The next business which you undertake, is to make, in my judgment, an unnatural and a fomewhat dangerous addition to every text of Scripture in which the word baptizō is used. To each you add, by affufion. This business, which fills your pages from the 27th to the 33d, I fhall leave to the reflection of your readers, and turn my attention to your own obfervations on what you had done. It is pleafing, my dear Sir, that you do not appear fully fatisfied with what you have done: I defire that you may be less and less fatisfied, till you fhall be altogether diffatisfied.

You conclude that the connexion in which the word baptizō is ufed, does not preclude the poffibility of baptifm being administered by affusion. You do not intimate in your premises, from which you draw your conclufion, that there is a probability that the ordinance was ever administered by affufion, but that there is a poffibility. Hence you conclude, that if this be admitted as a possible thing, it is evident that my affertion, respecting the uniform, exclufive meaning of the word, as fignifying immerfion, and that only, is entirely without foundation."

Here, Sir, either your judgment or mine is incorrect for in my judgment, I may admit your premifes, without fearing the conclufion. I would reft the whole cause, or had I liberty, I might fafely do it, upon this fingle point, that it fhould be forfaken, if your premifes, upon their being true, would harm it. Your premifes are,-firft, that there is a poffibility, from the connexion in which baptizō is used, that baptifm was administered by affufion; fecondly, that there is no probabil ity, from the connexion in which baptizō is used, that it was ever administered in that way.

Now, Sir, can you have a fingle query in your mind, whether a gospel ordinance, which hath nothing for its authority but pofitive precepts, may not be duly adminiftered, according to the precepts and pattern given, when it is, at the fame time, administered in a manner which cannot be fupported, even by a probability arifing from fo much as one text out of fifty, which contain precepts or examples relative to the pofitive ordinance enjoined? In all fuch moral cafes, where, from the connexion of any pofitive law or ordinance, there may be a poffibility of any certain thing being enjoined, yet if there be no probability of it, it amounts to a moral demonstration, that no fuch duty was or is enjoined, unlefs we would reflect the highest reproach upon the Lawgiver.

All which I need to establish the point, with all who fuitably honour the Scriptures and the Christian Lawgiver, is, to prove that the literal, the plain, the common fenfe of the Scripture is, that to be buried or overwhelmed in water is the only Christian baptifm. Ten thoufand poffibilities for any thing else, arifing from the connexion of any text in which the word baptizō is used, would not alter the matter an hair's breadth.

*

Befides, Sir, you confefs that in fome inftances there appears an harfbnefs in the fupply, by affufion, arifing from the connexion: and you do not prefume to fay that it is eafy and natural in any, fave in thofe paffages which refer to the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft; of which fay you, water baptifm is undoubtedly a fymbol. Hence, if I prove from your own conceffions, that the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft means immerfion or overwhelming, you will yield the point in controverfy, or renew it under increafed difadvantages.

Now, Sir, to the point. What is the baptifm of the Holy Ghost, judging from your own conceffions, as well as from the word of God? Your Letters to me fhall give the anfwer.

Speaking of Rom. vi. 4. you fay, page 45, "The fpiritual, internal baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, exactly coincides with the whole of his (the apoftle's) representation, and invariably produces the effects he mentions."

In page 48, fpeaking of Col. ii. 12. your words are, "It is just like the other," i. e. it is just like the above paffage, Rom. vi. 4.

In the paffage which we have been juft confidering, pages 33, 34, you tell us, "Water baptifm is undoubtedly a fymbol of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, which is a figurative baptifm;" pages 60, 61.

In page 60 you have thefe words," There must be some evident likeness between the fubject to which a word is applied, in the natural and primitive use of it, and the subject to which it is applied as a figure; otherwise there is a grofs impropriety in the figurative use of it."

Now, Sir, permit me to put thefe ideas, conceffions, and declarations of yours together.

1. To be buried with Chrift in baptifm, to be planted in the likeness of his death, to be buried with him by baptifm, and to be rifen with him in baptifm, Rom. vi. 4, 5. and Col. ii. 12. is to be baptized with the Holy Ghoft; or the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft exactly coincides with this reprefentation."

2. "There is an evident likeness between the natural idea of planting, burying, and rifing as from the dead, and the figurative baptifm of the Holy Ghoft, or there is a gros impropriety (as you fay) in the apoftle's figurative ufe of the

words."

3. Water baptism is a symbol or figure of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft; it is, therefore, a burying, a planting, or immerfion, your Letters, as well as the word of God, being judge.

Hence, Sir, by going a large distance round, to avoid what you feared, you have proved, to my hand, what I endeavoured to establish through the courfe of five fermons.

Though I approve of the conclufion to which you have brought me, yet I cannot fay that I confent to all your premises. You-appear to me to be incorrect, in fetting down the paffages in Rom. vi. 4, 5. and Col. ii. 12. as containing inftances of the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. Should you ever in the world be a thorough Baptift, or if not, when the light of heaven fhall give you light, you will, if I mistake not, fee very clearly water baptifm pointed out in both thefe chapters.

If you can honestly get by the above argument, and still retain your ground, I wish you to: but should the argument be found impaffable, then cheerfully concede that truth is ftronger than man, and yield to her fovereign mandate. He who is willingly conquered by truth, is a conqueror himself.

I am fincerely yours, &c.

I

REVEREND SIR,

LETTER V.

N your fourth Letter you manifeftly difcovered a diflike to my affertions and arguments. In this I propose to give my readers fome fhort, notices of what I did, both as to argument and affertion; and alfo fet to view how you attempted to wind yourfelf out, and how, by the attempt, you have wound yourself up in them.

My first argument, to prove that the Greek word baptizō means to immerse, bury, &c. was-The most learned critics in the Greek and English languages, bear their united teftimony, generally fpeaking, against your practice, against their

own, and for the Baptifts, that the common, the plain, the literal fenfe of the word is as I had given it. Your reply is, "To have recourfe to fuch miferable authorities, to deter mine relative to an effential and exclufive article of Christian doctrine, is not the most refpectful treatment of the great Infpirer of the Bible." The only end which I had to anfwer, by quoting the definitions and critical remarks of critical and learned men, was to afcertain the definition of a word. Do you fuppofe, Sir, that I and the reft of your readers, were all of us born with innate notions, anfwering to all the ideas meant to be communicated by all the Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and Greek words in the Bible? If this be not your belief, then you know that you and I, and our readers too, muft gain fome of our first knowledge from <ritics, or from compilers of dictionaries, lexicons, and other writings of men, &c. When we have gained what knowledge is at hand, as to the meaning of any word, and our confequent duty, as related by the best of men; yet if there be any more fure word of prophecy, we fhould, as did the Bereans, take heed to it. Accordingly I did in the fecond place turn to the word of the Lord, in which I found it thus written, Mark i. 5. And there went out unto him John) all the land of Judea, and they of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him IN the river of Jordan.' Thus, Sir, by comparing the teftimony of learned men and the fure word of prophecy together, I find they both agree, and therefore believe both.

But, Sir, what fhall I fay to your reply? Shall I tell the learned world that Mr. S. Auftin, who would not allow me to conjoin the teftimony of learned critics with that of the word of God, in order to make fure the definition of a word which he is difpofed to controvert, dares himself to confront plain Scripture with many great but nameless critics? Shall I tell it in Afkelon, or publish it in Gath, that the fame Mr. Austin, who will not allow a dictionary, lexicon, or concordance, each fanctioned by the learned world, to fay one word, dare fpoil the plain, literal, common, and only fenfe of a plain paffage of Scripture, when all the authority which he pretends to poffefs is, that it is the opinion of many great critics, that John actually did baptize in the river of Jordan by affufion? Shall I tell the fame learned world, that the fame Mr. Auftin afferts, in his public Letters to me, page 35, That the fuppofed evidence of this paffage must lie wholly in the prepofition IN, and that applies to John as really as to the fubjects of his administration ?" "Nay, (fays Mr. Austin)

it especially relates to him; the confequence is obvious,-it is, that John was immerfed at every administration of the ordinance." A perfon who can affert thus roundly, without fo much as a fhow of evidence, and call it arguing, may be expected to find some fault with the affertions and pretended arguings of his opponents. But, Sir, I have a little more to fay of this argument of yours, by which you would deftroy my evidence from Scripture. You fay, "This confequence is too unpleasant to be easily received." What confequence? The one which you had juft drawn, "That John was himself immerfed at every, adminiftration of the ordinance." This confequence you draw from your own premife," that the prepofition IN relates efpecially to John," together with my definition of baptizo, that it is to immerse. Now take your own premife and your own definition, if you have any, or take your affertion, that baptizō is a gene ric term, and means not any particular kind of washing, but wathing in general, or any application of water: and what is the confequence? "The confequence may be unpleafant, and too unpleafant to be eafily received" but as unpleafant as it may be, I fhall fet it down, and the world. will judge on which fide the unpleasantnefs falls.

:

The

confequence is-If John baptized by affufion every time he adminiftered the ordinance, he affufed or poured water on himfelf if he baptized by fprinkling, then at every administration he was fprinkled himfelf: if he ufed water in any other way, in the adminiftration of the ordinance, in the fame way the water came on himfelf. Thus, Sir, your own' argument makes nonfenfe of John's baptifm, take it in any way which you please. Either John's baptifm must be given up in whole, or your method of managing it.

In page 36, you are pleafed to exprefs yourself thus: "You next, for lack of proof, go on to repeat your affertions." And how do you know "it was for lack of proof?" Is it always the cafe with you, when in your fermons you recapitulate fome particulars which you had paffed over, that you do it for lack of proof? If not, your accufation against me may not be well founded. A little afterwards, fpeaking of my recapitulation, you fubjoin, "My dear Sir, repetitions and affertions are not arguments. We ask of you proof." Proof, Sir, you may expect; proof of two kinds proof that your examination of my Sermons was not well founded, and proof that no fimilar oppofition will be able to injure the leading fentiments which they contain