pect Mr. C. has not yet caught the precise view of the passage which I mean to put forward. I conceive that the thing absolutely forbidden, is the vowing that we will do so or so under some pledge or forfeiture, which we stake to confirm our engagement-which is called, in Numb. xxx. the binding our souls with a bond, for the performance of what we undertake. That such is the intention of every oath administered in this country, even the oath of testimony, I think, is indisputable; though I long wilfully shut my eyes against it, not so much for sparing myself, as for sparing others; and I am persuaded that the more the thing is examined by disciples in the light of the truth, the more will it be found revolting, not only against the passages of scripture, in which it is expressly forbidden, but against all the principles of the gospel. Though such an oath was not expressly forbidden under the law of Moses, yet I do not at present recollect any instance in which it was commanded. The thing most like it, perhaps, was the oath of cursing, which attended the administration of the waters of jealousy; but that was a divinely instituted appeal to the God of Israel, for his miraculous interference to authenticate the truth of an antecedent fact. As to its being necessary to the nations of the world, that men should bind themselves under a great curse with respect to their future conduct, I am aware that political writers are apt to speak of such oaths as the grand bond of society; but I consider it as one of those principles which pass current in the world without examination, though utterly without foundation in truth. Do you really think that any man was ever restrained from acts of treason, by the consideration of his having taken the oath of allegiance, and in that had imprecated against himself the forfeiture of the divine aid, in case he should fail of keeping it? But I have been betrayed into more argument on this subject than I designed.

I pass on to a few remarks on the question of Baptism. I could wish that Mr. C. had only seen, or only attended to what I have offered on that point in the seventh of my Letters on Primitive Christianity. I there aimed at divesting the subject of every thing which I conceive can be at all fairly questioned; of every thing on which my own mind is not quite decided: for I have no hesitation in confessing, that I profess not equal decision of judgment on some questions, which may be raised about the subject, in some of its bearings. I have written chiefly against the baptism of the so-called Baptists in these countries; and I am fully persuaded, that it has no warrant or precedent in the word; that it is a mere human figment, and very wicked in the principles connected with it. I am sure, also, that although I was sprinkled by a clergyman in my infancy, it would be vain to think of instancing that rite as any thing like what I read of, as practised in the apostle's days. I am sure, therefore, that I have never been baptized with water, as the first christians generally were; and I find myself wholly unable to see from the scriptures, how I could either now, or at any period of my life, conform to the rite, which confessedly was then practised, except in some farcical imitation of it.

Mr. C.

66 says, one convinced that he ought at some time to have

been baptized would, without trying to determine exactly when that time was, desire, without further delay, to have it now done;" and I have often heard a similar remark, but I confess it appears to me to have more of plausibility than force. I cannot be convinced that I ought at any time to have been baptized, without knowing in general who ought to be baptized, and on what occasion; for surely it might be shown, even from the acknowledged ordinance of the supper, that a disciple may live and die in circumstances, in which he cannot and ought not to practice it. The same divine authority which marks the ordinance, marking also the occasion on which it is to be observed. But here, in order that I may not waste arguments in the dark, I should like to know what your practice is: some of Mr. C.'s language would lead me to suppose, that, when you receive additions to your churches from the antichristian world, you call them to be baptized with water: I speak not now of the children born to you subsequent to your own church membership. But I should conceive that you do not acknowledge, as christian baptism, any rite under the name, which had been practised towards your members previous to their connexion with you: for Mr. C. says, "as to those who never professed that faith, (and he has sufficiently marled that he means by profession here, that profession in which there appears nothing that nullifies it) nor were baptized at the request of parties who did profess it, I cannot think they were ever entitled to baptism, or that any thing they received under the name, ought to be considered as such." I am not disposed at all to controvert this; but as it seems to me to point to a practice, quite different from what I understand to be the practice of the Glasites in these countries, I wish to ascertain whether I mistake the writer's meaning or not. I never conceived that Mr. Glas or Mr. Sandeman had any other baptism with water, than what they had received under the name, in the church of Scotland. You will not suppose that in making this remark, I mean to insinuate that you are disciples of men. I rejoice to think that you have manifested a very different mind. We certainly appear to differ greatly in our application of the phrase professors of Christianity; and I think the scriptures will bear me out in speaking of the profession of the christian faith, in connexion with real opposition to it, as constituting that which is properly antichristian. I do, therefore, consider the whole antichristian world as professors of christianity: does not Paul take the same view of them in 1 Tim. iv. 1-3. and in 2 Tim. iii. 1-5.? are we, in such passages, to understand him as describing the blindness and ungodliness of men, not even professing the christian faith? I confess that I feel a weakness of judgment and indecision of mind, whenever I am pressed with the question, What would you do if you were among heathens, and any of them received the truth? would you call on them to be baptised with water? I have no legitimate motive for concealing that indecision, and the remaining ignorance of scriptural rule connected with it: yet I see no reason for retracting in the least my position, that in the commission given to the apostles in Matt. xxviii. 19, the Lord did not command them to baptise with water; and bear with me when I say

that I do not see any force in Mr. C.'s argument for establishing the contrary. I by no means wish to suppress the reason, which Paul assigns for his having baptized so very few, "lest any should say I baptized in my own name"-but I do not see how that, or any similar consideration of expediency, could account for his thankfulness to God, that he had so seldom done what the apostles are supposed to have been commanded to do. Apply such a reason to the preaching of the gospel, and what would you think of it? and as to the supposition of any thing distinct in Paul's commission from the rest of the apostles, Mr. C. justly admits, that we have more recorded instances of persons baptized by Paul, than by all the rest of the apostles. Now I allow that the administration of baptism was no more exclusively confined to the apostles in the primitive practice, than the preaching of the gospel; but if they were charged in their commission alike with both, I cannot understand how an apostle should thank God that he had been so little engaged

in one.

As to Mr. C.'s objection, that my view of the commission would produce an unmeaning tautology, it might be so if we were to stop as he does at the word baptizing them; but I think not at all, when we connect these words with the following. Suppose it had run thus, "go ye therefore and disciple, not men of the Jewish nation only, but men of all nations, baptizing them, not unto Moses, but unto the doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;" would there be any unmeaning tautology, although we took the word baptizing in the same sense which it obviously bears in 1 Cor. x. 1, 2? I think not; and I think the passage last referred to, would be sufficient to authenticate the sense in which the word baptism, or baptizing, was to be understood. The expression in Heb. x. 22, which Mr. C. adduces as indisputably importing baptism with water, I really do not think refers to any such thing; except so far as there is an allusion certainly to the Jewish washings, the substance of which shadows, believers are declared to have; and I would beg of you to consider in connexion with that the passage in Eph. v. 26, and the words of Christ in John xv. 3: in all these passages I think our attention is directed to that, which all the Jewish washings or baptisms typified. But I feel rather uncomfortable at taking up the subject in such a hurried way at the close of my letter. By the length at which I have written, you will judge that I feel no small interest in your correspondence. May it issue, to the glory of the Lord, in the correction on each side of whatever is contrary to His revealed truth and will.

Believe me, dear sir, &c.

XCIII.

TO MR. B

Dec. 2, 1822.

But

MY DEAR SIR,-* * * Much of your language is pleasing. It appears pleasing that you profess approbation of such plain and offensive truth as you have met in my reply to Mr. Haldane. excuse me for saying honestly, that in the greater part of your letter, you seem to be less occupied with the greatness and glory of the unadulterated truth of the gospel, than with the display of some supposed discoveries, which you think you have made in the interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures. I mean to return to that subject before I conclude; but, at present, let me observe that we are all vain creatures naturally, seeking our own glory and trying to set off ourselves in all that we do and say; nor do I know any class in which this vanity is more strikingly predominant, than in religious professors of long standing. I do not mean by any remarks of this kind, to disavow the hope that you may prove to be a disciple of the Lord. I would cherish that hope as far and as long as the Word of God warrants. But, according to that rule, I cannot return the language of brotherly confidence with which you address me, till your profession is authenticated by something more than words. If you had all knowledge, so that you could understand all mysteries, and interpret the most difficult passages in the law of Moses and the prophets with critical exactness, it is yet possible that you might not have love, by which faith works, and which can be manifested only in keeping the commandments of the Lord. You say you have been a professor of the name of Jesus for near forty years. Probably you have been long a professor of that name; but I dare say you inean by professing it a profession of the uncorrupted gospel : perhaps you mean that you have been so long a partaker of the precious faith of God's elect. I should like to know how that has been manifested, what are the fruits that have evidenced it. Probably the fact is, that you have been so long a very serious professor of what is called evangelical religion. Well: this country abounds with such; and so far as I weigh most of them in the balance of the sanctuary-(false weights and a deceitful balance are an abomination to the Lord)-I know not any greater enemies of the cross of Christ. In general, the doctrine they profess and teach, when their meaning is stripped of the spurious disguises which conceal it, proves to be another gospel than that which the apostles preach; and, accordingly, when the latter is brought forward plainly against their corruptions, I know not any who avow more unequivocal hatred of the truth, From such a disciple I cannot look for any of the genuine fruits of faith. But there are some others, and their number is at this day increasing, who appear to confess with

their mouth the same unadulterated gospel, which whosoever believes shall be saved. Yet their profession is nullified in my view, because it appears to be only talk, and they prove themselves, by their works, destitute of the fear and of the love of the Lord. Themselves and their admirers would think this a very extraordinary charge for any one to bring against them, because they are often eminent for what is called piety and strictness in their religious life-hold fast the traditions of their elders, what is called family duty, and the observance of the Christian sabbath, and the hearing or preaching of plenty of sermons, &c. &c. But talk to those men of the special commandments of the Lord-of the way in which the apostles teach disciples to walk together in the closeness of Christian fellowshipand of the divine institutions by which that fellowship is to be regulated; and they are found utterly deaf to the reproof and instruction of the Word, and as zealously making it void by their traditions, as the Scribes and Pharisees of old. That such professors have not the love of God in them, and that the fear of God is not before their eyes, the scriptures bind me to conclude; just as much as if I saw them living in drunkenness and adultery. When I therefore find a man, who tells me that he has professed the truth as it is in Jesus for forty years, supposing him to be really a man of truth, I should rather expect to find this statement accompanied with an avowal of shame and godly sorrow, for having long taken part with the antichristian abominations of the religious world: I should expect this, because I know how widely these have overspread the country, and how even disciples have been infected by the deceivableness of their unrighteousness. But passing this-my first inquiry from that professor would be-what he has been professing as the truth? and here my great object must be to get out of words and phrases, at the real meaning which he attaches to them. If he stands that test (and very few do), my next inquiry must be have you been, or are you, holding fast the tradition of the apostles (2 Thes. ii. 15), or the precepts delivered by them to the churches of the saints? are you walking with the disciples by that rule; or, if you can find none to walk with you by it, are you standing alone, in absolute separation from any religious fellowship with all others? You have said so little distinctly in your letter about the truth which you profess (though what you have said is pleasing), that I am disposed to ask your meaning in that expression, -" None ever received him yet unto salvation but sinners." I ask it, because I well know the meaning of the words, as employed by the evangelical world, and they mean a lie. By sinners they understand what they often term sensible sinners—sinners who have been previously brought to acknowledge their need of such a Saviour as the gospel reveals; and this they mean to mark as, what they call, the first work of the Spirit of God, which they say is in a man prior to his believing the gospel. The same professors commonly mean by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ, something else than receiving the testimony of God in the scriptures concerning him, or, in short, believing that testimony; and the mere belief of that they reckon a thing of very subordinate importance. Now if any thing