1st. Are they the same, in respect of the nature and extent of the privileges secured to the respective subjects, under each of those covenants ?

2d. Are they the same in respect of the interesting or entitling condition; that is, is the ground of interest and

of claim the same in both ?

3d. Is the condition of the continued enjoyment of the covenanted blessings the same in both Covenants ?

Having proposed these questions to Mr. W. I would next observe, that I do not intend to digress from the Covenants, even so far as to repeat my answers already given to those stale repetitions which he has just now pronounced. There are but two or three things mentioned in this morning's address, that I shall at all notice-The first of these is his answer to the question I proposed to him, at least four times yesterday, without receiving a reply. It was this, "was there ever a positive ordinance or institution founded solely upon inference or reason." Or Can there be a positive institution without a positive precept or precedent authorising it ?-This question he has, after the deliberations of last night, answered by propo sing another which he presumes equally operates against my views. The questions he proposes areWhere is my positive authority for praying where I preach, and where is ny express authority for admitting women to the Lord's table P-Now the intention of these queries is to shew that I am wrong, upon these principles, for doing so; consequently he may be wrong too. Or he may establish his practice upon the strength of inferential reasoning, if I admit that I practice those things upon the footing of mere inference. But I deny that either of these cases is parallel to infant baptism-or that either of them depend upon mere reasoning or scripture premises for their establishment. As to this difficulty with respect to prayer, I have only to quote one express precept of the Apostle, and his objection vanishes as a vision of the night-" I will, therefore, that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands without wrath or doubting." 1 Tim. 2d 8th. Now, if Mr. W. will shew us that where a man preaches is no where, then we have no scriptural authority for accompanying preaching with prayer; but, until then, we suppose the command to pray every where, express authority for praying any where. As to his second query, concerning female communion, I have to observe that although sun

dry pedo-baptists have made a salvo to soothe their minds, of this apparent difficulty, it is a poor and a pitiful come off-It is the most puerile and childish retort that I ever heard used by adults that had any knowledge of words and things.

Was the Lord's supper instituted or appointed to men or women as such? Was it not appointed to the disciples of Christ "He gave it to his disciples, saying, partake ye all of it"-Here, then, is an express warrant for all disciples to participate of the Lord's supper. Now it puts Mr. Walker and all Pedo-baptists that humble themselves to such means to support their cause, to prove or to shew, that a woman is not a disciple of Christ.-But, should they attempt this, I have express authority to shew that they oppose the oracles of Heaven, for a woman is expressly called a disciple, Acts 9, 36, "For there was a certain disciple there named Tabitha;" so that these obstacles thrown in my way, are but means to afford a clearer and fuller illustration and confirmation of the truth of my reasoning on positive institutions, But, in fact, my opponent admits what I have said on the impropriety of attempting to establish positive institutions by inferential reasoning; for he wishes to make it appear, that he can produce an express warrant for infant baptism, from the covenant made with Abraham 2000 years before the institution of Christian Baptism. But alas for his plan! He begins to exhibit his express authority by telling us, if he can do this, and if he can do that, then he can do a third thing-that is, afford a positive command for infant baptism. I do not know what he could not prove, if we should grant him all that he could claim with two or three ifs. I have, then, furnished two express commands, the one for praying every where, and the other for all disciples to partake of the Lord's supper. Now let him produce an express command for all infants to be baptised, and I shall not ask him to prove that they are of the masculine or feminine gender-or, if he cannot do this, let him furnish one precedent from the Bible for infant baptism, and then I give up the cause, and will act accordingly.

He entertained us for some time on the households that are mentioned in the New Testament, as baptised; and would thence infer, that infants must have been baptised. This has often been the dernier resort of Pedo-baptists

but, after all that has been said upon this topic, they are not able, from it, even to obtain what is called presumptive evidence, for this practice. Had there been a thousand households mentioned in the New Testament as baptised, and a supposition founded upon each one of them, these thousand suppositions would not constitute one solitary proof or conclusive evidence. If we should arraign a man upon an indictment for murder, and adduce a thousand suppositions before a human tribunal that he was guilty of it, could we convict him of the crime? Most assuredly we could not. Should we then admit of evidence in matters of a conscientious nature in religious worship, that we would not, that we could not admit betwixt man and man in temporal concerns.

There are but four households mentioned, but four suppositions adduced in support of the Pedo-baptist causeLet us now examine them-We shall begin with the household of Cornelius, Acts 10. Who was Cornelius, and what was his house or family previous to his hearing Peter preach? Cornelius, a proselyte of the Jews' religion, was à Roman Centurion-" a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house." This looks like infants in the first place!! Peter was sent to preach to him, and convince him that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or Messiah of the Jews. "Cornelius called together his kinsmen and near friends"-Peter preached to them all"The Holy Ghost fell upon them all which heard the word," v. 44. Then Peter commanded them all to be baptized-What now comes of the supposed infants of Cornelius's household? They all feared God, they all heard the word of the Lord, "the holy spirit fell on them all," they spoke with tongues," "they magnified God" "and they were all baptized." The imaginary infants of the household of Cornelius when the 10th chap. of the Acts is read, come out distinguished believers and notable saints.

The next household recorded, Acts 16, is that of Lydia. Who this Lydia was, we know not; whether she had ever been married, no man living can tell; whether she ever was a mother, no man knows: she was a travelling merchant, and had come from the city of Thyatira to Philippi, to dispose of her wares; she had a retinue of attendants, had a house at Philippi, and went to hear Paul preach. The Lord opened her heart, she believed,

In the brief state

and was baptized with her household. ment which we have recorded, but few items are specified; and had it not been for a note we have in the 40th verse of this chapter, we would have been left altogether to conjecture what kind of domestics composed her household. The 40th verse prohibits the supposition of infants -for we are told that Paul, at her request, after he was discharged from prison, visited her family, and that “when they had entered the house of Lydia and had seen the brethren and comforted them they departed." So that these supposed infants were brethren in the faith, capable of receiving comfort from the words of the Apostle.

The next household mentioned is the Jailor's. "He and all his was baptized." Of this household we learn. the following particulars, Acts 16, 31-34. 1st. "Paul preached salvation to him and his house." 2d. Paul "spake the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house" (infants and adults!) 3d." He and all his was baptized." And 4th. "He rejoiced, believing in' God with all his house." So that he supposed infants of this house were capable of having a sermon preached to them, of believing, of rejoicing in God, and of being baptized..

The last household is that of Stephanas. Paul baptized this household himself-and the supposed infants of this household, from a hint in the 15th verse, 16th chap. 1 Ep. to Cor. were saints of the first magnitude. "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." So that all Mr. W's. supposed infants in all these households, when their character is examined, come out distinguished characters, believers, saints, worshippers of God, joyful christians, active disciples of Christ. It is by such suppositions and conjectures, that my opponent maintains his system; but, when patiently examined, they resemble the baseless fabric of a vision, that leaves not a wreck behind.

I shall now review the interpretation of the 127th psalm, which Mr. W. has given you. This Psalm begins with these words: "Except the Lord do build the house the builders lose their pain"-" Except the Lord watch the city the watchmen watch in vain"" It is vain for you rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrowsfor so he giveth his beloved sleep." The intention of

G

to

these sayings, is plainly to shew us that the efforts of man even in the common concerns of this life, without the divine blessing, are in vain. The Psalmist proceeds to shew, with a particle of surprize, "Lo," even children themselves, which are born by ordinary generation," are an heritage or gift of the Lord to parents, and the fruit of the womb is his reward to them." It is not by their own efforts alone, that they obtain these so common blessings. Now what a perversion of a plain portion of scripture, to attempt to shew, from these words, that infants are, in a spiritual sense, the inheritance of the Lord, or a reward or gift presented to him by their pa rents. This is just the reverse of the meaning of the psalm. If, my friends, such be the interpretation of scripture you are accustomed to receive from Mr. W. you must be blind indeed, and must fall into the ditch together. Hoping that Mr. W. will, by this time, be prepared to answer those questions I have proposed, and that he will keep close to the covenants, I will give place to him.

Mr. Walker then rejoined:

I think we will do some good now; we are going to work in a more methodical way. I think Mr. C. is going to keep to the subject now-I will proceed to answer his questions, and then I shall propose him a few.

His first question was, "Are these covenants the same in respect of the nature and extent of the privileges secured to the respective subjects of each "I answer, yes, and appeal to Deut. 30, 6, as proof of the truth of my answer. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." This promise, under the old covenant, or covenant of circumcision, includes all spiritual blessings that are promised under the new covenant, and therefore demonstrates that the blessings are the same under both. The circumcision of the heart is a metaphorical phrase that denotes the agency of the spirit of God, as much as any promise under the new covenant, and declares a renovation of mind, as spiritual as any change described under the gospel dispensation. The promise connected with it, assures the subject under it, that the object of this promise is spiritual life" that thou mayest live"--