effusions of his Spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions or cities, shall be by born in a day. Upon your hypothesis there is an absolute impossibility they should be born into the kingdom, while there is this scarcity of water, and this may last for months, yea, as long as they live. And these thousands and hundreds of thousands of christians, must remain all this while, and perhaps die, without having once the consolation of supping with their Redeemer. Now it must require very clear evidence to convince me, that the essence of baptism lies in that which, in so many cases of this kind, must defeat the very design of it; and that baptism is ever an an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord's supper. This moreover is altogether unlike what we find on the face of apostol practice. I am, &c.

SIR,

LETTER IV.

I SHALL not pretend minutely to review what you have thought proper to say, in your letters, in defence of the manner in

which you attempted to prove that infants of believing parents, are not proper subjects of Gospel baptism; because most of your observations are wide of the point on which the controversy turns, and because I prefer giving my views of this subject to the public in another way.

There is but little hazard, that your most partial readers will be quieted by the new invention of yours, as much at variance with common sense, and with the explanations of all your Baptist brethren, as with the scriptnre, that the covenant of circumcision is but a token of the covenant of grace; that it is but a mere law, and that circumcision itself, is this covenant. This is twisting and turning indeed. "The covenant of circumcision equals," say you, "every man child being circumcised, every man child being circumcised equals the circumcising the flesh of their foreskin; the circumcising the flesh of their foreskin equals the token of the covenant between God and Abraham; hence the token of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham equals the covenant of circumeision; for it is a well known axiom that things that are equal to the same are equal to one another." This Algebraic equation, my friend, in pity to you, I will leave under a simple quotation.

You say, page 57, "The covenant of cir-cumcision is but a token of the covenant between God and Abraham." Then it was not a covenant between God and Abraham; for the token is on one part only. In your comment upon Gen. xvii. 10, 11, you say, "If you can understand two plain verses in the Bible, you may understand what the cov enant of circumcision is. In these two verses we have the same thing mentioned four times in different words; first, God says, This is my covenant; (so Joseph says, The seven ears are seven years, and our Saviour says, This is my body.) Secondly, he tells. what it is; Every man child among you shall be circumcised, (every man child then is the covenant of circumcision, and the token of the covenant of grace,) thirdly God informs us how this covenant is to be kept. Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, (then the covenant is the act of circumcising,) fourthly God informs us what is the end or use of this covenant of circumcision, It shall be a token of the covenant betwixt Him and Abraham." So the covenant is a token; and the token is a covenant; and the end or use of this token, is that it shall be a token. If I were not yet in my leading strings, and altogether unfit to be any thing but your pupil, I would try

to help you out of this difficulty. But as it is, modesty will permit me only to suggest to you my view of the matter in a few words. I take it that a law is one thing; obedience to that law another; and the ef fect of that obedience another. It appearsto me, that God's requiring Abraham to circumcise Isaac was a law; that the act of Abraham in circumcising Isaac was obedience to that law; and that the circumcised state of Isaac was an effect of that obedience.. Now I learn from the Bible, that this circumcised state, the third thing in the series, is the token of the covenant which subsisted between God and Abraham. For God says, Gen. xvii. 11th. verse "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you," and verse 13th. "And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." But you say, "The cov enant of circumcision is what God required Abraham to agree to and to practice." Then it is a law. But your fancy is no manner of consequence, my dear Sir, to your theory. Suppose the covenant of circumcision is this mere token, what then? You allow it to be a token of God's gracious promises to Abraham. But one of God's promises to Abraham was, "I will be a God to thee and thy

seed." And the whole debate is respecting this, and the other promises made to this patriarch. So much for the covenant of circumcision.

In page 62, you say respecting Abraham's household," But let it be more or less, one thing is certain, they were all to be circumcised, on account of Abraham's being a good man, full of faith."

can easily be proved.

That which is certain Proof is not furnished. And it is believed never can be furnished. Yet you would make use of this assertion to clog the pædoboptist theory with the absurdity in practice, that if one of us should convert a South Carolina planter into a disciple, we of course make disciples of all his slaves, though they are 5000.

In page 68, is a remark which ought not to pass wholly unnoticed. It is this, "You must indeed, persuade Christians to believe baptism to be of little worth, or they cannot rest contented with the manner of your handling that important-Gospel ordinance." This insinuates that I make light of the ordinance of baptism. This imputation, Sir, is as ungenerous, as it is ill founded. The opposite was told you; and I now tell you, that I have exposed myself to great personal trials to guard the sacredness of this ordinance.