conclude, that the jailor's household are said to be believers as well as himself.

Whereas the evidence, from the use of this participle, is quite the other way.

I am, &c.

LETTER II.

SIR,

YOUR third letter to me is now to come

under consideration.

In the beginning of this letter you make pretensions to candor and fairness; but renounce them both at the very next step. For you make me to maintain, "that manifest unbelievers are proper and gospel subjects of baptism. These are your words again. I have said no such thing. What I maintain is, that the infants of visible believers are gospel subjects of baptism. That manifest unbelievers are such, is quite another proposition. You say, this principle is an error, which it belongs to you to refute. From this statement of yours, I have a right to suppose, that, by manifest unbelievers, you mean the infant children of visible saints. Such in

fants, then, with you, are manifest unbelievers. Now please to turn to Rev. xxi. 8. "But the fearful, and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Millions of such children, have died in their infancy. Yet you tell us somewhere, you believe in the salvation of some infants, though you will not allow any of them a place in the visible kingdom of God.

Neither have I said that " sprinkling is baptism." Here again is unfairness. Where is quotation? You make propositions of your own, and then attempt to refute them as mine. I have said, and will maintain, that immersion is not the only mode of baptism. But this is very different from the proposition, that sprinkling is baptism.

You do not deny, that I laid down your three leading principles rightly. You could not; for I put them down in your own words. As you have expressed them in your letters, they stand thus.

1. "Immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the only gospel baptism.

2. No person has a right to gospel baptism, but upon his making profession of gospel faith.

3. No person is a member of Christ's visible church till he is baptized."

These sentiments I said, and you are not ashamed to avow the consequence, go to exIclude from Christ's visible church "all the multitude of eminently pious and holy persons,” male and female, who have lived and died, the subjects of baptism by sprinkling or affusion only, and merely because they have not been baptized by immersion. This was my leading objection, and you appear to totter under the weight of it. It is strange it does not crush you to the ground. I should think any man, who had made such a conquest over his prejudices, could not have this army of coheirs with Christ of eternal blessedness, pass before his imagination, after having treated them in this cavalier way, without sinking as low as the most feeling self detestation could place him. You say, "if it be conclusive against my principles, let it destroy them." It does, Sir, destroy them. Let it but touch them, and they vanish like a bubble.

The unbelieving Jews accused Christ of breaking the fourth commandment, because he had healed a man on the sabbath day. And they were not only for excluding him from their communion, but for putting him to death. But I apprehend, that in reason, and according to the clear light of their own

sacred writings, the miracles which he wrought in attestation of his divine mission, and the general holiness of his character, were sufficient to make them hesitate to avow and put in practice these exterminating principles.

The Pharisees had agreed, that whosoever should confess that Jesus was the Christ, should be put out of the synagogue. But it is apprehended, that the amiableness of Christ's character, and of the characters of his followers, their love of the truth, and attachment to his person, were sufficient, independent of all other considerations, to have dissuaded them from making this agreement.

Peter, influenced yet by his carnal prejudices, thought he must by no means "come unto one of another nation," because they were not of the circumcision. But it was told him, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” The character of Cornelius, if we are to be governed by the decision of God, was a full warrant for Peter to hold communion with him. And it would seem, that though he had this ground only for it, he having not yet been baptized, had he refused he would have withstood God. For he says, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift that he did unto us, what was 1, that I could withstand God?" So it is apprehended, that the allowed fact, that God

hath cleansed this multitude of pious persons, and sealed them as his, with the like gift of the Holy Ghost, which he hath bestowed on you, obliges you not to treat them as common or unclean.

How do you attempt to get rid of this objection? You say, "The manner in which you throw the objection before the public has a very natural tendency to give an incautious reader a very unjust idea of the tendency of my principles. He would naturally enough conclude, that I must, if consistent with myself, believe, that no one except the Baptists. has any religion." No Sir, it has a tendency to give a just idea of the tendency of your principles. You yourself could not be blind to this tendency; for you call it natural. He would indeed, naturally enough conclude, that you must, if consistent with yourself, believe that none except the Baptists have any religion. For nothing is plainer, than that you have no warrant to believe a person has any religion who has not the visibility of religion. For "Ye are a city set on an hill which cannot be hid.-Ye are our Epistle known and read of all men.-The good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things." And it is equally undeniable, that all who have the visibility of religion, are visibly cleansed, are visibly separated to the