'proved, that John's baptism was administered by 'immersion, yet it would not thence follow that 'christian baptism, was to be administered in the 'same manner. John's baptism belonged not to 'the christian, but to the Jewish dispensation of grace.' page 58.

Upon this I intend to make but a very few observations, as I have already exceeded the usual bounds of a letter.

Those who deny John's baptism to be christian baptism, object; 1st. That it was instituted under the old Old Testament dispensation. I answer, so also was the Lord's supper. The death of Christ was the close of the former dispensation. Every precept of the cerimonial law, had its full force, until all its typical rites had their accomplishment in the sacrifice of the great antitype; but prior to this event, the Lord's supper was instituted. Although it was indeed shortly before the close of that dispensation, yet it is sufficient that it was instituted before the death of Christ, it was instituted under the Old Testament dispensation; and therefore according to your assertion cannot be a New Testament ordinance.

2nd. It is objected, that it was in existence before that circumcision ceased to be an ordinance of the church, and therefore could not come in the room of circumcision. I answer, that all ordinances exist in the church, according to the will of her HEAD and Lord. He may, or may not appoint seals according to his righteous plea

sure.

I conclude, that for a short season, three seals existed to the covenant of grace, and this concession implies no more, than that the church having for a long period of time, been accustom

ed to circumcision, as the initiating seal of the covenant of grace, were gradually introduced to the ordinances of the New Testament, the present dispensation gradually appeared; the darkness of that dispensation, by the appearing of the son of righteousness, was by degrees diminished, but before their dispensation was closed, our ordinances, which were to take the place of theirs, made their appearance. Thus while our fathers had their own ordinances, they had the pleasure of seeing ours.

This hypothesis, I suppose, is generally supported by those who fear to admit premises, from which the baptist may draw conclusions unfavourable to pedo-baptism. Lest Mr. Campbell might have supposed that I intended to have taken the same advantage, I publicly intimated in an early stage of debate, that I believed John's baptism to be christian baptism, and feared no conclusion my opponent could draw from my assersion.

3rd. It is objected, that those baptised with the baptism of John, were re-baptised by Paul. This objection is founded on Acts, 19. 3, 4, 5. 'And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? · and they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the People, that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.' Let it be observed on this passage,

1st. That by the Holy Ghost, in the passage, we are not to understand the saving operation of the Holy Spirit, but the miraculous outpourings of the Spirit, which commenced on the day of penticost, and continued for some time in the Church;

because the person of the Holy Spirit, and his saving operations, were taught in the Old-Testament, to which these converts had access.

2nd. That Paul shews them the nature of John's baptism, that in that ordinance, they had been taught the nature of true repentance, the character of Christ Jesus, and the necessity of faith in his name.

3rd. When Paul had shewn the nature of John's baptism, he then intimates to these people, that when the hearers of John had understood this, his doctrine, they made a public profession of the faith by receiving his baptism, and here he is not speaking particularly of these whom he now addressed, but of the bearers of John in general.

4th. That the Apostle, finding that these people had received by faith, Jesus Christ preached to them by John, and having made a public profession of their faith, by receiving baptism from John, he now lays his hands upon them, that they might receive the miraculous outpourings of the Holy Spirit.

I have now given you the view of BEZA, and sonie ofthe best commentators upon the passage; & I think upon due reflection, you will agree that these persons were not re-baptised. Indeed, thesame reason that would render it necessary to re-baptise these persons, would also require the re-baptism of the eleven Apostles, and many others, who had no other than John's baptism.

That the baptism of John was Christian baptism, will appear from a few observations.

1st. That if the baptism of John, was not Christian baptism, then neither Christ nor his disciples, received christian baptism.--Christ did not, he was baptized with the baptism of John

alone, this will, indeed dishonor the New Testament church, seeing that Christ was regularly initiated a member of the Old Testament church by circumcision, but never was initiated a member of the New Testament by baptism. The eleven Apostles were never, according to this doctrine, initiated, by baptism, members of the New Testa ment church-they were unbaptized ministers of Christ-a doctrine, which, I think none should assert.

2nd. For the same reason, that the baptism of John could not be christian baptism,because it was under the former dispensation. The baptism of the disciples, before the death of Christ, could not be christian, not one of the 120 disciples by this, had received christian baptism.

3rd. The language of John intimated that his baptism was christian. He that sent me to baptise.' Had it been any of the Jewish washings, he would have no special commission, the levitical law would have marked his duty. If the washing by John, had belonged to the Jewish purgations, we should have heard his baptism, announced at Mount Sinia, or from the tabernacle in the wilderness; but his intimation, that he had a distinct commission from any of his predecessors, declares that he had particular duties to discharge, not belonging to that dispensation.

Thus, sir, I have taken a very brief view of the baptism of John, of the faith required as prerequisite to baptism, and of the, covenant of grace, as administered in the covenant of circumcision.

While I have objected to some things in your letters, do not suppose that I disapprove of them altogether. No sir, I believe you have given suffieient and unanswerable reasons, why the view

of baptists on the subject of baptism, should be refused, and I well believe that Mr. Campbell agrees with me in this, for had he believed that your arguments could have been answered, he would not have filled his strictures with satyre, but with replies, so far as you have espoused the cause of truth. I wish you success and peace in the Lord.

Yours, &c.

JOHN WALKER.

Jan. 14th, 1824

FINIS.