I HERE send you the observations I have made in the course of reading his publica­tion. I judge the consistent evidence of the holy scriptures, is the only rule to determine which is in the mistake, he or myself. Friend B. says, I shall not find any of their men of note, or authors, who admit that it ever was a duty under the gospel to be baptized in water, page 4. In the same page they allow, (as he saith) it was practised by some of the Apostles for a season, as was circumcision, &c. but that it was ever en­joined as a gospel ordinance, they dissent. He further, in the same page, conceives Paul was made able to see and distinguish between the preceeding dispensation of the law of John, and that of the gospel, &c. Hence it is evident, according to his and their opinion, that some of the Apostles, as well as the baptists, were in a mistake in baptizing with water. In a word, Brown's superstructure, erected against my 3d. letter, is built upon two pillars, which if I can remove by fairly comparing express sciptures, it [Page 8] must surely fall. It is evident he holds John's ministry was a middle dispensation, between old and new testament times; or a second law, after Moses, before Christ; for he terms it the law of John, page 4. This I conceive to be his great essential pillar. The second, which re­spects the baptism of the holy ghost and fire, from the best light he has offered, page 9th, he says, "Through or by the baptismal influences of his ho­ly spirit, with which he will baptize his believing fol­lowers, and through the melting, humbling effects threof he will cleanse, purify and fit them for himself." From which quotation, with some other words of like import, in his publication, I conceive he holds, as I observed in my 3d letter, that those graces of the spirit, which have been experienc­ed by regenerate souls, from Abel's day until now are what the new testament means by spirit­ual baptism. Now if I can make it appear by express scripture texts, that his first pillar is groundless, and contrary to the scriptural ac­count of John's ministry, and by a fair compari­son of sundry texts, shew that those graces of faith, repentance, love and humility, which have been commonly experienced by saints, ages be­fore the baptism of the holy ghost was named, are not once called baptism; and that the mi­raculous power from on high, the gift or opera­tion of the spirit on the day of Pentecost, and a­bout that time; enabling unlearned men to speak in the languages of all nations, is distinguished by the name of the baptism of the holy ghost, the gift of the holy ghost, &c. And that no other operation of the spirit is called by the word bap­tism: Then it will appear the mistake or blun­der [Page 9] he has endeavoured to throw upon me, be­longs to the Friends; and what I published, is a scriptural truth. But how shall I prove it to a demonstration? If I can bring a number of texts which expressly speak concerning the mi­nistry of John, and declare he preached the kingdom of God, and that John's ministry was the beginning of the gospel dispensation, will that prove friend B. is mistaken in his opinion, con­cerning John's preceeding law? I trust it will to every unprejudiced reader, whether it satisfies the friends or not. Our blessed Lord declares, Luke xvi. 16. the law and the prophets were un­til John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, &c. Matt. xi. 13. For all the pro­phets and the law prophesied until John, and in the foregoing verse he says, from the days of John the baptist until now, &c. Take notice, reader, from the days, not from the ending of the days of John. Which mode of expression, hath respect to the days of a man's acting in pub­lic life, and not to days after he is dead. Fur­ther, what friend B. calls the preceeding law of John, St. Mark expressly calls the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.— Thus it appears manifest by the express account given by Jesus Christ, and St. Mark, that John's ministry was no law preceeding the gospel, but was in fact the beginning of the gospel itself, if we credit the inspired testimonies, rather than the friends opinion.

The absurdity, of holding John's ministry as a middle dispensation, is further manifest, if we do but consider. The legal dispensation was founded upon the old covenant, and the gospel [Page 10] dispensation upon the new covenant, which con­tains the old and new testaments. The scrip­ture further saith not, neither do they speak one word of a middle covenant, between the law and the gospel dispensations, to found a middle dis­pensation upon: consequently there is no more foundation for the friends opinion, than to hold there is a middle testament between the old and the new. This great mistake has led B. as I con­ceive, to pervert the true sense of several texts, he has quoted, which I shall notice in their place.

It is evident from Paul's testimony, in the viiith. and ixth. chapters of Heb. that the figu­rative institutions of the Jewish dispensation, were to last until the gospel dispensation commenced, and no longer. The prophecies of Isa. Mal. and others, foretold the events, that would introduce the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.— Hence it is evident, when God began to bring to pass what the Prophets foretold, then the gos­pel dispensation did surely take place; and we have no other way to know, left on the holy re­cords. It is further evident, the Prophets fore­told several particurlar events that would consti­tute a spiritual dispensation; the fulfilment of said events, began with the ministry of John Baptist; therefore his ministry was a new testa­ment ministry. Witness, Christ's testimony of him, Matt. xi. 10. For this is he of whom it is written, refering to Mal. iii. 1. Behold I send my messenger before thy face, &c. verse 14th, and if you will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come, &c. Zachariah under the influence of the holy ghost, gives in his witness, that John [Page 11] Baptist's ministry, was a new covenant ministry, Luke i. 76 and 77. And thou, child, shall be called the prophet of the highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord, &c. To give knowledge of salvation unto his people, by the remission of their sins. Thus it is evident, John's ministry, was a ministry of repentance for the re­mission of sins: and as much connected with e­ternal life, as the repentance the Apostles were sent to preach in Christ's name, among all na­tions, Luke xxiv. 47. They were both preached for the remission of sins, being one sort of repent­ance under one and the same gospel dispensation. Further, John's ministry was allowed and conti­nued by the ministry of Christ and his Apostles: This is evident by our Lord's preaching, Luke iv. 18, 19. From Isa. lxi. Proclaiming liberty to captives, &c. and the acceptable year of the Lord. This gospel day or acceptable year of the Lord, if we believe Christ's exposition, in his preaching concerning what it meant; Christ says, Luke iv. 21. This day, is this scripture fulfilled in your ears; which day B. with some Paedobaptists, hold, was before the gospel dispen­sation, so the reader must judge for himself. Fur­ther, the gospel was not only preached by Christ himself, while John's ministry continued, but he in the same time sent out his Apostles; and they went through the towns preaching the gospel, &c. Luke ix. It is evident, as words can express it, that Christ the King, was personally among them, they were told by the heavenly voice, when he came up out of the water of Jordan, to hear him. His disciples, the subjects of his kingdom were with him; and the laws of Christ, were taught [Page 12] them; no Mountain or Temple enjoined where they must repair to worship God, but the wilder­ness at Jordan or Enon, or elsewhere they might spiritually worship him, who is the great supreme spirit. This was the tenor of the doctrine, taught in the time when friend B. and some Paedobap­tists fancied there was a sort of middle dispensa­tion, or John's dispensation. Thus I have giv­en abundant scripture proof, that the ministry of John and Christ, were each a new testament min­istry, and under the gospel dispensation. Thus it is evident, the ordinance of water baptism, ad­ministered by John and Christ's disciples, be­fore his death, was a gospel ordinance. It ori­ginated in the council of God from heaven, and there is not one hint in the scripture, of its being any law of John. Hence it appears, by a fair quotation and comparison of express scriptures, that friend Brown's first pillar is removed, and his idea of John's being a law giver, and his min­istry being a law dispensation, I conceive is al­together unscriptural and imaginary. Friend B. calls John's dispensation, a baptismal dispen­sation, page 8. It is evident he means water baptism; and where as I have plainly shewn by a number of express texts, it was a gospel dis­pensation, therefore water baptism is a gospel in­stitution.

Secondly, Friend Brown's second pillar con­sists, if I understand him, in making out that there is no distinction between the melting, humbling, cleansing or purifying effects of the spirit, fitting believers for himself, and the holy ghost baptism. Now if I can shew by a fair comparison of scriptures, that a number of in­spired [Page 13] believers had all he describes long before the miraculous gift of the holy ghost (call­ed by the name of the baptism of the holy ghost and fire) came upon them, then it will evidently appear that the scriptures make a real distinction between the humbling and cleansing effects of the holy spirit, and that miraculous gift and power from on high, called the baptism of the holy ghost and fire.

But since I so particularly pointed out a num­ber of express texts, in my 3d letter, and a num­ber of scriptural instances, wherein the distinc­tion the apostles have made, is as plain to be distinguished in their writings, as a man's eyes that you look on, is to be distinguished from his nose or mouth, or other features of his face, al­though all belong to one and the same head.— I therefore refer the reader to the 3d letter of my first publication, and shall only notice that it is evident, John xv. 3. Christ says to his disci­ples, now ye are clean through the word I have spoken unto you; abide in me, and I in you, &c. From which it is evident they then possessed the cleansing and purifying effects of the spirit of truth, which friend B. calls baptism; and it is equally true that notwithstanding this purifying, cleansing effect of the spirit, they were command­ed, Luke xxiv. 49. to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. What this power means you may see, Acts i. 8. But ye shall receive power after the holy ghost is come upon you, &c. which plainly shews they did not possess that power when Christ ascended out of their sight; but in Acts ii. 3.4. we have this power of the holy ghost described. And there [Page 14] appeared unto them cloven tongues like as fire, and it set upon each of them, and they were all filled with the holy ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, &c. This was the fulfilment of what John Baptist told the Jews, Mat. iii. 11. and as he was Christ's first minister under the gospel dispensation, so he was the first that distinguish­ed this divine miraculous gift and power of the holy ghost, by its name, baptism of the holy ghost, &c. And this distinction is particularly made in a number of places in the apostles wri­tings. And friend B. I conceive, might as well have said, there is no distinction between the operation of the spirit, spoken of in 1 Cor. xii. that enabled one to work a miracle that could not foretell things to come; and another to fore­tell things to come, but could not work a mira­cle. Paul was inspired to distinguish the differ­ent operations, and call them diversities of gifts, although it was performed by the agency of one and the same spirit; and the distinction of the gift of the holy ghost, the power from on high which enabled those possessed of it to speak with tongues, distinguished by the name of the bap­tism of the holy ghost and fire, is as expressly and particularly distinguished from the other op­erations of the spirit, as any account of the di­versity of the gifts of the spirit recorded in the new testament. Thus it is evident from the ex­press testimony of the Apostles, that friend Brown's second pillar has no scripture testimo­nies to stand upon.

Brown has made, I conceive, an artful cant upon my words, in page 11, and represents the matter in such a light, as to signify, if I can't prove wa­ter [Page 15] baptism from the commission, Mat. xxviii. I seem to doubt of my cause. See his observation page 22, and all he has produced to prove that said commission means spiritual baptism, is supposing that upon his ascension he put an end to what he calls figures, and that water is not ex­pressed, nor the Trinity named when the Apos­tle baptized with water.

If we consult the Apostles account concerning their commission, Mat. xxviii. we shall find it was only renewed with some enlargements, and orders to proclaim and teach all nations, instead of being confined to the cities of Israel. He hav­ing given them the same in substance, soon after he had called them, viz. in the time of friend Brown's middle dispensation, witness Luke vi. 13. He chose twelve whom also he named Apostles, ix. 1, 2. then he called his twelve disciples to­gether, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal the sick; verse 6, and they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing every where. Luke speaking of the same commission as Mat. xxviii. says xxiv. 47. and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations. Mark describes it exactly xvi. 15. agreeable to the forecited Luke ix. 6. preach the gospel to every creature; excepting the enlargement of their travel. Hence it is evident as words can well express it, that Christ, after his resurrection, only renewed the Apostles commission, and enlarged its extent to all the world, as to baptizing with water although it is not mentioned when the [Page 16] commission was first given; yet as they did bap­tize with water (for the holy ghost baptism was not yet given to any) read John iii. 22. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them and baptized, and John also was baptizing in Enon, &c. If we compare this assertion, with the 1st and 2d verses of the next chapter iv. we shall find it was by his disciples that Jesus bapti­zed. I said in my 3d letter, by his licence which appears a self evident truth; for as they did baptize, unless John has given us a false account, for how could it be said Jesus tarried with them, viz. his disciples and baptized though Jesus him­self baptized not, but his disciples, unless the dis­ciples did it by his command or licence; if he had not licensed them to baptize, it would be false for John to say Jesus baptized; it was un­questionably sure therefore, at Christ's command or license, or there doth not appear sense or truth in the texts. Whether Jesus baptized by his disciples, more than John, as the Pharisees had heard, is not the point disputed. John iii. 22. says, Jesus tarried with them, viz, his disciples and baptized which is proof enough. The com­mission, Mat. xxviii. although no water is men­tioned, with the word baptizing; yet as it con­tains the same original authority, that it did when first given, Luke ix. and being directed to [...] sinners, calling for the same sort of repentance towards God, and saith in our Lord Jesus Christ. It is evident our Lord refers them in Mat. xxviii. to what he had informed them when he first gave them their commission, recorded in Luke ix. when he says, Mat. xxviii. 20. Teaching them to [Page 17] observe all things whatsoever I have command­ed you; and lo I am with you alway, even to the end of the world. He doth not say whatsoever I now command you, or shall command you when you are baptized with the holy ghost and fire; but the words are expressly, whatsoever I have commanded you. Thus, from the several express texts I have quoted and compared, which refer to the very point disputed, it is self-evident, that the gospel dispensation and water baptism, to believers, were in being, under the personal ministry of Christ, and were intended to be continued by his order, forecited Mat. xxviii. 20. even to the end of the world. For there is no dispensation spoken of, to take place after the gospel dispensation began until those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, live again, to reign with Christ, &c. Neither have we any account in the new testament, of any way to plant gospel churches, until the forecited resur­rection; but to enjoin upon all that profess their faith in Christ, to be baptized in water, and re­main stedfast in the Apostles doctrine, and fel­lowship, and in breaking of bread, &c. accord­ing to the Apostles directions and examples, un­der the gospel dispensation.

Friend B. while he is artfully critical to disal­low of my adding one word as explanatory of the sense of a text, can boldly say, this and that is thus and so, without giving any proof, but as be takes it to mean so; and because the name of the Trinity is mentioned in Mat. xxviii. B. dares to say the Apostles in baptizing with water, did not go by that commission; which is his say so but not proved. Because as for naming the [Page 18] Trinity in baptism, it doth not appear that Christ commanded it as a form of [...] speech, in the administration of any sort of baptism. If it was, he will be equally silenced to shew one instance of such a form, respecting spiritual baptism, as of water. I conceive, therefore, if any one thinks that Matthew and others were too brief in tneir account of the point disputed, the subsequent practice of the Apostles, in their preaching and baptizing, and gathering churches, must be own­ed as the best and only explanation of their mas­ter's law and commission, Luke ix. Mat. xxviii. and other places. If we compare what they said and practised after they received the en­largement of their commission, with the account they gave us before it is manifest that they bap­tized in the faith of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, when they named the Lord Jesus, for in him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bod­ily. It is evident from the account given of Peter's teaching the 3000, that he kept his mas­ter's commission, to teach all nations, first, and when they were taught the gospel, and enquired what they should do, Peter informs them to re­pent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins: and then promised them the gift of the holy ghost. And the general account of all the churches planted by the Apostles, runs in the same line. Who can possibly imagine the Apos­tles did not understand their commission, first to teach and then baptize with water, when they so universally practised it, and never left us a hint of its coming to an end until teaching and believ­ing in the gospel should come to an end; but [Page 19] possitively enjoined upon churches to keep the ordinances as they delivered them, without one hint to support friend Brown's ideas of the matter. For it is evident, that either the Apostles were not guided into all truth respecting what they should teach, as Christ promised they should be, or else they were not faithful to reveal it to the church­es in their writings; for no man that is not blind­ed with prejudice, can think, by what the Apos­tles have enjoined, in their planting of churches, but that it was duty for believers to be baptized in water, upon their professing their faith in Christ; and if their enjoining such a practise was a mistake, as friend B. would have it, it is evident they did not only live and die in the mistake, but enjoined their mistakes as a duty, without distinction, to be regarded as long as their testimony is to be believed and obeyed, which is even to the end of the world. Thus, I conceive I am consistent, in claiming the baptizing in Mat. xxviii. to include water baptism.

I would also remark respecting the mistaken sense B. puts upon a sentence he has extracted out of Paul's writings, 1 Cor. i. where he says, "Paul declares he was not sent to baptize with water, as the context shews; but to preach the gospel" He has asserted the context shews it, but has offered nothing to manifest how the con­text shews it. I suppose he meant, if others un­derstood the context in the light he conceives of it. If I may give my opinion of the forecited text and context, with my reasons, gathered by comparing it with other parts of Paul's writings, I will convey my ideas in general, by a simile, respecting the ordinance of marriage. Then by [Page 20] comparing several parts of Paul's same epistle, I will endeavour to demonstrate to every candid reader, that although Paul was primarily sent to preach the gospel, he had also a right, by virtue of his commission as an Apostle, to baptize in water, such as professed to believe the gospel he preached. Suppose a baptist society should re­quest the church to which I belong, to send me as an ordained Elder, to preach the gospel among them. Accordingly I am sent, and while la­bouring among them, there was many married in that place. A few couples desired me to ad­minister the ordinance of marriage to them, ac­cordingly I did. In process of time, a great contention arose among them concerning the or­dinance of marriage. Some held, if he who made the hearts of men, let any single male and female, fall in love with each other, it was of the virtue and power of the Lord, and their mutual love, and a secret agreement, was marriage; deny­ing any outward ceremony or publickly promising to prove true to each other, as husband and wife, before the head of any religious community, church officer, or magistrate, and said that visible marriage was no duty under the gospel dispensa­tion; giving this reason, viz. that what short ac­count we have of the marriage in Cana, John ii. and of our Lord's directions, Luke xiv. how to behave when invited to a wedding, although it evidently implied it was done in a publick man­ner yet it was in the time of John's dispensation, but not enjoined by the gospel, &c. Others held it valid, or not, according as who married them; some holding it should be a minister, oth­ers a justice of the peace, &c. They seemed to [Page 21] become carnal in their contentions, and I not knowing what length their confusion might carry them, I wrote an epistle to rectify their mistakes, and fearing those few I had married, might say I married them in my own name, and by my own authority, I wrote to them among other things, that I thanked God I had married but a few couples of them; and gave my reason ex­pressly, viz. lest they should say I married them in my own name, and then add for the church sent me not to marry but to preach the gospel. Would it hence justly follow, that I had no right by my office to marry, because I was es­pecially sent to preach the gospel: no, by no means. I have a right as a church officer to ad­minister all new testament ordinances to which I am regularly called. St. Paul had a right to administer water baptism to believers, and like­wise the Lord's Supper; which he repeatedly did, and said he received it from the Lord; as I shall now proceed to prove. It is evident from the 11 verse of the context, Paul was inform­ed by the house of Chloe, of the unhappy divi­sions among some of the Corinthian brethren, and that Paul was too much dignified by a par­ty, saying, I am of Paul, &c. And it is equally evident why Paul thanked God he baptized no more of those contending brethren, was, lest they should say he had baptized them in his own name; for the preaching of the gospel was his main errand, not baptizing, which others admin­istered that were not Apostles. If we read Acts xviii. we shall find Paul taught the word of God among those Corinthians one year and six months; in which time many believed and were baptiz­ed, [Page 22] and a gospel church planted, a number of which believers Paul baptized himself; as the 1st of the epistle manifests. In the xith. of the fame epistle, it appears some of those brethren had got into errors about eating the Lord's sup­per, some walked orderly and praise-worthy. Therefore to give each one his portion in sea­son, Paul praises the orderly walkers; take no­tice for what, viz. That ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. He then proceeds to give some new directions concerning the conduct of the sisters. Then sharply reproves the disorderly partaking of the Lord's supper among some of them; and reinjoins it, as it should be performed, charging them to examine themselves, and so eat it, &c. To assert his authority, he says, ver. 23d. I have received of the Lord that which al­so I delivered unto you, &c. And gave the same account of this ordinance under the gospel dis­pensation, that we are told by the Evangelists, was given them by our Lord, in the time of Brown's middle dispensation. Even the same night in which he was betrayed, says the Evan­gelists, so says Paul. If those ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper were at an end with the ministry of John, how could Paul say, I received of the Lord what I delivered unto you; unless the ordinances he delivered them were to be enjoined to the Gentiles under the gospel dispensation. I conceive it is impossible to evade the force of Paul's testimony, forecited, and hold him to be a man of truth. Thus it is evident, from the mistaken sense B. puts upon Paul's words, 1 Cor. i. he is led to say, page 6. [Page 23] that whatever was of water baptism in the Apos­tles days, was from John, and not from our Lord. Paul says, in the xith of the same epistle, he received what he enjoined upon them from the Lord. So the reader must judge which is mistaken, Paul or Brown. Thus Shepard sup­poses, upon solemn reflection, Paul had directions from the Lord to enjoin outward ordinances to posterity, to the end of the world.

I would observe that friend B. says, he under­stands Peter in his 1st epistle iii. 21 means spir­itual baptism; where he says, the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It put me in mind of his observation upon the force of the bias of education, &c. page 4, which is often too true. He thinks I want correction, being too apt to annex the idea of water to the word bap­tize, &c. whether it means so or not, as I take it. Whether friend B. is in danger of annexing the idea of spirit, or spiritual, to the word baptism, whether it means so or not; and whether he has any prepossession that wants correction or not, I must submit to the judgment of the candid reader. I understand the text refers to the Apostolic water baptism. Friend B. has offered no proof or reas­ons, but the judgment of Benjamin Wallin and his own. I offer the following reasons for the sup­port of my opinion of the text. It is evident that our Lord Jesus did not understand that the filth of the flesh, of the hands or face, or other parts of the skin, which the Pharisees were so careful to keep clean, was in a gospel, religious [Page 24] sense, to take away the filth of the flesh: but it consisted in what is taught us, 2 Cor. vii. 1. Having, &c. these promises, &c. let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh &c. James i. 21. wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, &c. It is evident that these two forementioned texts mean the renova­ting, cleansing, humbling influences of the word and spirit, received in the soul by faith, by which the believer crucifies his affections to the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life; all this is effected by the spirit of faith; witness Peter's testimony, Acts xv. 9. And made no difference between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles) purifying their hearts by faith. These operations are what friend B. calls spiritual bap­tism; and says it cleanses, purifies, &c. What? The soul that experiences this faith, from the filthiness of the flesh? Peter says, of the baptism in the forecited text, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con­science, in doing as Peter commanded the 3000, repent and be baptized every one of you, &c. as I understand it. And I think it is self evident from friend Brown's definition of spiritual bap­tism, that it does put away the filth of the flesh, in a religious sense; and I hold that a true faith, or what the Apostle calls the spirit of faith, doth put away the filth, and purify the heart of the believer from all his idols. But the scriptures do not call the spirit of faith, nor the grace of humility or repentance, by the name of baptism. Hence it is certain from friend Brown's own account of spiritual baptism, that Peter must re­fer to water baptism; for that doth not put away [Page 25] the filth of the flesh, that is, as before proved, the pollution of sin; but a true believer is vi­sibly and sensibly saved, by keeping faith, when he is possessed of it, and a good conscience, in obeying the commands of the gospel; a part of which commands, is, that when we believe the apostolic doctrine, to repent and be baptized in water, and then remain stedfast in said doctrine and the fellowship of the saints, in breaking of bread and prayers, &c.

The last text friend B. mentions, that I rec­ollect he judges much to purpose is 1 Cor. xii. 13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one spirit. This text he thinks is so much to his purpose, that it will determine which is mistaken the Friends or Shepard. I conceive he meant, if every body understands it as he does. This, he says, is an express pas­sage to the contrary of Shepard's position. If so, it is no wonder he set considerable by [...], be­ing the only one he has produced in all the new testament, that he could with propriety so call, as I conceive; nor that neither, with any con­sistency, if we hold there is a consistency in the whole of the Apostles account of their preach­ing and planting gospel churches. He seems to manifest an Ideal triumph, that he has found one text, that he thinks is express to his purpose, and seems to jeer me for not recollecting the text, and wraps it up with the rest of my mis­takes, concluding in his last page, my perform­ance deserves more severe treatment, than he has [Page 26] given it. Perhaps it would not have been amiss for friend B. to have recollected a caution of wise Solomon, Prov. xviii. 17. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. Friend B. it seems had no sooner found a text which he thought would do for a handle, but he fixes a scourge to it, and began to whip me, stripe upon stripe. It puts me in mind how St. Paul was once served, Acts xxii. They severely scourged him; and on the morrow held a court upon him to know what he had done. So friend B. having con­cluded I could not answer his text had I recol­lected it, although he has offerd no parallel text to prove he has got the true sense of it; neither can he find one in the bible, I conceive, to justify his sense of it; he has therefore made up the lack as well as he could by quoting a famous baptist writer's opinion in his favour; which is no further proof than that there is another man of his opinion. Friend B. further con­clude the text makes it evident that the words, spiritual baptism, mean something, and inti­mates that I scruple whether it means any thing, and must have lost my first love, (if ever I had any) before I could fall into such a blunder. As Paul once thought he ought to do many things, which after he was converted he was convinced was wrong, and had he known better he would not have done; so, I conceive friend B. thinks as he says, and his reflections do not offend me. If I may be allowed, the day after my scourg­ing, to answer for my self. I would say, I hold the baptism of the holy ghost and fire to be a [Page 27] very great something. I view it a great blessing to men that God dignified them above all the animal creation, by giving them one language by which they could communicate their thoughts one to another. I view it a judgment for their transgression, that their language was confound­ed, and thereby the family of our father Adam got divided. I view it one of the greatest acts of Godlike power, recorded in the new-testa­ment, that God, to prove the certainty of Christ being his son from heaven, and his word and that of his inspired apostles, being the word of life. After said apostles had got all the graces implanted in them, that friend B. calls spiritual baptism, God endowed them with a miraculous power from on high, called the baptism of the holy ghost and fire: and by way of eminence, above many other operations of the spirit some­times called the gift of the Holy Ghost &c. By which distinguished gift from all other oper­ations of the spirit the poor ignorant disciples (as to letter learning) were enabled to preach the glad-tidings of Jesus, to every nation under heaven; and those nations heard them in their own tongues. Thus God removed the confusion of languages, at that time, which, I conceive was a great something, and thus I held it in my 3d letter.

But the words, spiritual baptism, are not put together in the new-testament by any inspired witness: neither are faith, love, repentance, sanctification or humility, seperately, or all to­gether, once called spiritual baptism. Therefore I said, if the words, spiritual baptism, mean [Page 28] any thing, it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, and if they do not mean so, there is no meaning to them, when put together. The word, spirit, means something standing alone, and baptism means something alone; and when they are properly put with other words, they mean different things: but put them together without any other words, and if they don't mean what I said, there is no meaning beside that I know of. Thus I have answered, that the reader may understand, I hold the baptism of the Ho­ly Ghost, to be a very great operation, above many other operations spoken of in the holy scriptures. So great an operation that I never found any christian in my knowledge, however blest with faith, holiness, and humility, with oth­er graces of the spirit, that could prove to me, by any marks given in scripture, that he had the baptism of the Holy Ghost, any more than he possessed power to raise the dead.

In a word, friend Brown's ideas and mine dif­fer primarily in this. Friend B. holds the spirit of faith and the graces of repentance, humility, holiness, &c. are what the scriptures mean by the baptism of the spirit, as he phrases it, if I understand him. I hold that every saint, from righteous Abel to this day, has experienced these graces, in their measure, or they are not saints; but these were possessed by the apostles, before ever they were baptized with the Holy Ghost; as I have already proved by express scripture. Therefore being a true beleiver, and a holy, humble christian, is not hinted in the new-testa­ment, to be the baptism of the Holy Ghost, in [Page 29] any one instance; but is an unscriptural wrong idea, and leads the mind into unscriptural prac­tices. The friends are thereby led into a ne­glect of water baptism, when they believe, and other outward ordinances; contrary to the prac­tice of the apostolic churches. And a number of paedobaptists, notwithstanding the strange in­consistency they manifest, will say when they can­not support their infant rantism, they trust they are baptized with the spirit, and shall get to heav­en, &c. when they mean no more than that they believe in Jesus Christ; which, if true, is the very qualification for gospel ordinances. Having made these remarks to clear up what I meant about the words, spiritual baptism, not knowing where to bring it in with more brevity, I will return to enquire what appears to be the consistent, scriptural meaning of the forecited text, 1 Cor. xii. 13.

If the reader will take notice of what I have observed upon the xith chap. of his same Epistle, he will find I have expressly demonstrated, by comparing several parts of the chap. with the xviiith of Acts, that water baptism and the Lord's supper was administered by Paul, and that he had enjoined outward ordinances upon this very church, declaring he received it from the Lord; even what he enjoined to them. Now for Paul to declare all this, and in the next chap. xii. of this same epistle, to flatly deny or contradict all he had said about outward ordin­ance in the foregoing chapter, is so barefaced an inconsistency, that no man can believe it, with­out concluding Paul did not know what he was [Page 30] writing of. I say it is self evident those words cannot be understood in friend B's sense, with­out making Paul contradict himself, and assert that which is inconsistent with all the other ac­counts that speak of the same matter throughout the new-testament. And if another meaning of his favourite text, can be made to appear consistent with what Paul said in the foregoing chap. and manifests a natural and easy sense, agreeable to the Apostles account of their preach­ing and planting churches, who can hesitate to embrace it?

Hence it is evident, we must understand the word, baptized, in the 13th verse of the xiith chap. consistent with what Paul said in the xith chapter foregoing. And whereas the Friends, with B. think said text is so much to their purpose; and a number of other denomations seem to be in the dark respecting its meaning; I will endeavour to shew, agreeably to the con­text that there is a two fold sense that may be con­sidered consistent with the text and context, and coincides with the foregoing chap. xi, with the whole of the Apostolic account of the baptism both of water and of the Holy Ghost and fire; and exactly agrees with Shepard's position. It is evident that Paul, in speaking of the spiritual gifts, in his introduction of said xiith chap. be­gins with the least common measure of the gift of the Holy Ghost, common to every true be­liever that has a mustard seed grain of true saith; when he says, verse 3, no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. If we consider the Apostle in the 13th verse as [Page 31] refering to the common measures, or gifts of the spirit, in calling and confessing Jesus to be Lord, which confession the Apostles required of every one they baptized with water; then there is an easy and scriptural sense, the text may be understood to mean, if we do but recol­lect.

The scriptures speak of the spirit of council, Isa. xi. 2. of the spirit of grace, Zech. xii. 10. of the spirit of Faith. 2 Cor. iv. chap. 13. we having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spok­en: we also believe, and therefore speak the same spirit of faith by which David spake, Psa. cxvi. Paul says they spake this same spirit of faith, so much spoken of from the time that Abel thereby found acceptance with God, to the last accounts in the new-testament. This same spirit of faith, by which Enoch walked with God, and Noah was saved from the flood; by which Abraham offered up Isaac, and Moses forsook Egypt; by which David, Samuel and all the Prophets manifested their obedience to the commands of God. All the new-testament saints spoken of, were justified from all things they could not be justified by the law of Moses. By which the Corinthian Gentiles were turned from their Idolatries, to obey the gospel preached by Paul; and by which Jews and Gen­tiles, bond and free, that were made partakers of this one spirit, of faith, were brought into fellowship with the Father, with Jesus Christ, and with one another, and willingly subjected themselves to one and the same visible order of [Page 32] Christ's house, as enjoined by the Apostles. By this one spirit of faith, I understand they who were made partakers of it and confessed Jesus to be Lord, were baptized in water into one visible body, as brethren, and did through the visible cup that Paul blessed, and told the Co­rinthians was the communion of the blood of Christ, drink into one spirit of love; for this spirit of faith works by love and purifies the heart. I mean as many as stood right, for they are the persons Paul discribes. This sense stands agreeable to the whole account, given of the first planting of the Corinthian church, and shews consistency with Paul's praising the or­derly brethren, for keeping the ordinances as he delivered them under the gospel dispensation.

Secondly, If we consider the 13 verse to refer to the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost baptism, speaking with tongues, &c. which Jews and Parthians, Medes and Elamites, bond and free were baptized with, at Jerusalem, and the Gen­tiles at the house of Cornelius: with many of the first converts in different places, upon the first spreading of the gospel; it abundantly proves Shepard's position and shews Brown's mistake, in holding it the one baptism which remains to the christians, to the end of the world. For we know of no such baptism, since miracles have ceased in the church. Neither can any man upon earth, however holy and humble, shew he is possessed of what the new-testament calls the Holy Ghost bap­tism, any more than a man pretending to have the gift of miracles in our day: but cannot [Page 33] prove it by working any wonder, in healing the sick or any thing else. This baptism with other miraculous gifts of the spirit have long ceased. But the faith by which we can call Je­sus the Lord, with hope and charity abideth with christians, to the end of the world: as Paul informs us in the next chap. xiii. of the same Epistle.

But to hold it to be the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that all true christians experience it, and that the outward ordinances are null and void, as friend B. understands it, is such a plain contradiction, and manifest inconsistency, that I conceive it is impossible to reconcile his sense of it, with the foregoing chap. xi. respecting the outward ordinances Paul had enjoined upon them by revelation from the Lord, allowing he spake the truth. If friend B. can reconcile these inconsistencies, by a fair comparison of scriptures, let it be made manifest for my help and others. Until some further light appears from the revealed word of inspiration, and from the spirit of God, opening up the word (for I hold the spirit never teacheth contrary to the revealed word) it must appear to every unpre­judiced, understanding person, by what Paul has declared, that he had it from the Lord to de­liver outward ordinances to the Gentiles, to whom God sent him, when he had instrument­ally turned them from darkness to light, and they had become obedient to his directions.

Thus I have offered my opinion, with my scriptural reasons for holding it to be the duty of believers in these days, to be baptized in wa­ter, [Page 34] and to remain stedfast in the Apostles doc­trine, in fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers, according to the directions of the Apos­tles. And I conceive it must appear to every reader who is not biased with prejudice, that there is a consistent line in the manner of my expounding the several texts which friend B. understands makes against me, in respect of or­dinances. I have, by a number of express texts, proved the unscriptural absurdity of holding a middle dispensation, or considering John Bap­tist as a Law giver. I have shewn a clear scrip­tural distinction between faith, holiness, humil­ity, &c. and the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire. And I conceive it appears consistent up­on the whole, that I have said that there is one Lord, viz. Jesus Christ, the great object of faith. There is one faith which I have described my ideas of, by which, as many as partook of it were made willing to submit to the laws of the new-testament, as soon as made known to them.— And there is one baptism recorded in the new-testament, viz. water baptism, that the Apostles enjoined upon such, and only such as professed to have the one faith, in the one Lord Jesus.

The view of the Apostles account, as I have considered it, runs consistent in their planting of gospel churches, both at Jerusalem and among the Gentiles, as far as the new-testament gives us a particular account. Therefore as I believe they were endowed with the baptism of the Ho­ly Ghost, the power from on high, to guide them into all the truth necessary to teach believ­ers in all nations what to believe, and what to [Page 35] practice; I find that they, in substance, taught nothing but what Moses and the Prophets said should come Therefore I am bound to regard the law and testimony, according to the light given me by the spirit: and if any man speaks contrary to the plain, consistent line of the in­spired witnesses, so far I must hold him in an error; rather than take up with the finest misti­cal reasoning of any man, supposing himself fa­voured with more spiritual light than some of the enspired Apostles; and at the same time is obliged, in order to establish his own opinion concerning new-testament ordinances, to con­clude some of the Apostles, who were most bless­ed in converting souls, were in an error in di­recting their converts what to do, &c. As for instance, Peter, if friend Brown's ideas are just, was in a mistake in his directions (although he had been preaching the most powerful gospel sermon, as to its effects, that we ever heard of, and under the influence of the Holy Ghost,) when he bid the 3000 repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Acts ii. 38. This friend B. holds was an error, if I understand him. — Philip, although sent by the spirit to join the Eunuch's chariot, Acts viii. 29. and directed by an Angel how to find him, ver. 26. Immediate­ly upon the Eunuch's conversion, and asking what hindred his being baptized, Philip told him if he believed with all his heart Jesus was the Christ, he might be baptized in that certain water. This was an error according to friend Brown's opinion; likewise his baptizing both men and women who received the word at Sa­maria, [Page 36] was another error. Peter, according to B. and his friends' opinion, made a greater blunder, and his error seemed to be more aggra­vated at the house of Cornelius, Acts x. than at Jerusalem, Acts ii. For after they that heard his word were baptized with the Holy Ghost; Peter, doubtless, fearing an objection from his Jewish brethren that attended him from Joppa, because the new converts were uncircumcised Gentiles, said, can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commands them to be baptized, &c. by water baptism.— This was, in Brown's opinion, another error.

Observe, reader, the great difference between Brown's reasonings and Peter's. B. says the Ho­ly Ghost baptism is the only baptism under the gospel dispensation, and that water never was a duty under said dispensation. Peter reasons in perfect contrast to B. and commanded obedi­ence by being baptized in water, for the very reason that B. thinks they ought not. So the reader must judge which is in the mistake, the inspired Apostle or friend Brown.

Thus, some of the Apostles, who were the most blessed, and owned by God in converting of souls and planting of gospel churches; ac­cording to friend Brown's opinion, went blun­dering about among the nations directing some of their converts to do wrong, viz. in being bap­tized in water; and commanding others to do that which friend B. holds was not right to be done under the gospel dispensation. If I un­derstand him: so the reader must judge for himself.

[Page 37]I would further observe, our Lord informs his Apostles, that the spirit of truth would guide them into all truth, John xvi. In the 1st epistle of John iv. it is written, we, (viz. the Apostles) are of God, he that knoweth God heareth us, &c.— The Apostle Paul, says, Heb. xiii. 7. Remember them which have the rule over you, &c. viz. your guides the Apostles. It is evident from these texts, that christians had no rule of faith and worship in the Apostolic age, beside that which they received from our Lord and his in­spired witnesses. Which rule is transmitted to us in the writings of the new-testament, and is sufficient now for the regulation of the church­es of Christ; if it was then. If any further light and regulations had been necessary, to in­form us what to believe, or what to do upon our believing; I conceive, it will follow of un­deniable consequence; that neither our Lord who gave himself for the church, nor the Apos­tles who lived and died in the service of it, have fully taken care to instruct churches respecting duty, but have left their work as it were to the halves, and left others to finish and perfect it; or rather that we have no certain rule at all.— To close, in a word, I would have my brethren retaliate friend Brown's kindness, in sending me one of his books. I never saw his face in the flesh, nor is it likely I ever shall, but I can heartily say, I wish him and all my antagonists, a part of that eternal salvation, which I hope through grace to partake of myself.

When I enter my closet and have shut my door, I can repeat my request, to him who seeth [Page 38] in secret; that that divine compassion, which forgave Job and his friends, (respecting their dispute) may forgive me, and those who have wrote against what I have published, wherein we have not spoken the things that are right.— AMEN.