1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was somehow _obliged_ to make his will known to men by _one_ method only. But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely dependent creatures? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with the author of nature, because he had not confined his method of information to _one_ source only, to the exclusion of all others? That his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of _sense_, to the exclusion of _reason_ and _analogy_? Or what should we say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a miracle, should impeach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because he did not appeal to _one_ sense only of his dependent and unworthy creatures, that of _seeing_, for instance, to the exclusion of that of _hearing_? The answer is plain, and the application easy. 2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to the former: it unreasonably requires _positive_ evidence for what is discoverable by _other_ means. It is demonstrable, and I think has been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism (the _mode_ also will be examined in its place) is what cannot possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must be resolved to the _discretionary_ nature of the commission, or the supposed _wisdom_ and _prudence_ of the administrators, in common with other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an _audience_, the choice of a concionatory _subject_, &c. Preach the _gospel_ to _every creature_, is a part of the commission, but the execution has no _positive_ rule. Nor does this commission of preaching the _gospel_ prohibit preaching the _law_, for a lawful use, or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.’s excluding standard, that “positive laws imply their negatives.” In like manner, the commission to baptize _believers_, and the _taught_, we contend and prove, does not mean to include _all sorts_ of believers and taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit, according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms of the commission, _believers_ and _taught_, stand _opposed_, not to _non-believers_ and _untaught_, but to _unbelievers_ and persons _perversely ignorant_. What, therefore, falls _necessarily_ to the province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a positive standard.