the institutions of Christ, yet as your sentiments assure us, that if we sincerely think we are right,

We are as well accepted in the sight of God, as if our external conduct had been according to his appointments,

shall we not be apt to release ourselves from a painful in∣quiry into the evidences for, and against our particular sentiments; and conclude to slide smoothly on, in the good old way which our fa∣thers went; and perhaps, have no higher reason to believe it to be right, than because they be∣lived it to be so?

It is often said, "When we get to heaven, we shall not be asked what particular principles we were of." This objection implies too great an indifferency to the requirements of truth; and leads us to suppose that many determine to get to heaven as cheap as they can. And whenever persons would wish a release from the toil of in∣quiry, and expense of retraction, they may im∣prove your argument as a cordial auxiliary.

But were we even to grant sincerity to be a term of communion, yet should we not be obliged to

fix upon some external acts of obedience, as evi∣dential of sincerity? Or are we to judge a man to be sincere by the looks of his face? Or by the tincture of his thoughts? Or are we to believe it because he professes to be sincere? Perhaps the man was never yet found propagating any senti∣ment of religion whatever, who would own himself insincere.

If sincerity be the only thing sought for, and agreement in sentiment unnecessary to Christian fellowship, then we may open the door wide, and receive all who appear to be sincere, however erroneous, and by whatever names distinguished, whereever they appear sincere.

Perhaps there is no one act in the circle of Christian duty, which expresses more fellowship, than communicating at the Lord's table. And if we can occasionally communicate together, why can we not statedly? We shall also be led farther to inquire, upon what principle is separa∣tion to be justified? Why did the Protestants come out from the church of Rome? There were undoubtedly many sincere Christians in that church, notwithstanding the body of clergy might be thought to be corrupt. Why did the dissent∣ers leave the church of England, and the inde∣pendents the presbyterians, and these dissent one from another? It would be uncharitable to sup∣pose, that there were not many sincere Christians in those churches. Objections similar to those now mentioned have in fact taken place.

When presbyterianism was about to be estab∣lished by the British government, the assembly of divines at Westminster appointed a committee to

hear and answer the petition of those who should not conform to the government.

To these the independents presented their request, Dec. 4, 1645, which was only this: "That they may not be forced to communicate as members in those parishes where they dwell; but may have liberty to have congregations of such persons who give good testimony of their god∣liness, and yet out of a tenderness of conscience cannot communicate in their parishes, but do voluntarily offer themselves to join in such con∣gregations."

To this the assembly gave a flat denial, Dec. 15. The independents, unwilling to lose the privileges of the establishment, made the following conces∣sion. "That they would maintain occasional communion in their churches." But still their presbyterian brethren would not allow them sep∣arate congregations. They rather improved this compliance, to strengthen their arguments against granting such liberty. "If (say they) they may occasionally exercise these acts of communion with us once, a second, or a third time, without sin; we know no reason why it may not be ordinarily without sin, and then separation and church-gath∣ering would have been needless. To separate from those churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may join without sin, seemeth to be a most unjust separation."* 1.88

Every candid reader will judge, whether the ques∣tions now suggested, are not involved in the idea of occasional communion, upon the term of sin∣cerity. Another interesting question appears to be

connected, viz. Whether it be consistent to com∣municate with any person, or body of Christians, with whom we could not unite in full fellowship, as members of the same church? If there be any act more solemn, more expressive of unity and a∣greement, let it be pointed out! For persons to separate from each other, merely on account of disagreement in sentiment, and yet hold occasion∣al communion (which expresses their agreement) is the height of absurdity.

Upon the whole, if

baptism was prior to coming to the Lord's table in the ••postolic practice

(which you have acknowledged, p. 13) —if it was then an immersion upon a profession of faith, which I trust has been made out in the preceding pages; and no scripture evidence ap∣pearing to the contrary; then you will not blame us for continuing in the apostolic doctrine, and for endeavouring carefully to imitate their practice. Hence it is probable our objections may continue, until proof shall be made out from the word of God, that the apostolic church did admit persons to her communion merely upon the footing of sincerity, without any regard to the external mode of their obedience to Christ's other appointments.

SECTION VIII. Whether the Divine Conduct towards us be the Rule of Duty towards our Christian Brethren, rather than God's revealed Will; briefly considered.

IT will be readily granted, that some parts of the divine conduct are to be imitated by

all who love God. Yet our obligation to be fol∣lowers of God as dear children, does not originate so much from what he does, as from what he commands. Therefore, we are not to imitate the divine conduct, in any thing which would lead us contrary to his revealed will.

There are some parts of the divine conduct, which it would be highly improper for us to at∣tempt to imitate; such as the following: He sus∣pended the established laws of nature, "and held the falling day," until Israel had gained the vic∣tory over his enemies. He arrested Jordan in its course, and compelled its waters to retire, and made a passage for his chosen tribes. He open∣ed the mouth of Balaam's ass, and caused the stu∣pid brute to reprove the more brutish prophet. He commanded Abraham; as a test of his love and obedience, to offer up his beloved son for a sacrifice; and it is certain he highly approved of Abraham's conduct, and blessed his unreserved obedience. I presume no one will infer from this, that we are to express our love to God by sacrificing our children to him. God has at sev∣eral times destroyed his enemies by fire from heaven; but when the two disciples were desirous of punishing the ungrateful Samaritans in the same way, Jesus reproved their blind zeal, and told them plainly, they knew not what spirit they were of.* 1.89

Instances might be multiplied from scripture, to show, that the divine conduct is not in all cas∣es the rule of our duty; but you have supposed one, which you conclude is worthy of our imi∣tation—

It shall now be the subject of our in∣quiry.

You take it for granted, that God communes with the Paedo-baptists at his holy table; and hence ask,

Why cannot you commune with those at the table, with whom God communes?

As this question was anticipated in my other Piece, you have from thence introduced the fol∣lowing reply, i. e. "It is not what God can or does do, but his revealed will, which is the rule of our duty." On this you observe,

I hope, Sir, I shall never object to your making the re∣vealed will of God the rule of your duty. But this, Sir, is a part of his revealed will, Be ye fol∣lowers of God, as dear children. And if God be willing to commune with Paedo-baptists, why should you be unwilling to imitate his example in this respect?

You will permit me, Sir, to inquire, whether you sincerely think, that the Apostle had particu∣lar reference to communion at the Lord's table, when he exhorted the Ephesians to be followers of God? If he had not, it affords no proof for your argument. If this were his object, he must be understood as addressing them in the follow∣ing manner: Brethren, God communes with you, and why cannot you communicate with one another? Be ye followers of God, as dear children. But was the church of Ephesus at this early period so divided, that they did not hold visible communion together? Were there then in the church Paedo-baptists, and Anti-paedo∣baptists, who had set up separate communions? When this is fairly proved, we ought to believe it.

You go on to say—

Supposing that the Paedo-baptists are really in an error; if Christ does not view the error as so essential, but that HE will commune with them, why should you?—Is the servant grester than his lord?

By no means: for the servant knoweth n••t what his lord doeth. And although he giveth rules to his ser∣vants to regulate their conduct by; yet he is not particularly bound by them himself. But you seem to suppose, that Christ commune, with you in a certian sense, in which we are unwilling to. But how are we to understand you? Sure∣ly not that Christ comes personally among you, or that he actually communicates with you in ••he bread and wine? If not, we must suppose it is spiritually. That is, he may own and bless you, notwithstanding there may be some imper∣fections in your obedience. But are we unwil∣ling to commune with you spiritually? Have not all good men, as far as they have the knowl∣edge of each other, communion in this sense? And do they not heartily approve of all sincere Christians, as far as they view them walking in the truth? We may not from hence infer, that Christ approves of the errors of any, or that the most profuse charity requires it of us.

To suppose that the Paedo-baptists are in an error, and that this is of such a nature that Christ could not commune with or bless them, would it not be to suppose it fatal, and inconsist∣ent with their eternal salvation? And should it be granted,

that God communes at his table with the pure in heart of both denominations,

yet never in such a sense as to approve of the er∣rors of either.

That God has communed with, or blessed good men, notwithstanding they were guilty of some errors, will appear from what follows:—It is said of Solomon, that he loved the Lord, and walked in the statutes of David his father; only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places.—The same is said of Jehoash, and Jotham, that they did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: But the high places were not taken away: the peo∣ple still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places.* 1.90 We can here only conceive, that God approved of what was right according to his command∣ments; while he wholly condemned their sacri∣ficing in high places and groves.

When the ordinance of the passover had not for a long time been observed as it was written, king Hezekiah issued his proclamation, summon∣ing all Israel to attend the solemn feast. But when the people came together, many of them had not those external qualifications which the ordinance required; and consequently did eat the passover otherwise than it was written: but Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, the good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctu∣ary.† 1.91 Hence it is evident, that they were in some degree guilty, for omitting those external pre-requisites which the ordinance required; notwithstanding they prepared their hearts to seek the Lord. If this were not the case, they could not have needed a pardon, for this ever

supposes guilt. Thus while they experienced the divine approbation in preparing their hearts to seek God, they needed his pardon for some external omissions.

You will recollect, Sir, that you have given it as your opinion.

That the essence of baptism does not consist in any one particular mode whatever.

Undoubtedly this may be said, with as much pro∣priety, respecting communion; that the essence of it does not consist in any particular mode whatever; but in right affections of heart.

If this observation be just, that the essence of an ordinance does not consist in the externals of it, but in sincerity of heart; and that Christian communion does not require agreement in sen∣timent, but only a union of 'affection and desires;' in this sense, I presume, the Baptists and Paedo-baptists do cordially commune.

In remarking upon the motto of my other Piece, you have said,

There must be a union between God and man, or they cannot com∣mune together—there must be a cordial union. We must love the same objects which God loves, and hate that which he hates.

You suppose,

the same kind of agreement is essential to our walking together?

Now, Sir, if this cordial affection and union can fully exist, and we disagree in one divine institution, why can it not, and we disagree in another? Why is it thought more essential to our Christian fellow∣ship and union to be agreed in the ordinance of the supper, than in the ordinance of baptism? Or are there any reasons for exalting the former so much above the latter? If agreement in sen∣timent

be unnecessary to our Christian fellow∣ship, then it can be of no consequence for us to be agreed in the ordinance of the supper. For according to this argument, two persons or churches may enjoy mutual communion to∣gether, although one of them should partake of the bread and wine, and the other sit by at the same time and not partake.

Upon the whole, I see nothing to forbid this conclusion, That we do commune with the Paedo-baptists in the same sense which God does. We may not indeed in the same degree, as we have not the same degree of knowledge, with re∣spect to their conformity to his moral image, or positive requirements; but so far as we see them bearing the image of truth, so far we love and esteem them.

But, Sir, do you conceive that God communes with you in a higher, or different sense, in the ordinance of the supper, than what he does in the ordinance of baptism? If not, why may you not draw an argument equally forcible from that, to urge us to a compliance with your mode of baptism? I am willing to own, that I am enthusiastic enough to believe, that God as re∣ally manifests his all-approving presence with us in the ordinance of baptism, as in that of the sup∣per. But, should we from hence urge the pro∣priety of your adopting our mode of baptism, without producing any other proof in support of it, would you think the argument conclusive? Most certainly you would not.

You have taken it for granted, that God com∣munes with the Paedo-baptists, and that his ex∣ample

is worthy of imitation. But have we not as much reason to believe, that the baptism of Christ by an immersion in Jordan, was designed as an example for believers through every age, as that his communing with your denomination is de∣signed as an example for us to imitate? But, the sacrilegious practice of imitating Jesus Christ in his baptism, has been loudly exploded, b•• ••he united efforts of two learned gentlemen,* 1.92 in a publication with this extraordinary title, "The Baptism of Jesus Christ, not to be imitated by Chris∣tians." A person cannot reflect upon this title a moment, without concluding, that some Paedo-baptists cautiously endeavour not to imitate the baptism of Jesus Christ! We can hardly forbear asking, Who do they mean to imitate? Surely not John; for they say he was under the law. Not Christ, because he was baptized before his death. Not Philip, and the eunuch, for they went down both INTO THE WATER. Not the primitive church; for we are authorized, upon the restimony of Paedo-baptists themselves, to say, that immersion was the universal practice (ex∣cept in particular cases) for nearly thirteen hun∣dred years after the Christian aera.

We cheerfully acknowledge that this is not the case with us; for we do really endeavour to imitate the baptism of Christ; nor did we ever yet feel conscious of reproof, for the presumptuous act! It is an argument of no small weight in the minds of many, that our baptism is an imi∣tation of HIS, who has taught us to take up our cross and FOLLOW HIM. Were it necessary to

invite you to follow an example so evidently de∣signed for unitation, I might address you in the spontaneous language of a text pressed into your service; Be ye followers of God, as dear ••hildren.

Should you think the question not fully an∣swered by what has been already observed, and still inquire,

If God communes with the Paedo∣baptists, why should you be unwilling to follow his example?

—I would wish to ask, Whether you would think it duty for us to be followers of God, otherwise than according to the rules laid down in his word? You will permit me to re∣mind you, that you have acknowledged, that those rules require baptism antecedent to com∣munion. This is evidently your meaning when you say,

I do not deny that baptism was prior to coming to the Lord's table in the apostolic practice. I suppose it was.

I suppose so too, Sir; and would beg to know, whether there has been any different rule of practice established since? If so, by whom was it done, and by what authority? If the system of inspiration was closed by the Apostles, then undoubtedly the practice of the church, as recorded by them, is a proper rule for us. To this you seem to assent (though with a degree of caution) when you say,

I also suppose their example to be worthy of imitation in like circumstances.

As if some circumstances might take place, which might make it necessary to alter the mode or order of divine institutions. But, Sir, if institutions are divine, it is not in the power of circumstances, however combined, or any thing else short of the power which made them, to alter either their

mode or order. Some circumstances may render it necessary to omit, but never to alter an insti∣tution. The moment we alter an institution, we destroy its authority. It can no longer claim the high privilege of a divine origin; but must be looked upon as the base-born offspring of hu∣man invention.

That there can be circumstances in our pre∣sent situation which may render it necessary, or even justifiable, to depart from the apostolic prac∣tice, I cannot conceive. Yet here we are not so happy as to be agreed in opinion; for you say—

I am not certain that there can be no circum∣stances in which it might be lawful to admit to the Lord's supper prior to baptism.

Especially if the mode of baptism be immersion.

For a real Christian may for many years be subjected to such bodily disorders, that it would be pre∣sumption rather than duty, to be plunged all under water; and yet at certain times he might be able to attend the ordinance of the Lord's supper. And must he be debarred this privi∣lege, or forbidden this duty, merely because he is unable to be immersed? * 1.93

It appears to me, Sir, that you draw conclu∣sions without premises. For you suppose we de∣bar a person from a privilege in one instance, be∣cause he is unable to do his duty in another. I suppose you are mistaken in both. For first, I do not believe that God requires any duty of his creatures, which his holy providence has ren∣dered them unable to perform: which is the supposed case with regard to baptism. Nor sec∣ondly,

do I believe that it is the duty or privilege of any person to attend one sacred ordinance, while God in his providence prevents his attend∣ing another, which has a prior claim on his obe∣dience; and while the latter, by

apostolic prac∣tice,

is a necessary qualification for the former. This idea you have fully illustrated in your next page, where you observe; that

Many things which are ordinarily incumbent duties, are not so in all circumstances.

This observation appears perfectly just, and the very circumstance you have mentioned of the person's being unbaptized, ren∣ders it inconsistent with duty for him to partake of the Lord's supper.

For I can as easily conceive of its being a per∣son's duty or privilege to go to meeting, while by the providence of God he is confined at home; as to believe that it is his duty to go to the com∣munion-table, while by the same providence he is unable to attend the previous qualifications which the institution requires.

Allowing immersion to be essential to gospel baptism, and a person to become a real Christian when but nine years old, and the state of his health such as would render it unsuitable for him to be baptized, should he live to be nine hundred and sixty-nine, I should never suppose it to be his du∣ty to communicate while in that situation; nor can I suppose any well enlightened Christian would ever desire it.

But, should it even be supposed, that the or∣der of the institutions might be dispensed with in particular case••, so far as to admit to communion pious persons, whose bodily infirmities would not

allow of their being baptized—What then? Shall we from hence argue to a general practice, and admit unbaptized persons to communion who have no such infirmities to plead? If this be not the case, your argument loses the whole of its force; unless your communicants are all in∣valids!

The inconclusiveness of this argument will more fully appear, by attending to the observa∣tions you have brought to illustrate it by. The first is, the instance of David's taking the shew bread. You observe,

He was hungry, and had need of it for the sustenance and preservation of life;

but will you from hence conclude, that it was lawful for David, or any other person in ordinary cases, to have taken the hallowed bread, when there was no such necessity? If this be not the case, it will not help your cause; for the matter in dispute is not a case of necessity, but of suppos∣ed conveniency; and which, in order to its being practised, must be lawful in ordinary cases. Your other observation respecting a person's being nec∣essarily detained from the house of God, is much of the same tenor: for granting that a person's infirmities may excuse him from the duty of at∣tending public worship, shall we hence infer that this is any excuse for others, or even for the same person when well? Surely we shall not.

You suppose when David violated a positive precept, he did it to preserve his life, and that in this sense he conducted himself agreeably to the moral law. Now, Sir, when it can be made to ap∣pear, that a person's life, or eternal salvation, de∣pend on communicating at the Lord's table, I

cannot say but in such a case, it may be lawful to go contrary to positive institutions; to depart from apostolic practice; and plunge ourselves into almost every inconsistency, rather than a weak brother should perish for whom Christ died.

Your observations in favour of giving the com∣munion to the sick who are not institutionally qualified to receive it, lead us to compare it with the ancient custom of baptizing the clinics.

A learned historian observes, "At first all times were alike, and persons were baptized as op∣portunity and occasion served, but it was after restrained to two solemn and stated times of the year, viz. Easter and Whitsuntide." These in∣cluded the fifty days between: "Yet if there was a necessity, (as in case of sickness and danger of death) they might be baptized at any other time."* 1.94 And notwithstanding they allowed im∣mersion to be the proper mode, yet, in case of danger of death, they would sprinkle persons as they lay in their beds. It is evident they over∣rated the institution; and your notion of giving the communion to the sick who are unable to be baptized, has a little of the same appearance.

I do not find that these ancient Christians plead apostolic authority for this practice, nor did they allow of this mode of baptism in ordinary cases.

But why should it be thought necessary for a real Christian to receive the communion, so long as his bodily infirmities forbid his being regularly baptized? It cannot be thought necessary to his eternal salvation; for if a Christian, that is alrea∣dy secured: nor that the gospel rule requires it;

for that enjoins, that all things be done decently and in order: nor yet the glory of God, for that nev∣er requires submission to any positive law, but of those who are capable of the positive pre-requisites to obey it. Hence I conclude, that every unbap∣tized Christian, whose infirmities may be such, as to render it unsuitable for him to be baptized and join the visible church, ought submissively to wait, until God in his providence opens a door for him in a regular manner to approach his holy ta∣ble; and not to act foolishly like Saul, who grew impatient in waiting for Samuel, and forced him∣self and offered a burnt-offering.* 1.95

I have endeavoured thus far to trace your ar∣gument, and have not yet found sufficient reason to depart from the apostolic practice, but as we are so happy as to be agreed in this point, that baptism according to their practice was prior to coming to the Lord's table, on this ground we will bring the matter to trial. Now, Sir, I would wish to ask, How we can consistently communi∣cate with you. If we communicate with you as baptized persons, we practically give up our prin∣ciples; if we communicate with you as unbap∣tized, then we unwarrantably depart from the apostolic practice. You cannot be insensible, my dear Sir, that this is the very pith of the contro∣versy; and that one or the other of the above difficulties will inevitably fall to our share, in case we establish communion with you.

It is a fact generally known, and which we do not wish to conceal, that we cannot acknowledge Infant-sprinkling to be gospel baptism. Could this

be allowed, the dispute would be at an end; and our sentiments at an end with it. For if the in∣stitution requires no more than sprinkling, then plunging must be forever unnecessary; and be∣sides, we shall be justly chargeable with re-bap∣tizing, a practice we condemn as much as you do. But you seem to be willing that we should be Baptists, and yet blame us for not communica∣ting with other denominations. But, why do you not lay the axe to the root of the tree, and blame us for being Baptists, and not blame us for being consistent?

I doubt not but every unprejudiced mind will readily perceive, that the matter comes to this point with us, that in order to communicate with you we must either give up what you and we agree was the apostolic practice, or our senti∣ments as Baptists. One or the other of these will be a rational inference from our conduct.

From what has now been observed, it will be easy to perceive the different situations we stand in to each other. When persons join your churches, who have been baptized by us, I have never heard of your baptizing them again. On the other hand, we always baptize those who come from your churches to us, unless they have been immersed upon a profession of faith. But is this difference of conduct to be attributed to catholicism in you, or the want of it in us? By no means. The truth is this, immersion includes sprinkling; but sprinkling does not include im∣mersion: therefore the person who is immersed, is in your view lawfully baptized; whilst he who is only sprinkled is not so in ours. It hence

follow, that, consistently with your sentiments and view of the 'apostolic practice,' you may in∣vite us to communicate in your churches; while we, having the same views, cannot invite you.

It is hoped that the preceding observations will fully satisfy our Paedo-baptist brethren, that our reasons for not communicating with them, do not arise from the want of brotherly affec∣tion towards them; but from a conscientious regard to what we understand to be the order of the gospel.

So long as we allow the gospel to contain a complete system of faith and practice, we must endeavour to follow the rules there given, rather than imitate other supposed parts of the divine conduct.

But should we even carry the matter as high as you have supposed; that Christ should per∣sonally come to one of your communions, and actually partake with you; and should address you as his friends, and bid you eat and drink: I am not certain that his conduct in so doing would call for our imitation, so long as the estab∣lished laws of his kingdom remain as they now are.

When Christ first commissioned his disciples, and sent them forth to preach the gospel, heal the sick, &c.—he commanded them saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.* 1.96 Nevertheless, he him∣self went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and there healed the daughter of the Syrophenician woman, who was a Gentile.† 1.97 He also passed

through Sama••ia, conversed with the woman at the well, where he made known himself to her as the Messiah. And afterwards, at the request of the people, he tarried two days; in which time many more believed on him.* 1.98 Hence we see, that Christ did those things which his disciples were not authorized to do. Therefore I conclude we are to follow the particular rules laid down by Christ in his word, rather than any supposed ap∣pearances or manifestations he may make to his people in any way whatever. If this be not the case, we are likely to ramble in eternal uncertain∣ty! But, blessed be God, we have a more sure word of prophecy, to which we do well to take heed.

It may be proper here to take notice of the consequences you have drawn, from the suppo∣sition of our proving, that a conformity to our mode of baptism is an essential term of commu∣nion. You say,

Should this be made to ap∣pear, it will then also appear, that all the Pae∣do-baptists, who have thought, they enjoyed communion with God at his table, have been most miserably deluded.

If so, the consequence is dreadful indeed! Enough to shock the tender feelings of every pious Paedo-baptist, and lay an effectual bar in the way of their admitting the evidence of a truth so disgusting, though shining with the greatest clearness. You also conclude, that if baptism in our mode be an essential qual∣ification;

then the Paedo-baptists are essen∣tially wrong and wicked in coming to the table;

and their conduct an abomination in the sight of God.† 1.99 My dear Sir, are you so intoxicated

with sentiment as to forget your own system? No farther back than page 20, you have said,

I deny that there can be any moral evil in con∣duct which proceeds from godly sincerity; yet I grant there may be natural evil, or incongrui∣ty, through inadvertency or misapprehension.

Is it possible that 'natural evil' or 'incongruity,' should account for all the frightful things now mentioned, such as 'miserable delusion,' 'wicked' conduct, even such as is

abomination in the sight of God?

If not, your argument fails in one or the other: either your conduct must be charge∣able with moral evil, or your consequences can∣not be just.

In your next page you go on to say,

Grant∣ing that immersion be the appointed mode of baptism, and believers the only proper subjects, yet if a Paedo-baptist really think otherwise, and with an obedient heart offer up his children in our mode, his conduct is not chargeable with any moral evil. All the evil which is to be im∣puted to his conduct, is of the natural kind.— And the person in so doing, is as well accepted in the sight of God, as if his external conduct had been according to the appointed mode of baptism.

It is peculiar indeed, that with re∣gard to the institution of baptism, you should conclude, that if you honestly mistake both the subjects and mode, and practise in a way entirely different, it by no means hinders the divine ap∣probation and acceptance. But with regard to the ordinance of the supper, if it should be prov∣ed that you had as honestly made a mistake with regard to a previous duty, and have thought that

you enjoyed communion with God at his table, the consequence must b••, that you have all been miserably deluded!

According to the above argument, all that is necessary to render baptism acceptable, is only to 'really think' you are right: hence by a parity of reasoning, if you are not accepted of God in the ordmance of the supper, we must suppose you do not 'really think' you are right when you come to the table. But are you not as sincere in com∣ing to the Lord's table, as in offering up your chil∣dren? If you are not, I shall join with you, that your conduct is an abomination to the Lord. But, allowing you to be sincere, and to really think you are right, and we must suppose that you have as much reason to think you have been

miserably deluded

in the former, as in the latter.

Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured carefully to at∣tend to the argumentative part of your Friendly Letter, and have attempted to answer those ar∣guments on which I supposed you laid the great∣est stress; either in a direct way, or by showing the invalidity of the evidence by which they were supported. And however an impartial public may judge, I have the satisfaction to think, that in the preceding sheets the following particulars have been fairly established, by evidence from scripture, reason, and the concurring testimony of many eminent Paedo-baptist writers.

• 1. That visible, or professing believers, are the only proper subjects of baptism, known and described in the word of God.
• 2. That an entire immersion in water, is necessary to the due administration of the ordinance.
• 3. That by apostolic practice,

• which is a standing law to the church of Christ, baptism was, and therefore still is, prior to coming to the Lord's table.

Hence it follows, by

neces∣sary consequence,

that a conformity to our mode of baptism (if that has been proved to be the gos∣pel mode) is to the considered as a necessary pre∣requisite or (if it suits you better) term of commu∣nion at the Lord's table, so long as we think it important to follow the 'apostolic practice.' We do not mean by this to dictate to our brethren of other denominations with regard to their terms of communion; but only show the general prin∣ciples on which we proceed among ourselves.

SECTION IX. Observations on the Plan of Communion proposed in the 'Friendly Letter,' with Remarks on several other Things connected with the Subject.

SIR, your professed design in writing, has too much of the appearance of friendship, to be passed over unnoticed. But whether if your plan were adopted, it would produce the desired effect, is a matter of serious inquiry.

To promote the peace and prosperity of Zion, by opening a door for free communion between the Baptists and Paedo-baptists,

is your profes∣sed object. And notwithstanding I have appear∣ed upon the other side of the question, I persuade myself, that no person would be happier in see∣ing our objections fairly removed, and a consist∣ent way pointed out for a mutual interchange of

communions. But if it must be done at the ex∣pense of our sentiments as Baptists, you will not think us unreasonable in requiring ample proof that we are wrong, before we do it.

The particular boundaries of your plan are ex∣pressed in the following words.

It is not my de∣sign, nor my desire, to have a door opened for free communion among all who prosess religion on either side; but only with regard to those whose visible conduct is evidential of real piety.

It is a little difficult here to understand your mean∣ing. If you mean to establish communion with some churches which you may consider as ortho∣dox in doctrine, and regular indiscipline, while you reject others, your plan may be practicable. But as the terms or qualifications you propose, may be the lot of individuals rather than churches, it appears to be attended with some difficulty. For it is reasonable to suppose that in every Christian, community there may be some sound,

whose vis∣ible conduct is evidential of real piety.

With those it seems you would wish to communciate, while with the church as a body you could by no means hold fellowship.

In order to reduce the idea to practice, we will suppose ten members of a Baptist church in your vicinity, attend at one of your communion sea∣sons, with a desire to enjoy privileges with you; but when the church is called upon to act upon their request, they inform those brethren that with five of them they are fully satisfied, and bid them a cordial welcome to a seat in their communion; but to the others they observe, they have not obtained the evidence of their

real pie∣ty;

and therefore must conscientiously refuse to partake with them. It is natural to suppose that the feelings of these brethren would be wounded upon such an occasion; some on their own account, and some on account of others. And the church to which they belong might con∣sider themselves injured; and it is likely the effect would be contention, rather than peace. Diffi∣culties similar to the above are fairly supposeable.

If you please, Sir, we will now suppose a dif∣ferent case. It so happens, that several of your brethren remove into the neighbourhood of a Baptist church, and from their situation are de∣sirous of enjoying privileges with them. The Baptists, enlightened by your sentiments, are equally desirous of indulging them; and although these brethren have not received baptism in the way which the church understand the institution, yet as they appear to be sincere, which

is the very, SOUL and ESSENCE of conformity to Christ,

the church cordially grant their request. For a season they enjoy privileges together, and no particular difficulty arises; but at length one of those communicants becomes diffatisfied with respect to his Infant-baptism; and in the exer∣cise of godly sincerity is led to believe, that it is his indispensable duty to be immersed. But while waiting a convenient opportunity for that purpose, a communion season intervenes; it now becomes a serious question, both with him and the church, whether it be duty for him to com∣municate in his present situation? As the church adopted this new mode of communion in con∣formity to your system; they think proper to re∣cur

to it, in order to decide the present doubtful case. They first consult the terms on which you propose free communion; these they find to be 'real piety' or 'godly sincerity.' That the man was a subject of these qualifications when they first admitted him, they have no doubt; and they are equally satisfied of his sincerity and piety with his present views; and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 first are inclined to think it may be his duty to communicate. But there is one difficulty still which seems to embar∣rass their proceeding; that is, if they understand you right, (p. 9) it is not a question with you,

Whether baptism in some mode be an essential qualification.

And although the person once sin∣cerely believed himself to be baptized, he now as sincerely believes he is not; and

as a man think∣eth in his heart so is he.

For the scripture being 'silent respecting his Infant-baptism,' the only thing which gave it validity, either with himself or the church, was his sincerity; but that failing in this particular, this must consequently fail with it; and he can no longer be considered as baptized, than while he sincerely believes himself to be so. He is now, in his own view, and in the view of the church, unbaptized. And I cannot see but that he must appear in the same light to you, upon your own scale of reasoning. But, however, he is unquestionably possessed of real piety and godly sincerity, which are your distinguishing terms of communion; and yet, as he is in his own opinion unbaptized, he lacks an 'essential qualification.' It follows, that by your system he is both quali∣fied, and unqualified, at the same time.

Besides, the Baptist church would not appear

in the most consident light, to baptize a person with whom they had probably communed several years; and yet the man cannot act consistently with godly sincerity without it. Upon the whole, I am in••li••ed to think, when you review your plan in its operation, you will conclude some amendment are necessary.

In connexion with your design, you have an∣other observation, upon which I shall make one or two remarks. You say,

I shall neglect to pay any partic••lar attention to the subject of In∣fant-baptism; not because that I think our side fails of scripture evidence, but because many abler hands have been employed on the subject, and because I think it to be needless with respect to the subject of close communion,

This ob∣servation appears a little extraordinary, and that for two reasons.

• 1. That you should suggest that the scripture affords ample proof in favour of your sentiments; and yet in another part of your Let∣ter, (p 35) if I am not much mistaken, you make this honest concession, That the scripture as to In∣fant-baptism is SILENT. Strange indeed! Full of evidence, and yet silent! entirely silent! We cheerfully yield you the unmolested enjoyment of all the evidence which Infant-baptism can derive from the silence of scripture respecting it.* 1.100
• 2. That you should suppose that Infant-baptism is not

• connected with the subject in dispute. I suppose, Sir, that it is particularly connected; for it is en∣tirely upon the supposition of its validity, that you claim a right to communicate with us. There∣fore, had you brought forward that testimony from scripture which you inform us your

  side does not fail of,

  and had proved by e••ample or precept (I mean not by silent evidence, however) that Infant-baptism was of divine appointment, this would have ended the whole dispute.* 1.101 You cannot be insensible that this objection has always been made on our part, and to me it appears ra∣tional and important. I endeavoured carefully to state it in my other Piece, and as yours is said to contain an answer to it, I did not expect it in this way, that

  you should neglect to say any thing about it.

It may be proper in the next place to attend to the manner in which you answer a case proposed in my other Piece. The case was plain, and I humbly conceive quite to the point in hand. The substance of the question was this; Had Enoch, Noah, or Melchizedeck, been contemporary with Moses, would he have permitted them to com∣munion in the paschal supper while uncircum∣cised? Or had Noah been present when the tab∣ernacle was erected, and had been disposed to have given the people a sermon, upon the incarnation of the Son of God, and the righteousness of faith, of which that sacred structure was typical would not Moses and the people have cheerfully heard

him? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yet the positive law of Jehovah would ha•••• forbidden his partaking at the paschal feast.

To this you answer,

We shall not dispute but that Moses would have admitted those ambassa∣dors to preach; being convinced of their divine commission. Nor would he have forbidden their partaking of the paschal feast, had they been circumcised, whether it were done in in∣fancy or adult age, before or after believing, with a knife, a razor, a scythe, a sickle, or even a sharp stone.

Sir, did you think this would be considered as an answer? It certainly will not. Instead of look∣ing the argument fairly in the face, you have en∣deavoured quite to evade it.

You agree that Moses would have admitted those ambassadors to preach. The question then was, whether he would have received them to the paschal feast, while uncircumcised? Instead of a direct answer, you reply,

Nor would he have forbidden their partaking of the paschal feast had they been circumcised.

True, Sir; nor will your victory cost you any thing; for this point was never disputed. You proceed to remark several circumstances respecting circumcision; but take particular care not to mention any which would affect the validity of the rite. Nor are the cases parallel between the circumstances mentioned, and that of Infant-baptism. This will sufficiently appear by what follows: as

• 1.

  Whether it were done in infancy or adult age,

  no matter which; for infants of eight days old were expressly men∣tioned in the institution, and they were command∣ed on that day to circumcise them; and repeated

• examples from scripture prove that it was done. Let the right of infants to baptism be as fairly made out, and the point will be given up.
• 2. Whether 'before or after believing;' this was entirely immaterial. For the command was, And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed—must needs be circumcised.* 1.102 It hence follows, that believing was not required in the subjects for circumcision, nor yet that the par∣ents should be believers; for the child of an idol∣atrous heathen, bought for a slave, had as fair a claim to that institution, as any of the believing sons of Abraham. This cannot be said of the gospel institution; for when one said, See here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? The reply was, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.† 1.103 And although some believing par∣ents claim the privilege of baptism for their chil∣dren, I do not remember to have heard that any ever did for their servants. Nor does the benev∣olent doctrine of Infant-baptism make any provi∣sion for the ill-fated infant, whose parents are both unbelievers.
• 3. Whether circumcision were per∣formed

  with a knife, a razor, a scythe, a sickle, or even a sharp stone,

  we acknowledge it equally valid, providing the rite was performed. So like∣wise should we look upon baptism to be valid, if performed in Jordan, in the Tiber, in a pond, in a po••••, in a cistern, in a font, or in any other place, where water could conveniently be had sufficient to immerse in.

But if you please, Sir, we will vary th•• circum∣stances a little. If instead of performing the rite upon the part appointed, a person had opened a vein in his e••m, cut off the end of his toe, his thumb, or the tip of his right ear: had either of these been performed with all the sole ••••••ties of the other rite, it cannot be supposed that it would have been ac∣cepted for circumcision. And yet, perhaps, the dissimilarity is not greater between either of the supposed cases and the commanded rite, than between sprinkling and immersion.

We will now take notice of what you observe (p. 31.) You say,

It has been difficult for us to see the consistency of your conduct, in refus∣ing to commune at the Lord's table with our denomination; while at the same time, you prac∣tically acknowledge our Ministers to be autho∣rized and qualified to preach the gospel.

That we are perfectly free from inconsistency will not be pretended; nor do we think that a compliance with your mode of communion, would free us from the charge. Perhaps with our present dif∣ferent views, we cannot act more consistently than to follow the advice given by the Apostle; "Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing."* 1.104 We have attained to an agreement in praying to the same God and Father of all; and also in preaching the gospel of his Son Jesus Christ. But we have not attained to an agreement with respect to the subjects and mode of baptism; nor in the visible qualifications of communicants for the Lord's table. How can two walk together ex∣cept

they be agreed? But must we be charged with inconsistency, for not disagreeing in the things we are agreed in, or merely because we are agreed in some things, and not in all? If so, we must patiently submit to the charge, until the happy time comes when we shall see eye to eye.

Although we do not think of clearing ourselves of inconsistency, by charging your conduct with the same; yet it may not be improper here to inquire, whether your conduct towards us in some instances, be quite consistent with your professions of friendship in establishing free communion with with us? If you consider us as a branch of Christ's church, with whom you would be willing to en∣joy Christian communion, why do you refuse to dismiss and recommend your members to us, when they are in good standing in your churches, and wish to join ours? I conclude, Sir, you are sensible that this privilege has been generally de∣nied, and this reason has been often assigned for the denial: That to dismiss a member to a Bap∣tist church, would be to acknowledge it a church of Christ. But would you be willing to commu∣nicate with any who do not belong to his church? You certainly would not.

Permit me, Sir, to mention one thing more. Why are your pulpits so frequently denied to the Ministers of our denomination? Is it because they are heterodox in doctrine, or vicious in their conduct? They are not charged with either. Is it because they may want literary accomplish∣ments? This might be imagined, were it not that those who possess them are often denied as well as others. Is it because we do not communicate

with you at the table? If you complain of our being uncharitable in this, remember you are not to render evil for evil; but contrariwise* 1.105

These objections are not to be taken indiscrim∣inately; no, many of our Paedo-baptist brethren meet us upon the most friendly terms; recipro∣cal love and esteem mingle in our society; and although we pretend not to have dominion over each others faith, yet we become helpers of one anothers joy.† 1.106

SECTION X. Several Objections particularly answered.—The Subject concluded.

SIR, I cannot do justice to myself and the denomination to which I belong, without tak∣ing notice of several charges which you have brought against us. In the first place, you have charged me with 'quoting scripture' in a method 'calculated to mislead the ignorant and inatten∣tive;' of 'arrogancy and uncharitableness;' and of

having done great injury to the Apostle Paul.

(Page 17, 35, 38.)

The first instance of which you complain, is in the following words, "Sincerity is not the term

of communion; but being conformed to the A∣postles' doctrine, and continuing stedfastly there∣in. Acts ii. 42." Upon which you thus observe;

From the manner of your citing, or rather al∣luding, to this text, it would be natural to ex∣pect that upon examination we should find the inspired writer describing the terms of commu∣nion.

I conclude, Sir, upon examination this does abundantly appear. Nor am I convinced, that the passage is not pertinent to the purpose for which it was cited; and if it does not describe the terms of communion, I know not of any one which does.

But (you say) instead of this, we find him simply relating the conduct of some young converts, who had been already admitted to communion.

But, Sir, are you not mista∣ken? He is here describing the very manner in which these converts were admitted; and which fully shows the 'apostolic practice.'

But what is the account given of their proceed∣ings? You answer,

Let us read the 41st and 42d verses in connexion.

Then they who gladly received the word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in pray∣ers. And were they not baptized until they receiv∣ed the word? No, they were not; and were they baptized and no others? The scripture is totally '••lent' as to any others. Nor did they join the body of believers or church, until they received the word, and were baptized. You say,

They had already been admitted to communion.

I

would beg to know, where you find any account of their having been admitted before this?

You farther observe,

That any person of good discernment may see, that in this text there is no appearance of design to ascertain the terms of communion.

Let the design be what it may, here is evidently ascertained the apostolic prac∣tice; and the exact manner, step by step, in which they proceeded to communion.

The passage of scripture which you introduce, as being so very apposite to your mode of commu∣nion, and on which you lay much stress, is this; 'Be ye followers of God as dear children.' The 'discerning reader' will now judge, whether in this passage there is any greater

appearance of design, to ascertain the terms of communion,

than in the one which I alluded to. But, how∣ever, "If to be conformed to the Apostles' doc∣trine, and continuing stedfastly in it," be a dan∣gerous practice, and

calculated to mislead the ignorant and inattentive,

we should be glad to see the danger pointed out, and a better system of doctrine proposed for imitation.

In my other Piece, in answering several pleas in favour of free communion, I observed that it had been urged, "That the scripture account of bap∣tism, was left in so much darkness and ambiguity, both as to the subjects and mode, that nothing certain could be determined." In remarking up∣on which I made the following observation; "It may be remembered that when the talents were committed to the servants to occupy, the two who improved made no complaints; the other had a hard master, an austere man, and a great many

difficulties stood in the way of duty." After mak∣ing your sarcastical paraphrase upon my observa∣tion, you bring forward your charge of

arrogancy and uncharitableness;

to which it may be re∣plied—The observation was designed entirely for those who make the above plea; and no one will feel himself injured by the application, if he be not the character described. And however

arro∣gant and uncharitable

it may appear, thus to blame the conduct of those who bring forward the plea, so long as they are considered only as servants; it cannot be thought more so, than the plea itself, against Christ our royal Master.

To plead the want of sufficient light in the scrip∣tures, as the reason of our wrong sentiments, is indeed to impeach Christ. "To suppose this, (saith Dr. Hopkins) is a reproach on divine rev∣elation, and the Author of it, andian implicit de∣nial that it comes from God."* 1.107

But lastly, you accuse me of having

done great injury to the Apostle Paul.

If it be so I shall be sorry indeed. But what have I done to the Apos∣tle? Why you say,

You have quoted his words without any appearance of regard to the con∣nexion.

And what then? Is this injuring the Apostle? Are we never to use the words of the inspired writers in any other sense than what they did? Do not the best writers frequently quote scripture (by way of accommodation, or for the sake of the phrase) without attending strictly to the connexion? In short, have you not frequent∣ly done it yourself? One or two of your quota∣tions will determine the matter.

As a man think∣eth

in his heart so is he.

Did you attend to the connexion here, and use the words in the same sense which the royal preacher did? It is evident you did not. Again, when you would fix the charge of inconsistency upon us, for refusing to communicate with those with whom you suppose Christ communes, you can introduce the Apostle Paul as exhorting the Baptists,

to be followers of God as dear children.

I shall not say that you have 'greatly injured the Apostle;' but I hardly think that in the passage above, he had reference to our communicating with you at the Lord's table.

Th•• passage which I quoted was the following; "Now we command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw youselves from ev∣ery brother who walketh disorderly, and not af∣ter the tradition which he received of us."* 1.108 In applying this to my brethren, I observed, "〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be your duty to withdraw from them whom you consider as not conformed to the tradition of the Apostles, so far, as not to partake together at the Lord's table." No candid mind can be at a loss, as to the exact sense in which I used the Apostle's words; nor can they think that I used the word tradition, absolutely in the same sense which he did. His words are quite in the impe∣rative, mine in the mild subjunctive mood.

You have been, pleased to style St. Paul an

em∣inent peace-maker;

and have collected many passages of scripture to prove, that to this end

he was made all things to all men,

(not for the sake of communicating with them, but)

that he might by all means SAVE some.

But shall we, from the

condescending light in which you have represent∣ed the Apostle, conclude, that if he were among the Baptists, he would become a Baptist; and fully approve of their mode of baptism, and of their de∣nying the right of infants, while at the same time he might know, that the institution did not re∣quire the former, and that it expressly enjoined the latter. Or on the other hand, if he were a∣mong the Paedo-baptists, shall we suppose him one with them; and that he would cordially approve of their mode of baptizing infants, when at the same time he might know, that neither subjects nor mode, were according to the institution. Would sober reason venerate such a character as this? No. It would look upon him as an un∣principled time-server.

To suppose that St. Paul would conform to ev∣ery party which he might occasionally be among, would be to make him resemble that peculiar an∣imal, which partakes of the colour of every sub∣stance which it happens to be upon! I confess, I form no such opinion of this great Apostle's ca∣tholicism; but conclude, were he among us, he would say to those in the right, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." But to those in the wrong, "Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not."* 1.109

But we pass on,

Secondly, To consider the charges which you exhibit against our sentiments. In your viith. part you proceed to show, what appears to you to be the natural tendency of our sentiments and

practice; and finally conclude, that they

tend to break up all churches, and to destroy all vis∣ible communion among Christians. * 1.110

If this be the case, no wonder you are alarmed. But, Sir, you are mistaken. The churches of our denom∣ination in America, contain upwards of sixty thou∣sand members, which hold visible communion to∣gether: nor did I ever know, that any attempt had been made on our part, to destroy the visible communion of Christians in general. And ce∣tainly, were our sentiments universally to operate, they would unite in one great body all Christians to the ends of the earth.

But you object again and say,

Your senti∣ment and practice tend to lead people to place the essence of religion in the external observance of ceremonial institutions, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law.

This, Sir, is not true. For our sentiments carry the fullest demonstration to the contrary. It is a fact universally known, that no person can be ad∣mitted as a member in a Baptist church, let his externals be what they may, without sufficient ev∣idence that he has experienced a change of heart, and has become a real Christian. We do not baptize persons to màke them Christians, but be∣cause we look upon them to be such already. And it is well known, that a person cannot be accepted with us, on account of lineal descent

from Abraham, or any other believer; nor by virtue of a pretended federal holiness; nor can they make a profession by proxy or sponsors; but by their own voluntary act. We never baptize persons out of our ordinary way, who are in dan∣ger of death; nor do we ever give the commu∣nion to any who are unbaptized. How then can you possibly say, with any appearance of modesty or justice, that our

sentiments tend to lead peo∣ple to place the essence of religion, in the exter∣nal observance of ceremonial institutions.

You follow this charge with a number of un∣generous reflections, upon the Ministers of our denomination. To make this appear, I would only ask; Were I to charge your Ministers with

taking up much of their time in public and in private, disputing about

Infant-baptism; and should have the vanity to say, they had better

inculcate upon their hearers the nature and im∣portance of universal benevolence, the duties of brotherly love, justice, mercy, and compassion; to live useful lives, serving their generation by the will of God;

(as if these were almost, if not entirely neglected; and should assure them, that if they would take my advice)

they would do much more good in the world, appear much less like the Scribes and Pharisees,

which they now resemble,

and much more like CHRIST and his APOSTLES,

which we so exactly imitate. Would you not think me justly chargeable with 'arrogancy and uncharitableness?' I leave the mat∣ter to your own feelings. A word to the wise is sufficient.

Another thing you charge us with, is, that we lay an 'undue stress' upon the ordinance of bap∣tism, or at least upon our particular mode. This comes rather with an ill grace, from one of a de∣nomination, which evidently make as much, if not more of the ordinance than we do.

But we will not rest the matter here, without a fair examination. D••••••e insist on baptism in any mode, as essential to salvation? you allow that we do not. Do we place it in the room of re∣deeming blood, and think that by our immersion we wash away our sins? No, you acquit us from this also. Do we look upon it as an in∣stitution of Christ which we are sacredly bound to observe? We do; and so do you. Do we look upon it as an enjoined pre-requisite to com∣munion? We do; and so do Paedo-bapt••••••s in general. But how does it appear then that we lay an 'undue stress' upon it? Why you say; 'I verily fear!'—(quite a conclusive way of arguing; but go on)

I verily fear, that with many, a ••••ange in sentiment in favour of your opinions has been allowed great weight as an ev∣idence of a real change of heart.

I wish, Sir, you had proved the matter, instead of suggesting your fears, But you add,

It has been frequent∣ly mentioned by those of your denomination, as an evidence of great selfdenial, for a person to be a Baptist, or to be plunged. And when I hear such things, it always excites fears in my mind

—Sir, the mere thoughts of a person's being plunged, seems to have struck you with a hydro∣phobia, and quite agitated your mind!—But let us try calmly to examine the matter.

It will probably be granted, that the time has been, when it required some degree of selfdenial to be a Baptist: When the pen of the historian, and the tongue of the orator, were invidiously em∣ployed, in representing us in the most ridiculous, and whimsical light. While the pulpit thundered, and the press groaned, with heavy charges against the daring innovators. At the same time, the civil law added its mild discipline of ejection, ban∣ishment, and pros••ription. But thanks be to Heaven, a milder morn has dawned upon us; the cross is lightened, and we have few complaints of this kind to make.

It may be proper now to com••der, what stress has been•• and is, laid upon this ordinance, by Paedo-baptists. It was said by our Saviour, "Ex∣cept a man be born of water, he cannot enter in∣to the kingdom of God." This passage was ve∣ry early expounded literally of water baptism, and the consequence admitted, that no person could be saved without it. Hence all infants dying un∣baptized, inevitably perished.

In the year 416, a council was held at Mela in Numedia, in order to establish a law to com∣pel Christians to baptize their infants. They is∣sued twenty-seven new commandments, among which are the following. "It is the pleasure of all the bishops present in this holy synod to or∣der,

• 1. That whosoever saith Adam was created mortal, and would have died, if he had not sin∣ned: be accursed.
• 2. Also it is the pleasure of the bishops to order, that whosoever denieth that infants newly born of their mothers are to be bap∣tized, or saith that baptism is to be administered

• for the remission of their own sins, but not on ac∣count of original sin derived from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration: be ac∣cursed."* 1.111

In the reign of the emperor Charlemagne, a law was established, making it death for a man to re∣fuse to be baptized; and a heavy fine was levied on the parent, who did not have his child bap∣tized within the year. But as at first they only baptized at two times in the year, it was found that many died between; to remedy which, priests were empowered to baptize at any time, and in any place, in case of sickness. When it was remarked that a priest was not always at hand, new canons empowered him to depute others to perform the ceremony, and midwives were licensed. It hap∣pened sometimes, while the midwife was baptiz∣ing a child not likely to live many minutes, the mother was neglected and died. It was finally decreed, that any body, licensed or unlicensed; a Jew•• or degraded priest, a scullion or felon, might baptize.† 1.112

Let us now attend to an instance of a later date. About the year 1690, there were two dis∣senting Ministers in Wapping. Hercules Collins, who ••aught a Baptist congregation; and Francis Mence, who ••aught a congregation of independ∣ents. Collins published a book of reasons for be∣lievers'

baptism, in which he observed, among other things, that there was no "reason to bap∣tize an infant under pretence of saving it: for that original sin was not washed off by baptismal water, but by the blood of Christ, and the impu∣tation of his righteousness," Me••ce thought it his duty to guard his congregation from this er∣ror, and he both preached and printed, that this was "infant-damning doctrine." "The princi∣ple (he said) evidently excluded dear infants from the kingdom of God, which was an audacious e••••elty; sending them by swarms into hell!" Collins attempted to explain himself, and vindi∣cate his doctrine—but all in vain. The opposi∣tion r••s•• to such a height, that his life was endan∣gered; the streets resounding with the cries of tender anothers, who sarieked as they sold fish, "There goes Collins, who holds the damnation of infants."* 1.113 And all this because he denied the necessity of baptism to their salvation. But the sentiments of the present day, next call for our attention.

The form of service now in use among our brethren of the Episcopal church, leads us to sup∣pose, that they ascribe quite as much efficacy to the ordinance as we do. For they, immediately after baptizing, make the following address: "Seeing, dearly beloved brethren. that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church, let us give thanks to Almighty God for these benefits.—We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to

receive him for thin•• own child by adoption." And when the children are thought capable of cate∣chetical instruction, the catechist thus interro∣gates; "Who gave thee this name? My spon∣sors in my baptism, WHEREIN I WAS MADE a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven."* 1.114 Dr. Hopkins when speaking of the Westminster Catechism, takes notice of this answer; "Baptism is a sacra∣ment, wherein the washing with water, in the name, &c. doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ.—This catechism is received by the church of Scotland, and by all, or most of the presbyte∣rian and congregational churches in England, Ireland, and America; and taught to their chil∣dren." He then adds, "If baptism signifies and seals, what it is here said to do; then infants, when they are baptized, are visibly, or in the view of the church, ingrafted into Christ, and made par∣takers of the blessings of the covenant of grace."† 1.115

Now, Sir, let us just collect these scattered rays of evidence ••o a focus. To conclude that all who die unbaptized eternally "perish;" to "le∣vy heavy fines" to obl••ge parents to baptize their children; to "license even midwives" to bap∣tize rather than it should not be done; to "curse" those who deny the necessity of it to the salvation of infants; to call the denial of it "infant-domn∣ing doctrine;" to thank God that the infant by baptism is "regenerated;" to teach children to believe, that in their baptism they were "made members of Christ, and children of God," and that

baptism doth signify, and "seal their ingrafting into Christ," and that they are thereby made par∣takers of the blessings of the covenant of grace—If, after attending to the evidence here exhibited, the charge against us of laying an "undue stress" upon baptism should be continued; the author of the 'Friendly Letter' is modestly requested to produce proof from the writings of the Baptists to show, that they ascribe any greater efficacy to it, than their Paedo-baptist brethren do.* 1.116

The last thing which I shall remark upon, is a 'query' which you suggest in the following words:

May it not be owing to the manner in which some preachers of your denomina∣tion have treated the subject of baptism; that so many professors of your sect have turn∣ed deists, shakers, universalists, &c.?

Upon this I would briefly observe—It is thought you would have acted more consistent with your title page, and other professions of candor, that if you had known any instances in which the subject had been so treated, to have pointed them out to the imprudent teacher, rather than to have cast the slur, indiscriminately upon the whole denomina∣tion.

But, Sir, we cannot admit the supposed fact to be tr••••. For although it may be difficult to de∣termine the exact number of deists, shakers, and universalists; and what their sentiments have heretofore been; yet we think ourselves under as good advantages to know the state of our churches, as any others can be: for we have an annual correspondence with them from the dis∣trict of Main, to the State of Georgia; and also with our brethren on the other side the Adamtis. Hence we are consident, that if they principally originate from us, their number must be small.

But, should it even be allowed, that a greater number of our denomination had gone over to the above sentiments than from any other, will it hence follow, that it was because they had once been 'plunged all under water?' Do you se∣riously think that one in thirty would acknowl∣edge, that any circumstances connected with their being immened, led them to embrace those sen∣timents? It is doubted whether this would ap∣pear upon examination.

You inform us that you

suggest this query without any design to reproach.

Sir, your de∣sign falls not within our jurisdiction to judge; but the query itself, we are obliged to view, as a groundless, illiberal reflection. If the cause you are engaged in cannot be supported by sober facts, founded on rational evidence, without making use of such feeble auxiliaries as your own

fears, sug∣gestions, and queries,

you will not think it strange if we should not become converts to your senti∣ments. But you continue your suggestion and ask,

Is it not supposeable, that from the manner

in which some have treated the subject of bap∣tism, these apostates were first led to suppose it a great attainment in religion, to be plunged all under water?

This supposition places the whole of these apostates, (as you call them) to our account: and that they were led on to this apos∣tacy, merely, by wrong instructions respecting baptism. But, do you know this certainly to be the case with any one individual? Or with any considerable number of them? If not, your sup∣position must appear in an unfriendly light, and

calculated to mislead the ignorant and inatten∣tive.

You conclude your alarming description, by presenting them to the eye of imagination, as

now sinking in the quick-sands which border on final perdition!

Pandora's fatel box could scarce contain more evils, than you attribute to baptism by immersion! Enlightened reason, however, makes a pause,—and asks, Gan it be so? Hoary experience instantly comes forward and as∣serts, that the fact is known to be otherwife.

O thou condescending Redeemer, is an humble imitation of thy innoceat example, thus charged with leading the fatal way to infidelity, and

final perdition?

Hast thou not commanded us to follow thee? and said, "If ye love me keep my commandments."

Sir, I have now finished my remarks upon your Friendly Letter, and shall only beg leave to add my sincere wishes for your prosperity in the cause of truth; and that you may be honoured as an instrument in bringing many sons to glory. I now cheerfully submit the foregoing observations

to the judgment of a candid public. At the same time humbly imploring the Father of mercies so to overrule the present controversy, that truth may be supported, o••ror detected, and the ordinances restored to their primitive purity. That we may be agreed, not only so as to bold occasional com∣munion together, but according to the Apostle's desire, that we may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, with re∣spect to the MODE and ORDER of gospel institu∣tions; and that we may all speak the same thing. Then indeed, what the prophet saw in vision shall in a gospel sense be accomplished; The envy of Ephraim shall dep••rt, and the adversaries of Judah shall be ent off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.* 1.117 With joy we an∣ticipate the happy day, when in a peculiar sense, The LORD shall be KING over all the earth: in that day there shall be one LORD and his name one!† 1.118 One faith! One baptism!‡ 1.119 His church, one body, and the watchmen, with regard to gospel institu∣tions, shall see eye to eye; and all disputing cease for ever.

While waiting the arrival of that happy period, it shall be my constant prayer,

"If I am right, thy grace impart, Me in the right to stay; If I am wrong, O teach my heart To sind that better way."

THE END.

Notes

• * 1.1

  If I am rightly informed, the Rev. Mr. P.—Pastor of a church in your vicinity, has baptized a number who had been baptized in infancy. The same has been done by the Rev. Mr. B.—of Randolph, in V••••mont. Other instances might be mentioned if necessary.
• * 1.2

  Frothingham's Right to the Lord's Supper, p. 65, 66.
• * 1.3

  Bishop But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Analogy of Religion, p. 172.
• † 1.4

  Discourses on Important Subjects, p. 68.
• * 1.5

  Assembly of Divines▪ Cate••••ism.
• † 1.6

  Clark's Defence of Infant-baptism, p. 2.
• * 1.7

  System of Divinity, Part II. Chap v. p. 305, 306.
• * 1.8

  Dr. Robbins's Reply to Mr. Cotton's I says, p. 6, 7.
• * 1.9

  Reply to Cotton's Essays, p. 21.
• † 1.10

  Vid. Pol. in loc.
• * 1.11

  Ins••••tat. Christ. Relig. Lib. IV. Chap. xv. § 18, 7.
• * 1.12

  Matt. xxi. ••••.
• * 1.13

  It may be observed, that the Jews were thought to have imb••••ed the Pythagorean philosophy, which taught the doctrine of transmigra∣tion; therefore, when they asked John whether he was ••lias, their meaning was this, whether the soul of Elias were not now come in another body? To which John answered no. But ••hrist told his disciples that Elias had already come, not in the Jewish, 〈…〉〈…〉 sense.
• * 1.14

  Gal. ••.11, 17.
• † 1.15

  John i. 23.
• * 1.16

  Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 442.
• * 1.17

  Apud Centur. Migd••••urg. Cent. ii. c. vi. p. 32. in Booth's Paedo. Exam. p. 144.
• † 1.18

  Ib•••• p. 145.
• * 1.19

  Godolphin's Repertorium, in Robinson's History.
• † 1.20

  Ibid. 461.
• * 1.21

  Vide Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 463, 464.
• * 1.22

  A celebrated Jewish writer, who was the head of a famous school in Egypt, in the beginning of the twelfth century.
• † 1.23

  Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Wall, Dr. Lathrop of West-Springfield, and others; but scrupled by the learned Dr. Benson, and positively de∣nied by others.
• * 1.24

  John iii. ••3.
• † 1.25

  Judges iii. 28. vii. 24. xii. 6.
• ‡ 1.26

  2 Sam. xix. 15—18.
• ‖ 1.27

  Clark's Defence of infant Baptism, p. 436.
• ¶ 1.28

  Job. xl. 23.
• * 1.29

  Pol. in loc.
• † 1.30

  De locis Hebraicis, Fol 89.6.
• * 1.31

  Descript. terrae Sanct. c. 9. in Dr. Gill in loc
• † 1.32

  Matt. iii. 6, 16. Mark 1.9.
• * 1.33

  The preposition to might perhaps be better rendered in, as it is Matt. xii. 41. and many other places.
• * 1.34

  Op Debaptismo, in Robinson's Hist. Bap. p. 442.
• * 1.35

  Institut. Christ. Relig. L. iv. C. xv. § 19.
• † 1.36

  O••••onom. F••••d. L. iv. C. xvi. § 13.
• ‡ 1.37

  Aphorismi Sanct. Theolog. Aphoris. 884. in Booth.
• ‖ 1.38

  Harmony of Confessions, p. 395, 404.
• * 1.39

  Annot. on Matt. iii. 6. and xx. 22.
• † 1.40

  Treatise of the two Sac, Part I, Chap. v. and viii, in Booth's Paedo-bap. Exam. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 23.
• * 1.41

  Robinson's Hist, of Baptism, p. 5, 6.
• † 1.42

  Defence of Hist, of Infant-baptism, p. 148.
• * 1.43

  John. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 6.
• † 1.44

  C••••p lii. 23
• * 1.45

  The three terms in dispute are all used in Lev. iv. 6, 7, in the following manner; "And the priest shall (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) dip his singer in the blood, and (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord;—and shall (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar.

  That these rites were not the same and to be used indiffer∣ently, the following familiar transposition will abundantly show: And the priest shall pour his singer in the blood, and shall dip of the blood seven times before the Lord; and shall sprinkle all the blood at the bottom of the altar.
• [a] 1.45.1

  Septuag uta in loc.
• * 1.46

  Defence of the H••st, Inf. Bap. p. 404.
• * 1.47

  The male children of the Jews were to be circumcised on the eight day, by divine appointment; but past the middle of the third century, the honest Bishop Fidus wrote to Cyprian of Carthage, too know whether children might be baptized before they were eight days old; for by his Bible he could not tell. Nor could Cyprian tell, without first consulting a Council upon the subject.—A presumptive evi∣dence that the business was new.—Primit. Christ. p. 193. and Rob. Hist. p. 284.
• † 1.48

  Annot. in Matt. vi. 9.
• * 1.49

  Primitive Christianity, Part I. Chap. x. p. 203, 204. Edit. 7.
• ‡ 1.50

  Paraphrase on Rom. vi. 3, 4.
• ‡ 1.51

  Expository Notes on Rom. vi. 4.
• ‖ 1.52

  Pol. in loc.
• * 1.53

  Robinson's Hist. p. 449.
• * 1.54

  Primitve Christianity, Part I. C. 10. p. 196.
• † 1.55

  Sometimes called Novatianus.
• ‡ 1.56

  De••l. Hist. Lib. vi. C. xliii. p. 113.
• * 1.57

  He was proclaimed Emperor in the 1st year of the 271 Olym∣piad, or A. D. 305.
• † 1.58

  Euseb. Life of Const. Lib. iv. Chap. lxii.
• * 1.59

  It is abundantly evident, that many persons who were born of Christian parents, and educated in the Christian faith, were not bap∣tized until they came to adult years, and made a personal profession.

  Helena, the mother of Constantine, was a very devout and zealous Christian, yet he was not baptized upon her faith. Nor did he dedi∣cate his own children to God in baptism by virtue of his faith: for we are informed by Socrates, that his son Constantius, who succeeded his father in the empire, was baptized by Euzoius when he was pre∣paring for his expedition against Julianus, and immediately after ended his life at Mopsucrenia, twenty-five years after the death of his father.—Eccl. Hist. Lib. ii. Chap. xlvii.

  Basil, the son of Basil, bishop of Nicene, was baptized in Jordan when far advanced in years.

  Gregory the great, the son of Gregory, bishop of Nazianzen, was born while his father was bishop, and yet not baptized until he was twen∣ty, some say thirty years old.—See Osiander's Book, Cent. iv. L. 3, and Robinson's Hist. p. 250.

  Grotius says, that Chrysostom was born of believing parents, and was educated by Melitius, a bishop, yet not baptized till the age of twen∣ty-one.

  Erasmus testifies, that Jerom was born in the city of Shydon, of Christian parents, was brought up in the Christian religion, and was baptized in the thirtieth year of his age.

  Vessias affirms, that Nectarius was chosen bishop of Constantinople be∣fore he was baptized.

  Theodosius, the emperor, was born in Spain; his parents were both Christians, and from his childhood had been trained up in the Nicene faith; was baptized at Thess do••••a, by Ach••lio, when he was upwards of th••••ty years old.— 〈◊〉〈◊〉 J••••••••s, junior, p. 68. Rol••. p. 250.
• * 1.60

  Jo. Andreae Bosii de clinicis exercit. Hist. Jence.
• * 1.61

  Jacobi Basnagii, Monument. Vol. I. Praefat. Cap. v. § 4. De canone Stephani III, Papae. in Robinson.
• * 1.62

  Defence of Hist. Infant Baptism, p. 146.
• † 1.63

  Ibid. p. 403, 404.
• * 1.64

  It is probable the following incident had not taken place when the Doctor wrote his Defence, or he would have made an exception.

  It is said by an English historian, that at Petersburgh they sometimes baptize their children in a river or canal, by cutting a hole through the ice; upon which he observes, "I have heard that a priest, in im∣mersing a child, (for baptism, is performed by the immersion of the whole body) let it slip, through inattention, into the water. The child was drowned; but the holy man suffered no consternation.— "Give me another," said he, with the utmost composure, "for the Lord hath taken that to himself." The Empress, however, having other uses for her subjects, and not desiring that the Lord should have any more, in that way, at least, gave orders that all children to be baptized in the hole in the river should henceforth he let down in a basket."— W. Richardson'•• Anecdotes of the Russian Empire, p. 335. in Robinson.
• † 1.65

  Jer. vi. 16.
• * 1.66

  Vide Pierce's Essay on giving the Eucharist to Children.
• * 1.67

  Mark vii. 9.
• † 1.68

  P. 6.
• * 1.69

  Deut. xii. 3••.
• † 1.70

  Matt. xxviii. 20.
• ‡ 1.71

  1 Sam. xv. 22.
• ‖ 1.72

  John xiv. 15.
• ** 1.73

  Matt. xv. 9.
• * 1.74

  If, as you say, (p. 12.) I insist upon a person's being a real be∣liever in order to his being a proper subject of baptism, then Le must certainly be sincere.
• † 1.75

  Matt. v. 19.
• * 1.76

  Matth. iv. 1••.
• * 1.77

  This learned and ingenious Spaniard was born at Villeneuva, in Aragon, 1509. He studied the civil law at Toulous, where he be∣gan to read the scriptures, and to be fond of trinitarian notions. He soon became resolved to retire into Germany and set up for a reform∣er. He there printed two tracts, De Trinitatis errorious, and Dialo∣g••um de Trinitate, lib•••• d••o; this spread his name throughout all Eu∣rope. After this, Servetus returned to Paris, and was admitted a doctor of physic in the university there. Here a correspondence be∣twixt Calvin and him commenced, which was kept up for sixteen years; notwithstanding which, he continued in his former opinion, and, resolved to publish a third work in favour of it: this came out at Vienna, in 1533, with this title, Christianismo Restitutio, &c. with∣out his name; but Calvin took care to inform the Roman catholicks in France who was the author. On this Servetus was imprisoned, and would certainly have been burned then; it he had not made his escape. He proposed to retire to Haples, but was imprudent enough to go through Geneva, where he was scized on Calvin's information, and prosecuted for heresy. All his public writings and private let∣ters to Calvin, were cansacked for every thing that could be trained to a bad sense in consequence of which the unfortunate Servetus was burned alive, Oct. 25th, 1553. "to the eternal shame of his incon∣sistent brutal reformed persecutors." "Servetus was a man of great acuteness, of prodigions learning, and admirably skilled in his own professions—See Calvin's Life, Glasgow editions, p. 17, 19—and No∣thouck's Ringraphical Dictionary.

  Calvin's historians informs us, that the death of Servetus raised such a flame, as set Poland, Transylvania and Hungary all on fire; which he supposed Servetus to have foretold by the spirit of the devil. This controversy led many rationally to inquire, whether hereticks ought to be put to death, or left to the judgment of God?

  That Servetus was an antitrinitarian will not be denied. This probably was the greatest cause of Calvin's opposition to him, but not the whole: for he considered him as a "monster composed of many ancient and pro••igious heresies." He calls him an anabaptiss, and has attempted to answer twenty arguments brought by Servetus against infant-baptism—I ••stitut. Christ. Relig. p. 649.
• * 1.78

  The other was George Van Part, a Dutchman; he was burnt in Smithfield, April 25, 1551. He suffered with great constancy of mind, and kissed the stake and faggots, that were to burn him. He is said to have been a man of uncommon strictness of life and devo∣tion. These persons were both Baptists.—V••l. Hi•••• Reform. Vol. ii. Lib. i. p. ••12
• † 1.79

  Ibid.
• * 1.80

  Supposed to be Fox himself.
• * 1.81

  Pierce's Answer to Nichols, p. 33, in Crosby.
• * 1.82

  Marginal Note, p. 24.
• * 1.83

  Hopkins's Syst. Treatise on the Millen. Vol. II. p. 61.
• * 1.84

  Act•• III. 17
• * 1.85

  1 Cor. ii. 3.
• † 1.86

  I. cv. iv. 13, 22, 27.
• * 1.87

  Num. xxxx. 25.
• * 1.88

  Schism tried and condemned, p. 25, 27, 28. in Crosby.
• * 1.89

  Gen. xix. 24. 2 Kings, i. 10. Luke ix. 54.
• * 1.90

  1 Kings, iii. 3. 2 King xii. 2, 3, and xv. 34, 35.
• † 1.91

  2 Chron. xxx. 18, 19.
• * 1.92

  Messrs. Fish and Crane.
• * 1.93

  P. 14.
• * 1.94

  Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity. p. 104.
• * 1.95

  1 Sam. xiii. 1••.
• * 1.96

  Matt. x. 5.
• † 1.97

  Mark vii. 24—30.
• * 1.98

  John iv. 26, 39, 40.
• † 1.99

  Page. 28.
• * 1.100

  That the scripture is silent, is acknowledged by Mr. Clark. "The Paedo-baptists (saith be) do not place the evidence of Infant-baptism, in the history of fact, or in any express mention of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the New Testament, No man even presended it" "That if there be no di∣rect evidence for Infant-baptism from the historical relation of fact in the New-Testament, surely no argument against it can be made out from the filque of the sacred writers in reference thereunto." — De∣fence of Infant-baptism, p. 79, 85.
• * 1.101

  To admit that the silence of scripture respecting any point in dispute a••iords full evidence in its favour, appears to me ••••••rational, as to admit the evidence of the watch set to keep he b••ly of Jesus, who declared that his disciples stole him away wh••e THAT S••••••••.
• * 1.102

  Gen. xvii. 12, 13.
• † 1.103

  Acts viii. 36, 27.
• * 1.104

  Phil. iii. 16.
• * 1.105

  Perhaps some who have thus been denied, by their 'sincere' but differing brethren, have been indulged with the spacious temple of their royal Master, and with much the same accommodations which he had. Whilst 'The Lord of lords and King of kings, is neither afraid nor 'ashamed' to accompany them to some friendly sh••••••, or to a humble stall, resembling the birth-place of Immanu••l; and there blesses their labours to the comfort and salvation of his people.
• † 1.106

  2 Cor. i. 24.
• * 1.107

  Vid. System, Vol. II, p. 303.
• * 1.108

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Thess. iii. 6.
• * 1.109

  1 Cor. xi. 2, 17.
• * 1.110

  Although I have not written documents to prove, yet I have tre••••ble information, that a Conference, or Council, was sometime since called at West-Stock bridge, to advise, whether it were consist∣ent for the two denominations in that place to build a church, and walk together.—It was unanimously agreed in the negative. Two of the Paedo-baptist Ministers were, Rev. Dr. WEST, Rev. Mr. CAMP. Baptists, Rev. Messrs. WORDEN and BLOOD.
• * 1.111

  Vid. Concil. M••levitan, in Robinson.—"An honest indignation, (says a historian) rises at the sound of such tyranny; and if a man were driven to the necessity of choosing one saint out of two candidates, it would not ••e Austin, it would be Saint Balaam, the son of B••sor, who indeed loved the wages of unrighteousness, as many other saints have done; but who with all his madness had respect enough for the De∣ity to ••••y, How shall I curse whom God hath not curse••!".
• † 1.112

  Robinson's Hist. p. 427. And Primitive Christianity, p. 192.
• * 1.113

  Robinson's History, p. 476.
• * 1.114

  Vid. The office of public baptism of infants, and the catechism.
• † 1.115

  System, Vol. ii. p. 394.
• * 1.116

  It is a question with some thinking persons, whether to teach children to believe, that by baptism they are "regenerated" and "ingrafted into Christ, and made partakers of the blessings of the covenant of grace," is not laying an 'undue stress' upon the ordi∣nance? I will add the sentiment of a late writer. "A virtuous pro∣fession (saith he) of the Christian religion is founded in faith in Christ, and from this first element all af••••r actions naturally flow: but where, as in professing infants, the primordial element is not, and cannot be, religion rises on a postulatum, or assumed proof. The lives of such nominal Christians give too much evidence that they are Christians only by prepossessions, and hence come innumerable errors, passions and vices. Having no reasons of their own for either faith or virtue, they know nothing of the religion which they profes••, and avoid none of the crimes which it was intended to destroy."
• * 1.117

  ••ai. xi. 13.
• † 1.118

  Zech. xiv. 9.
• ‡ 1.119

  Eph. iv. 5.