lawfulnefs and validity of infant baptifm, and in favour of immerfion, as being the only lawful and valid mode of baptizing; which publications are circulating in various parts of the country, and particularly in this vicinity, and therefore merit a particular reply. I have not, however, had an exclufive refpect to this Author. It has been my conftant aim to refute the objections of the Baptifts in general; and to manage the arguments in fuch a manner, as would effectuate the most extenfive and lafting utility; and prove equally inftruc. tive and beneficial, even to those who have not feen Mr. Merrill's Difcourfes.

The intelligent and well informed reader will perhaps feel difgufted with the frequent occurrence of repetition, prolixity, and old arguments. My only excufe is this, that I have uniformly endeavoured to avoid obfcurity, and to write as intelligibly as was poffible-in fuch a manner, as to be underftood, even by the weak and ignorant. I .have accordingly ftudied perfpicuity, more than comprehenfive brevity, and plainness of fpeech, more than elegance of diction.

The conclufivenefs of various arguments adduced in order to prove any particular doctrine, is often very evident, when we properly confider their confiftency, connection, and united ftrength. Truth dreads nothing fo much as the ignorance, inatten

tion, and bigotry of mankind. It folicits enquiry, and a careful unprejudiced inveftigation. Let me then invite the reader to perufe the following Apology with care, with candour and with impartiality. I afk this as a duty, which you owe to yourfelf, and to that Being to whom, both the Reader and the Author, are equally accountable.

And now, my Friend, may you and I be willing to adopt, individually, the Poet's Prayer, and fay fincerely;

"Father of all! whofe cares extend
"To earth's remoteft fhore;
"If I am right, thy grace impart,

"Still in the right to stay ;

"If I am wrong, O teach my heart
"To find that better way."

YOUR Sermons on Baptism, having been

put into my hands, I have endeavoured to perufe them with attention and impartiality; but have found no new argument, either against the practice of baptizing the infants of profeffed Believers, or in favour of immerfion, as being the only valid Mode of Baptizing. The fubject is, perhaps, on both fides the queftion, nearly or quite exhaufted. It may, however, in fome inftances, be poffible to ftate the old arguments more intelligibly, and illuftrate them more clearly.

Your cafe, as it appears from common report, and from what you have published, is, in fome refpe&ts, fomewhat fingular; and the fingularity has excited the curiofity

of individuals, and has occafioned a confiderable demand for your publications.

You are, Sir, an entire ftranger to me. I have no knowledge of your perfon, nor of your character, but from your writings. You certainly feem ferious and fincere in what you have publifhed to the world. I have no reafon nor inclination to queftion your fincerity; but we ought to remember, that Mankind are liable to be fincerely wrong, as well as fincerely right. I believe, Sir, that your prefent fentiments are, in fome refpects, erroneous, with regard to the ordinance of the Chriftian Baptifm ; and, if it were in my power, I would, in the Spirit of Meeknefs, convince and reclaim you; but an event of this kind, is probably not to be expe&ed from any quarter. Experience and obfervation have taught me, that when perfons become profelytes to any religious fect, they feldom return. This, I believe, is generally true, not only with regard to the Baptifts, but also with regard to Sectaries of every denomination. If the following letters addreffed to you, fhould not produce the defired effect on your mind, they may have a tendency to prevent others from falling into the fame fuppofed error.

Having mentioned your Text, you proceed to ftate "feveral propofitions and "plain truths, and to quote various paffa

ges of Scripture, which have fome refer"ence to Baptifm;" but, Sir, all this proves nothing, pro or contra. These propofitions might have been ftated and paffages quoted, with equal propriety, by a writer on the oppofite fide. The queftion between us ftill remains undecided. Indeed it is not fo much as ftated, and yet you yet you conclude your firft fermon by faying, "We fee that every "thing looks as though immerfion might be "the mode, and as for fprinkling, there is, "to fay the leaft, nothing that looks like it." An affertion of this nature ought to have been fubftantially and clearly proved, but you have exhibited no argument or proof, from which this pretended inference can fairly be drawn.

The queftion between us, is not, which of these two modes, whether fprinkling, or immerfion, be the only right mode of baptizing. We admit that immerfion is Baptism, and we believe that Sprinkling is allo Baptifm; but you pretend that immerfion is the only valid mode, and "that sprinkling does not even look like Baptifm." In this, Sir, we differ in opinion, and the dif ference ought to have been candidly and plainly reprefented.

Your criticism on the Greek word baptizo, &c. and other arguments in fupport of immerfion, as being the only acceptable mode, I will attend to hereafter, if God permit;