Apostles understand it in a literal sense? If not, why did they all, without exception practise it in a literal sense? Did not the primitive christians understand it in a literal sense? and the whole christian world, till" 170 years ago?"

Amicus is pleased to say, that, "in the latter period of the church, the use of water decreased." But where is his proof? He may be challenged to show from scripture or from the history of the first fifteen centuries, that a single individual was ever admitted to the visible christian church without water baptism. If the Apostles had inculcated, in their latter years, the abolition of this ordinance, or had even omitted its celebration, among a people so disposed in all things to follow the example of the Apostles, we should certainly have heard of some churches or individuals objecting to this ceremony. That Peter ever changed his mind on this subject, you bring only one text to prove; when he says that the baptism which saves" is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience." 1 Pet. iii. 31. But this very text implies that the word baptism refers to water, and that the outward rite was then in use; and only declares (what we all believe) that water baptism will not save without spiritual baptism.

That Paul changed his opinion you have as little ground to assert from 1 Cor. i. 14. His thanking God that he baptized only a few of the Corinthians does not prove that they were not baptized by others-by Timothy, Titus, Silas and his other companions. Peter might have said, he did not baptize Cornelius and his household, for he only "commanded them to be baptized" by his attendants. Acts. x. 43.

In fact, Paul gives us three reasons for his conduct. Not that water Baptism was wrong, but, 1. They made it an occasion of party Spirit. (see v. 12.) 2. That he might be free from the suspicion of wishing to make a party: "lest any should say I had baptized in my own name" (15) or to make Paulites. 3. Because he had a more important business, for which he was better qualified than his companions, while they were equally qualified to baptize. "Christ sent me not to baptize, but preach the gospel," i. e, I view this as my principal duty. This is the simple meaning of a passage of which you make so much. Take away these two passages, and you have not a sentence to show that these Apostles ever changed their earliest views. We know moreover, that Paul and Peter left their respective regions in the use of this ordinance. We know also, that the other Apostles and Evangelists left every country where they laboured, and where they died, in the use of water baptism.

In short, it does not appear there was ever a doubt on the minds of the Apostles, Evangelists, or Preachers, or Christians

for more than a thousand years, until George Fox arose and discovered that all were wrong!-Now, Amicus thinks me very presumptuous for saying, "our Lord knew his disciples would understand him to mean water baptism;"-as if I would doubt his omniscience!

Again; that our Lord intended literal baptism in this command, is evident from the words which precede and follow the word "baptize." "Go teach all nations baptizing them," &c. It is well known to all acquainted with the original Greek, that the word here rendered "teach," literally signifies "make disciples." When therefore, our Lord commanded, "Go make disciples baptizing them," he in the language of the day, described the well known and universal mode of making proselytes. As if he had said, "You well know what is meant by making disciples, and the manner of baptizing them; I therefore without any unnecessary explanation, tell you, Go and do as the Jews are in the habit of doing, as John the Baptist did, and as I myself have done, (John iv. 1.) baptize all who shall profess their repentance and faith, and thus admit them to the number of my disciples." If our Lord had intended to set aside the old, or point out some new way, he would not have used language that exactly described the old and common mode of making disciples. The only novelty or change he intended to introduce, he was careful distinctly to express, as he did in regard to the Name in which they were to baptize. Had he said nothing on this subject, they would have used the old form. We have reason to think, he changed the language, just so far as he wished to change the thing, and no farther. And as he changed nothing but the name in which they were to baptize, we have no right to suppose he intended they should make any alterations in the mode of baptizing.

Once more, that our Lord, in this command, and the similar one, Mark xvi. 16. intended water baptism, is evident from his omitting to make it essential to Salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Now I ask why is Baptism omitted in the latter clause. If our Lord meant the Baptism of the Spirit, he might have inserted it with perfect safety, since it is certain he that is not baptized with the spirit will be lost. But if he was speaking of the baptism of water, the reason of its omission is evident: -though highly important as a profession and evidence of faith, it is not essential to salvation. Rom. x. 9, 11.

On the whole, therefore, from the literal meaning of the term; -from its usual meaning in the New Testament;-from the definition of all Lexicographers ;-from the interpretation and practice of the Apostles ;-from the words connected with it by

Our Lord;-from its being a baptism not essential to salvation; -and, from the unanimous understanding of the whole christian church for more than a thousand years, we infer, there is no reason to doubt that our Lord intended to enjoin Water Baptism. PAUL.

LETTER X.

Seventh-day, 8th Mo. 25, 1821.

In my former Essay on the subject of Baptism, the great leading features of the two administrations were marked out; first, that of John the forerunner, "the baptism of Water;" and secondly, that of Christ the great antitype in whom all the shadowy Ceremonies of former dispensations had their accomplishment, "the Baptism of the Holy Spirit." In tracing the outlines of the two dispensations I endeavoured to shew that John's baptism was typical-elementary-carnal-Christ's spiritual and divine -John's the weak unessential baptism of water-Christ's the powerful essential baptism of the Holy Spirit, without which no man can ever see the kingdom of God. Now if this point be established, and it has not been denied, I consider the strongest position gained, and, as the successful commander, who having captured the main body of his enemy's army, has nothing to do but pick up the stragglers, my only business is to answer the little arguments founded in verbal criticism or palpable misunderstanding.

The readers of "Paul's" last address to us must have observed that this ground remains untouched by him-his plea for carnal ordinances is not founded on their conformity to the nature of the Gospel dispensation-this he well knew he could not sustain he knows they are one in nature with the "meats and drinks and divers washings" of the Mosaic code, and equally impotent in their operation with the legal purifications of the law, and until he can shew that "the law of a carnal Commandment" is to supercede "the power of an endless life," all attempts to justify his doctrine upon Evangelical principles will be in vain.

"As "Paul" in his last address to us has expressed an opinion, that because "Amicus" admits the fallibility of the Apos tles he has consequently "cut himself off from any further quotations from the preachers or writers of the New Testament"-I think it proper before I attempt to answer his objections that I should endeavour to remove this difficulty. "Amicus" would be very sorry to lose the advantage of Scripture testimony in

the cause he has espoused, because on that testimony he principally relies for the confirmation of every opinion he has advanced or shall advance in the present discussion.

Now I freely confess that I never had an idea that the Apostles were infallible, and I give "Paul" the credit of being the first writer who ever offered such a sentiment for my consideration. I always thought that they were men of like passions with us, according to their own testimony, Acts xiv. 15. I had no idea that like the Pope of Rome, they had ever pretended to be infallible. I remembered that when the Apostle Paul met Peter at Antioch he withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed-because he dissembled because he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel-because he compelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews-see Gal. ii. 11, 13, 14.-I remembered that the Apostles Paul and James, together with the Church at Jerusalem, twenty seven years after Christ had abolished the ceremonial ordinances of Moses, were found the abettors of those ceremonies: see Acts xxi. 26.-I remembered that Paul and Barnabas, two of our Lord's Apostles had so sharp a contention at Antioch that they could no longer travel together in the ministry of the Gospel See Acts. xv. 39. From all these recollections I had admitted the idea that the Apostles were fallible men-men of like passions with ourselves-haying the same infirmities with their brethren-liable to the same prejudices, and only infallible when under the immediate guidance and instruction of the Holy Spirit-Nevertheless I cannot understand why such an opinion must invalidate their writings-because I freely admit that they wrote under the immediate influence of Divine inspiration, which I acknowledge is perfectly infallible in all its operations.

I will now advert to the arguments used by "Paul" to maintain the expediency of perpetuating John's Baptism-for the necessity of it he does not contend-he grants that it is not essential to salvation-so that the whole sum of all his arguments to induce us to be sprinkled, amounts to no more than that we ought to submit to an unnecessary form.

Now as water Baptism is confessedly nonessential in its nature, it should have been shewn that our Lord by some 66 express Command" enjoined it on his Church-this our opponent has failed to do and ever will fail to do. This great point he is forced to rest upon the ground of conjecture; the improbability of which I will now attempt to demonstrate. For this purpose I will quote the two corresponding passages of Matthew xxiii. 18, 19. and Mark xvi. 15, 16, wherein they give some acccount of the last interview of our Lord with his disciples and the conversation he then had with them. These passages eminently il

lustrate each other, and establish our doctrine beyond the reach of a doubt-Matthew says, "And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world."-Mark says "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Now it is evident from these passages that the Baptism which Christ commanded was a Baptism absolutely essential to salvation" He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved"-by connecting belief and Baptism together and making Salvation to depend equally on the two, he plainly declares that this Baptism was the essential saving Baptism of the Holy Spirit-" Paul" in commenting on this passage has profanely attempted to wrest a plain Scripture text-to put asunder what God has joinedin the face of the strongest Scripture language he has declared that our Lord" omitted to make the Baptism here spoken of essential to Salvation." The text however stands firm, an unimpeachable Witness, whose evidence corresponds with the testimony of holy men in all ages-with the experience of every real Christian-that they and only they who believe and are Baptized with the Holy Spirit can be the heirs of Salvation.

In answer to "Paul's" query "Why is the word Baptism omitted in the latter clause" of the 16th verse above quotedi. e." he that believeth not shall be damned"-I answer, for this very obvious reason, that as belief must precede Baptism by the Holy Spirit-so he that does not believe cannot be baptized by it, and consequently damnation follows upon unbelief alone.

There is one circumstance which remains to be noticed, and which goes to prove that the Apostles never understood our Lord to intend that they should, by virtue of the aforesaid commission, Baptize their converts with water. In all the cases of water Baptism that occurred afterwards there is not a single instance of any one being Baptized" in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Now if the Apostles had understood their Lord as modern Christians do, I cannot conceive how they dared to omit so important a part of the Ceremony. This view of the case brings our opponents into a serious dilemma-either the Apostles did not understand him to mean Water Baptism, or else they disobeyed the positive Command of their Lord.