The argument, to prove infant sprinkling from circumcision, I have said nothing about. Consequences upon consequences, drawn from false premises, are used so much in the argument, that it appears foolish to an accurate mind, and inconclusive to the vulgar. If its advocates can produce a single text, where the last is a substitute for the first, it will be worth regarding; otherwise, infant sprinkling may as well be proved from the Hebrew servant’s ear, that was bored through with an awl.
–Leland, John. The Writings of John Leland. New York: G. W. Wood, 1836.