you fo hard, as we are compelled, in fome inftances, to do.

Had you known, that the word of God, though it uses two very fignificant figures, of fynonymous import, burying and planting, to fix the effential mode of baptifm, yet never mentions any other mode, and that there is no other mode to it, fave accidental modes, which it would be trifling to name, you would not have faid, that "as to the mode of the eunuch's baptifm, this verfe is filent."

Whenever any being or action is mentioned, the effential mode of it is mentioned by implication. Your manner of expreffion tends to mislead the ignorant and inattentive.

But the following part of the paffage quoted is ftill much more exceptionable. "On the ground of this (fay you) and a few other difputed verfes, the Baptifts fet themselves against the great promises of God."

My dear Sir, you could hardly have miffed the truth more fully than you have here done. We do not reft the matter of baptifm on a few difputed texts, but we reft it where the Scriptures reft it; on all the texts, and every text, in which the Bible speaks of the subject. We take the whole collectively, and every one individually, and find that every one, and the whole, are plainly and literally, implicitly and exegetically, in our favour; and that just the contrary is the cafe with you, in this article of baptifm. Your denomination have not shown us, and we fufpect they cannot show us, that they have plain evidence, implied evidence, or

exegetical evidence, or any other fair evidence, that fprinkling ever was, is now, or ever will be, gospel baptism.

Not a fingle text of Scripture, where baptifm is mentioned, hath fo much as a fingle fhade of likeness to your practice. The Pædobaptifts have abundantly confeffed and defended this. Some of the most learned of your own denomination have made fimilar confeffions; and all of your denomination, who have written upon the fubject, have either confeffed that the gofpel and apoftolic practice was immersion, or have, by their inconclufive arguments, proved that they were not able, from Scripture, to fupport your practice. Their arguments from the 7th of Mark, 11th of Luke, and 9th of Hebrews, all fail; not one of them, nor all put together, have links' enough to make a chain, which will reach from fprinkling to gofpel baptifm, fo as to prove them one. Till you can do this, which none have done, your hardness against the Baptifts does not appear either cand did or Chriftian. Your denomination have, many a time, faid many ingenious and good things; but things however ingenious and good, if they do not relate to the queftion directly, do not urge conviction, like folid arguments, full to the point. In your letters, you have, on the queftions debated, faid many good things, many plaufible things, and fome things rather too fevere; but where have you faid one conclufive thing?

I will here fet before you a fhort fample of your argumentation; and, by a long acquaint

ance with you, I know you to be a man of fenfe, when you take the right fide of a queftion; and therefore prefume, that when your reafoning is expofed, you can fee its weakness. The particular fample to which I wish your attention as a critic, is page 27, in the words following:

"The parable of the ten virgins we suppose exhibits the general state of religion, both in the Pedobaptift and Baptift churches; and Chrift hath fellowship with both, fo far as they walk in the path of the juft. And hence it is an undeniable inference, that in imitation of Chrift, they fhould walk as brethren, and live in fellow fhip, as churches of equal standing in Chrift."

Here, Sir, contrary from all logical or reafonable argumentation, you have a doubtful major, and particular minor, and an undeniable and univerfal conclufion. Such reafoning as this cannot be admitted in a cafe fo important as the prefent. You fay, we fuppofe; but how does an undeniable inference follow, from a bare fuppofition? You again fay, "Chrift hath fellowship with both, fo far as they walk in the path of the juft." But ftill, how does your undeniable and univerfal inference follow, that the Baptifts and Pædorantifts fhould live in fellow fhip, as churches of equal ftanding in Chrift?

We would, Sir, were it to your advantage, willingly grant, that both your inajor and minor propofitions are true, as you ftate them, with the change of a word, focieties for churches; but ftill they have no connexion with your undeni

able inference. For, fuppofing the parable of the virgins exhibits the ftate of religion in both denominations, and Christ walks with both, fo far as they walk in the path of the juft, how does this prove, that you walk in the path of the juft, as members of the visible church? Or that we should have fellowship with you, as churches of equal standing in Christ?

Were it not for hurting your feelings, and wafting time, you could be presented with many famples of fomewhat fimilar argumentation, from divers parts of your pamphlet, if not from the beginning to the end of it.

We do not, however, fo much complain of your arguments, as we do of the hard application which you make of them.

What feems most unreasonable, and, in our judgment, a fpecies of religious cruelty, is, that by fuch fallacious arguments, you would drive us from our duty, and compel us to juftify your departure from the faith of gospel baptifm; or elfe ftigmatize us to the world as bigots, fchifmatics, and as persons, who fet themselves against God and the churches. Such ufage is not good from any man, worfe from a Christian man, and worst of all from a Christian minifter.

We are willing you fhould prove us guilty, if you can; for truth, and not victory, is what we feek. But to be condemned without evidence, or by fuborned evidence, is what we fhall not tacitly submit to.

In page 33, you affert, "On the article of close communion, the Baptists act without and

G

in oppofition to the Scripture; they judge their brethren, they fet at naught their breth

ren."

Thefe are hard accufations, which you are not able to prove.

In page 34, you tell us, that the Pædobaptifts, as well as the Baptifts, hold to believers' baptifm.

Here, Sir, you mistake, and your words might communicate to many an unjust idea.

You know, if you reflect a moment, that neither the Pædobaptifts, nor the Pædorantifts, hold to believers' baptifm. You hold to this, that a believer may be fprinkled, or even baptized, if he have not been fprinkled before: but you hold to no fuch idea, that perfons fhould believe, before they be baptized; which is the precife idea of believers' baptifm.

In the fame page, at the bottom, you begin another very general affertion. "On thefe two queftions," (i. e. believers' children the fubjects, and fprinkling the mode of baptifm,) "the decifive weight of Scripture is against the Baptifts, much the greater, and most enlightened part of the true church of God being the judges."

Dear Sir, nothing but want of information can fave your character, as a man, and efpecially as a Chriftian, from the most disagreeable imputations, whilft you, as an author, would impofe fuch unfounded affertions upon the public. I am forry for you, as a man, and as an old friend; but when truth is fo maligned, not only without evidence, but contrary from