Your denomination are often, if not continually, telling the world about circumcifion being a feal of the covenant. You would much oblige us, would you inform us by what authority you employ this blind to prevent the ignorant from feeing.

We read, Rom. iv. II. of circumcifion being a feal of the righteousness of Abraham's faith, but this gives you no authority to impofe upon your hearers the falfe and mischievous idea of its being a feal of the covenant, and fo they must have their children (prinkled, to put them into the covenant. A more wicked idea the man of fin probably never advanced to a credulous world.

By this time you may conclude that either you or I know nothing about the covenant of circumcifion. That the readers may judge for themselves, and know where the truth lies, I will fet down, in the margin, the texts which fpeak of circumcifion, from Genefis to Revelation.*

You fay, page 84, fpeaking of the covenant of grace, eircumcifion was a feal of this covenant, which preceded Chrift, and is abolished, beyond all queftion baptifm is ordained in its ftead. I fhould admit this, if I were a Bap. tift." Admit what, Sir, if you were a Baptift?" If circumcifion was a feal of this covenant." Yes, Sir, if circumcifion were a feal of the covenant of grace, and all who were circumcifed were fealed in this covenant of grace, we would admit just what you might pleafe to prefcribe. But, Sir, the whole of this business of circumcifion being a feal, as multitudes are in our day made to believe, is a mere farce, or religious impofition.

I now leave the covenant of circumcifion to your future confideration, and come to review a few of your words which relate to Lydia. Speaking of what I obferved of Lydia and her household, after mentioning feveral things which I fuggefted, and leaving out the little evidence which I fet down, namely, That Paul entered into the house of Lydia, and there comforted the brethren,' you fay, "These fuppofitions, Sir, may be founded in truth, but who knows that they are; who, that can juftly make any pretenfions to impartiality, can believe them without evidence?" Your

* Gen. xvii. 10—14, 23—27. xxxiv. 15, 17, 22, 24. Exod. iv. 26. Deut. x. 16. xxx. 6. Joíh. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. Jere. iv. 4. ix. 25, 26. Luke ii. 21. John vii 22, 23. Acts vii. 8. x. 45. xi. 2, 3. XV. I, 5. xvi. 3. xxi. 21. Rom. ii. 25, 26, 28, 29. iii. 1, 30. iv. 9-12. xv. 8. I Cor. vii. 18, 19. Gal. ii. 3, 7, 8, 9. V. 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15. ii. 11. Phil. iii, 3, 5. Cel. ii. IX. iii. II. iv. XX.

Eph.

conclufion is, "Upon the whole, as fuppofitions are miferable arguments, the evidence is left just where you found it."

Were I, Sir, to join with you in fentiment, and were your readers to be of the fame opinion, that fuppofitions are miferable arguments, we might all of us have one idea fuggested to our minds at the fame moment, whether your arguments be not all of them of that defcription. But, efpecially if fuppofitions be miferable arguments, why do you and your denomination reft the important points of baptifm and its fubjects on juft fuch miferable arguments For, make the beft of the arguments for infant sprinkling, or even for infant baptifm, they are but fuppofitions, and but poor improbable ones too; yet, in the face of your brethren, you fay, fuppofitions are miferable arguments. Such an affertion, if true, is enough to ruin the practice of infant fprinkling, or at least the credit of fuch a practice.

You fuppofe that baptizō is fometimes used for sprinkling or partial wafhing, but you produce no evidence, unless it be fuppofititious evidence, that it is ever once fo ufed in any part of the Bible.

You fuppofe that baptizō is fometimes ufed as equivalent with nipto, but you find no place where it is thus used, or have no evidence that it is thus, unless it be fuppofed evi dence, which comes only to fuppofition.

You fuppofe that baptifmois is used for the application of fluids in every way, but ftill you want evidence.

You fuppofe that Chrift's bleffing little children is an ar gument in favour of infant baptifm.

You fuppofe that what Peter faid about the promise of the Spirit, as being to parents and children, even to as many as the Lord our God fhall call, is for infant baptism.

You fuppofe that the baptifm of Lydia's household, of the jailer's household, and of Stephanas's, are all in favour of infant baptifm.

You fuppofe that many other things are alfo in its favour; but it is all but bare fuppofition, for not a fyllable is mentioned of infant baptifm from Genefis to Revelation. Now, is it not furprising that you fhould tell the world, (not your opponents only, but your friends too) that fuppofitions are miferable arguments? In fact, Sir, if this be admitted, and fhould it be generally received, that fuppofitions are miserable arguments, your examination of my Sermons will lofe its influence, and fo will your whole caufe of fprinkling and nfant baptifm.

The next thing to be noticed, is your reply to the following propofition. I obferved, Abraham's children after the flesh were not included in the promife, as Pædobaptists of our day would have theirs.' You reply, as though you did not understand me-" If you mean (fay you) that they were not all participants in the bleffings of the promise, it is admitted." If you, Sir, did not understand me before, I will endeavour that you may now. What I mean is this→→→

They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the feed; for this is the word of promife, At this time will I come, and Sara fhall have a fon,' Rom. ix. 8, 9. Not, Hagar fhall have a fon; not, Keturah fhall have fix fons. Abraham had eight fons, but Ifaac was the only one of the eight to whom was the promise. Now, you fay this promife, which was to Abraham and his feed, is to you and to all your children: hence you, having eight fons, claim the promise to each of the eight, when Abraham could claim it but for one of his. Do you and your brethren fuppofe, that you have each one of you eight parts in the promise, and Abraham but one? It is no wonder, Sir, that you could not understand me. I defire that you might, for the future, have a good understanding, when you speak of the promise, as being to you and to your children, and of putting them into the covenant, or putting the feal of the covenant upon them.

In pages 88, 89, you have the remarkable paffage which follows: "In pages 96, 97, and 98, (i. e. of my Sermons) you run (fay you) the doctrine of pædobaptifm into what you call legitimate confequences: they are eight in number, and they are frightful things indeed. If you have fuppofed pædobaptifm embarraffed with all thefe confequences, I am perfectly aftonifhed how you could find a confcience to practife it, as you have done."

Reply. Is it not, Sir, more aftonishing that you can practife it, after thefe confequences are laid before you? But you find a very easy way to get rid, as you fuppofe, of the whole difficulty: the way you take is this-fay you, "All these confequences, Sir, will be denied by every intelligent advocate for infant baptifm." How intelligent, I will not prefume to fay, a perfon must be, to hold a premife and deny all the legitimate confequences. Should you, or any of your de nomination, bereafter undertake to deny the confequences which I drew, you are defired to ftate the principle, and then how the difagreement between that and my confe

quences. The principle of the Pædobaptifts is this" The fubjects of baptifm are to be determined by the fubjects of circumcifion." The first account which we have of the fubjects of circumcifion, and perhaps as particular account as any which is given us, is in the family of Abraham. Abraham was a great and good man, and on his account all the males in his house were to be circumcised, whether they were young or old, his own children, or bought with money, or born in his houfe. Before he was commanded to circumcife his household, he had three hundred and eighteen training foldiers, born in his own houfe: how many more were born in his houfe, or bought with his money, before the day of them circumcifion, we know not; but let it be more or lefs, one thing is certain, they were all to be circumcifed, on account of Abraham's being a good man, full of faith.

Now, Sir, your principle, or the principle of your de nomination, is, that the fubjects of baptifm are to be deter mined by the fubjects of circumcifion.

Hence, my first confequence was-Every man who is converted to the Chriftian religion is to be baptized, and all his houfehold, though he may have three hundred and eighteen training foldiers born in his own houfe. Not only are these foldiers, but their wives and children, and all other fervants who belong to this great man's houfe. A thousand infidels are to be baptized, because one great man, their mafter, is chriftianized.

My fecond confequence was-Thefe foldiers, with their wives, children, and fervants, are all to be confidered and treated as church members, or as being in covenant: in the covenant of circumcifion, or fome fimilar.

If

Thus were the circumcifed confidered and treated. baptifm have taken the place of circumcifion, and the fubjects of the one are to be determined by the other, then must thefe foldiers, wives, and children be confidered and treated in the fame manner.

The other confequences the reader will find in my fixth Sermon, and confult them at his leifure.

Now, Sir, how you could, without mentioning either prineiple or confequence, tell the world, both learned and unlearned, "that all thefe confequences will be denied by every intelligent advocate for infant baptifm," is a little to be wondered at. I have hardly intelligence enough to underftand what you intend by an intelligent advocate for infant aptifm. By what you have faid, I should naturally enough

་

conclude, that by an intelligent advocate for infant baptism, you intend one who knows how to advocate principles and deny the natural confequences, and deduce others to his liking.

You fay, "That my confequences are frightful things.' I drew them that you might attend to them, and be frightened or driven from your antichriftian principle: but you ftill hold the principle, at least in measure, and fecure or content yourself under the idea, that every intelligent advocate for infant baptifm will deny my confequences. How you will anfwer it to the British church, to the popes of Rome, and to a multitude of other learned Pædobaptifts, who have practifed upon a number of my conclufions, and admitted the reft as true, fave the fifth and laft, for placing them among the unintelligents, is left for you to determine.

The laft confequence which I drew from this Pædobaptist principle, That the fubjects of baptifm are to be determined by the fubjects of circumcifion, is-It doth, fo far as it hath its perfect work, destroy the very idea of the gospel church, contradict the prophets, and make Paul and others speak not the truth; and it throws us back to the state of the Jewish church.

To this you see fit to reply, and your reply hath the appearance of a laboured attempt to confound the distinction between the Jewish church and the gospel church, and to make your readers believe them to be both one and the fame thing. Your very reply goes to prove that your prin ciple would, if true, throw us back to the ftate of the Jewish church; and thus it proves my confequence true.

In your reply, you keep a juft idea of the Jewish church altogether out of fight; you do not mention fo much as one juft trait of it. Your arguments to prove the gospel church and the Jewish church to be one, are-First, God manifefted great kindness to the Jewish church; he carried them as on eagles' wings, and fome of them greatly rejoiced in the Lord Secondly, That the Jewish church confifted of fuch perfons as were Abraham and Ifaac: these are your words-Are Baptift churches generally purer, think you, than a church would be compofed of fuch perfons as Abraham; and where is the inconfiftency or danger of admitting the teftimony of the Holy Ghoft, 1 Cor. vii. 14. that the chil dren are visibly holy as Ifaac was?”

There is, Sir, no inconfiftency or danger in admitting the teftimony of the Holy Ghoft; but there is both inconfiftency and danger in wrefling the teftimony of the Holy Ghoft, or in misapplying it.