REVEREND SIR,

H

LETTER XI.

AVING traversed through your Letters, I proceed to your Appendix. In it you were pleased to notice my pamphlet, entitled, Open Communion with all who keep the Or dinances as Chrift delivered them to the Saints. "As it comes out in the form of letters, addreffed to Mr. Anderson, the duty of replying to it (fay you) is properly his, I shall not take it out of his hands, but beg leave to trouble you with a few remarks on what I find in this work."

Mr. Anderson is, Sir, confeffedly the proper person to reply, and no doubt he will, if he fill confider his ground defenfible, and have arguments at hand for the bufinefs; but as my Letters to him were not of a private or perfonal nature, but implicated all his denomination, as being with him in the fame error, he probably will not take it unkindly; that you fent out your Appendix, as a precursor to what might follow. You, Sir, it is prefumed, faid but little in your Appendix, compared with what you confider might be faid; you will, therefore, not be offended, thould I, whilft replying to you, keep fomething in referve againft Mr. Anderfon fhall appear with the main body of arguments: I fhall, however, endeavour to filence fome of your fuppofed refutation, and remove your supposed strength, in which you trust.

It is worthy to be noticed, that in the fecond page of your Appendix, you tell me, "that I am refponfible to the religious public, to prove that to baptize invariably means to immerse, and that only." I confider this, Sir, to be already done, at least so far that you have not been able to difprove it befides, this point may receive fome additional light, before the Letters now writing fhall be closed.

"We are

You add, in the fame page, "The world must not be impofed upon by round affertions and dogmatic declamation," nor by fuppofitions, you should have faid. not (fay you) to be put out of the vifible fociety of believers, but for forme evident difqualifying reafon. And now you are seriously called upon to prove from the Bible, what with fuch an air of certainty you affume." Have patience with me, and if the Lord will, I fhall endeavour all you ask: this you may expect in my next Letter.

In page 99, you tell us, that "the difficulty is wholly on our part, and that it is without foundation." Here, Sir, you mistake in whole. Is the difficulty on our part, when you are continually taking from the people the key of knowledge, by wrefling the Scriptures, by mifapplying them, and by many erroneous interpretations, fo far as they refpect gospel baptifm and its fubjects? Not only fo, but ye enter not into the kingdom of heaven yourselves, and them that are entering in ye hinder. The whole tenor of your Letters to me, is to juflify your own neglect of duty, as it respects baptism, and to prevent others from complying with theirs: or, (to exprefs the matter in milder terins,) the manifeft object of your Letters is to justify your practice of fprinkling instead of immersion, and to encourage others to believe and practise the fame, when you have not found, and cannot find, one fentence or word in all the Scriptures, to warrant your practice, or justify your departure from gofpel baptifm. You have fearched, and by fearching have found that you have nothing but fuppofitions and uncertain conjectures, for your infant fprinkling or infant baptifm. Mifer alle bafis this, for the foundation of our faith in the firft gospel ordinance. On fuch a bafis ftands your faith; and by fuch weak and beggarly arguments would you drive us from gofpel baptim, or to confent to the validity of fprinkling; and not only fo, but you contend with us, because we choose not to reft our faith and venture our practice on fuch conjectural ground, when we have for our present faith and practice the broad bafis of all the Bible, fairly and unequivocally in our favour, fo far as it mentions the fubject. You furely ought to have had better arguments, and fome facts in your favour, before you pronounced, in the face of infpiration and before the world" that the difficulty is wholly on the Baptists' parts and without foundation.”

The next and last thing in your pamphlet is now to be confidered: it is your particular refutation of my fentiments on open communion with all who keep the ordinances as Chrift delivered them to the faints. This your fuppofed refutation must have a particular examination, for it is calculated to mislead those who examine things very partially.

I propose to state your refutation as explicitly as I can, and try its ftrength as concifely as may be. You begin your refutation thus-" The leading principles of your de fence feem to be these :

"I. The fault, fay you, is wholly ours, because we refufe to fubmit to an exprefsly appointed ordinance of the

gofpel." "We contend, that we as seriously reverence, and as confcientiously obferve this ordinance, as the Baptists: but your manner of applying water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, has nothing to do with baptifm: here we are at issue. You have yet furnished no proof; we have furnished clear demonstration to the contrary."

Anf. This, Sir, is the whole of your refutation of what you fet down for my first principle.

I have two queftions to propofe, and then shall leave this part of your refutation to your future reflections. The firft is, you fay, "We as feriously reverence, and as confcientiously observe the gospel ordinance of baptifm, as the Baptifts." What do you call a ferious and confcientious obfervance of this ordinance? Saying all you can against it? Refufing to fubmit to it, and fubftituting man's invention in the room of it? We wish you to be delivered from fuch ferious and confcientious obfervances of the commandments and inventions of men. Befides, it is your fentiment, that this ordinance is to be observed or received when we are infants, when we can know nothing about it. How much ferious reverence and confcientioufnefs infants have we know not. Secondly-The strength of your refutation is fuppofed, no doubt, to be in your concluding words, which are, “You have yet furnithed no proof; we have furnished clear demonAtration to the contrary." This is worthy of observation"We have furnifhed (fay you) clear demonftration!" The queftion is, to whom? and where? we have not seen it. Clear demonstration! this is all we want: if you have farnished it, it ought to have been written in capitals, that not one of your readers fhould have paffed it over unnoticed. The truth is, you have mistaken the business: you have furnished no demonstration of any kind, fave it be this, that you are oppofing the only gospel baptifm, and that the contrary from what you advocate is true.

Your statement of my next principle is,

"II. You tell us, (fay you to me) the perfect idea in the prefent controverfy is, "The actual communion at the Lord's table is to be confined to baptized believers."

This principle, Sir, you implicitly grant to be true, and my statement juft; and contend that you are baptized; and, instead of clear demonftration, bring in your congregations as witneffes that you have been the fubjects of gofpel baptifm, by your having been sprinkled in your infancy, which is a mere human fubftitute for gofpel baptifm. But, Sir, you

know, or ought to, that thefe congregations, from whom you have fo taken the key, of knowledge, that they know not what baptifm is, or to whom it fhould be administered, are no witneffes in this cafe. You have taught them to misunderstand the plain fenfe of the Bible, and to read fprinkling for baptism, and Abraham's household for difciples of Chrift; and now would conftrain us to admit them as witneffes. No, Sir, we fhall admit no fuch fuborned or tutored evidence: we afk for your clear demonftration.

III. You ftate my third principle to be-"The being born of water or baptifm, is the perfect and visible line of separation between the vifible kingdom of Chrift and the kingdoms of this world." "Your grand, and as far as I have obferved, your only text to prove this is John iii. 5. Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' But this darling doctrine is refuted

"1. By what you do; for you baptize perfons upon the ground of evidence that they have been already born of the Spirit, and therefore are, before baptifm, visible believers.” Anf. This, Sir, we at once grant, but how does this refute my doctrine? But you add, "and of the kingdom," as though to be a vifible believer, and a member of the visible kingdom of Christ, were one and the fame thing. By thus confounding things you may keep truth out of fight, and blind your readers, but you can never in this way refute my doctrine.

"2. This darling doctrine (fay you to me) is refuted by what you fay; for you tell us, that John's baptifm was gofpel baptifm; that the multitudes from all Judea and Jerufalem, who embraced John's baptifm, previously brought forth fruits of repentance, yet when they were baptized they were only prepared to be introduced into the kingdom of the Meffiah." Sir, I find no fault when you mifquote my words, provided you retain the idea, but here you have miftaken both. Speaking of the people made ready and prepared by John, my words are, page 49, Of this people, and of this only, for aught appears, Chrift took and formed the firft vifible gofpel church; or this prepared people were the church, though not yet organized.' Had you quoted my words, this part of your refutation might have been spared.

3. You tell me that my doctrine "is refuted by the text itfelf; for whatever be defigned by the kingdom of God, and whatever is to be understood here by being born of water and of the Spirit, both are neceffary, as pre-requifites

to a perfon's entering into the kingdom of God. The birth goes before the entrance." Anf. If you will be kind enough to inform the public for how long a time a perfon must be born before he enters into the world, then they will poffefs a neceffary datum to understand your new doctrine, that the birth goes before the entrance; till you do this, your third refutation might also have been spared, for the public will not be able to understand this new doctrine, without fome clue to it. In the mean time, the common fenfe of the public will lead them to believe my doctrine, that the birth is the entrance.

Say you again, "The being born of water is placed before being born of the Spirit." Anf. If you will read the third verfe, which you had juft mentioned, which fpeaks of being born again, you may find your mistake.

4. My doctrine, you fay, "is refuted by abundance of other Scripture evidence; for example, there were multitudes who belonged to the vifible kingdom of God before Chrift, who were not born of water." Anf. You ought, Sir, to have told us where this Scripture evidence is, which proves that what Chrift faid is not true. Chrift faith, Verily, verily, I fay unto you, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' You fay there is Scripture evidence, that multitudes have belonged to the vifible kingdom of God before Chrift, who were not born of water. Befides, Sir, Chrift fpeaks, Mat. iv. 17. of the kingdom of heaven as not having made its public appearance, but as being then at hand. Where you fee fit to contradict Jefus Chrift, in direct terms, I leave you to answer it to him.

In the next place, you tell us, "that Chrift himself was never born of water." Had you forgotten, or did you fuppofe that none of your readers would recollect, Mark i. 9. that Jefus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John IN Jordan?

Again, fay you, "Matthew and Levi, Philip and Nathanael, Andrew and Peter, and probably the reft of Chrift's difciples, were not born of water, as the commencement of their vifible ftanding as his difciples." But had not these been born of water, baptized, of John? Had not John made them ready?

"The penitent thief upon the crofs (fay you) was not born of water, and yet the atteftation of Chrift in his behalf determines him to be a visible member of his kingdom." Here, Sir, you have either a double intention, or you di