towards the Baptists; and in leading me to judge favourably of some who embraced their sentiments.

But, dear Sir, I think you were the first person who ever intimated to me a reason why I did not go over to the Baptist ground; at least the first, who suggested the same reason, viz. “That I feared to appear in opposition to GREAT NAMES."

This suggestion I think has been of some use to me; but on the most careful examination I cannot find that what you suggested is the reason, nor any reason why I have not become a Baptist.

But I am free, Sir, to confess to you, that there are things which I do fear when I contemplate the idea of embracing the Baptist theory and practice, according to the prevailing fashion of the present day. And, wishing that my freedom may give you no offence, I shall take the liberty to state to you, in some following letters, the grounds of my fears. It is indeed a delicate task which I have proposed for myself; and it requires, perhaps, more candor, wisdom, and prudence, than I possess, to execute it in a suitable manner. But I hope, Sir, that I shall not, in any instance, lose sight of my accountability to Him who searcheth the heart. According to my views of duty, I shall use plainness of speech; but I mean to avoid railing accusation. Some things which I view as of a reprehensible nature, that have appeared in many of your denomination, I shall have occasion to notice; but I hope to notice them in such a manner that I shall have no occasion to tremble at the thought of meeting a Baptist at the bar of God. And I hope, Sir, that you will read with a disposition to disapprove of evil, whether it be found in yourself, or in any of the brethren of your denomination. Yours, &c.

5

Rev. Sir,

ACCORDING to promise I proceed

to observe,

1. I fear to take ground on which I must meet with serious questions, arguments, and objections, which I cannot answer otherwise than by disgusting quibbles, cants, or jeers, or insulting excla

mations.

Serious questions, arguments, and objections, I foresee that I must meet, if I become a Baptist. With respect to many of which, I can foresee no way to answer or obviate them by fair reasoning. And from the free use which is made of quibbles, jeers, and exclamations, by some writers and speakers on your side of the question, I suspect that they discover, in many instances, no rational mode of defence. I think that no man of sense, and due consideration, would make use of the weapons I have named, in such a serious cause, but from dire necessity. To think of being reduced to such necessity, fills my mind with dread. I therefore fear to become a Baptist.

I will not, Sir, pretend that there are no instances in which Pedobaptist writers and speakers have been guilty of using such weapons as those to which I have objected; but this, Sir, I think I ought to say, that the use of such things is beneath the dignity of a Christian Minister, inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, and disgusting to persons of a humble and judicious mind. Yours, &c.

A2

Rev. Sir,

ONE ground of fear has already been stated; I will now observe,

2. That I fear to take ground on which I must make use of dogmatical assertion instead of argu ment, or use arguments which I know are fallacious and inconclusive.

I am sensible that with many people confident assertions have more weight than conclusive arguments; and this circumstance appears to be perfectly understood, and greatly relied on, by too many Baptist writers and speakers. But I have, Sir, either a natural or habitual aversion to such a method of proving a point. And to make use of arguments which I know are fallacious and inconclusive, seems to me to border hard on dishonesty.

If I should become a Baptist, I know not of but two sources of argument, of which I could make use, to disprove the propriety of infant baptism. And my conscience tells me, that arguments from either of those sources must be fallacious and inconclusive.

What is called the want of explicit warrant, is one of the grounds I must take. By explicit warrant is meant a plain or express precept, or an unquestionable example. But how could I honestly reason from this ground against infant baptism, while I know that a point may be as clearly and fully proved by fair deductions and inferences, from Scripture premises, as by what is called explicit warrant ?

Besides, if I deny infant baptism for the want of explicit warrant, I must also, to be consistent

with myself, deny the right of female communion at the Lord's table; the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week; the propriety of administering the Lord's supper in a public manner before the world; the propriety of audible and public prayer, before and after sermon, or before and after baptism.. I must also deny the right of any ordinary Pastor or Elder of a particular church to administer the ordinance of baptism; and the propriety of continuing water baptism in the church since the days of the Apostles. Moreover, I must deny the right of any particular person, whether Baptist or Pedobaptist, to officiate as a Gospel Minister.

Female communion, and the change of Sabbath, have often, and justly, been urged as standing on the same ground, as to the mode of proof, with infant baptism. Now, Sir, I will seriously ask you, whether all the other things, which have been enumerated, do not also, as to the mode of proof, stand on the same ground? Where will you find express precept, or unquestionable example, for administering the Lord's supper in a public manner; or for the practice of public and audible prayer before and after sermon, or before and after baptism? Not in the Bible, it may be presumed. Where will you find your explicit. warrant for a Pastor of a particular church to ad minister the ordinance of baptism? And where is your explicit warrant for the continuance of water baptism in the church? The whole support of water baptism in the church, at the present day, results precisely from the same mode of reasoning which we adopt in favour of infant baptism, viz. inferences from Scripture premises,

1

and the testimonies contained in ecclesiastical history.

We come now to the last particular. Permit me, Sir, seriously to request of you to produce explicit warrant, from the Scriptures, for your officiating as a gospel minister. Is your name explicitly written, or your character unquestionably described in the Bible as an authorized minister of Christ? Or have you even fully and unquestionably the qualifications which are explicitly required of a Bishop, Elder, or Pastor?

Suppose a man should doubt the propriety of hearing you preach, and should demand of you a Thus saith the Lord, authorizing you to preach the gospel; what method would you adopt to satisfy his mind? To be consistent with yourself, in denying infant baptism, would you not be obliged to acknowledge that you have no warrant to preach the gospel?

Now, Sir, is it not extraordinary that Ministers of your denomination should so confidently deny, reject, and even ridicule infant baptism, while every thing you do as Baptist Ministers is wholly unauthorized by any such warrant as you demand in support of infant baptism? And while you cannot support one article of your own practice, in respect to positive institutions, by any other mode of reasoning than that which you ridicule, when adopted in favour of baptizing the infant seed of believers? Is it not, Sir, still more extraordinary, that, while the whole of your own practice rests on this mode of reasoning, you should feel yourselves authorized to connect with "Antichrist" the whole Pedobaptist church in all ages? Your's, &c.