us what this appropriate fenfe is, in which he would have us understand the word baptizo, or to baptize. Nor has he fo revealed this to Mr. Worcester, that he is able to inform、 us with certainty what it is; at most, he can, or does, tell us nothing more than this-It is a very small or little immerfion.

May the long-fuffering Redeemer kindly rebuke and graciously forgive the prefumption of the man, and deliver his own people from fuch grofs impofitions!

I will prefent the public with but one more quotation from the note under confideration, and it is this, Should any zealous Chriftians (fays he) think it neceffary to make literally a feast, or a full meal, at the Lord's table; they might, with as much propriety, and as much of the Chrif tian fpirit, separate themfelves from the communion of those who only partake of a little bread and wine, and charge them with refusing to keep the ordinance of the Lord; as thofe, who think it neceffary to be plunged all over in water, can separate themselves from the communion of those who have only been baptized by sprinkling, and charge them with not keeping the ordinance of the Lord.' This is another of his mifrepresentations: for,

1. The partaking of a little bread and wine, is the plain, literal import of the ordinance, or of the elements and celebration of it; as is manifeft in the very institution of it. It was while they were eating and drinking, or after they had for a while been eating and drinking, our Lord took bread and wine, and gave them to his difciples, as a commemorative ordinance. But,

2. It is not thus in the ordinance of baptifm. There is no fuch intimation, that a very small or partial immersion is, was, or ever fhall be, gofpel baptifm. And as for fprinkling, man's fubftitute for gospel baptifm, there is nothing in it which has any fimilarity to the firft gospel ordinance. There is, therefore, no likeness in the two cafes which he has put one is according to the commandment and pattern given, and the other is quite a different thing. God's people will one day fee how their leaders caufe them to err.

In the mean time, I am, for defending the truth, the reproach of many.

We appeal to the Bible, to ftubborn facts, and to common fenfe.

LETTER IX.

MEN, BRETHREN, AND FATHERS,

You are, no doubt, either tired of Mr. Wor

cefter's mistakes and mifrepresentations, or of my corrections of his departures from scripture truth, from historic facts, and from common sense. But, as he has impofed upon your credulity, and infulted your want of claffic knowledge and historic information, you will readily bear with me a little, whilft I endeavour to remove the blinds: and uncover the deceptions which have kept you from feeing the order and ordinances of the church of the Son of God.

We fhall, for a few minutes, attend upon Mr. Worcester, where he is profeffedly giving us the fcripture account of gospel baptifm.

In page 70, he introduces the subject thus: In two or three inftances we read, (fays he) indeed, of their going down into the water, and coming up out of the water; but the original particles, rendered in thefe inftances, into and out of, are as properly, and much more commonly, rendered fimply to and from.' But, I reply, they are never rendered to and from, when they refer to the ordinance of baptism; nor could they be properly ever thus rendered. Accordingly, the tranflators of the Bible have never, in a fingle inftance, adopted Mr. Worcester's translation of them, when the ordinance was in queftion. Nor could they with propriety have ever thus rendered them; which they would have done, if it had been poffible, confiftent with their folemn engagement to fidelity: for it was in the reign of king James, under whofe patronage they tranflated the Bible, that the human rite of fprinkling obtained public countenance in England, as a common fubftitute for gospel baptifm. Thefe tranflators could not have failed to have admitted Mr. Worcester's translation, had the connexión have justified fuch a measure: but in no inftance have they done thus. They knew and practifed better, than to per

vert the fcriptures by fuch a tranflation; and Mr. Worces ter ought to know better, or fay lefs, for God will not always fuffer his people to be thus blindly led.

But (fays he) it is particularly to be remembered, that when they went down to the water, or into the water, it is not in a fingle inftance faid how they were there baptized, whether by dipping or by sprinkling.'

Reply. Here let common fenfe fpeak, and say, if the following inftances do not exprefs the manner how. They were all baptized of him (John) IN the river of Jordan. Jefus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John IN Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, &c. Buried with Chrift in baptifm. Planted in baptifm. Buried by baptifm. Raised with Chrift in baptism. Having our bodies washed with pure water, &c.* Is it to be particularly remembered, that not in a single inftance, when they went down to the water, or into the water, it is not faid how they were there baptized, whether by dip. ping or by fprinkling? It ought, indeed, to be particularly known, and then remembered, that not in a fingle inftance, in all the Bible, is fprinkling fo much as mentioned or intimated to be the matter or mode of gospel baptism. In every single inftance, where any direct or circumstantial information is given of the manner how, in baptifm, it implies immerfion, and nothing fhort of it. Befides, the very word itself, in every inftance, tells us, in its plain, literal, and common fenfe, as Mr. Worcester implicitly allows, that the manner how, in baptifm, was immerfion.

Mr. Worcester tells us, in his note, page 71, that 'Christ's baptifm was defigned regularly to introduce him into his prieftly office, according to the law of Mofes.' Where did Mr. Worcester obtain this information? Not in the Bible, for that contradicts it: for, fays the apoftle to the Hebrews, chap. vii. Chrift "fhould not be called after the order of Aaron. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necefity a change of the law-Our Lord fprang out of Juda; of which tribe Mofes fpake nothing concerning priesthood." Befides, fays the apoftle, our Lord "is made [priest] not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he teftifieth, Thou art a pricht forever, after the order of Melchifedec." But in contradiction to the word of God, Mr. Worcester, that he might deprive

* Matt. iii. 6. Mark į. 5, 9, 10. Rom. vi 4, 5. Col. ii, 12. Heb. x. 22.

Christians of the example of their Lord in baptism, would, without a word of fcripture authority, and contrary from every commandment in the Mofaic law of priesthood, introduce Chrift into his priestly office according to the law of Moses. Mofes knew nothing about this notion of Mr. Worcester's; nor would he or his brethren ever have invented it, had they not found difficulty in opposing the practice of the baptized church.

We will now hear his conclufion, as to the scripture account of sprinkling for baptism, and his evidence, as he hath summed it up, pages 72, 73. Is it not plain (fays he) that Sprinkling is a mode much more properly fignificant than dipping? In reference to the application of the blood of Chrift, we never read of dipping or immerfing, but conftantly of Sprinkling or pouring. Not fo: for, Rev. i. 5. we read of Jefus Chrift, "who loved us, and walked us from our fins in his own blood." But he adds feveral paffages of fcripture, which are nothing to his purpose, for they fay nothing of baptifm: however, the reader fhall have fet before him the paffages mentioned. They are thefe :-"Ye are come to the blood of fprinkling. And fprinkling of the blood of Christ. I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh. I will fprinkle clean water upon you, and ye fhall be clean. So fhall he fprinkle many nations." • Such (fays he) are the uniform representations of fcripture.' What does he here intend? If his meaning be, what his readers would naturally understand, by his statement of the matter, that fuch are the uniform reprefentations of fcripture,' when the ordinance of baptifm is intended or spoken of, then there is not a word of truth in what he fays, but just the reverse is true; for there is not one fuch representation in all the Bible, when the gofpel ordinance of baptism is mentioned. I will not fay that Mr. Worcester meant to deceive and impofe upon the public, but this I will fay, Had this been his intention, his writings could not have appeared more like it.

His next step is, to reafon with his people upon propriety and decency, fuppofed order and folemnity, the very mother of this papiftical abomination, of this sprinkling fubftitute for gospel baptifm. Mr. Worcester having laboured, and laboured in vain, to find one word of God, which mentions fprinkling for the ordinance of baptifm, he would now perfuade his people and the public to give their affent to it upon the fcore of propriety and decency, or upon account of order and

folemnity. What crooked paths are trodden by the blind headers of the blind! Once was I, as to infant baptism, in this fame crooked path; but, by the grace of God, I am what I am.

Mr. Worcester, in his note, page 73, tells us, 'The queftion properly between us is not this, whether any were baptized, in the days of Chrift and his apostles, by immerfion or dipping; but it is precifely this, whether immersion or dipping be the only valid mode of baptifm.' He has defined the question well, and for a full answer, see my Letters to Mr. Auftin. However, I will give a short answer here, and an answer too, which neither Mr. Worcester nor his brethren have been or ever will be able to refute. The anfwer is this,-The Bible mode of baptism is the only valid mode. The Bible mode, that which Christ commanded, and that which the apostles practised, was immerfion, and immersion only, as is evident from this plain reafon Immersion is the plain, literal, and common sense of the command, and the plain, literal, and common fenfe of the history given of the apostles' practice is also immerfion; and there is no different or oppofite fenfe to the literal meaning of the word, or to the practice of the apostles. But, fays Mr. Worcester, if in the most extreme cafes, fuch as thofe of SICKNESS and imprisonment, baptifm might be administered by sprinkling or affufion, then immerfion is not effential to the ordinance.' I anfwer, Certainly, if there be any poffible cafe, in which gospel baptifm may be administered in any way otherwife than by immerfion, then immerfion is not effential to the ordinance: but this is the very thing to be proved. The Bible, by neither precept, example, nor implication, gives any liberty for any fuch baptifm. The Bible knows nothing of fick-bed baptism, nor of imprisoned baptism, nor of baptism by sprinkling or affufion.

After Mr. Worcester had faid very many things, with very little candour, and with lefs regard to veracity and facts, he endeavours, page 74, to load the Anabaptists, as he terms them, with reproach, and to cover them with contempt, by charging to their account feveral fuperftitious practices which took place more than a thousand years before he will allow them even an existence. Says he, page 66, The Anabaptifts, my brethren, are a fect of modern date; they had their origin fome time after the reformation under Luther and Calvin." But now, page