ed, three others occupying two pages, and a fifth abbreviated, by the impartial guillotine of the opposite party. Two out of the seven still remain. These I have exposed in a printed volume of objections, not one of which he has refuted, and the validity of which he has virtually admitted, by declining to make any particular exception, and by asserting that when my objections are admitted, his report is worthy of the title and credit which it has received." I have shewn that if these objections be valid, they will prove, that, in reporting me, his work is a mass of misstatements, Campbellisms, transpositions, supplements, interpolations, suppressions, and alterations. The evidence of this is found not only in my notes, but abundantly in his own book, which, of itself, is ground enough for contradicting all his certificates. Even when he and his witness agree in matter of fact, it is amusing to see how they will differ as to the reason of the fact. After all that has been said about the fulness of the report, Mr. Campbell, and his witness Mr. Ryan, cannot help conceding that much is omitted; that is, that it is not full, unless it can be full, while nine-tenths are wanting. Each of them has his own reason for this great omission. Mr. Campbell attributes it to the irrelevancy of such arguments as that which is drawn from ecclesiastical history. Mr. Ryan will not agree that this argument was suppressed at all, but insists that every thing was reported, "except the leaving out of Mr. M'Calla's vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language, together with his base misquotations of the scriptures and Robinson's History of Baptism;" of which vulgarity and dishonesty, neither he other person can give a single instance!! These cannot be reconciled.

nor any

When commencing this review, it was my design to examine Mr. Campbell's neutral witnesses, a little more particularly. This may possibly be done at some future period. At present it seems unnecessary. So perfect an imposture cannot long abide the test. The forgery of a Unitarian Baptist cannot always be supported by the mere general ex parte certificates

of Unitarians, and the sons and brothers of Baptist preachers, who choose to call themselves NEUTRALS, because they belong to no church; especially while these certificates contradict themselves and one another, and are obviously opposed to the very face of the record about which they testify. God will take care of his own truth and his own people, and on him do I rely, in Jesus' name.

1

DEFENCE

OF

PEDOBAPTISM.

Friends, Fellow-citizens, and Fellow-Christians,

THE possession of a rational, responsible and immortal nature, should ever make us view religion as of paramount importance. Among innumerable dangers of fatal error, the enjoyment of a full revelation, an infallible rule of faith and practice, is a blessing for which we can never be sufficiently thankful. This blessed volume contains the instruction of the Divine Father, sealed by the blood of the Divine Son, and applied to the heart by the Divine Spirit. Depending upon the grace of the only true God, we should endeavour to give to all his doctrines, precepts, and ordinances, that inherent and relative weight which they claim in the inspired volume. Our views of the Christian sacraments, as to their nature, relations, and consequences, are thought defective and erroneous, by some who are eminent for piety and intelligence. Yet while they condemn us, they accuse each other also. Mr. Booth, an advocate for strict communion, says concerning his Baptist brethren "who plead for free communion," that they "treat “the ordinance [of baptism] as if it were a mere circum"stance in divine worship; an indifferent thing; and dis "pense with it just as occasion requires." "The Lord's

C

66

supper, however, is considered and treated by them in "a different manner; for they speak of it as a delightful, 66 an edifying, an important institution. But what 66 authority have they for thus distinguishing between "two appointments of the same Lord, intended for the 66 same persons, of equal continuance in the Christian "church, and alike required of proper subjects? "They have indeed the example of some Socinians, and "the venerable sanction of the whole Council of Trent: "for the title of one chapter in the records of that coun"cil, is, "Concerning the excellence of the most holy "Eucharist, above the rest of the sacraments." "(a) Concerning this preference of one sacrament to another, Mr. Booth asks, "Can such a conduct be pious, humble, or rational?" Yet impious, proud, and irrational as this conduct may be, it is feared that my Opponent has been guilty of it. It is true that he does not, like the freecommunion Baptists, prefer the eucharist to baptism, but he does what is equally condemnable in Mr. Booth's esteem, he gives baptism a decided preeminence over the eucharist, if not over faith and obedience. "Baptism,' says he "is an ordinance of the greatest importance and of "momentous significance. Never was there an ordinance "of so great import or design." "He [Christ] does not 66 say, he that believeth and keeps my commands shall be saved: but he saith he that believeth and is bap"tized shall be saved." He placeth baptism on the right "hand of faith." "To every believer therefore, bap"tism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation

(a) Booth's Apology, pp. 177, 178. London Edition of 812.