to be confiftent upon your fentiments, as we are upon ours. The ftrongest terms you have quoted from me are, "That none are proper fubjects of baptifm but profeffed believers." We have just heard, that there is "no other baptifm administered in your churches, but the baptifm of believers :" nor will it relieve the matter for any to say that it is added, "or those who are accounted fuch upon their perfonal profeffion." This is all that we contend for as answering the rule for we do not pretend abfolutely to know, that thofe whom we baptize are real believers, only we account them fuch upon their perfonal profeffion. Nor can it be confidered as an exception, what is further added, That they are believers" in the repute of the church :" for no church could confiftently repute a perfon to be a believer, without rational evidence that he was fuch. But the laft expreffion feems to carry the matter to a degree of certainty; That they are believers in "God's gracious acceptation:" for although perfons may profefs, and churches may account them to be believers; yet certainly God, as he cannot be deceived, will not accept any as fuch, but those who are so in reality.

We will next take notice of that very fcriptural account given by Dr. Hopkins. When defcribing the fubjects of baptifm, he fays, "The proper fubjects of baptifm, if adult, are thofe who, by profeffion and appearance, are believers in Chrift and true friends to him. None but they who are really fuch, do in heart put on Chrift: They must therefore be really holy, in order to put on this vifiblity and profeffion of it, with propriety and truth, which they do in baptifin: for if they be not really fuch, they are utterly unqualified in the fight of God, to be admitted to baptifm, as it is, on their part, only a piece of hypocrify. Therefore none are to be admitted to this ordinance, but those who, in the view of the church, appear to be true friends to Chrift or believers in him, and really holy, and are juftly confidered by them as fuch, who can judge only by outward appearance, and cannot certainly know the heart..

"That none but fuch, who are thus visibly, and in the charitable judgment of the church, and of those who adminifter this ordinance, believers in Christ and really holy, are the proper fubjects of this ordinance, and to be admitted to baptifm, is abundantly evident from fcripture, as well as from the nature of the tranfaction, and the reafon of things. The apoftles, when they firft began to adminifter Chriftian baptifm, and form a church, baptized none but fuch who gladly received the word. When the eunuch defired to be baptized, Philip faid, If thou believeft with all thine heart, thou mayeft. This implies that he was not qualified for baptifm, or a fit fubject of that ordinance, unless he were a true believer in Chrift: and that he could not baptize him, unless he profeffed and appeared to be fuch a believer. Hence all who were baptized, and formed into churches, were confidered and addreffed by the apoftles, in their letters to them, as faints or holy perfons, believers in Christ, and friends to him; as those who were faved, and heirs of eternal life; or, which is the fame, as real Chriftians; of which every one must be fenfible, who reads the Acts of the apoftles, and their epiftles." Thefe are words fitly spoken, and are like apples of gold, in pictures of filver.

If indeed it be evident from fcripture, and in the charitable judgment of the church, "That none but fuch, who are thus vifibly believers in Christ and really holy are the proper fubjects of this ordinance, and to be admitted to baptifm," as has just been afferted; and, that the apoftles, when they first began to administer Christian baptifm, and form a church, baptized none but fuch who gladly received the word, we can but wonder that a body of Chriftians who profefs to take the WORD OF GOD, as their only rule of faith and practice, should blame us for fo nearly imitating thofe firft builders of the Chriftian church! For had the gentleman but now quoted, been giving a narrative of the fentiments and practice of the Baptist churches at the prefent day, he could not have given an account diffimilar, without contradicting fober fact. If it should be objected to what

• System of Divinity, Part II, Chap. v. p. 305, 306.

has now been faid, that the preceding is only an account of the true qualifications of adults, it will be readily granted, and at the fame time afferted, that the Bible knows but of one kind of qualifications in candidates for baptifm; it knows nothing of higher and lower, of positive and negative qualifications.

"Neither the forerunner, nor the apoftles of Christ have faid any thing on which fuch a diftinction can be founded; as they infifted on repentance and faith as neceffary in order to acceptance with God, and remiffion of fins, fo they infifted upon the profeffion of them, in order to their being admitted into the visible kingdom or church of Chrift. They baptized none, but upon this ground. Those who appeared, to a judgment of charity, to have these qualifications, they admitted to baptifm, and thofe only." "In a word, from the whole tenor of the New Teftament, it is plain, that nothing less or lower than a profeffion of faith and true repentance was required in order to a perfon's enjoying the privilege of baptifm." And " the diftinction of higher and lower qualifications for the two ordinances, and the notion of negative evidences being a fufficient qualification for baptifm, was never learnt from the New Testament, but is, doubtlefs, of human invention."*

Evidence of this kind might be multiplied, but it is hoped that what has been offered will give full fatisfaction. We hope we fhall not be thought obftinate if we should still fay, That we think the fcripture abundantly juftifies the obfervation, That profeffed believers are the only proper fubjects of baptifm. If you should repeat your former query, 'Whether that is any evidence that infants were not alfo baptized?' you will not think the request unreasonable, if we should call on you to make out fcripture proof, that ever one infant was baptized, by Chrift or his apoftles. Should you affert it without proof, it will be thought a fufficient anfwer to deny it without.

We fhould now be prepared, in a direct way, to treat upon the Mode of baptifm, were it not for an objection you have made against St. John's baptism, which it may be neceffary firft to confider.

Dr. Robbins's Reply to Mr. Cotton's Fffays, p. 6, 7.

Whether JOHN's Baptifm belonged to the Jewish or Chrif tian Difpenfation, particularly confidered.

YOU afk (p. 10) By what authority do you make immersion effential to the ordinance of baptifin, in contradiftinction to other modes and circumftances?" I anfwer, By the authority of God's word, and the confeffed meaning of the Greek verb (baptizo,) to baptize. You have endeavoured to evade part of the fcripture evidence in favour of immerfion, by fuggefting that the baptifm adminiftered by John was not Chriftian baptifm. Your objections are the following. You fay, We have no reason to fuppofe that John baptized in all refpects agreeably to the Chriftian mode of baptism :' But why not? Because, it is pretty evident, that he did not baptize in the name of the Trinity.' But fuppofe, Sir, he had baptized in the name of Shadrach, Mefbach, and Abednego, it would afford no argument in favour of a different mode, or any reafon to fuppofe that the act of baptizing was not the fame. John and the apostles baptized among the fame people; hence it is moft likely they understood the word in the fame fenfe. In fupport of your obfervation, you mention the inftance in the nineteenth chapter of Acts. From which you infer, that the twelve difciples would certainly have heard of the Holy Ghoft, and would not have been again baptized, had John's baptifm and the Chriftian inftitution been the fame.

It appears evident that the question did not refpect the ordinary influences, or name of the Holy Ghoft: for, they could not be believers without the former, nor John's difciples without having heard of the latter. John exprefsly declared, at the time of his baptizing, That One fhould come after him mightier than he, who fhould baptize with the HOLY GHOST and fire. This was the fubject of Paul's inquiry, and had reference only to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, the bestowment of which they had not yet heard. But, you

afk, Why were these disciples again baptized? I fhail not undertake to tell why, nor do I believe that they were. I fee nothing in the reading which requires this construction for the paffage before us appears not to be Luke's account of Paul, but Paul's account of John's doctrine and baptifm. For it is written, Then faid Paul, John verily baptized with the baptifm of repentance, faying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Chrift Fefus. When they heard this, (that is, the people whom John taught) they were baptized (by John) in the name of the Lord Jefus. This concludes Paul's account of John. The hiftorian then takes notice of Paul's conduct, that when he had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghoft came on them; and they Spake with tongues, and prophefied.

You feem to think that thefe difciples were re-baptized by Paul in the Chriftian mode; but did you obferve, Sir, that the Holy Ghoft is not mentioned in the form of adminiftration here recorded? It is only faid, They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

That the reader may not confider us to be partial in the explanation now given, I would obferve that many eminent Pædobaptifts have understood it in the fame light which we do. I fhall mention but two or three, as fufficient to my prefent purpose. Dr. Robbins, when speaking of John's baptifm, has the following remark upon this paffage; "When they heard this, they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS; that is, they were baptized by John himself."*

In perfect agreement with this are the fentiments of Mr. Poole. "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus; that is, the difciples, or thofe that John preached to, who, when they heard what the Baptift faid in the foregoing verfe, were baptized." "As for Paul's impofing his hands upon them who are faid to be baptized, it might very well be: That the twelve difciples might have been baptized by John, and now receive the Holy Ghoft in these extraordinary gifts by the laying on of the hands of St. Paul For to what end fhould thefe difciples, who had

* Reply to Cotton's Effays, p. 21.