is a difference between affixing a seal to a covenant, and discharging the duties of the same. In baptism or the Lord's supper, the seal is affixed, but by a life of conformity to the law of God, we can alone discharge the duties of it.

3rd. The utmost that can be inferred from the circumstance of a person being baptised, is, that they are under the laws of Christ's house, and entitled to all its visible privileges. The simple truth appears to be; that there is a visible relation existing between Christ and all the members of the visible church,and that they are entitled to all the external privileges of the church, so long as they conform to her visible laws.

You, however, observe in the page last cited, "But what is on external relation to a covenant? Is it not in other words to be out of a covenant?" Permit me, sir, to answer your query; That to be externally related to a covenant, is to be an external member of it; and not in other words "to be out of a covenant." What is the church on earth, if she is not a visible body, possesing external privileges, and under a visible law? In order that any of these external benefits should be, in reality, profitable, I grant that it is necessary they should be inwardly applied, or in other words that there should be something more than an external relation This forms a visible title to invisible ben-. efits.

What inward or spiritual blessingdoes the church on earth enjoy, which is not first visible and external. Even faith, a spiritual gift by which we enjoy all others, come, by an external ordinance. "By hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom. 10, 17. Hence where this external display of the gospel is not, we have no divine warrant to be

lieve that spiritual blessings exist. The scripture forbids the hope. Prov. 29.15.

Ten children may have an equal right in a will; five through profligacy may never inherit any part of the estate, will I assert, as you have done, that in "other words they were without a covenant" or will? My assertion would be found contrary to the fact: the instrument signed by the testator would pronounce me false. But the covenant, about which we dispute, is diatheke a will or testament, in which the external rights and privileges of the heirs are the same: the legal reason why they do not possess the inheritance willed, is because, "they forsake their own mercies." The external standing of the ten virgins, mentioned in Matthew, 25. were the same. It was not until Christ the Bridegroom, called them from time, by death, that the difference was discovered.

This doctrine, you have materially conceded; for although you appear unwilling to admit, that the covenant of circumcision, was an administra: sion of the covenant of grace; yet your concestions cannot be ture, without admitting the truth of my position, because,

1st. You call the covenant of circumcision an ecclesiastical covenant. Now, sir, what is an eclesiastical covenant, but a covenant of the church? and what else is the covenant of grace? Two parties are necessary, to form a covenant. In this, your ecclesiastical covenant, God must have been one party, and the church the other. But we have no account of any other covenant in which God and the church were parties, besides the covenant of grace. The apostle Peter when he refers to the covenant of circumcision certainly, however, refers to it, as the covenant of grace.

"Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed stall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Acts S. 25. This passage will establish the following things.

1st. That all nations had an equal interest in this covenant. 2nd. That Christ was the alone medium, through which the blessings of the covenant of circumcision were to be dispensed. The apostle Paul so comments on the same passage, Gal. 8. 16. Now to Abraham & his seed were the promises made. He saith not and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ.' From the view taken of your ecclesiastical covenant by Peter and Paul, it is evident they recognize Christ as its head; the person, through whom all its blessings are to be enjoyed; and a covenant in which all true believers have an equal interest. I think, sir, you and I understand a covenant of this discription to be the covenant of grace; if not, in what respect does it differ?

2nd. You concede 'that it was a covenant gra'ciously designed and wisely calculated, as a mean to an end, to interest them in the blessings ' of the covenant of grace, consisting in pardon, 'sanctification and eternal life.' page 4. By this you must mean, one of two things; either, 1st. that this covenant prepared its subjects for rereceiving these spiritural blessings; or 2nd that they were contained in the covenant of circumcision. If you believe the former; then your sentiment must be that God the Father did through Christ, as federal Head, enter into two covenants with the church; the first of which was to prepare them for the latter, the first contained

the means, the latter the end; the first 'was calculated to interest them' in the latter. But I do not believe this novel theory to be yours; you must then believe that pardon, sanctification, &c. were dispensed in that covenant. It follows, that as the covenant of grace alone, contained these blessings, the covenant of circumcision, was a dispensation of the covenant of grace.

3rd. You concede, that it is 'undeniable, that 'infants were introduced into that church by cir'cumcision.' The church is a BODY holy to the Lord,--an inheritance prepared. Acts 20.28. Your concession implies, that by circumcision they were united to that body, of which Christ is the Head. Col. 1. 18. But the moment they were united to this body, they were entitled to all the previleges of it, as they became capable to receive them, and bound by all their laws. The righteousness of Christ, the foundation of all these privileges, was sealed to Abraham by circumcision. Rom. 4. 11. But this righteousness and all the blessings flowing from it, are the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore circumcision was a sign and a seal of the blessings of the covenant of grace.

In a word, you concede that they are engrafted into the good olive tree.' page 13. Initiated by this ordinance, among the assembly of saints,' among a 'chosen nation' a'chosen people.' page 7. If so, it certainly follows, that however unprofitable their standing be to themselves, yet they are visible members of that body, possessing all the external relation and privileges, that saints do, and must therefore by God, be dealt with, as 'covenant breakers,' which could not be true, unless in some sense, they had been in the cove

nant.

X

The passage you chiefly urge for the confirmation of this your opinion is,Rom. 3. 2. What advantage hath the Jew, or what profit is there of circumcision? much every way; chiefly, because that unto them, were committed the oracles of God.' Your view of the passage is, that the oracles of God are said to be the chief advantage, which those 'who were interested in that covenant by circumcision, derived from it; and until it is proved, that the words, the oracles of God.' imply in. 'them, justification, sanctification and eternal life, this single passage settles the point at once.' P. 14, note.

For the proper understanding of this passage you will suffer a few observations.

1st. That by the 'oracles of God,' we are to understand the scriptures of truth, and that in. Rom. 3.2. we are chiefly to understand old testament scriptures, because these were given to the subjects of circumcision first.

2nd. We are in a still more extensive sense, to understand by these oracles, all the ordinances warranted by the scriptures, together with all the previleges they contained. These, the same apostle and in the same epistle, declares to be the peculiar privilege of the subjects of circumcision. Rom. 9. 4. 'Who are Isralites;' to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.' This, the old testament church knew to be their peculiar previlege. Deut. 4. 8. 'And what nation is so great, that hath statutes and Judgments so righteous, as all this law, which I set before you this day.' Now, sir, 'the church of God is one and indivisible.' Therefore all these ordinances are, in every age of the world, the