ings embraced in the covenant of circumcision. The mercy promised to our fathers embraced all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus; and only embraced temporal good secondarily.

The temporal advantages connected with circumcision were restricted to the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, through the line of Isaac. We read that " Abraham took Ishmael, his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male of the family of Abraham, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the self-same day, as God had said unto him." The circumcision of these persons entailed upon them no right to the land of Canaan; nor did the circumcision of slaves in after times procure them either civil liberty or landed property; they must therefore have received some spiritual privileges, or they gained nothing by the rite. Mr. B. says, page 16 of his sermon, "We know that Esau and Ishmael, and others, descendants of Abraham, were rejected from the covenant of salvation by Jesus Christ." Then their circumcision was a solemn mockery.

How can he know this, when, according to his own showing, the covenant of salvation was not offered to them, and the only covenant of which they knew any thing was purely of a temporal nature? Hence he says, page 16, "Every one of Abraham's natural descendants might have been sons of perdition, and yet all the ends proposed (by the covenant) might have been accomplished." Candid reader, can you

credit such views? "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say."

That Gentiles derived spiritual privileges from circumcision is clearly evident from Isaiah lvi, 6,7," Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord to serve him, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar," &c.

As the covenant is called the covenant of circumcision, no uncircumcised person could take hold of it; nor was it permitted to any one who had not received the sign of the covenant to enter into the temple and engage in its sacred services. The persons mentioned in the text therefore were circumcised Gentiles, and all the immunities which they enjoyed, as here enumerated, were of a purely religious nature.

The apostle Paul, who was well acquainted with this whole subject, has spoken, we think, in a way calculated to settle the question, Rom. iii, 1, 2, 3, "What PROFIT is there of circumeision?" The answer is, "Much every way; CHIEFLY, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." We hope our Baptist friends will not make so wide a mistake as that the oracles of God are the earthly

to say

Canaan.

Although the Jews had temporal benefits as a nation, connected with circumcision, yet the rite was not instituted on that account. "Cir

cumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision," Rom. ii, 25. Here, again, the profit of circumcision is not made to consist in the enjoyment of temporal blessings; but in keeping the law, or oracles of God. Surely this did not regard the earthly Canaan.

:

his

Mr. B. says, page 17 of his sermon, "While he (that is, Abraham) was, literally, the father of the whole Jewish family, he was, spiritually, the father of none but believers, even among own offspring and now, as circumcision was enjoined upon all his natural seed, it follows, of course, that the design of it was literal, and that its benefits were to be looked for in connection with the literal import of the several promises which God had made to him: thus, those who were circumcised should be acknowledged his natural descendants; should be protected by the arm of God in the enjoyment of the privileges connected with all that arrangement by which it was designed to keep them a separate nation; and finally should inherit the land of Canaan. A candid observer must perceive, that as the literal provisions of this covenant were confined to Abraham's natural seed, the literal rites of the covenant must also be confined to that people."

The statements made in this quotation are plainly and flatly contradicted by the facts in the case. The three hundred and eighteen men of Abraham's house who were circum

cised, were they a part of his natural seed? Gen. xiv, 14. And were those, and Ishmael, and his seed, kept a separate nation? And did they finally inherit the land of Canaan? Again; were those servants acknowledged his natural descendants? Mr. B. says so. What say you, candid reader? The idea that circumcision was designed only as a national badge, (the idea that is so confidently advanced by some of our Baptist teachers,) is contradicted by the facts connected with the original institution of circumcision, as well as by the facts connected with the history of the institution. For if it was a national badge to the Jews, or descendants of Abraham by the line of Isaac and Jacob, it was equally so to the descendants of Abraham by the line of Ishmael and Esau. For the Ishmaelites, Arabians, and Saracens, all practised the rite; and at this day, circumcision is the initiating rite to the Mohammedan as well as the Jew.

How can that be a national badge to one nation that is practised by many nations? “I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say."

Having shown, as we trust, in the foregoing observations, the identity of the church, and that the covenant made with Abraham (of which circumcision was the sign and seal) was the covenant of grace, intimated in Eden to Adam, (when his whole posterity were yet in his loins,) and fully made known under the gospel dispensation; the seed of the woman having now bruised the serpent's head, by his cruci

6

fixion on the cross, having "been made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham' might come on all that believe, both Jews and Gentiles; that, according to the stipulations of the covenant, he might be the 'father of many nations;"" we shall now proceed to show that, in this covenant, (as understood anciently,) the right of infant church membership was recognised.

In proof that infants were to be recognised as having membership in the family church, see Gen. xvii, 11-13: "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male child in your generation; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." This was the original constitution of the church of the true God: the original charter of that "Jerusalem which is the mother of us all," Gal. iv, 26. And here the rights of "unconscious babes" are acknowledged.

This charter was in force, observe, four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law. And St. Paul says, Gal. iii, 17, The law did not disannul the covenant which was confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before.

We quote, In this pas

We see the covenant carried into effect in respect to children during the law. in proof, 2 Chron. xxxi, 14, 19. sage, brethren, wives, sons, daughters, and little. ones, are all mentioned as entering into the house