rites depend entirely on the revealed will of God in regard to the manner of performing them, the persons to whom they belong, and the signification of them? All this they readily grant.. Do we insist that the obvious and native sense of the term baptism, is immersion? They expressly allow it. Do we affirm that the principal thing intended by the ordinance, is a representation of our communion with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection? It is cheerfully granted. Do we maintain that immersion was the apostolic practice, and that, except in extraordinary cases, it was the general custom for thirteen hundred years? They confirm our sentiment. Do we affirm immersion is the present practice of the Greek and Oriental churches, and that those churches include one half of the Christian world? Their own pens bear testimony for us. Do we insist that plunging is more expressive of the great things intended by the ordinance, than pouring or sprinkling? They accede to our opinion. Do we assert that the first instance of pouring or sprinkling which is expressly recorded, was about the middle of the third century, and then condemned; that the apostate church of Rome, all sovereign as her claims are, introduced pouring to common practice, and that protestant churches received it from her polluted hands? These being stubborn facts, are all acknowledged. Do we maintain, that in ordinary cases, immersion is not prejudicial to health Pedobaptist physicians, without a fee, and medical practice, without hesitation, confirm our opinion. Do we assert that no power on earth has authority to alter the law of Christ, or to depart from apostolic example, in regard to immersion? So do they, in effect, when disputing with the papists.

Do we contend that there is no express command nor plain example in the New Testament relating to infant baptism? It is granted by them. Do we consider the arguments for proselyte baptism, an external covenant, and circumcision as of no avail to the cause of infant baptism? They concur in our opinion. Do we treat with contempt the plea of apostolic tradition unsupported by scripture? So do all protestants except pedobaptism or something similar solicits their patronage. Do we maintain that infant baptism and infant communion were introduced about the same time; that they are supported by the same arguments; that they were equally common for a course of ages; and that they are still united in the practice of a large portion of the Christian world? We have the happiness to find, that these facts are all confirmed by their learned pens.

In regard to passages of scripture usually pleaded against us, you must also have seen that various eminent Pedobaptists either expressly reject them, as having nothing to do with the controversy, or so interpret them, as to render their application quite impertinent. I cannot for want of time repeat the examples; but in a word, there is not, that I recollect, one topic of argument, nor one text of scripture, usually pleaded in favor of infant baptism, even by the more judicious of our opponents; but it is either cashiered, as having nothing to do with the controversy; or so understood, as to be of no service to the cause.

We have the honour therefore to agree with many of them, as to a great part of our premises; and with some of them respecting the whole. Yes, amazing as it may seem, we are honoured with having some of them for our associates in every thing except the con

clusion. Here indeed, we are utterly deserted by them. Nor can it be otherwise while they are Pedobaptists, and we anti-Pedobaptists.

However, whether our conclusion or theirs be right, it is manifest, that notwithstanding the number of evidences usually subponed against us when the validity of infant sprinkling is to be publicly tried, and notwithstanding the formidable appearance they frequently make in the eyes of superficial observers; yet when those very evidences are impartially examined by Pedobaptists in private, without being perplexed with captious queries, they have not a word to say for infant sprinkling; but all their depositions are directed to prove doctrines and facts of quite a different nature."

But your patience must be exhausted; I will therefore conclude as briefly as possible.

I can say from the heart, that in this course of sermons, I have given you the sober, deliberate, conscientious convictions of my own mind.

I am fully confident that the principles which I have advocated are supported by eternal truth; yet, conscious of my imperfections in the perception and defence of truth, I would utter the prayer,

"If I am right, thy grace impart,

Me in the right to stay;

If I am wrong, O teach my heart,

To find that better way."

To those who differ from us, I would say, I have endeavoured to treat you with fairness and courtesy. I only ask you to compare the sentiments which I have vindicated with the word of God. If they accord with this word, you are bound to receive them; if they do not, you are equally bound to reject them.

If you will consent to make the comparison, with unprejudiced minds, I will most cheerfully abide the issue. To my Baptist brethren, I would just add: Hold fast the form of sound words; and if "you be every where spoken against," still speak the truth in love.

"Let not your good be evil spoken of” by your own misconduct. Move on in the even tenor of your way; give practical proof of the excellency of your principles, so that" they may be ashamed that shall falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." Finally, "we beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called; with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

If, after all, you are destined to suffer reproach, and to be "every where spoken against," may you always be enabled to adopt the language of your early Christian brethren: "Being defamed, we entreat."