two societies wherefore they must be one church, though in different dispensations. Both the premises and the conclusion have been supported by the Scriptures, and it has been shewn that they are both ratified by Doctor Gill, the greatest Baptist writer who ever lived. If, through prejudice or forgetfulness, any one doubt the correctness of this statement, let him candidly attend to what the Doctor says, on that declaration of Solomon, that "Wisdom hath builded her house; she hath hewn out her seven pillars."(h) This, Gill says, is "the church of Christ on earth, the house of the living "God, the pillar and ground of the truth." "Such a ❝house there was under the Old Testament, and such an "one there is under the New; and which is continually "building up by Christ, by means of the word and ordi66 nances, and will continue to the end of the world." When Solomon says, "There is no new thing under the sun," (i) Dr. Gill says, that even "spiritual things," "though in some sense new, are also old; or there have "been THE SAME THINGS FOR SUBSTANCE in former ages, "and from the beginning, as now; such as the new cove"nant of grace; the new and living way to God; new 66 creatures in Christ; a new name; the New Testament, "and the doctrines of it; new ordinances, and the new "commandment of love; and yet these, in some sense, are "all old things, and indeed are THE SAME IN SUB"STANCE." These are the words of Dr. Gill. In them you find express and repeated acknowledgments of the scriptural truths, that the church and covenant, doc

(h) Prov. ix. 1.

(i) Eccles. i. 9.

trines and ordinances, of the Old and New Testament, are THE SAME THINGS FOR SUBSTANCE ;" "THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE." If, in relation to these ordinances, Providence enable me to prove, from Scripture, the sigillistical identity of circumcision and baptism, and the unrepealed requirement that this seal shall be administered to infants, it will plainly appear, from infallible authority, that there is a divine command for infantbaptism.

PROPOSITION III.

JEWISH CIRCUMCISION BEFORE CHRIST, AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM AFTER CHrist, are one aND THE SAME SEAL IN SUBSTANCE, THOUGH IN DIFFERENT FORMS.

The word seal sometimes signifies an instrument for making an impression upon wax or some other substance; it sometimes means the impression made by this instrument; it sometimes signifies that confirmation which is imparted by this impression; and it sometimes denotes any significant act by which confirmation is effected even without a visible permanent impression. Ahab had an implement called a seal; Jezebel made the impression of it upon the letters which she sent to the elders and to the nobles; and this royal attestation or confirmation procured the destruction of Naboth.(x) In order to bring the Jews to a similar end, Haman sent throughout the Persian empire, letters "sealed with the kings

(z) 1 Kings xxi. 8.

A

ring."(y) That instrument of authority which these persons obtained for the worst purposes, the Egyptian monarch conferred upon his favourite Joseph, for the public good; "And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand."(z) So Antiochus is represented as giving his signet (his ring in the Greek and Latin,) to Philip his regent ;(a) and the dying Alexander is said to have given his ring to Perdicas for the same reason. When Paul says to the Corinthians, "The seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord,"(b) he does not mean that they are the instrument or the impression, but the attestation or confirmation of his Apostleship. Dr. Gill considers it as "alluding to the sealing of deeds ❝and writings, which renders them authentic; or to the "sealing of letters, confirming the truth of what is "therein expressed." Christ says, "He that hath re"ceived his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is "true."(c) Dr. Gill tells us that "he seals, ratifies, "and confirms" this doctrine. Sealing, in this passage, is certainly used in the sense of attestation. It moreover has this meaning and that of confirmation where Paul says that "He [Abraham] received the sign of circum❝cision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he "had yet being uncircumcised. (d) Here Dr. Gill justly remarks that "circumcision was a seal, not for secresy, "but for certainty; it being a confirmation," &c. This

(y) Esth. iii. 12. (z) Gen. xli. 42. See Gill. (a) 1 Maccab. vi. 14. 15. So Cyrus is said to have "shut the door and sealed it with the kings signet," (or ring, as it is in the Greek of Bel and the Dragon, verses 11. 14.)

(b) 1 Cor. ix. 2. See Gill.

(c) John iii. 33. See Gill.

(d) Rom. iv. 11. See Gill, whom we have formerly quoted more fully on this passage.

confirmation or attestation is what we mean by the substance of the seal; while the particular impression or significant ceremony is called the form of the seal. As the form is arbitrary, it may be changed indefinitely, while the substance remains the same. The text just now quoted shews that circumcision, as to its substance, is an attestation of the righteousness of faith; that is, it is a confirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith: but this is the substance of baptism also, however it may differ from circumcision in respect of form; and for this reason those who have received Christian baptism are said, in the Apocalypse, to have "the seal of God in their foreheads." That these two rites are one and the same seal in substance, though in different forms, can be proved from Scripture.

In opposition to this, my Opponent believes that baptism never was a seal at all; that even circumcision never was a seal to any but Abraham; and that the form of a seal is essential to its existence, so that the form cannot be changed without destroying the substance. His reasoning is as follows, viz. "Was not circumcision "significant of something? could it not be seen and ex"amined by every body? and what did it say? It said "I am a Jew of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every "thing promised my father, when God told him "❝to make this mark upon me.' Deface this mark in "the flesh, and sprinkle a few drops of water upon the "face, and then say, it is the same seal significant of the "same thing- -that is, this watery seal can be seen on "the flesh, examined by every body, and says, What?"Just what circumcision said, I am a Jew, of the seed

E e

"of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my "father, when God told him to make this mark upon "me!! It surely lies, if it tell such a tale.

"A seal, Mr. M'Calla says, is a confirmative mark. "Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative "mark on the forehead of a child? But remember, my "friends, I called upon my Opponent to tell us where 66 baptism is called a seal. No where I say in the bible. "to presume that baptism is a seal, and to presume that "it is substituted in the place of circumcision, and that "the seal is changed, is taking too much liberty in an "argument. One presumption might, in some instances, "be tolerated, but it is too presumptuous to demand "three, nay to adopt them without any ceremony, and "place them as the basis of an argument.

66

"I deny that circumcision was ever changed into any thing that baptism is a seal of any covenant in the "legitimate use of language:—and consequently that baptism came in the room of circumcision. And, I po"sitively say that Mr. M'Calla cannot produce one text "in the Bible in proof of the contrary.-I say again, it "is quite too presumptuous, to presume so far as to take "three suppositions as facts acknowledged, and place "them as the foundation of an important part of the "system."

66

It

"And after all that has been said of circumcision as "a seal, it is only called a seal once, and in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual. never was a seal to one of Adam's race in the same sense, and for the same purpose, as it was to Abra

66

66

ham.

Mark the Apostle's style-He received the