Gospel, than has ever been done by your denomination? And do you wish it to be understood, that the adherents of Antichrist have done more for Christ than has been done by his exclusive friends? Is it, Sir, for the honor of CHRIST to have it believed, that he has been so in love with “Antichrist," as to bestow the greatest share of his distinguishing favors on her adhérents and supporters, to the neglect of his "TRUE GOSPEL CHURCH ?" GOD FORBID !

It would, I think, have required no extraor dinary share of prudence and modesty, in your writers, to have waved these high pretensions, in hope of a period, in which, what you shall have done for Christ would bear a better comparison with what has been done by those who are denounced as the adherents of "Antichrist." And does it not behove you, Sir, solemnly to inquire, in the light of Scripture, whether our adherence to infant baptism agrees better with the character and spirit of "Antichrist," than your ARROGANT and CENSORIOUs pretensions?

Unless I shall be made to believe, that. in God's account, arrogancy stands for humility, and censoriousness for christian candor and brotherly love, I shall ever fear to become an advocate for your exclusive claims.

Rev. Sir,

LETTER VIII.

Your's, &c.

I HAVE still farther reasons to give why I cannot be a Baptist-Therefore,

6. I fear to take ground on which the course of my conduct must be involved in self-contradiction.

Should I become a Baptist, if I am a Christian, it is reasonable to expect, that, at some seasons, the feelings of piety, humility, brotherly love, and Christian tenderness, would predominate. At such seasons, I should be constrained to feel and converse respecting many of the Pedobaptists, as though they were my brethren in the Lord. I should have to call them Christians, and the friends of God. I should wish to associate with them as such; and should wish to exchange with pious Ministers of the Pedobaptist denomination, and to hear them preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. But when party affection and party zeal should become predominant, and I should have occasion to vindicate my conduct as a close communionist, then I should change the tone of my conversation, accuse them of being wilfully blind respecting the order of Christ's house, and the ordinances of his kingdom. By giving liberty to my tongue, my zeal would be increased and inflamed, till the whole Pedobaptist church would be considered as belonging to "Antichrist"-Thus those, who in one hour would be considered as the children of God, in another would be treated as the children of the devil: and all this without any change in any one but myself. This gloomy prospect, Sir, has resulted from reading and observation. I therefore fear to be a Baptist.

7. I fear to adopt a theory by which I should be led to employ my time and talents for the purpose of dividing, or breaking up, peaceable societies and churches; and to use my influence in prejudicing the minds of people against godly Ministers.

C

I very well know, that your denomination undertake to support, from the Scriptures, the propriety of their conduct in causing divisions. Nor am I wholly unacquainted with their mode of reasoning for this purpose; but I am afraid to adopt it.

visions."

Christ, in foretelling his disciples what would be the consequence of his coming, by reason of the wickedness of the human heart, made use of these words, "Suppose ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather diAnd how often do we hear persons of your denomination quoting this text in vindication of their conduct, as though Christ had required it of them to make divisions in churches and societies ?-But why, Sir, do you not quote the parallel text in Matthew, to prove that it is lawful for you to propagate your sentiments by the point of the sword? "Think not," said Christ, "that I am come to send peace on the earth, but a sword." The meaning of this text is probably the same as the meaning of the other. And why may not the latter text be urged in support of the method which Mahomet took to propagate his sentiments with as much propriety as your brethren quote the former in support of their practice in causing divisions?

I will take the liberty, Sir, to suggest for your serious consideration, another text of somewhat similar import with those which have been mentioned. Matt. xviii. 7, "Wo unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but wO TO THAT MAN by whom the offence cometh !??

Though some of your denomination attempt

to justify their conduct in causing divisions, by the passage quoted from Luke; yet as soon as we urge that it is our duty to mark those who cause divisions and offences, and to avoid them; immediately they deny that they are the ones who cause division; and affirm, that it is the Pedobaptists who cause the divisions, by having departed from gospel order. In one instance, therefore, you own that you do make the divisions, and attempt to justify your conduct; in the other, you deny your making divisions, and charge the crime upon the Pedobaptists. If this, Sir, be straight sailing, what can be crooked? Must we not, Sir, suppose, that a person finds it very difficult to ustify his conduct, who will adopt such contradictory methods? Your's, &c.

Rev. Sir,

LETTER IX.

I MUST add,

8. I fear to take ground on which I must urge the prevalence of my distinguishing sentiments as proof their rectitude.

The absurdity of this argument I endeavored to show in my "Impartial Inquiries respecting the progress of the Baptist denomination." But. I find, as absurd as it is, that it is still urged by your brethren; and even by a Doctor in Divinity. I must therefore address to you a few observations on this point.

If the prevalence of your peculiar sentiments may be admitted as proof of their rectitude, it must be for this reason, viz. than in this sinful world nothing but truth can be thus prevalent. If it be as common for error to prevail as it is for

truth, then neither truth nor error can be known by their prevalence-But if it be your opinion that the prevalence of a sentiment is an evidence of its truth, to act consistently with this opinion, you must admit into your system of truth every sentiment that is prevalent in the world. And must not this, Sir, be a very complex and heterogeneous system?

If you believe that the prevalence of your pecul iar sentiments is an evidence that they are according to truth, why do you not admit the same plea in favour of the peculiar sentiments of the Methodists, and incorporate their sentiments into your system? The Methodists urge the same plea in their favor, and with as much reason as it is urged by your denomination.

Besides, Sir, if it be your serious belief that the prevalence of your sentiments is an evidence of their truth, how comes it to pass that you dare to reject and ridicule the sentiments of the Pedobaptists? Their sentiments have bec, and still are, vastly more prevalent than yours.

Must it not, Sir, be true, that in urging this plea the leaders of your denomination have been remarkably deluded, or verily dishonest? Has not this plea often been urged by those who saw its fallacy, merely for the sake of making proselytes? And have you not, Sir, reason to fear that thousands have been persuaded to become Baptists by this fallacious and delusive dream? I dare not, Sir, venture my soul on such ground.

Perhaps, Sir, I might without great impropriety, suggest to you that I fear to take ground on which I should be led to imagine that all the world will soon be Baptists, because that myself