til Kings should become the nursing fathers, and Queen's the nursing mothers of the church.'*

For my part I cannot see it to be a blessing, or yet can I see the necessity of a seal to a contract, which only secures a large, rude, and wicked posterity to any man. It is the possession of the gospel and its blessings, that truly exalteth a nation. It is no comfort to parents, surely, to have a numerous family; but to be a parent of a large and religious family is indeed a blessing-In this respect Abraham felt as other religious parents would. Was the doctrine of Mr. C. true, the covenant of circumcision could have afforded no comfort to a man so Godly as Abraham.

4th. I ask, why make a distinct covenant with Abraham, in order to put him in possession of a numerous family, and temporal blessings only? His family, should you take all his natural geed, were as much less than the family of Noah, as the part is less than the whole; yet the covenant God made with Noah, granted by Mr. C. and all the Baptists, secured to Abraham and his seed, all the temporal blessings of the covenant of circumcision. Was it impossible for Abraham or his seed, to plead any promise of that covenant? if not, by

* If. Mr. C. should attempt to make this pitiful excuse, from this just conclusion, that although this promise was mentioned in the covenant of circumcision, it did not belong to it; I would reply that all the items of a covenant, are always made out, before it is subscribed and sealed. In like manner, after the promises of this covenant are mentioned by God, he appends the seal of circumcision, which, in every instance of contracts, is the security of the whole bond.

M

what were they excluded? or why make a separate covenant for that purpose?

5th. That this was a gospel ordinance appears from the acknowledged requisition of Mr. C. 'If ye be willing and obedient.' Although the reason, which made Mr. C. make this the entitling condition of the covenant of circumcision, more than to any other covenant, no one can tell; yet we shall shew that this concession forces him to yield the point. Christians will generally unite with me in declaring, that there is no obedience since the fall of man, without obeying this command: "This is the command of God that ye believe on his son;' or will God ever accept obedience, performed by an unbeliever as such.

From the sentiments of Baptists respecting the Old testament dispensation, they may not concede this. Then let us, in order to try this obedience, use the language of the covenant of circumcision. 'I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed;' or the preface to the ten commandments. I am the Lord your God.' It will be conceded, that every act of obedience required by that covenant, demanded the acknowledgment of this first principle; all the.. obedience required, was to be performed to God, as their God. But the unbeliever could never render this kind of obedience, by any act, although the matter of the act is good, yet he rejects God. Can any one, therefore, believe Mr. C. who supposes that obedience may be required in any covenant of which God is one party, and fallen man the other, which obedience demands eternal destruction from the presence of God: for such is the character of the best works of the natural man.

But where is faith, the true principle of this obedience to be obtained? In no other place, than

.

in the gospel of peace. But Mr. C. concedes that the covenant of circumcision required such obedience as God would accept. Therefore, the cov

enant of circumcision, while its laws required obedience, its promises presented proper qualifications for rendering that obedienee acceptable; but of these, circumcisions was the seal, therefore it was the seal of the promises of the everlasting gospel.

That circumcision was instituted by Christ to be a seal of the covenant of Grace, is the last thing in the proposition to be proved.

Without refering my readers to a vast pile of old Dictionaries, upon the meaning of the word seal, we shall just take the common acceptance of this word as used in scripture and in the common transactions of life, and define it to be a sign affixed to a bond, contract, or covenant, as a confirmation of the things contained in the instrument. Whatever this mark may be in civil life, each nation has the liberty of determining. In like manner, whatever mark or sign the head of the church may appoint, his subjects have a right to submit, whether it be a mark on the finger or any other member of the body,* or the application of water

*Mr. C. makes some very profane jests on this subject, which I think too rude to transcribe; any human institution, however wrong, will receive modest treatment from a polite writer; but how carefully should we speak, of an ordinance appointed by Christ Jesus king and head of the church: although, as Mr. C. supposes, the ordinance was civil and only secured temporal blessings, yet it is Divine, and merits all the reverence of any other ordinance.