ligion, I fhould not think myfelf called upon to attempt a reply. But fince the honour of Chrift as Head of the church, and Law-giver in his own kingdom, and the peace and tranquillity of two denominations of Christians are in fome measure involved in this difpute, it appears to me of importance that the ground of the controverfy fhould be fully ascertained. And as you have endeavoured to lay the blame wholly to our denomination, I fhall moft cheerfully come forward, with a vindication of myfelf and brethren.

In purfuing my prefent defign, I fhall be led to remark upon feveral things, which are offered to confideration in your Friendly Letter. In doing of which, I hope to be governed by a spirit of candour and Chriftian love, and can affure you, that nothing would give me more fenfible reget, than to mifconceive, or mifreprefent your meaning. In fome inftances I could have wifhed that you had been more explicit, which would have relieved me from the fear of mistaking you.

It will not be expected, that I thould follow you in the exact order in which you have treated the fubject; nor that I fhould reply to all that you have written, Some of your obfervations are agreeable to my views; and fome of them appear to be unconnected with the fubject in difpute. To avoid prolixity, I fhall omit many things which might with propriety be urged in the prefent controverfy.

You have obferved, that with fome degree of care you had perufed the pamphlet which I had written: if fo, you must have obferved our main objections to free communion confift effentially, in two things; viz. 1. That baptifm is a divinely appointed pre-requifite to communion at the Lord's table. 2. That immerfion upon a profeffion of faith is effential to gospel baptifm. The first of these I take for granted you have given up: for you obferve, (p. 9.) The question is not, whether baptifm in fome mode be an effential qualification; you alfo add, (p. 13.) I do not deny that baptifm was prior to coming to the Lord's table in the apoftolick practice. I fuppofe it was: and I alfo fuppofe their example to be worthy of imitation in like circumstances.'

་

Thus, Sir, he who is unbaptized, however amiable his character may appear, is effentially difqualified in your efteem. In this particular we feem to be agreed, that baptifm in some mode is effential to a due qualification for the Lord's table. And I believe this to be the general sense of the two denominations. The other objection remains yet to be confidered; which may be divided into two queftions: i. e. Who are the proper fubjects of baptifm? And, what is the appointed mode? I have said in my other Piece, that we confider "profeffed believers as the only proper fubjects of baptifm ;" and "that immerfion is not a mere circumftance, or mode of baptifm, but effential to the ordinance." I have not observed in your Letter that you have difproved thefe fentiments; but what you have faid in this refpect fhall be attended to in its place. For the prefent we shall only fay, that you have raised a huge host of fuppofitions and confequen ces, and brought them all against our fentiments, as if you were determined to frighten us out of our allegiance to the great Law-giver; but we may fay as Saint Paul in another cafe, None of these things move us.

If I have rightly comprehended your reasoning in favour of free communion, the most material arguments are the following. 1. That the effence of baptifin does not confift in any one particular mode whatever. (p. 10.) 2. If it fhould finally appear, that you had miffed the divine appointment, yet, as godly fincerity is the very soul and ESSENCE of conformity to Christ,' you are therefore as well accepted in the fight of God, as though your outward conduct had been according to the appointed mode.' (p. 19, 21.) 3. Suppofing that the Pædobaptifts are really in an error, if Chrift does not view the error as fo effential but that he will commune with them, why cannot you commune with those at the table, with whom God communes ?' (p. 28, 29.) These appear to be the main pillars on which your fuperftructure is built; and fhall each of them be particularly confidered. Having thus ftated the conftitu ent parts of the difpute, we are now prepared to attend, to each particular.

SECTION

II.

Profeffed Believers the only appointed Subjects of Baptism.

IN your third part you obferve, The question to be difputed is fummarily this: Whether, for a perfon to be baptized by immerfion, after believing, be an effential term of communion at the Lord's table?' Of this queftion you inform your readers that I take the affirmative fide.' But, my dear fir, you have not stated the queftion right: that is, if you mean to have me take the affirmative. Nor will your quotations from me fupport such a statement. The paffages quoted, and from which you make the mistake, are in thefe words; that "baptifm is to be administered only in one mode, and to one kind of fubjects." That "profeffed believers are the only proper fubjects of baptifm." I fuppofe the difference to be eafily difcerned. I faid "profeffed believers," you fay "to be baptized after believing." The former fuppofes that a perfon may fatisfy a judgment of charity, and yet be a hypocrite: the latter, that he is infallibly a believer. I conclude, that a perfon may be baptized according to Chrift's inftitution, and yet be a hypocrite; but he cannot be baptized institutionally, without a profeffion of faith. We are obliged by the gofpel rule to require a profeffion; but we are not obliged to know the fincerity of the perfon who

makes it.

you

Now, Sir, to fome the queftion may appear to be the fame; but it is evident that there is a very fpecific difference; and, from the wrong manner in which have stated it, you have gone on to draw falfe conclufions, and to crowd a train of difagreeable confequences upon our fentiments, which will appear of no force, when the question is rightly confidered.

You inform your readers, (p. 12) that we fuppofe, "not only that immerfion is effential to the ordinance of baptifm, but that none are proper fubjects of it but vifible believers." From this you draw the following inference: If none are proper fubjects but vifible be

lievers, none are proper fubjects but real believers.' You illuftrate it as follows: For although a perfon's outwardly appearing to be a proper fubject, may give him a right in the fight of men, it does not in the fight of God.'

You will permit me here to inquire, whether you have any other method to judge of the real piety,' the godly fincerity, or the proper qualifications of perfons for fpecial ordinances, but what is vifible, or in the fight of men? If you have, it is a prerogative which we do not claim. I think, Sir, the inference grants, that they have a right in the fight of men; and although God may know them to be hypocrites, as he is not pleafed to interpofe and make the matter vifible, who will dare to challenge their right, and forbid their proceeding?

That this obfervation may appear in its proper light, we will bring the matter upon trial; and, if you please, we will borrow an example from the New Teftament to illuftrate it by. In the eighth chapter of the Acts, we have an account of Philip's vifiting and preaching the gofpel in Samaria, and of the happy effects which followed. That a people who had long been bewitched, were now reduced to reafon and religion, which was the occafion of great joy in that city; and it is faid, "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized, both men and women." It is also added, that Simon believed; that is, he appeared to Philip and others to believe: for we cannot fuppofe from the account afterwards given of him, that he was a real believer, though at this time there was nothing appeared to the contrary. Now, what was Philip's duty in the prefent cafe? It is evident that he required, as a pre-requifite in his candidates, that they believe with all the heart; as appears from another circumftance recorded in the fame chapter. And although Simon appeared to him to be a true believer, yet, in the fight of God, he was nothing but a hypocrite.

It is abundantly evident, that Philip required the fame qualifications, in order to baptifm, that the

Baptifts do at the prefent day. It is equally evident, that he baptized a perfon, who, in the fight of God, had not thofe qualifications. The prefent inquiry is, whether he did right or not? If you fhould choofe to fay, he did not act confiftently with his principles; this will lead us to inquire again, what reafons could determine him in acting otherwise, as he did not know the heart of Simon? But as this anfwer would neceffarily involve you in a controverfy with him, I fhall for the prefent leave it, to be fettled between you. But fhould you give your opinion in favour of his conduct, by whatever arguments you would vindicate that, the fame will ferve to vindicate ours, under fimilar circumstances. It may be proper here to attend to the confequences you have drawn from the preceding obfervations; i. e. that upon our principles it may be neceffary to adminifter the ordinance of baptifm fifty or a hundred times to the fame person.' Alarming as thefe confequences may appear to you, they do not greatly terrify us: For our principles have had a practical exiftence for ages paft; and yet I can affure you, I have never heard of a perfon's being baptized five and twenty times. Nor is it common with us to baptize a perfon more than once. But if we should think it neceffary upon any occafion to repeat it, Pædobaptifts do even the fame. Some of them have become fo liberal, as not only to immerfe, or Sprinkle, as the candidate may choofe; but, to immerfe thofe who have been fprinkled in infancy, and have been members of their churches for many years !* If it be neceffary to perform it twice, I know not but that fome circumstances may render it equally neceffary to perform it fifty times.

But, Sir, I wish to bring the instance of Philip and Simon once more into view, as I think it may ferve to remove fome of your fuppofed difficulties. It will undoubtedly be granted, that Philip baptized the forcerer, upon the fame footing which he did the other Samari

If I am rightly informed, the Rev. Mr. P paftor of a church in your vicinity, has baptized a number who had been baptized in infancy. The fame has been done by the Rev. Mr. B― of Randolph, in Vermont. Other inftances might be mentioned if necessary.