in your denomination proves you to be Zion, the church of the living God, is what we cannot grant, nor have you any right to require it. Our reafons we will give you: they are

4two.

The first is-The promife, though made to Zion, was not that it fhould be fulfilled in her, and not elsewhere.

Our fecond reafon is-The promise is frequently, if not generally, fulfilled out of Zion.

This promife may be fulfilled in the house of an infidel, enveloped by a thunder ftorm; in the house where peftilence rages; in a fhip, toffed with a tempeft; in a company, where young converts affectionately warn finners to flee from the wrath to come. Moreover, the Pfalmift* informs us that this promise was fulfilled in Rahab, Babylon, Philiftia, Tyre and Ethiopia; for of these it is faid, 'This man was born there.'

Now, Sir, will you fay, that an houfe of an infidel, enveloped by a thunder storm, that an house where peftilence rages, that a ship toffed with a tempeft, that a company where young converts affectionately warn the wicked, that Rahab, that Babylon, that Philiftia, that Tyre, and that Ethiopia, are each of them Zion, the church of the living God? Your argument is equally good to prove all the above to be the church of the living God, as to prove your denomination to be. You fee your argument can do you but little fervice, for it proves every thing to be the church, as much as it proves

* Pfalm lxxxvii. 4.

your denomination to be fo; hence, it is of no fervice in the prefent debate. You know, Sir,

that fuch argumentation will never fettle, though it may lengthen, the important controverfy now on hand.

Your fourth argument is built upon our fup.pofed inconfiftency.

We are ready to commune with you in prayer, Chriftian conference, and in the pulpit, but not at the Lord's table.

Because we judge it both lawful and expedient to commune with you in the three first particulars, you conclude we ought in the laft. You also charge our refufal with inconsistency.

For our practice, where you condemn us, the pillar and ground of the truth acquits and commends us. For our communing with you in prayer, conference and the pulpit, we shall endeavour to juftify ourselves in a future letter; which, if we can do it, will excufe us from feeling or allowing any weight to this argument; if we cannot, you should be the last to fault us, for our mistake at most is but this, we commune with you further than we ought.

5. Your next argument is" We fhould hold fellowship with those who appear to have fellowship with Chrift."

This is the very principle on which we proceed, and by which we wish to fquare our practice. You appear to have fellowship with Chrift in prayer, converfation and preaching, but you do not appear to have fellowship with him as gofpel and regular churches, for you refufe to be fuch; you will not take upon you

the church, the Christian, badge; you ftrongly oppofe, and continually refufe, to fubmit to that ordinance of Jefus Chrift, by which alone you can begin to be regular gofpel churches, or church members; therefore, as regular churches of Christ, We have no fellowship with you. In this our practice, we do not stand acquitted only, but commended, by the pillar and ground of the truth.

Your fuppofed "undeniable inference," "Yet, in imitation of Chrift, they (the Baptift churches and the communities of your denomination) fhould walk as brethren, and live in fellowship as churches of equal standing in Christ,” is the very thing which we deny. Your premife whence you draw this inference, is not able to fupport it. This is your premise, " Chrift hath fellowship with both, fo far as they walk in the path of the juft;"* but you refufe to walk in the path of the juft; you reject Chrift's command to be baptized: here you break fellowship with Christ, and here we break with you.

This argument, being both plausible and popular, we will take a little larger view of both the argument and answer.

The argument is, "The Baptifts (fay you) ought to commune with us at the Lord's table, for they are commanded to receive Chriftians, even as Chrift Jefus hath received them. Chrift receives us and communes with us at his own table, therefore the Baptifts ought to do the fame."

* Page 27.

Answer. Why do you not car to 12 through, and by this planfic

that the Baptifts fhould commu your unfcriptural rite of

and in

your adminiftering tall. 221 believing children? The an good to prove obligation

thefe latter inftances, as in the NE

tell us that the Lord com

each, in one as realy a in the

Again-Wer dV

ment to convert the be

dorantiím? for the a

whole, as in any par

If this argument iv z

with its ful nativ far

rantifts, and demand

ence. Chrif reserve the BUT

ordinance of barton

disciples among

this commoner

Here you

argument, pra m

feel it a 11

between VOL 225 2

minate.

the church, the Chriftian, badge; you ftrongly oppofe, and continually refufe, to fubmit to that ordinance of Jefus Chrift, by which alone you can begin to be regular gofpel churches, or church members; therefore, as regular churches of Chrift, we have no fellowship with you. In this our practice, we do not ftand acquitted only, but commended, by the pillar and ground of the truth.

Your fuppofed "undeniable inference," "Yet, in imitation of Chrift, they (the Baptift churches and the communities of your denomination) fhould walk as brethren, and live in fellowship as churches of equal standing in Christ,” is the very thing which we deny. Your premife whence you draw this inference, is not able to fupport it. This is your premise, "Christ hath fellowship with both, fo far as they walk in the path of the juft;"* but you refufe to walk in the path of the juft; you reject Chrift's command to be baptized: here you break fellowship with Chrift, and here we break with

you.

This argument, being both plausible and popular, we will take a little larger view of both the argument and answer.

The argument is, "The Baptifts (fay you) ought to commune with us at the Lord's table, for they are commanded to receive Chriftians, even as Chrift Jefus hath received them. Chrift receives us and communes with us at his own table, therefore the Baptifts ought to do the fame."

* Page 27.