2. Not to distinguish between the _positiveness_ and _morality_ of a precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective _degrees_; and to deny that the _latter_ distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to _bigotry_, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the analogy of faith and the _design_ of scripture herein, we give the most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is still more remarkable is, that the _more firmly_ any one adheres to the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, _essential_ to the rite itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which the institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the antipædobaptist’s cause, will be further considered.—The doctrine that teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions _as such_, or in the _degree_ they are so, is just and proper, as founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. “For who are most likely to put weapons into the hands of _infidels_; they, who seem to discard _reason_ in the investigation of truth, or they, whose researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most rational decisions?—They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a _coalition_ of scripture and right reason?” Once more,