case." I cannot help this gentleman's mortification. If he will persist in attempts to abuse the minds of his readers, I shall feel it my duty to hold up his conduct in its proper colours, that it may meet its merited reprobation. He says, "I quoted the very language of the Scriptures, &c. So he did. But he did not quote enough of the language to give the true view of the case. Nor has he now quoted enough. In the Sermon he quoted from the 29th verse; in the Letters from the 25th verse. If he had commenced at the 23d verse, as I have shown in the Appeal, the reader would have been saved the danger of being imposed upon by his CAPITALS in his Sermon, and the italics in his Letters. He proposes to let St. Luke's words inform the reader in the premises, and says, "This is Luke's account of the matter, without even the addition of capital letters, and it seems to me to require no little ingenuity to find in all this any thing inconsistent with the idea of immersion. Let us see: The jailer first brought them out." Now, why did not the gentleman accord a little common sense to his readers, and leave them to judge from Luke's account, without the aid of his italics, instead of going on to repeat certain of Luke's words, putting them in italics?

I say, in conclusion, that his version of this matter makes Paul and Silas a couple of arch hypocrites; for it represents that they left the prison at midnight, and went off to the "river Strymon," or some other stream; and yet, when the next morning arrived, and the magistrates

sent two" sergeants, saying, Let these men go," they refused to leave the jail, stating that " they would not be thrust out PRIVATELY," and added, "Let the magistrates come themselves and fetch us out." And "the magistrates came and besought them, and brought them out," &c. And these are the men who left the prison at midnight privately, of their own accord, who, now that it is day, need to be entreated to leave it before they will consent to go out! This, truly, was rather a bad lesson to teach their new converts! But, candid reader, Paul and Silas were not the men to practise duplicity. Therefore, I say they never left the premises of the Philippian jail until the morning, and the baptizing took place within doors, and not at the "river Strymon." I refer the reader to my former argument on this case for a full answer to Mr. B.

That

He begins his nineteenth letter by saying, "How determined must that man be 'to support a theory,' who can undertake, by mere 'sifting,' to set aside the plain testimony for immersion which is furnished in the eunuch's case," &c. I always consider that "sifting" in controversy is better than "SHIFTING." this gentleman has dealt largely in the latter, I presume the reader has discovered during this examination. "What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord," and how is the wheat of truth to be separated from the chaff of error without "sifting?" As it regards his strong or plain testimony for immersion in the case of the eunuch's baptism, it remains to be shown. My former

argument on this case he has not met, as the reader can see by comparing the Appeal, pages 143-147, with his Letters, pages 81, 82, 83.

On page 86, Mr. B. gives us quite a short method for disposing of the matter in controversy. He says, "Now, sir, I will tell you what our favourite argument' is-it is this, the word of our King, throughout, is in favour of immersion. This is my favourite argument.' I find immersion in the pattern; and I find nothing else there." This is begging the question with a witness. Does the reader see any argument in his "favourite argument ?”

Why did he not attempt to answer my remarks upon the "supposed immersion" of Christ? Also my exposition of Rom. vi, 4; and Col. ii, 12? The view I took of their argument for immersion, drawn from antiquity, where the rite was performed (according to the Baptist historian, Robinson) upon naked subjects, both male and female, he passes over lightly, as though he wished to keep it from the view of his readers.

Being hard pressed by the case which I gave from Benedict's History of the Baptists, where Roger Williams received baptism by immersion from the hands of a layman, who never had been dipped himself, Mr. B., on page 88, has made a CONCESSION, that, upon reflection, seems to have alarmed the gentleman himself, judging from what he wrote immediately after. Here it is: "I GRANT, SIR, THAT, IF A MAN HAS NOT BEEN IMMERSED, HE MAY IM

MERSE OTHERS, AND HIS NEGLECT OF

HIS OWN DUTY MAY NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FOR ASSISTING OTHERS IN THE DISCHARGE OF

THEIRS." Now, LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, THAT, ELDER BROADDUS BEING JUDGE, ALL PEDOBAPTIST MINISTERS ARE QUALIFIED TO GIVE THE ORDINANCE BY IMMERSION !!

So that if you prefer the Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or any others, to the Baptists, you may receive VALID BAPTISM, BY IMMERSION, at their hands! But he was evidently alarmed at his own admission, as I shall show the reader. He says, on the same page, "But I have always thought it singular, that those who ridicule immersion, &c., should, after all, consent to immerse those who cannot be convinced that sprinkling or pouring is the more excellent way.' And asks me, How, THEN, CAN YOU CONSENT TO IMMERSE ?" "How

?"

can you encourage people in their superstition? He then adds, "On the last page of your 'Appeal' you call immersion the 'child of superstition.' This is not as it is there written. I called it no such thing. Why has he wrested my words from their proper connection in this case? He knew that I was speaking of baptism, performed upon naked subjects. But he must make the impression that I considered immersion superstitious; and then adds, "SURELY, HEREAFTER YOU WILL NOT BE FOUND WILLING TO IMMERSE; OR IF YOU SHOULD, CAN ANY CONSENT THAT YOU SHOULD IMMERSE

I

THEM, WHILE THEY KNOW THAT YOU CONSIDER IT A VIOLATION OF THE WORD OF GOD? TROW NOT." I said, candid reader, above, that the gentleman was alarmed at his own concession. He admits that I am qualified, but hopes nobody will consent that I shall immerse them. But who told Mr. B. that I consider immersion a violation of the word of God? Where is it written? He says, "While they know” I so consider it. Why did he not give the proof of this allegation? For the best of all reasons: he could not. We prefer sprinkling or pouring in baptism; but we would rather immerse persons who cannot be convinced of the validity of baptism after these methods, than they should go where there is "no confession of faith," and where scarcely any two, even of the ministers, agree in opinion. We think “unity of faith,” and “the bond of peace," more important to a religious denomination, than the particular form of an outward ceremony!

I have now reached Mr. B.'s last letter, in which there are some things I intend briefly to notice. I have observed that he seems to be very much concerned about the existence of different denominations of Christians; and says, "I think I am ready to do any thing I can safely do, to bring the scattered flock of Christ together." And very gravely asks," Will you do the same? Allow me to hope that you will." Perhaps the reader is ready to ask, What does Mr. B. wish you to give up for the sake of union? Why, gentle reader, he only modestly asks, that we