^ '/ Pnotogrdptiic Sciences Corporation 23 WES* MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^^ iV r\^ \\ ■^ ^ ^ ^ O'^ tuss'^'m. .0^ ^y- <> %'- Q, CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliog.aphic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images In the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e at/ou pellicul^e Cover title r/ ssing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other materiat/ Relii avec d'autres documents D D D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted f^om filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais. lo'sque ceia dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ la meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peu/ent exiger une mo:iification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. r~> Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages ddcolorees, tachetdes ou piquees Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impressiun Includes supplementary materis Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible l~~| Pages damaged/ J I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~~| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~7] Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ n Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., cnt ite fi!m6es d nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible. The tul Th« poa off fiinr Orlj beg the sioi oth firsi sior or il The aha TIN whi Mai diff( ent! beg righ reqi met This item :s filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. ^ox 14X 18X ax I \ \ \ f/l \ \ I i i T 26X SOX 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Douglas Library Queen's University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impreo- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The lust recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grice A la gAnirosit* de: Douglas Library Queen's University Les images suivantes ont itS reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de ia netteti de l'exemplaire film«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont I'j couverture en papier est imprimie sont f ilm6s en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par ia derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustratlon, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiim6s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustratlon et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre film6s d des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est f ilm6 A partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nomb^e d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 I ' 4 BA su: * fi ^'> w Q / V 9 \ ■^ik^ ■1^: ^Z "J'W^ '''•'' /I ^ «^''- a '?! BAPTISM CONSIDERED IN ITS SUBJECTS AKD MODE. -#fe ^Jv S: \ •^^ ^i BAPTISM COJVSIDERED IN ITS SUB- JECTS AND MODE : IN THREE k / LETTERS, TO THE REVEREND WILLIAM ELDER; IN WHICH THE NATURE OF THAT ORDINANCE IS EXPLAINED; AND MANY OF THE UNSCRIPTURAL OPINIONS AND FALSE REASONINGS, CONTAINED IN H!S LETTERS TO THE REV. MR. JACKSON, ARE EXAMINED AND REFUTED, BY THE REVEREND DUNCAN ROSS, West River of Pictou. ' « n ^. ICTOU : Printed at the Weir Durham Pres9, IS26. vP J "»»Hp*4^ li)V%\\, r^a (( i( ^J LETTER I. f:^^ > REVEREND SIR, ^ .u « %• V , ^" P^^i^'^nff y^'wr Letters to the Kev Mr Jackson, it has opourre-l to me, that your views of che ordinance of baptism' ou^hl not to be circulated in the community, as the doctrine of tlie scriptures. From a desire, therefore, to contribute to the more general dif- fusion of divine truth, I have been induced to make them the subject of the foHowinn: remarks ; which 1 now beg leave to submit to your con- sideration. In your preface you say, ''We are of opi- " nion that the scripture is the standard of faith ** and practice, and would be willing to rest our "cause oti that alone, were our opponents so "disposed. " This sentiment seems a little out of place in the preface to a book, where the plain langufitfc of the ii|pired writer is allowed little weight till it is tfrflsted about by a Judson, the sentiments of a Jewish Rabbi, or a host of hu- man authorities. 1 shall shew in what follows, that our practice stands in no need of these aids' and can be sufficiently defended trom the ora- cles of God. Tiiat the subject may appear with some dffifree of clearnes^s I shall give a view of it uuencumbered with controversy, and then R ft ^ /I O ^i point out your ItBading mistakes. In ordor to this, I remark, that any special purpose of mercy and grace, toward man in ge- neral or the church in particular, is in scripture lanijuage termed a covenant ; and the revelation of such a purpose is called making a covenant. Hence, the word, as found in the sacred records, is of greater extent than in other books. It in- cludes not only agreement by mutual consent, but likewise any arrangement by decree, com- mand, promise, or even testament. Inattention to this has given rise to much needless contro- versy. The system of ordinances given to the church of Israel, is by Moses called the covenant; by Paul in his epistle to the Galatians,the law ; and in tlie epistle to the Hebrews, according to our version, sometimes covenant, and sometimes testament. The term in the original is the same. Of thesa covenants, one called the covenant of works, and the other colled the covenant of grace or redemption, have been frequently ex- plained by divines ; but I have no intention, on tills occasion, of affirming or denying any thing concerning these, though I believe that the co- venants to be mentioned, have all a relation to ihe covenant of grace, though some of them more closely than others. Tile first of those requiring our Attention, is recorded in Gen. ix. 9, 12, IS: Atid 1, behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you. And God said, This is the token of the covetiant which I make be- tween me and you. — I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a cove- nant between me and the earth. This covenant is absolute, everlasting, v. 16. and confirmed by a token or seal ; and the event has been agree- pecial in ge- pture lation »nant. 3ords, Itin- nsent, com- mtion )ntro- to the enant; law; ling to etimes rsame. ^^enant ant of ly ex- on, on ' thing he eo- tion to nmore fion, is behold d with Vhis is ike 6e- in the I COVC' venant med by- agree- able to this, and will continue so. Again, God made a covenant with Abraham, recorded Gen. xv. 18: In Ike same datf, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saifitttj^ Unto tliif J^eed have I given the land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates, This cc>venant is confirmed by no seal, nor called everlasting; and the event has shewed that it is, at least, capable of long inter- ruption. About fourteen years after, God made a se- cond covenant with Abraham, in the....a»WhMa^r-.rM^..^^ 3, 4. Iharfi fnade a covenant wi/h nu/ rho,wn Ihffre s^corn nn/o Darid mf/ serranf Thti ^eedwUl I establish forever^ and bmldvp fhu throne to all generations. By this covenant the ftovornmont of He cliurch wns committed to David and his family, by hereditary ri^ht, but bv no hnv .sotllin^r the manner of t^nccession : but the principal seed intended is our Lord, who is both David's son and David'jj Lord. Finally, God, by the prophet Jeremiah, pro- niised to his church a new covenant, in tlie^e words, Jer. xxxi. ^i : Behold, ihe daf/scome aaiih the Lord, that I will make a new cove^ nant with the home of Israel, and wuh tlie home of Jifdah, not according to the core- nant tttat I made wilh their Fathers in the dcni iluit 1 took them t)y the ti and to brinn them out of th e land of Egypt, Under these covenants the clureh under- yent several chancres in lier appearance .snd form, but still continued the same church, and Ood s covenant people. This is a point of im- portance in the present controversy, and there- tore deserves particular attention. ^ That the Is- raelitish church was a continuation of the patri- archal is not questioned, yet, during- the patrl- archal state, the posterity of seven of Abraham's sons, and one of Isaac's, lost all the privile-es of the covenant. The Jewish church, a^ain! stiH retamed all the privileges of the covenant; though ten tril>es revolted from the house of Da- ^nd, and from the privileges of his church^. Bu«f m greatest change took place, when Ghrist, the son of David, appeared in our world- and «aittc question if the christian church be a con- tinuation of the Jewish. Among this number * wuu ^uu ; and, therefore, 1 request your jnien- tion to the follo^viii'r anrumen(.*!, which to me appoa r decisive 'O o 1. The coRtinuatlon of the sair.e church ap- pears from the covenant with Abraham. This is an everhisting; covenant ; and, in virtue of it, Abraham is reckoned the father of all believers whetlier Jews or gentiles: Kom. iv. 11. That he mifjht be the father of all them that lyeltece: V . 10,17. To th e eu d th eprom ise in i(jh t be sure id all the seed, not to that onlif uhich is of the I 'IV (viz. the Jews, ) bat to that also which is of the faith of Al)rahain, nho is the father of as all. As it if-^ ivrittetty I hare made tliee a father of many nations , Again, Gal. iii. 13, 14, Christ hath redeemed as,- that the blessing of Abraham mif/ht come on the f/entiles. v. 19. And if i/e be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Now, Sir, if the church be not continued the same body, what connexion have we with A*' braham ? Can we be Abraham's seed, and he the father of us all, in any other point of view than that of the everlasting covenant, by which he is made a father of many nations? 2. The continuation of the same church ap- pears from the covenant with David . God pro- nn'sed to build up his throne to all generations;- and this promis-e is fulfilled in Christ: hence, the prophet says, Isa. ix. G, 7. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son i^s f/iren, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; — Of ike increase of his government and ^leace there shall be no end, upoii tlie throne of Daviif, and upon his kingdom ^c. Compared with Luke i. 31,- 33. Andlyehold, thou siiaU conceive in thy nomb, and bring forth ci son, and shall call his name Jesus, He ■(( .* m t 11 fihall he fjroaf^ luul shall he called the son of the Highest, and the Lord sJiall give unto fit m the throne of his fa/her Darid. Now it is e- vident to all christians, that the promise made to David of the perpetuity of his throne and kinj;^- dom, is fulfilled in the person of our Lord J<»sus Christ. If, the christian church be a continua- tion of the Jewish, Christ is on the throne of his father David, according* to the words of Gabriel ; but if, according to your view, the Jewish church be extinct, and the christian church be a new one, then, the promise to David has failed, the everlasting covenant is broken. Such is the consequence of your view of the subjeiot. 3. Besides, Paul, in his epistle to the Ro- mans, clearly and beautifully illustrates the con- tinuation of the same church, xi. 16, 27. The whole of this passage deserves a careful exa- mination ;but a very cursory view must suffice at present. The church is compaied to a tree, and individual members to brandies; the unbe- lieving Jews were broken off, the believing' Jews who adhered to their king, were continued, and believing gentiles were grafted in. The tree, however, continued the same; and so, when the Jews shall be converted, they will be grafted in- to their own olive tree, llut, if the christian be another church than the Jewish, it vrill be im- possible to graft them into thefr own olive tree again ; for on that su j)position it does not exist. 4. It isby being admitted into fellowship with this church, that gentile believers have any right to the new covenant; for it is made expressly vvlth the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Jer. xxxi. ,'^l. Hob. viii. 8. Therefore, if the christian church be not the same church continued but anotlier, it can have no claim to m It I I !■. ■ if if the privileges of tlie former. The same truth may be confirmed from other passages of scrip- ture ; but these are reckoned sufficient. You do not seem to consider what dreadful consequences to christians would follow, were you able to tear the church asunder, and make it two : as, in that case, christians would no long- er have Abraham for their father,— have any riglU to his blessings, — nor be heirs according to the promise ; and they would lose all claim to the new covenant: and all this to drive in- fants out of the church. The external appearance and form of wor- ship were greatly altered, when Christ, having finisl^ed the work ofhis humbled state, arose from tiie dead. Among other things, tlie initiating sf al of the covenant was changed. Tliere were two reasons whica rendered this necessary. Un- der the former dispensation, there was no ordi- nance iutplyiTig forgiveness cf sins without shed- dhig of blood, Heb. ix. 22. Eat under the new testament, there is no sheddhig of blood in reli- gious worship. Again, one end of this seal of th*> covenant, was, to draw a line of distinction between God's prolfessing t)eople and the world ; but after iho Jews rejected their king, they still regained circunxision, and so another rite to an- Mver this purpose became necessarv; and our Lord instituted bapti:\- kirk \rk.ni m^T^m^^-^-k. /~^ ^ .1 y ^ __ -_ . i» • 1 I v*i.T«iiXT.;ii-,-ii Lrcrt-.vccu vyuu s^ pToiessing pcopl^ and the world, as circumcision did under the former dispensation. 2. Circumcision was the rite by which con-* IS in- verts were admitted into tbe church under the former dispensation, and tliat baptism an.svvers the same purpose under the present, cannot be reasonably denied. S. Circumcision under the former dispensa- tion showed the person's federal relation to A* braham, and baptism does the same under the present: Gal. iii. 27,— 29. For an man f/ of yon as hat'e been baptized into Christy haceput on Christ. And if ye be Christ's^ then are ye A* braham's seed, and heirs according to the pro* mise. Finally, the Spirit of inspiration denominates baptism circumcision: Col. ii. U, 12. '* Ja *' whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- *' cumcision made without hands, in putting off " the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of *• Christ. Buried with him in baptism. " A- gain, Phil. iii. 2, 3. *' Beware of the concision, ♦'for we f christians J are the circumcision. " It is plain to any person of reilection, that the Apostle, by the concision, means (he circumci- sion in the flesh, that is, the Jews; and by the circumcision, the christian church : showing that the former retained the external part, but chris- tians enjoyed tlie substance. Having taken this concise view of the sub- ject, I shall state to you the reasons which influ- ence our practice. 1. We find tliat from the time in which 'God drew a line of distinction between the church and the world, children were consiaered as a part of the church, and partakers of its privi* leges. It has been showed that the covenant by which ther n-ere admitted, is an everlasting co- venant. Now as children are members of the chureii by an everlasting covenant, it is certain- I IH 14 Jy Incumbent on those who wonld exclude them to show their authority. I find exprej>s divine authority for the admiss-ion of children, but ne- ver could lind any but human authority for their exclusion. Had children never been admitted, the case w^ould have been different. You ad- mit p. 26. that " if it could be proved that our '^ Lord or his apostles ever broug:ht an infant in- «« to tlie g-ospel church, or that they had a right *' to it, then it would be necessarv to shew when *' that right was abrog-ated " This is correct, and brings the dispute to a fair issue. You how- ever seem sensible that you are on ground where your standing is rather ticklish, and, therefore, try to guard jgniilii it as much as possible. You say, '* by our Lord and his apostles. " It has been shewed already that they were admit- ted, by himself doubtless, many hundred years before he appeared in the flesh , therefore, they needed not a second admission. The readmis- sion of persons who are in the church already, inv'olves a degree of absurdity ; and we find that none of those who were believers in Christ at the time of his death were ever admitted into the church under the New Testament dispensation ; because they were never out of it; for in them was the eliureh continued. Viml however join- ed in the revolt, rejocted for a time the Son of David, and vras ouit of the church ; therefore he had to be read'.nitted as anotiior sinner. When circumcision or baptism is terii;ed tin initiating ordinance, it has a respect to converts: those who were, or are in the church, are, thereby^ merely recognized as i's members. That ihey bad their riiifht to it from tlie time of Abraham till tl not, as i'di le commencemen s I know t of the christian era, has , been questioned. Your T only subterfuf»e then remains in the words gos- pel church. It has been proved already that the churoh is the same, and to this church they nicere admitted. As you say gospel chffrch, I won hi ask, At what period was the church of God not the gospel church? It was so in the days of Abraham : *' the scripture preached *' before the gospel unto Abraham, " says Paul, Oal. ill. 8. The church in the wilderness was the gtispel church: Hob. iv. 2. " For unto us " was the gospel preached as well as unto them. The new covenant was promised to that same e (be it wlat it will) is upo vou and to >our el.iidren, favonr the continuation of the rij^ht of children to the promise? Or does it j^ive the least hint of iLeir exclusion? it should be kept in vievV that chil- dren from the days of Abraham till the death of Christ, had tiic same interest in the promi>es with their parent.'^, and if ever they \^ere exdudtd, this was the time. This is the first public in- s;t ruction given under the New Testament dis- pensation. Now Sir, 1 leave it with the candid reader, I leave it with yourself, is there the feast hint of cutting children oif from an interest in the promise? Ten, is not the continiiation of their relation to it plainly expressed? But Sir you pass bv the principafpromise; you need not go so far back as the 17 v. for it; you will find in the 30 V. the promise to David, accomplished in the resurrection of Christ to sit on his throne, and the shedding' forth of the Holy Ghost was the consequence and proof of it. The appear- ance of the Messiah was the toding promise un- der the former dispensation. Acts xiii. 2ti, o2. The people had no reason to repent in reference to the Spirit immediately; but great reason to re- pent of the manner in which they had used their king". And this promisee extended to them and their children, fcV he had declared that of such is his kingdom. Yqij jnsinnafp f n. 7.) that the A pestles did not yet understand that the gentiles were to he called. I cannot see what connection this has with the subject tiMfer consideration, unless it TT })« lf>-hlnt, tlial Peter .night mistake the pnvi- Kh»s of children; but you should recollect, taat hespake then, not from his own kiiowieclge, .but bv immediate inspiration. You say ( p. 8. ) "we do not read of God's calling infants, &c. Uid you ever read Isaiah ,xiix. 1. / liuoe called lln^e from the nomb, r ,\ An argument is conjmonly drawn fr«m tUe ap4)stles' practice of baptizing households, p. 8,9. This you shun bv brinsi:ing lV)rward a nu^nber of others to take the burden olf your shoulders. Tiie argument however stands thus; the 1 iw for admittiTig proselytes, Exo. xii.48.says, IF hen a stratvier shall sojourn with thee, and will keep thepiKsorer to the Lord, lei all his mules be circumcised, (fcc. It has been shown that bap- tism is in the room of circumcision. Now it ap- P3irs plain that the Apostles' practice was la strict conformity with this law. You, Sir in the case of the Philippian Jailor, (Acts xvi.) brmg in oneof yourauKiliaries saying, concernmghis hoass, ''Wiio it se.-ms were equally impressed *' With Paul's sermon as the Jailor himself was." Thi-! Sir, i-5 in direct contradiction to the.text, vvhich says. He rej o'ced believinji'. The words reioicediixid beliei^itig are in the singular nun^-^ br^r, and what is rendered, with all his house, i& expressed in the oriji:lnal by one word(panoiki) anudverb. Here we have an express example of severul individuals baptized, wi.en there was b-it one believinL% in peri^ct conformity to the ion'*' established law of the church, cited above. '^ You haveexpressid (p. 8.) rather a new no- tion concerning seals. You say, *' A seal i* for * ' - 4. J Iron confirmation „ i.: .^ of some tranuciion aireat dy Idi-i-., t* ii that there was a confirmation tiood, but no ground of hope, place I!! Then the rainbow is a '1^ IH \\\ !*•' that tliere vvill bo no more fiood.?. A so|| tni- Dexed to a jiT.mt of Innd, is n confiinmlion of past po?ses>i'.)n, nut of fiidiro riizlil. Istiiis true? is it sonse? You add in the ?;jme png-o, ** Cir- ** cumcision was n national mark of distinction, «* to separate the seed of Abraham after the flesh " from aJl other people." 1 say it was not, Gen. XV ii. 28. Aitd Abraham took Ishmael fit's .vow, and all Ihat leere born hi his house, and all thai leere ho tiff hi wilh his mon&f/, ever?/ male among the men of Abraham's house, and cir- cumcised fhejlesh of 1 heir foreskin. See also, V. 21. Lshmaei was iiis only son then. Another ani^nment, to prove the church meriiber.^hipof intant:^, is laken from 1 Cor. vii 14 Else were f/our chilu'ren inirlea}?, hut no^i-fhei/ are hoi;/. This text has cost the baptists a great deal 0^ pains, and you have bestowed en it not a liUle. Your ovvn conclusion however, is a suiTiclcnt rcfi'.taticn cf ail yon have advanced; fnryon say, (p. 1,].) '* If this bo the true mean- '* ina; of the ie\t, then it estaull-lics no diOerencc " bctween I'lo children of believers, and those " cf riibolicvcn?." The ;^cripti:res hov/ever, cs- tabl;.4i a di fib re nee, iherofore, your view cannot be the true rr.caniiio;. The terms unclean and holy, arc of freqiier.t occurrence in the bible, and every attentive reader r.uiv oI)s(>rve, that no un- clean thin": could be presented to God; on the other hand the term hoi// is applied to wiiat was dedicated or ou^'it to be dedicated to God. Luke ii. 22, 2S. They broujL^^Iit liim to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the lav*' of Aloses, Fjrerf/ male ihat openelh Ihe n:omb shall he ealled holt/ to the Lord. Thus were the children in 1 Cor. Vii 1 1 ho- ly. This holiness is more t!ian legiiiuiacv, U)v TT the c'lildron «f mirricd lioa(li(?ni< were qnito le» jiHiinatP bill Viili micloan. Nor docs the Apos- tle maintain il.al Wet uiibolievinji^ wife is sanntifi- ed by marriauo with aer husband, but by Ids faith. Tit.i. 15. The Apostle clearly argues that if X\w faith of the believing, did not sanctify the un- beliovinjr parent, the children would be unclean, but since it does they are holy: yet you say that this scripture estiiblishes no dilTerence, between the children of the believer, and those of unbe- lievers. You niii>:ht as well say there is no dif- ference between luiclejin and holy, Paul means the same ih\u^ by both words. Now, Sir, to present to you the reason of cur conduct in cno view, 1 shall recapitulate what has been said. 1. Children were admitted into the church bv direct divine appointment, and their rijrht confirmed by an everlastings covenant. Ihey possessed th's prlvilo^i^e two thon^^and years with- out dispute, and their rijrht is still maintained by a vast majority of Christians. 2. Their right has been recognised by Christ the Head of tl-e church, in these words " Of such *' is the kini::dom of God." S. At the conmiencement of public teach- ino; under the New Testament dispensation their right, so fiiv fvr,rA bcin:;' q'.ieslioncd, was plainly eonrirmed in these v^ords, The promise Is to you and your c/i Udren. Compare this with the prGiniJC to Abraham, " 1 will b^ a God to thee, ** and to thy seed." 4. In strict conformity to the established • iaw of the church, uhile children were unques- tionably niembers, the Apostles baptized house- holds and we still do thesjime. Do you bap- tize households? m i ': 5. The Spirit of inspiration calls the chil- dro!) of boliev^^rs IjoIv, wliv then, should the seal of the covenant !)e denifvl to then* a.s unclean ? (). The principle* you liave einbraced in- volve you \n many difficulties to which you have not adverled. Some of them 1 shall .submit to your consideration. 1. You found your principles upon a sup*- position that an everlasting covenant has vaniBik- ed away. 8ir, did the word everiastin^ never occur to your r.iind, when studying thissulyect? 2. You continually confound Abralmm's natural with his federal need, or as Paul says, ( Horn. Ik. 7, H. ) the children of the flesh with tlw» children of the promise. You say ( p. 24 ) *' A descent from Abraham was the very thing; '* that entitled to circumcision, and all the pri- *' vileges of the Jewish church." Pray Sir, were the Ishmaelites, the Edomites, or the Midianites entitled to jjII the privileges of the Jewish church? They all descended from Abraiiam. S. As your j)rinciples j>ut an end to the e- verlastineood peojde in Scotland, not ex- cluding: others, are as really the people of God as «ver the Jews or Israelites were. It was promised to €hrist, Psal. Ixxii. il. AllnaHons i^ht II s(*rre lihu : and iVa. Ixxxv.i. y. Ail ni^tioiifi ivho:ii ihca huHi mc'de slmJl 'cmucimd n-msrhip hojorethec. According: to your prittciples no nation, as such, ci.n icrve or worship him ; for this presupposes that they are subjects of his kingdom. Tlie same may be said of the commission driven to the Apostlos. On ^•our principles, It can neveribe tiuly executed, ami so ti :e'klne:doms of this world Ciin.i>ever be- come the kin«^doms of onr Lord, end of his Christ, Rev. xi. 15. since all children are ex- • <^1 ud ed f ioi« J li is k iu^d o m . You say (p. t^G.) '' We have another objec- ^' tion against infant baptism, viz. that it destroys *Mhe distinction, w-hiob the New T-estament * ' makes be tw^e n- tlie cLiJ r oh a n d the wo r W . ' ' A - ^ain, '''Infant baptism has a tendeney— to brii?^ '' into the church the whole pepulatfon of Xhe *' land." Nmv Sir, did not Christ coir.mlssiDn iris apostles to convert and bring iiHo^Uet oh«i cb - cfll nations ? ' Is it.not the duty of the whoie p^,- fipnlation, of every land, 'to come into Christ's l I* i iti II li ) Is to keep out. We hope the time is coming, when the whole population of the hind shall be broug-ht into the church. In the meantime it re- jects all members who have not a consistent con- duet. You seem not to advert to the diirerence between the cuurchos learning: ^he way of the world, and the world's comings into the church. 4. Passing: over some other things, your prin- ciples place the children of professing christians in a strange situation. You endeavour (p. 15.) to refute Mr. Jackson's arg:ument from PauP* address to the churches of Eohesus and Colosse. But Sir, did not the trouble you found in evad- ing the force of it, convince you that you were " on untenable ground, when you had recourse to children of tv/enty or thirty years old. It is e- vident that the authority of any law is confined to the subjects of the kingdom. Pray, Sir, in- form your readers at what age does the law of Christ make it tlie duty of children to obey their parents. Now Sir, if the cliildren born in the church are not members of it, what are they? You will not say tliey are .Tews or Mahometans; they therefore must be christians or lieatliens. Pray tell us in your next publication to what class they belong:. Christ in both the old and new testaments is called a shepherd, and you do not deny that under the former, his flock was like other flocks consisting: of sheep and lambs, but under the lat- ter a strang:e anomaly has taken place, and Clrist's sheep bear not lambs but kids, which niuPi uv. lurUuu cjui lu leeu vvuii me g:oais. ijuc Christ will not so g:ive up with his lambs. He g:ave a charge to Peter, " Feed my lambs." J'phft xxi. 15. . / " T1 __ J. iiiifc 2$, 5, Affain your principles afford no ground of hope concerning the state of such as die in infan- cy. You, Sir, seem to be much displeased with Mr. Jack.von h»r a hint cf this kind, and say (p. 10.) '^We have j^ood hope through the mercy of God that all infants dyin*^ in that state are fitted for the employment of a heavenly state, and through the death and sutfering:s of the Saviour, are broug:ht into that rest which remains for tiie people of G')d." But the question is what is the ground of this hope. A christian should be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in him. 1 Pet. iii. 15. Now your reasoning cuts oJF all ground of hope; for you grant (p. 10.)**ihey are implicated in the transgression of the first man, so as to be partakers of a depraved nature, and to be liable to pain, sickness, and death: and (p. 2i.) you say that faith and repentance are neces- sary to baptism; and '*we never find the scrip- tures making any exceptions in favour of infants" Now the scriptures make faith and tepentanceas necessary to salvation, and you can find no ex- ception in favour of infants, what then must be the conclusion? You exclude them from the sheep for whom Christ laid down his life, and will not allow them a place in his kingdom. Now Sir, is their being born and dying in the kingdom of Satan the way to that rest which remains for the people of God. On the otiier hand we hold that the in- fants of believers have an interest in that ever- iast&yg covenant in which God saith 1 will be a Gutlxo thee, and to thy seed; tiiat they are sub- jedisu.wf tiie mediator's kingdom and a part of his fioick, to which he pavs special attention. Isa. Xlvljv He shall fe 3(1 his flock like a shepherd, h(B a fiall gather the lambs with his arm, and 26 I n 0arri/ them in hh bosom, and shall genlly lead those that are tirith yomig. Again, when your children survive infancy, your principles east. impediments in the way of their instruction, of which you are not aware. You ask (p. 28.) '' What privilege then have the **cliildren of a pious pedobaptist over those of a " pious baptist? The children of a pious baptist "have the advantage of his prayers, instruction " and example, and of the preaching of the gos- " pel, and whenever they believe in the Lord Je- *' sus with all their hearts, the doors of the church *' are wide open to receive therti.'' It isgranted that the children of both are by nature the same, but in privilege very different, if the pious bap' list acts according to his principles. To illus- trate this, 1 would recommend to your attention Horn. iii. In that chapter the apostle proves that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. y. 9. But foreseeing an objection, he anticipates it, v. 1, 2, 3. What advantage then hath the Jew who is in the church? Or what profit is there of circumci;siGn or baptism ? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto tliem were com- mitted the oracles of God. From this we learn that the oracles of God are committed to the church, and this the apostle counts a great pri- vilege. The bible is the law of Christ's kingdom : the source of christian instruction. Now w^hen we put it into the hands of our children, we may say, This is the law of the kingdom to which you belong; you are under its authority, and bound to conform to its rules. But if vou sDoak to yours, according to your principles, yiu must say, This is a good book, I recommend M to your consideration : perliaps you may hereafter come under it; but now you are not under it« ' ■/ -Tv~r jurisdiction, for you do not belong to the king- dom whose law it is. You cannot, in your in- struction, urge the authority of Christ, as your ctiildren are not, on your principles, of his king- dom. ^^ You say, when they believe, the doors of the church are wide open to them. But, Sir, does not your own mode of reasoning stop you even here. You cite the following words from Dr. Campbell, (p. 7.) " There are manifestly three thmgs which our Lord here distinctly en- joins his Apostles to execute, lix. to convert them to the faith, to initiate the converts into the church by baptism, and to instruct the baptized in all theduties of the christian life." "This is the language" you add "of common sense and will immediately strike every candid person as the true meaning of the passage, and it forever for- bids the baptism of all persons, old or young who are not converted, dij^clpled, or taup-ht."' This, Sir, is tl.c way in which vou bewilder your- self and your readers. You u^e a number of words partly agreeing and partly diftering in sense, and by this means you are away from your subject before you or some of them are aware. Ihis IS the case with convert and converted, lor every convert is converted but every converted person is not a convert. The term convert means one who has changed his religious profes- sion. One gained over to the Romish taith, is termed a convert to Popery, but the children of I apists are not. Thus when a Jew or a heathen embracers Christianity, he is called a convert to Christianity, but one born of ohristian parents is not a convert. Any person who has norieft one religious protession and embraced another, is not a convert, and en your principles cannot 1 1/ 1 \\\ be bapdztni. You plead that (here is no men- tion made of the Apostles ever baptizing: an in- fant. I say in return, there is no example of their baptiz'ina: any who was not a convert, ^^ain- ed from Judaism or heathenism. You pay far- ther, that we have no instance in the first two centuries, of any infants baptized ; and I say that during all that time you have not an instance of the descendant of a christian parent baptized. So you may see that this note upon the apostolic commission, that commission which contains the very institution of baptism, forbids forever the baptism of all persons old or youn^:, who are not converts. This you say is the langua^ce of common sense, pray then, how do you open the door of the church to your own children, not, converts, but remaining^ in the principles you tcaoh them. You follow neither precept nor example. Nov,-, take a viev of the subject on our principles, and the case vi\\\ be plain and clear, I have^iven some reason for believing that bap- tism is in the room of circumcision, and holding' thi?, it is to be administered to converts and to their infant seed: and where the ease is plain, and the practice general, no particular attention is paid to reeordiuH; of instances, f ou reason against baptizing infanis from the consideration that in the Acts of the Apostles, containing the history of the church for thirty years, there is no express mention of baptizing an infant: and arc you not equally struck with the fact, that the Old Testament contains the history of t' e church for near two thousand %'ear.s with only rw^ ex- Josh. V. we read of tlie circumcision of above six hundred thousai^d pcr.>ons, and no nientic.n icrr mconsi} passover views cf an infant anions: them. 1 may here mention yo of the right of infants to tl Lord's supper. Mr. Jackson and you come to close quarters on this point. He asks, why our children have not as good a right to baptism as the Jewish children had to circumcision: and you retort as an effectual refutation, (p. 12.) *' why our children have not as good a right to the Lord's supper as the Jewish children had to the passover." Now, Sir, do you really suppose that the Jewish children eat the passover as soon as they were circumcised? What idea have you of a child eight days old, with his loins girded and his staff in his hand, eating roasted lamb in haste? The truth is they were circumcised when eight days old, and had a right to eat the passo- ver as soon as they were fit, and so it is with us. It would be of service to distinguish the right from its present enjoyment ; and to direct you in this, Gal. iv. 1,^. is recommended to your consideration. Now Sir, 1 have given you the reason on which we found our practice, and considered whatever I reckoned of any weight on your side, and several things that had hardly any. I have referred you and the reader to the bible a- lone, as few of our readers have the means of ex- amining n.any authors, but every one may and should consult the bible. Besides it is bv th« bible alone that this point should be decided. ^ LETTER II REVEREND SIR, In the preceding letfef, I h«7e shewed yon my reasons for baptiz'mg the iiTfaiats of such ns are members of the visible ehuroh ; in this one, I elaitn your attention to the mode of administering that ordinance. In eon- troversral writings, it is necessary to state the subject in dispute plainly, that the reader may have a clear idea of the point at issue : in this you foil exceedingly. You say in your prefoce, " It •' is contended for by many, that sprinkling is ** baptism. We also believe that immersion, and *' that alone, is baptism." This is very inaccurate; for baptism is an ordinance of religion, and pe- culiar to the church of Christ: but sprinkling and dipping are common actions, performed, on various cccasiGUs, by men and by women, b]y the ])ious and the profane, by christians and by hea- tlien«. According to your statement of the mat- ter, baptism is practised by Turks and heathens^ as well as among christians; for they all both sprinkle and dip, as occasions require. Had you attended to Mr. Jackson's ex- pression, you would not have fallen into thig mistake ; for he, as quoted by yourself, holds, •' That sprinkling is a scriptural mode of admi- '■■n" : ^ j a- :-'•;• J SI Tilsterine^ that ordinance." If you are nnwllHng to learn accuracy of expression from an oppo- nent, you may Jearu it from the oracles of God; Num. viii. 6,7. Take the Lemfes from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleunse them : sprinkle water of puriftfing upon them. Thus you may see that the thing to be done, and the mode of doing it, are distinguished by the Spi* rit of inspiration. Attention to this plain and necessary distinction, will discover many of your mistakes, and alford tiie means of rectify* ing them. Again, you lead the ignorant part of your readers into a gross mistake, by producing the term hapto instead of baptizo. As you pro* duce these as Greek words, many of your read* ers will not advert to the difference: but were you to use the same freedom with English words, and write bmh for bushel, or lint for lintel, e- very reader would see the mistake, and perceive that error must be the result. Now rectifying this mistake, discovers the fallacy of almost all that yon advance in favour of immersion. In your Letters, p. 32. I found, with no small degree of surprise, the following words: *' In the Greek translation of Lev. ix. 6, 8. ( It " should beivj. 6, 7. ) the three terms are all used in the following manner : And the priest {bapsei) sh^ll dip his finger in the blood, and (pro v/r«?«ei') sprinkle of the blood seven times '• before the the Lord, and ( ekchei ) shall pour *' out all the blood of the bullock at the bottom <( «( t-c <( 12XXV4. 1. 11'^ 4 ri 1*<%A TV \sri «^ «C to express baptizing, pouring, and sprinkliufic, <* are very different in the orijs;inal, and are ** translated by three different words. See Bvid^'» S2 ** win on Baptism. We see also from (he text *' fbat to baptiie does not mean to wash or ** cleanse. In short, Sir, I think when the *' scripture sayg,that ^000 were baptized, it u *' favourable to the doctrine of immersion, and " so in every o^er instance. " Permit me, »^ir, to ask you a few questions concern'ng- thisjiassage. How did the Greek translation become the original? How did you find the word baplizein the text which you have quoted? In the Greek I find bapsei, and in the English I find dip ; but I can find baptize jn your Letters only. As the term baplizo^ a- dopted into English, is baptize^ so were bapto adopted, it would be bapt : now where did yon find the iz, by which you turn bapting into knptixing ? Is it consistent with common ho- nesty to add a syllable to a word, and then im- pose it upon the unlearned ? Both these worda occur frequently in the scriptures: the one sig- nifies to baptize, the other to dip. How does this favour the doctrine of immer- sion? if you produce this as an example of baptizing, it appears far liker our manner of ad- ministering that ordinance: the priest dipped his finger, so do we; he then sprinkled, so do we; he poured out the rest, so do we; but what bearing has this on the doctrine of immersion? Again, you say in the above quotation, '* We *' see also from this iexi that to baptize does not "mean to wash. " Now, Sir, can we see the meaning of a word from a ie\i in which it doe« not occur ? We may, however, see from thiji ^\\^ that to dip does not mean to cleanse. This may be farther confirmed by the texts which you produce p. 41, 42. from Dr. Chapin; such i( «( ** 1 I a (C as, Dent. xxxiii.;85. Let him dip his feet inoiL Sd 3 text sh or n the 'A. ' , it u I, and (( < ( (( Ruth, ii. 14. Dip thy morsel in the mnegar. — Job, ix. 3L Yet shalt thou plunge me in the difch. Prfal. Ixviii. 23. That thf/ foot may be dipped in blood. You add *' Here is certainly ** sufficient proof that to baptize 1« to diporim- *' merse. " These appear to me very strange instances of baptism, and on reading tliem, \ could not help concluding, that here is certainly sufficient proof tliat the blind has been leading the blind. The term baptizo 1 baptize, does not occur in any of those texts. In each of them it is bap- to I dip. Now, Sir, consider them and see how ihey would appear according to your view of the term : " Let him baptize his feet in oil. " — baptize thy morsel in the vinegar. " '* Yet slialt thou baptize me in the ditch. " " That thy foot may be baptized in the blood of thine enemies. " 1 v/ould suppose that the impro- priety of these phrases would convince you that (o dip and to baptize ore very different; espe- cially as you say p. 38. ** that baptism represents *' the washing away of the filth and pollu- *' tion of sin: And again, " The two principal " things (^ it represents ) area washing, and a *' death, burial, and resurrection. " Is not piunii:ing in the ditch a strange kind of washing? You say, p. 41. '* Again, we are informed, that the inspired penmen have used no other word than baplo and its derivatives to convey the idea of immersion, in tue New Testament; nor have tliey ever used this word in any other •' sense. " You add " I believe it is admitted that the Greek is a very copious language. If the word bap to do not signify to immerse in its plain and literal sense, is it not surprising that the sacred writers did net choose some o. «( (( a «( i< (( a urn " tber word that wonid? " Had yon srarched Ihe .•? ed ^r \ m m e rsed /;/ th & depth of th e sea. Mat. xiv. ::0. Jnd t/e:;in/t iHff {k^U\]yimtiAesihM) to sink^ or ^q under water, he eried. It is e- vident tlat our Lord, in tic former of these texts, represents a state of im«i^inent dang^er: for were drown i rig" the iillstone or tJjodi^pth oftl:es(^a: but a person immr^rsed in deep wa- ter, with a woi^'ht handuir to his neck, would be in extreme dan^rer : bes'des. In the latter taxi, Peter was not beginiiin<:: to be drowned, Jjut io go tinder water. Luke, v. 7. Andthetf eame^ nnd filled both ships, so that thei/ be.jau ( hy- thizesthai ) to sink er iio uiider ^vater. The same word occurs 1. Tim. vi. 9 (bythiz- imm ) tlroim or imiiiersc nn^i in deutrixction und pirdiiion. ■ What becomes now of your infor^nation ? for ,T^^ ii oare» would e torin I of tlie [ in se- terms. ^1s are . 111. 6. / orer-r edi ill J es i;Ti- j hare vjian ) (jed a- * were t U e- bt: for would di^pth p \v;i- vvonJd r iQxi, Imi \(y camey C ^'v- >ythiz- iivfion n? for bere are four words, kal(dlffzOy ph/HO, kaia- ponilxo, and biilhizo, oacii of them implyina^ tlie idea of immersion, all in the New Testament, and Doneol tlem bupto nor any of its deriva- tives. From this you may learn, to receive information with caution, tUi necessity of searching]? the scriptures for yotirself, and, that, if the Greek be a copious lani^uage, yowr informei-sdo not dip very deep into it. Besides, you may learn uot to express much surpri.^ at anv piece of information, till you search and find it true; for you may now ^' tiiat tlie inspired penmen of the New Testane did cl oose words that signify immerse, as often as they had occa- You have laboured hard to force bapio into your service, vet something; more was nwessary ; as you maintain the necessity of complete immer- sion ; for though bapto, commonly, means I dip, yet it does not imply complete immersion; as may fee seen by attending to some of those texts which you produce from Dr. Chapin ; Lev. xiv. 15 16, And th^ priest .shall takexSiome of the loll of oil, and pour it into thepaim &f his own left hand ; Jnd tlie priest sluMdip Ms right finger in the oil that is in his left hmd: It is evident that the priest could not completely im- merse his rijjht finder in the oil uhich he held in the palm of his left hand. Aji:ain, v. 51. And he shall take the cedar wood, and Hie hys- sop, and tlie scarlet, and the tiring bird : and dip them in the blood of tlie slain bird. All those thinj^s could not be completely immersed in the blood of the slain bird. ■»T_— I «,r^« .^ttJn^ain flinf hnnlisni renuires compHe immersion; and «iy. p. 31- '''*''*? " who were buried in water, were overwhelmed I }' '* or covered all over with water, wlileli is the ** proper notion of baptism. " This would require better proof than yon can aflford. Your readers, however, on^iit'not to complain; for you ^\\e tliem the best you can, and inform them, p. iV,]. ihi\i " Maimorides, ( I suppose you mean Maimonides, ) ** a learned ** Jewish Rabbi, says, tFherever in the law, ** wufihin^/oflhejlesh or ofthevloihes in tnen- " Honed, if means nofhinr; else than the idp. *' pmg of the nhole lodif in a later; fcr if *' ant/ man dip himself all orer except the tip " of his Hide finger, he is siill in his umlean- 1 1 4 « " Wf.V.V." Conld noiiher you nor Mr. Judson find any proof from the bible? Here your own words to Mr. Jackson are applicable: '* Is it because '* there is no law;i:iver in Israel, that we must be '' thus sent to Baalzebub the god of Ekron ? " The title of your Letters says that the sub- ject is weighed in the balance of the sanctuary; but I fear you have been imposed upon, and in- stead of the balance of the sanctuary, have got- ten that of a Jewish Rabbi, which h need for perverting the law. It is very remarkable, that that in all the texts which you have produced, either from the Greek translation of the Old Testament or from the New Testament, in de- fence of immersion, \\\q term haptizo, which means / baptize, occurs as far as 1 could notice, but once: in every other instance, it is t)apto I dip. The sum of your reasoning, if it can be called reasoning, is this. To dip means to dip, therefore to dip is to baptize!! ! cc /> ■i ur «* translators have not translated it into English, '*~itis a Greek word, — it means immersion." 37 i^imi^ 'W" in the n von • ilit not )u cun, es, ( I earned •i men' If iffp- fir if he Up clean' id any words ?eau>e list be • n? " ( sub- tutiry; nd in- e ^oU ?d for ?, that [uced, 3 Old n de- wliieh ictiee, /?/o / an be 3 dip, C£ /■> ■i ur glishy iion/' I would remark Ijere, tlat thp terms baptism, baptize, and christian, were admitted into tie the hing:ua'j:e of Enj2:land, when the cliristian re- ligion was introduced into the nation, and not- withstandin<;: all the chan^j^es which the lany:uajre has underjrone, have kept their station; so that it would be hard, if not impossible, to produce other three terms in the present Enj^lish lan- guage of so old a standing. Those terms may, therefore, be reckoned Englisli terms, though, like many others, derived from the Greek. If you were to tran.-late the New Testament, and render baptism i.nmersion^ it might bo objected, ** Immersion is a Latin term and compared with *' the term baptism, but lately adopted into the " English language ; and wore you to translate *' bapfize dip, it might be said,*^ This is but \W, ** Greek word di/pto in an English dress." Resides, our translators could not use other terms ; for neither the English language, nor a- ny other, to the best of my knowledge, can af- ford other words to express the meaning of bap- tism and baptize. To baptize, in the case of converts, means to admit into communion by means of a purifi- cation with watar : in tlie case of infants, it is a recognition of their membership, by the same means. You are so intent upon the mode of administring baptism, that you pay little or no regard to its principal use, namely, admission into fellowship. The inspired writers, however, paid more attention to this, than to the mode of ad'ministration: Rom. vi. 3. Know ye not J hat ,vo mamf of us as were baptized into Jf^sus _ I- J*..^^ ^,.4^ A.*t. M^^inih L/nriS fy were IMlpi i^Vll mvu m^ Ml w(« ing of which is, as many as were admitted into fellowship with Jesus Christ, were admitted into iiili fellowship in bis death. 1. Cor. xii, 13,^7. Par by one Uphii are ue all bapth.ed into om- ho- dif. Now ye are (he body of Christ, Tl^jf is, by one Spirit are we all admitted into fellowship With Christ's body the chnroh. To be^admitted into fellovv.ship with Christ and into fellowship with the olurch are n^rf?0K of expression familiar to christians, and exphiin those Xex\^. I submit to the judgment of the reader the propriety of.wnch expressions as these, immersed into Jesus Christ, immersed into the church. Attention to tio.^eand several other pa'^sa^-- es in the New Testament, will shew the propri- etj, even tl:e necessity, of distinguishing tl cMib- stance of baptism from the modeof administrino- it, and, as soon as this plain, but necessary, dis^ tinctionismade, tl::e impropriety cfmany of \ cur assertions will appear especially of these, *'*i|m- '' mersion alone is baptism, immersion and bap- ** tism are synonimous terms.'' It is the mod« of administring that ordinance which is now under consderation. Yen \u<\hr remark p. 3^. ''That the mpanine: of the wcrd " baptize was certainly well known as it was a *' word in common use "among tl e Jews. 'J he word is used by the inspired \^ riters to express the Jewish purifications and the crdinanof now under cons deration. To prevent t»i'^<«ke, it may be necessary here to reirark, tlaf while 1 deny that tobaptize means to dip, I likewise deny Mat that It means to sprfnkle. The^'e are severalg of opinion, that it must mean either the oik; or the Wilier. 11 means as lar as tfre present question is concerned, to clennseor rather to purifv ;and the manner of purifying mu«t be ieunied Irc'm o- ther considerations. (( so '■' ' 1 Yt>ualludm^to Heb.ix. 10. say(p.4.)"That **fho Jow.-^ had divers immer::*ion.s or baptisms en- *' joined upon tliein by the law of Moses in cases **of eereinonibd uncleanness is evident." Here yon give a specimen of your manner of treating tile subjr»ct, you take for granted that those bap- tisms were immersions; tliat should be proved first. You, again, quote Heb. ix. 10. (p. 30. ) and would iiave those divers washings (G.bap-i- tisnjs) divers immersions, on account of the variety of things and per»!ons to be immersed. Wtien I re id th4stent wiih the notion that those bap- tfans were ail immersions. When Sisera's mo- ther expecled tliat her son had gotten a prey of divers colours, Jud. v. 30. had he taken a prey consistini^: of a variety of persons and things all of on« colour, could it, with 'any propriety, be called a prey of divers colours? Tliat tko^ baptisms were divers, will appear bv an investigation of the texts to which you re- fer for confirmation of your opinion: and, as you freq'iently refer to the Greek version of the Old Testament, 1 shall use the same freedom. The first text which vou cite is. Lev. xi. 32. There the law concerning unclean animals stands thus, And upon ithaisoerer am/ of them when they arc dead, shall f all, it shall be wn- I. !i! 40 V J* clem: whether it be nntj vessel of teood or ^'/yent or, km, or stwk, ,dial^ecer vessel • f^' '™'?''«'*" «»y ««-o»-A is done, if must ,V put into ( bapsetai ) water, that is literally, dipped in water, from bnpto I dip. «'Pi'ea S9 1""^ ""'^^eference is to Num. xxxi. 21, 2a, ^J. to which I add verses 19 and 24- And do ye abide, without the camp se„en dmis -who- soever hath killed any person, and u^hosoerer l^'h touched any slain, purify both yourselre, and your captures on tlie third day and on the seveMday The law for purifying such pe! onettif^T-- ^;"'- ^f'hosoever touchetl. one taut is shun t^tth u sucord, or a dead bo- "■■'~ *««» oe unclean seren dai/s V IS ^/ 1 V'""',^'""'''".* "''"" '«''" '*.'/*W, md dip tnat toucheth a bone or one stain. Al'etweniieth verse directs tliem to purify all rmment: it means tlie raiment taken in the war. 1 his purification was by dipping. Next hey were to purify the ?old, silver, ^c. This e ? ''® 5'o"e >>y makin- it pass throuffh the hp 'w«Ji t P"'-'fi'''^€ put iipped xi. 21, And ;whO' ^oerer selves m the h per- (venth \cheth d ho- I. 18. id dip I him >iirify n the N'ext, This h the te till upon ies V. your issa^e he di- re all prps- lipby pasg sh by pit/no I plunsre. I cannot pass this qnotaf'nn of vonrs with- out some remarks. You produced it to prove the baptisms mentioned by the Apostle were im- mersions, and so g:rant, that the Jewish purifica- tions are called baptisms by the spirit of inspira- tion. If this witness, upon cross examination, turns against you, whom have you to blame? Again Num. x'lx.ld. which 1 produce to show the manner in which persons were purified, is one of those texts, which you produce from Dr. Chapin to prove baptism by dipping, only you or rather the Dr. stops short, and onlv produces these words And ft clean per 'i on sh'dl takp h>fcrsedaf(hedoorofthetabernae|p,andfewwill be disponed to think that the body of Dorcas was washed by immersion. Having thus examined those baptisms or pu- rificafions enjoined by the law of Moses, instead of finding tliem all immersions, lavina- aside fl.^.' use of oil and blood, there appear no fewer than than five dilT.'rent modes, expressed in the Greek by a« many difTorent terms, illustrating the A- posUe s expression dii-em baptisms. ^re eon-' not the nony, if 'd, ft is viii. 20. nb. xix. general om ce- law of and to Lev. 'th vvlio ' ) rin- . And' ' The 'cts, is d feet , a dif- [id Aa- e door d(lou- 5 same n they r.ber."'- to the be im- w will )orcas ir pu* 1 stead; ie the r than jrreek tie A- I use the terms purification and purify, rather than wasliin^ and wash, because the terms are raorefjeneral, and can with greater propriety be applied to the different subjects to be purified^ and the diiferent materials to be used in these pu- rifications. It seems rather improper to speak of washing gold, silver, &c. or washing with oil or blood. It may be remarked here, that our Lord ap- pointed two positive ordinances, commoly call- ed sacraments, in his church. First the Lord's ^upper, in which he ordered bread to be blessed, broken, and eaten, and the cup to be drunk, in remembrance of his death. JJo w as those actions were well understood, no new directions were necessary, and it is quite needless to search Greek authors for the meaning of the word supper. In like manner, when he, after his resurrec- tion, instituted the sacramant of baptism, by which convert:^ were to be admitted into the church, as baptisms were in frequent use among the Jews, he gave no directions about the mode of administring it; and only enjoined, that it be administered in the name of the Father, and of tie Son, and the Holy Ghost; and for a new purpose namely to distinguish christians from the rest of the world. Our Lord made no alteratioji in the mode of baptizing. This is granted by yourself, other- wise there would have been qUr reason for your being at so much pains in attempting to prove that the Jewish purifications were all immersions: and you say (p. S2.) '' The meaning of the word ".-j^w^T„ Trc*cs vcTi laiiiiy vvuii Kiiuvvii as 11 was a *' word in common use. " In this meaning we ought to understand it, and it is of no use to search the Greek classics for its signification j i for, if the hoatben had not snch an ordinance they could not use the term in the same meaning with Jews and christians. Inattention to this tias^iven rise to much cavilling* on the subject It may be of service now, to state plainly the pomt at issue. It is agreed upon by both par- ties, that christians, by the command of Christ have to undergo a purification with water ; and tlie question is, whether the water is to be ap- plied to the person, or the person put into the water, therefore sprinkling and pouring are on tile one side, and dipping and immersion on the other. No^y, as J maintain the former, and vou the latter, to be the scriptural mode, I shall sub- mit my reasons, for your consideration. 1. ^My first reason is, that after a close exa- n^jnationof li-e divers baptisms under the Old lestament, J cannot find asingle instanceof one person dipping another by way of purification. 1 here were immersions of clothes and vessels ce- remonially unclean, but persons were uniform- ly cleansea by the application of water, and ex- cept Aaron and his sons by sprinkling-. In this manner was the tribe of Levi cleanled. Num. vm. t), 7. In this manner was every leper cleans- ed, Lev. XIV. 7. In this manner was cleansed e- very one who touched a dead body, or a grave or a bone of a man, or came into a house in vviiioii was one dead. Num. xix. Now, Sir, can you give a single instance of one person dipping another by way of cleansing or pnrifymg? No you cannot, nor of a precept to that eheet in the bible. ^ II. My second reason is, that Paul, treating of the divers baptisms, mentions only sprinkline: as the mode: Heb. ix. 13, 14,-lJ), 2L For 'U.'^ nance , eaninj;^ to this 11 bject. ily the h par- Christ, r; and be ap- to the are on 3n the )u the I sub- 3 exa- J Old 3f one ation. Is ee- tbrm- d ex- [1 this eans- ed e- rave, t?e in ce of islng !cept ng-of iling For. if thp blood ofhitfh and of goats, and the ash- es of an heifer sprinklhig the ftnrlean sanvtifi- efk lo the pnriftpng of the flesh ; how nmrh more shall the blood of Christ. For when Monies had spoken erer if precept to all the peo- ple according to the law, he ^sprinkled both the fmok and all the people. Moreotwr he sprinkled wifh blood both the tabernacle and all the cessch' of tlie ministry. Enoug-h has been said already te expose your notion that the divers baptisms mentioned v. 10„ should be ren- dered divers immersions, had you read the con- text, and considered the connection, the Apostle would have led you tc sprinkling instead of im- mersion. Tiie person who can read the ninth of the Hebrews, and believe that divers baptisms montionod v. 10. were divers immersions, is cer- tainly very dee[)ly immersed in prejudice. I II. My tliird reason is, that the Water in bap- tism is a symbol of the blond of Christ in itscleans- inii: efficacy, and this is called the blood of sprink- ling^: Heb. xii. 22, 24. Bd we are come tmto ttie mo tint Zion, and unto Jesus the medi- ator of t fie new cocenant, and to the tylood of sprinkling. 1. Pet. i.2. Elect according to the fore/aiowledqe of God the Father thro' sane- tijication of the Spirit, u^to obedience and sprinkling of flie blood of Jesus. You may perhaps say, the Apostles in these texts do not mean baptism. To this I would anwer by ask- ing, to what do they allude? Accordingto our view of the subject, these texts refer to the blood ofiJesus in its purifying efficacy, as prefigured by those purifications under the former, and by baptism under the present dispensation. What ' do you attach to these words, the blood of sprinkling? It I « iJ ^^:t -^^y/^"*;^*^ reason is, because T find tlmt s are brought into tLe a wbeu (be Geuiile nation church, they ^iurcii,tiiey are sprinkled ; IsQ. 111. i^. Sosnau he sprinkle many nations. It is evident, that the prophet is speaking, in the context, of the suirerin§:s of Christ, and the glory which would follow; for he mentions his visage as marred more than any man ; and then the success of tie gospel, that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard would they consider. Now it is evident tiiat the gospel, when first sent into a nation' will bring to tiieir ears what they formerly did not hour, and their considering* it is the means of tueir embracing the gospel, and their coi-eque»it> udmissjon into the church by baptism. The Spirit of inspiration foretold that many nations would be admitted into the church ana thjs text informs us that many nations shall be sprinkled. According to our view of the subject, when nations embrace the christian reli- gion and are baptized, this, premise is so farac- coj«piished : but how do you suppose it is or will ^ !f ^^^*7"Pl'-^^^^ ? Have you a promise in aH i^eHibletha.t many nations, or any nation, ore- ven one individual sjiall be immersed ? y My fifih reason is, the promise to the Jews at tiieir conversion ; Ezek. xxxvi. 26. Then liUiispru^a^ clean wafer nponyou^andye- shall be clean. Tie preceding verse shews, thai « tiiis promise is to be accomplished, when thev. ai>e gathered out of all countries, and the follow- intr verse agrees so well with the tenor of the new covenant, that there can bp no Hn«K* ..f u« - referring to that dispensation. This p'ronriW I ' TnTlf ' f ^^ly aceomplished, by the admission:, into tiie church by baptism of such Jews as have - *fi!am;ion, and have been baptized; but lis full accom[)l!shment shall be, when they as a people are grafted into their own olive tree; Rom. \i. eJ in the Holy Giiost, as they who were " buried in water, were overwhelmed ir covered '* all over with water, which is tiie proper no- "tion of baptism." Had you read the passage Acts ii. 2. you would have found, that what fill- ed the house was a sound, if persons are baptiz- ed by being immersed in a sound, we likewise immerse; for we never administer the ordinance in silence, and the person baptized is surrounded with tlie sound. You are very zealous for im- mersion, but not v^ery particular about the thhig in which the person is to be immersed ; for a per- son is baptized by being in a house filled with sound, or by being plunged in a ditch 1 Again you say (p. 44. ) *' The baptism of the " Holv Ghost and fire which John declared Je- *' sus should baptize with, meant that extraordi- "took place on the day of Pentecost, when th^ ^*ho?ise where thev sat was filled, and fhev werG ^^filijd with tlie Spirit, and cloven tongue-^ as of "fire sat upon their heads^ and tiiey vvere ena- it •< **bled to speak forlh the wonderfiiJ works of ** God in various lan^rnaires. 'J'liis was termed *' baptism in allusion to bein^ immersed in water, *' because the Spirit was poured forth in such rich *'etFusions, tliey might be said to be immersed in "it." In this dispute pouring* and immersion are Hie opposite sides of the question, therefore an ad- mission of tl:e one, is a denial of the other, if it was pouring, it was not immersion. The Spirit of inspiration calL-; it pouring, and you in the a- bove quotation twice call it pouring, how then can you, with any degree of con>istency, Ciur lis H^ ; bn't the point which you hdve to -priive is, that ^fipifo^fnd ba,pHzo are Ibe same. This however y<*n never attempt, Flease w^hen you write next, (prove this : but as our readers, rn g-enera^junderstannd Bngtish better than 'Grreek you may begin by ^p raving fhaft a ViHa and^ V S- tftjn are exactly fhe same : ^be «ame argt>»iien>ts tvill answer •equally W€»W In^eaeii case. 1 have shewed aJh-eadyj^at'&a^j^/o adapted iwto BngliiH»h wen^ld be %«pt. You reason on the swppositnm that the historian says they v^^ere bapfed, but the mys they 'werebqpMzed. Jn'Oflm^tinua^tion/ctf the same topic, you say to Mr. Jackson, '( p. 3d. ') *' Tha ne!Jrtn to be immersed ittto another is scarcely, and for a person to be immersed into the death of ano- ther is perfectly unintelii^ible. You would al^ ways transkte hapHz4>, immerse, and according to your version 1 . Cor. x. 2. would read. And were atl immen^ed (e\s.) info Mos^eft, It is the same preposition (ei.vinto) in both texts. What idea can you form^ of upwards of six hundred tliousand mew all immersed into Moses. It may be of moresetnriee to shew the mean- ing of those texts. It may be remarked thau bm- ried—mifkis, m the original, expressed by one compound word. Similar compounds occur in other epistles, as: Gal. ii. SO. cruvified—mith, EpK ii. 5*, 6. qmekemd^—wiih, raimd-wHh, made — sit — w Uh . 'I'he preposition: {fijfn^ with) in all these ex^- awples implies concomitancy, but in none of them likeness m resemblance ; and the doctrine taught in those texts is, that christians have fel^ lows-hip with Christ in his death, burial^ resurrec- tiofi, life, and exaltation. Now the Apostate's meaning may be clearly seen, he is dissuading from living in mn, and reasons in this manner, ** Know ye not, that so many of us as were by *' baptism admitted into feliowship with Christ, *' were by that baptism, admitted into fellowship *'iTr his d^ath. Therefore we are, by means of " tliis fellowship into which we are admitted by " baptism, buried with him into the death of the ^^'•bodiy of sin. v. 6/' In your view of the text tiiere is no attention paid k) these words, unto deciih^ yet death is whfttthe Apostle insistson in the contJpxt: v. 2; yt>€ are demi, v. 6. our old man is crucified, v. 8. 60 ,H' if we be dead nith Christ, v. 11. reckon ye aU so yourselres to be dead. Fellowship with Christ in his death, is a pow- erful motive to mortification, and the means by wiiich, through the operation of the Spirit, it is effected. All that you would substitute for this is, How shall we live in sin, for immersion is like a burial. You may see force in such an argu- ment, 1 cannot. The title page of your letters w^ould induce one to believe, that your notions are chiefly, if not altogether, supported by scripture, but a perusal of them shews, that you rest your cause on human authority ; and much of even that will fail you vvhen examined. The number of authors which you quote is respectable, and any person who peruses your letters, must allow you the honour of being a per- son of very extensive reading. To examine them all would be attended with much trouble, and but little advantage ; as the question should not be decided by the opinion of men, but by the word of God ; and to disregard them altogether, would be allowing your letters a degree of au- thority to which they have no just claim. Your authorities may be reduced to three classes, of one of those you give only the name, without giving their words. This was very pru- dent. One specimen of this kind occurs p. 30. speaking of the divers washings mentioned Heb. ix. 10. you say, '' Grotius, Whitby, and M*- " Knight, all eminent critics, and all pedobaptists '< are of opinion that these words should be trans- " lated divers immersions." On consulting Oiose " authors 1 find Grotius saying, '' These washings *'are called various, because there was one mode *' of cleansing the priests, another for the Levites, y,0|||ikMiiM«gthe.llew., tte diver* baptisms Ben«S;rHeb^ix. 16. were nat, a« far a. per- X w^the subject., immersions a. you ».sert ^^■^A*2ai» YOU. 8»y to Mr. Jacksow, (p. T7.) -HeiTJuTd observe, your first aad b.t *r- "glei^t* are draw^n frocn. source, wh^^ch we "tkce no great confidence ins via. haman an " SuTrHT' Now Sir, yo«r letters ar. ^""''^'^ with hLfttt authority. You say again in the TaiTe bZ " What mmi the pWn unlettered; "Xis't ^ do? M.«.t he iearn. Hebrew and eo«. »Lih fhe .I»w,i»h Rabbins, before he can- ol»t.un "iisfi.ction «.sp.otinga gospel -;^'"«--;^ Yet if. tiiia same- person, consult your le Hers heis Inferred ip, 33.) to a. Jew.8ii U-Dbi, and on m I "i-*; his authority alone rests the nece^.itv ..f . plele iinmer.^ion. "ece^sit^ ot com- ■"."^ "f Set: ,s ;",^sr rjr? f " lieve, rhat you express tl.e houetttnthr^Ji f your heart ; but a person may h^unZZ I enoe ofan undue ^as witho'urbein/ en^^.f '^^ It, audi am persuaded tliat fliK i« vn ,t wrong information and strone- nrt; " h f'^" I'd you far from the truth Xee'nT.he'lr'! under consideration «*P«eung; tiie subject ofthif^r^^irfsuEn ^prf"te;'>::: account of Mr. Merill's turning Ba.f^/^" (P.SS.J "The result was thaMhT B p^t" mi'^ n.er was invited to bury a number S hem with their Lord in baptism." Does fh« «1- ^ ever call baptizing pe'ople burjl? he„f or would any person, except a Baptist use ^,eh. m inner of expression ? ' ' "''° * '1 he Spirit of inspiration says Lev v!v 7 And he .halt sprinkle npon hln thai is ZL cl-ansed from the leprisu, JerenZZ. J^ sh.41 pronounce him Ueun ThTs you wo^ld eorreC, and say, (p. 38.) " sprinkling and no",r il'*-»^>^'»l^lf. 3 to wash, 4. to paint. Tertullian alludrag to ]■ Cor. 1. 14. says of Paul, Tinxit Crispum et Gaium, &e. Now, Sir, how would you trans- 1nt« Tertullian's words? would you sax He dvro you suppose that the silence of the sacred historiansduringall that period, is a proof against infant circumcision during the Mosaic dispensa- tion? And if you do not, what weight can \ou attach to the silence of the historians of the New Testament? I would remark farther, that you take a strange view of the New Covenant, and, without any reason which I can see, suppose it different irom au oiue. ? uveuiiijis icuvjmcvi n* o^ujj^i".- j and that, in a point in which tiiey all agree, viz. including infants Several covenants are men- tioned in my first i-tter, and the benefits confer- red m each extended to infants, as well as to a- our reir- contain* ;. They ny of the )r taught and then i you say he seal of •apable of I exclude . If you le former ith atten- historians^ t of infant t. Now, history of 3y Moses, pture wa lat periodf an mfdtta. the sacred 3of against > dispensa- it can \ou ►f the New ^ou take a id, without it different art PI rtin VO agree, viz. s are men- fits confer- ^ell as to a- 73 dults ; the covenant made with Noah secured in- fants, as mucli as adults, from being destroyed bv a flood, the covenants made with Abraham extended to hi infant seed, and so of all others. 1 did not include tlie covenant of works or of grace among those then specified, and only men- tion then* no^v, so far as to say, that they include infants ; for if infants were not included in tlie covenant of works, how came any of them to die? and if not included in the covenant of grace how can any be saved ? Now as infants are in- cluded in all other covenants recorded in scrip- ture, I would ask, what reason can be assigned for excluding them from tiie new covenant? 1 know not what you can say to this, unless, per- haps, that infants are not expressly mentioned in it. Should vou sav this, 1 would ask you. In what covL-^nant are they eapressli/ mentioned, except that ererlasiing covenant by which their rii?ht is secured ? and if the EVERLASTING covenant of God be not sufficient to secure the continuation of that right. Pray what is? 1 have hitherto been speaking of your prin- ciples as a baptist, permit me now to address a few words to yourself. The zeal which you shew, for what you conceive to be truth, com- mands my respect, and I shall mention some things, which, I think, have led you into error. First you have depended too much upon infor- mation unworthy of credit. A perusal of these letters will shew you, that much of your infor- mation will not stand the test of strict inquiry. Again, you have exercised your own judgment too little. 1 would advise you to review the subr^ ject, take a view of the texts brought forward in defence of immersion, and consider if there be a- ny thing like baptism included in them. Your 74 i( .) Id I i I .■ r own jud^ient shewed you once and a^in, that there is; not ; yet you preferred the judgment of others to your own, and so were k I astray. Permit me, Sir, to mention some principles which should be kept in view in the investiga- tion of religious truths in general, and bear upon this subject in particular. The first is^hat God is one, and always the same in nature and pur* pose: hence it follows, that the plan of redemp- tion from its commencement to its consumma- tion is one, revealed by degrees, as God in his in- finite wisdom saw meet. 1'his is quite inconsis- tent with the notion of God's erecting a church, and after a while letting it become extinct, and beginning another. The New Testament dis- pensation is the accomplishment of the promises made to the church under the former dispensa-* tions ; Paul taught none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. Acts, xxvi. 22. Hence it follows, that comparing the promises under the former dis- pensations with their accomplishment, is the best means of ascertaining the meaning of several passages of scripture. There is one thing which renders this course diflReult to the inattentive reader, the Old Testament scriptures were writ- ten in H( jrew, and the New in Greek ; hence the terms are, in several instances, different. These texts Acts, vii. 45„ Heb. iv. 8. appear to many readers obscure; but when they under- -stand that Jesus in those texts means Joshua, the passages are clear. In like manner a per- son reading the Old Testament, never meets with the term baptism, and hence rashly con- cludes, that there was no such thing ; but this mistake may be rectified by reading the epistle to the Hebrews: Paul mentions baptisms under .] > 76 the former dispensation once and asrain. One of the texts, in which it occurs, has been consider- ed already, the other Heb. vi. 2, where Paul mentions the doctrine of baptism^ refers to tlie Old Testament purifications, for under the pre- sent dispensation tliereisbut one baptism. Eph; iv. 5. • , . . lu A-e It is necessary here, to keep m view the dit- ference between the Old Testament scriptures, and the Old Testament dispensation, the former of these ended with Malachi, the latter, with the death of Christ. j . j You, Sir, seem to me, not to have adverted to these principles, and from the manner in which yon mention John's baptism (p. 4.) con- ) sider him, as introducing a religious rite entire- ' ly new into the church, and that his hearers had nothing but his profession to induce them to be- •i lieve, *' That his baptism was from heaven." Now' if you compare Mai. iii. 1,2, 3. and iv. 5. with John i. 19, to 25. you will see, that John's baptism was the accomplishment cf Malachi's prophecy, that the Jews expected it, and did not consider the rite a novelty, but only inquir- ed what right he had to perform it; as is plain from the question proposed to John, IFhf/ bap- tizfist thou then, if thou be not that Christy nor FAiciH, neitfier that prophet ? Whence it is plain > that they expected that Christ and the messen- ger sent before him would baptize, the matter > will appear plain, if the same term which is used in the prophecy, be likewise used in the accom- plishment, and the word purify substituted^^for baptize. John i. 2b, will then read thus, Why parijiest tfioii tlien, if thou be not the Christ, nor fjtiafi, neither thatpropfiet? There is still one passage in your letters^ ofe 76 which 1 would make some remn-ks,You say p. 50. " Luther iu his transhition of Mat. iii. 1. says In *' those days came John the dipper. Why wag *' John termed tlie baptist or dipper? Because *'he baptized or dipped his disciples. This ac- ** counts in a satisfactory w ay for our being call- **ed baptists." Now, Sir, I must remark here, that Luther did not use the term dipper ; for he did not tran- slate the Bible into English, but into German. The term dipper therefore, is but the translation of a translation. Why then should we leave the original and go to a translation, which we must again translate : or must the mere English scho- lar renounce the present version, learn German in order to understand the meaning of the term baptist, as applied to John, and all this to be led into a mistake ; for baptist is n«>t derived from the word which means to dip, but from the one wh'ci moans to baptize. Were there any necessit 1 for changing t-ie term, according to the language in which the New Testament was originally written, it would be baptizer. Baptistes is form ed from bapfho in the way in which basanistes is formed from basmiizo ; and according to the| language of the Old Testament scriptures, it might be rendered purifier. John tlie Kaptlst was an eminent servant o God, but there are tvvo very great improprie- ties in your conduct respecting him : all the true disciples of the Baptist became the disciples ol Christ, is it not then a backward motion, for tlie disciples of Chri.t, t'j call themselves the disci-l pies of the Baptist? Afirain you make the baptism of John the ori* gin of your baptism, and are at some pains (p. 4^,.) to shew that'* John's baptism was christian! ou say p. 50. . 1. says In Why wag ? Because . This ac- being call- hat Luther id nottran- German, translation ve leave the ?h we must igllsh scho- rn German of the term his to be led ed from the e one wh»cl. y necessit :\e lano;uajs:e 5 orig^inallyl sfes is form- 1 baffaniftf€s\ ding to the! criptures, itj t servant oi improprlej all the true! disciples ol lion, for the »s the disci! •< baptism." Now, Sir, when, do you suppose, did the Jewish or Old Testament dispensation end ? 1 know of but one opinion on this subject, viz. that it ended, when Christ said it is finished, bowed his head, and gave up the Ghost, and the vail of the temple was rent from top to bottom. John's baptism was therefore a Jewish purifica- tion or baptism, one of those mentioned Heb. vi. 2. ix. 10. Again, christian baptism was instituted by Christ, after he arose from the dead : on this likewise, there is but one opinion. The best Baptist writers grant, that Mat. xxviii^l9. con- tains the institution of christian baptism. What then is the propriety of insisting on examples of an ordinance before its institution? Besides, John's baptism was not administered in the name of the Father, and of tlie Son, and of the Holy ,j Ghost, as christian baptism is: and thisistiie t principal difference between those baptisms in point of form. Finally, John's baptism did not answer the ends of cliristian baptism, it did not " draw a line "of distinction between God's professing people "and the world," for the whole Jewish natioii were God's professing people, till they finally rejected and crucified their kin^, for, during our Lord's ministry, salvation wasof the Jews, John, iv. 22. John's baptism was not an ordinance for admitting converts into the church, for, like all the baptisms of the Old Testament dispensa- tion, it was administered to such as were alrea- dy in the church, and to them only. You are sensible, that we are discussingthis subject under a very high degree of responsibili- ty. Upon the closest investiiration of the sub- ject, i must consider your letters, as haviltg.4 7» tendency to exclude from the chnrch ar ordi- naiire of divine ini^tilution, and to substitute in iLsplace,a rite founded i>pon human supersti- iwn. Ihave considered every thing which you havea^^ancpd in support ^your opinion and practieii^arrd shewed you the reasons of mine If you consider the.se letters, examine their con- imU9, and make the result known through the Si'.we ehanijel, ali due attention shall be paid it \t Ue and health be continued to ' Your Humble Servant. DUNCAN ROSS, tl f-4: V T iK! M< ^m.f m 'S n. I' ar ordl- iiiiuxe in 'upersti* iFch you lion and mine. If eir con- ugh the paid it, (i-vant, ROSS. r n