circumcifion removes this part of the mystery of iniquity; and fhows that Abraham's children were not put into the covenant of grace by being circumcifed, and fo it destroys the notion of judaizing Christians putting theirs in by bap

tifm.

2. Another error in the above quotation is, his repre fenting what he calls my new invention, as being at variance with common fenfe, and with the explanations of my Baptist brethren, and with the Bible.

As to the explanations of my baptized brethren, I know not what they are, not recollecting, or having never feen any of them. Yet, finding that my invention appears to harmonize perfectly with the Bible representation, and knowing that the Bible and common fense agree, and alfo knowing that my baptized brethren generally agree with both, I conclude, that I am not greatly at variance with either of the three.

3. His next error in this clufter is his déclaration, that my confidering the covenant of circumcifion to be but a token of the covenant of grace, and that circumcifion itself is this covenant, is twisting and turning indeed.

I appeal to the Bible and common fenfe, if I have not gone fide by fide with both of then. If I have, there is neither twisting nor turning about it, fave it twists his erro neous fentiments, and turns his notion of putting his graceless children into the covenant of grace, by fprinkling them, out of credit, and makes it appear as it should, an inven tion of man. This is what I call, going right forward.

4. The other error, which I thall here mention, is his unreasonable pity towards me. It was fo great, that he has left us all in ignorance of what the covenant of cir cumcifion is. The public would have been under great obligation to him, had he pitied me lefs, and fo had given them a plain view, or clear account of the covenant of circumcifion. But as the matter is, the public muft ftill be uninformed, or elfe take my new invention, the good old Bible representation of this matter,

8. Another noticeable error of Mr. A.'s is his implicit denial, that the Pædobaptift theory is clogged with the abfurd principle, and practice too, fo far as their principle and practice agree, that if a South-Carolina planter be converted, his household are difciples of course, and are to be baptized, though his flaves be 5000. This is just their abfurd principle and practice too, fo far as they are con tent with themselves and Mr. A. has implicitly denied

it, and as he confeffes it to be a clog to their theory, if true, and alfo an abfurdity, it appears to me expedient, in this place, to prove the fact against their theory, and thus to fix an abfurdity upon their practice, and clog it as much as I can. But in the first place, I will give the public his attempt to get off.

:

In page 46, his words are these fays he to me, “In page 62, you fay, refpecting Abraham's household, But let it be more or less, one thing is certain, they were all to be circumcifed on account of Abraham's being a good man, full of faith.' That which is certain can easily be prov

ed.

Proof is not furnished; and it is believed never can be furnished. Yet you would make use of this affertion to clog the Pædobaptist theory with the abfurdity in practice, that if one of us thould convert a South-Carolina planter, into a difciple, we of course make difciples of all his flaves, though they were 5000."

Thus fays Mr. A.; and now what I wish is to prove this abfurdity upon his theory, and thus clog it as much as I can, and, if poffible, fpoil the ill-gotten credit of this judaizing theory, and stop its progrefs.

My arguments, by which to accomplish this, are two.

1. They take the law of circumcifion as their example and juftification. Their principle is founded, or built upon the law of circumcifion. This law is recorded Gen. xvii. 12. Thus, "He that is eight days old fhall be circumcifed among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the houfe, or bought with money of any franger, which is not of thy feed.” This is the law, and if the reader wish for any explanation, it is furnished to his hand in verse 23, where Abraham's obedience to it is thus expreffed. "And Abraham took Ifhmael his fon, and all that were born in his houfe, and all that were bought with money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and cir cumcifed the flesh of their forefkin, in the felf-fame day, as God had faid unto him." Here is the law, obedience and example, which Pædobaptifts profefs to follow, and on this account, and in this particular, they are juftly styled, Judaizing Chriftians. But my prefent bufinefs is to fhow, that their fentiment, or principle, leads them to baptize 50 or 500, or 5000 flaves, belonging to a South-Carolina planter, provided he be chriftianized. My argument is this. Abraham had many fervants born in his house, and bought with his money, years before the covenant of circumcifion was given. He had 318 trained foldiers or fervants

born in his house, and how many bought with his money we know not. He might have many more, before the day of their circumcifion. For afterwards he was called a mighty prince, Gen. xxiii. 6. Now all thefe, which Abraham poffeffed on the day of circumcifion, let them be 50, or 500, or 5000, were all circumcifed, on account of Abraham's being a good man, full of faith, or on account of the covenant of circumcifion, which was made with him. The principle of the Pædobaptifts is founded on this very business, and is meant to square with the covenant of cir cumcifion; and their practice with the practice of Abra ham. Befides, their principle is, that every believing parent or master of his family, is to his family as Abraham was to his. Hence my charge against them is, that to be confiftent with their principle, and to go through with their theory, they mult baptize a converted South-Carolina planter and all his household, whether he have 5, 50, 500, or 5000 flaves belonging to it. Upon the fame principle, I might add, to be confiftent with themselves, they would be, in this particular, downright papifts, and baptize the fubjects of a mighty prince, because he was converted. If this principle be a gofpel one, it will bear examination, and not be the worfe for being practifed to perfection. If it be abfurd when practifed thoroughly, it is not the lefs fo when prac tifed fmally. The only difference is, the abfurdity does not appear fo glaring.

2. My other argument is, That all the evidence for infant baptifm, to which the Pædobaptifts can make any plaufible pretenfion, is founded upon the above abfurd principle. They can make no plea, that the families of the jailer, Stephanus and Lydia were baptized upon the faith of the parent or master, but upon the principle, that they were thus baptized, because Abraham's family were circumcised upon his faith. Now I argue thus, If it be according to the gospel to baptize a small family, or household, on the faith of a believing parent or master, it is according to the fame gofpel to baptize a larger one; and, if the principle be good, the larger the better, if there be any advantage in it, for then the more will be profited. Becaufe I thus argue, Mr. A. charges me with wishing to clog the Pedo. baptist theory with this abfurdity in practice. I confess, I am not for halving matters, but for having good principles thoroughly practised, and the abfurdity of bad ones fully to appear.

I confider myself as having turned king's evidence. I fee my former errors, and renounce them; I condemn them, as having been practifed by myself, and cannot juftify them as practifed by others.

If my arguments be juft, Mr. A. confeffes their practice is abfurd; or that it is abfurd to practise upon fuch a theory. If the practice be abfurd, the theory is fo too. If my arguments be not juft, if they be not founded upon the very principle of their practice, they are invited to expose them, and to do it thoroughly. But if my arguments be correct, then they are invited to leave their abfurd practice, and come up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.

Upon the fame page, whence he took the last quotation, Mr. A. tells me that he highly eftecms the gofpel ordinance of baptism; it is hoped that his future writings will bear a better teftimony in his favour. On the fame page, he alfo informs me, he has expofed himself to great perfonal trials, to guard the facredness of that ordinance. Would it not be well for him to expofe himself to a few more, that he might keep the crdinance according to the commandment and pattern given?

In page 48, he (through an error of judgment) charges me with condemning myfelf. His words are. "You have attempted to fix opprobrium upon the doctrine of Padobaptifm, by deriving it from the foul fink of popery, and upon its abetters, as enlisted under the banners of Antichrift.. But you have condemned yourfelf with refpect to the firft, by conceding, that fprinkling was practifed in the cafe of clinicks before popery exifted, and that infant baptifm was in general practifed in the days of St. Auftin."

Here the good man's error is in his judgment. I have never conceded that fprinkling, for gofpel baptifm, was practifed in the cafe of clinicks, or in any other cafe, before popery exifted. The myflery of this iniquity began to work even in the apoftles' days, and popery had gotten confiderable footing, when they fubftituted fprinkling in the cafe of fick perfons, for gofpel baptifm. When St. Austin flourished, popery was in its full tide of fuccessful experiment. It had now spread over nighly all what was called the Chriftian world, fave the Heretics, as the Pædobaptifts called them, in the vallies of Piedmont. Thefe God preferved from the mark of the Beaft; and they never Submitted to the powers. of Antichrift. Thefe were the progenitors of the prefent Baptifs; and by the Romanifts,

they were ftyled the oldeft herefy in the world. Hence, Mr. A. instead of flowing a contradiction of mine, has through error of judgment, added one to the number of his mistakes. However foul the fink of popery is, from that came Pædobaptifm, and it is one of the main pillars of the man of fin. Besides, all who plead for it, plead for the principal ordinance and practice of Antichrift. Christ hath no where commanded Pædobaptism; nor has he in any place commiffioned his minifters, either to preach or practise it. But the Pope hath done both.

In his 49th page, he appears to have fome closing strokes. "On the whole, fays he, the controversy between you and me is brought to an iffue. It is this, The foundation of your fhadowy fabric was laid in affertion: The fuperfiructure was reared in affertion: It has been attempted to be holden up by af fertion; and it has at last vanished as a mere fhadowy thing.' Even this affertion requires a little proof. By it Mr. A. expected to give the finishing stroke to the taking away of my defenfive armor. I frankly confefs, it hath as much powerful efficacy towards removing it, as any paffage, or even page which preceded it. I might, however, have excepted the two first lines of his title page; for there he tells us that it is done. Had he not given us the information, in the first outset of his pamphlet, that Mr. Merrill's defenfive armor was taken from him, no perfon who understood the controverfy, would have gathered the idea from any thing which followed.

We will now turn our attention for a moment to his last Letter, in which he makes fome obfervations upon my clofing one to him. In this he does not appear in perfectly good humour. All his fentences do not appear like apples of gold in pictures of filver. He fays that the court, by which his errors were tried, is not in the Bible. This is alfo his mistake; for all the texts in the Bible, which speak of a particular fubject, is the Bible with refpect to that fubject. He alfo tells me that I entirely loft fight of the object which I fhould have had in view, the fupport of my own theory and practice. This is alfo his mistake; for I kept in fight the fupport of my own theory and practice, and the deftruction of his. He farther fays, That the court, which was erected was not the one to which he appealed. This is a third miftake; for it was the Bible with refpect to his three great Antichriftian errors; which are, fprinkling for gofpel baptifm, manifeft unbelievers the fubjects