3. The objection, as it includes Mr. B.’s favourite maxim, and tends to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to discard, do our opponents retain _some_ of the positive rites of the New Testament and reject _others_? Why regard _baptism_ and the _eucharist_ as of standing obligation; while the _pedilavium_ and _feasts of charity_ (the _former_ enjoined expressly by our Lord, and _both_ practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii. 14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance? Why receive _females_ to communion, or adopt the _first_ day of the week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in these matters, these circumstances of _positive_ institutions, without undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath, indeed, the antipædobaptists are divided among themselves; while some are content with the _first_ day of the week, others observe the _seventh_. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr. Addington appeals to an objecting antipædobaptist, “whether he does not think himself sufficiently authorized to keep the christian sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, _Remember the first day of the week to keep it holy_?” To this the Dr. replies, “There is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New Testament that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment, and to have required the observation of the first day, I cannot think myself sufficiently authorized to renounce that, and to keep this.” If the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the christian world; if _not_, he and his tenet are at variance: analogy and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system, which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse consequences. Another objection much insisted on is, “If our Lord has left any thing to be _inferred_ relative to the _subject_ and _mode_ of baptism, being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself _expressly_ and _clearly_ in every thing, respecting the question _who_ are to be baptized, and the manner _how_; it implies a reflexion on his wisdom and goodness.” But this objection is impertinent on different accounts. For,