Although circumcision is called a seal, and baptism is called a seal, yet the proposition now under discussion, contends that they are not radically two different seals, but different forms of the same seal. It is substantially the same now, that it was in the Old Testament church. Among the Jews, "The rite of circumcision was no more than the form in which the seal was applied ;" as Dr. Mason has correctly remarked. Much of the force of my Opponent's reasoning against this doctrine, may be found in his polite, dignified, argumentative, and eloquent explosion against this remark of Dr. Mason's. On it he speaks as follows, viz. "What sophistry! "What disregard to common sense! What an insult to "the human understanding! The rite of circumcision! "What was that? the making of a mark in the flesh. "The rite was the form of the seal! The making of "the mark was the mark of the confirmative mark!!! "When the varnish is washed off this sophistry, such "is its meaning-such is its naked deformity. The "rite of circumcision was circumcision itself, accord"ing to every body's views of rites. The form of cir"cumcision, was the form of the rite. Take away

"the form of a mark or of a seal, and then shew it to

us. It is invisible. Hence the whole distinction is

"absurd."(q)

This desperate fluttering of my Opponent is introduced, not to follow him in every dash or splash which he may make, but to call your attention to his general course. In this rhapsody, as well as others which were

(7) Spur, Deb. with me. p. 217.

noticed a while ago, his object is, evidently, to deny that the form and the substance of a seal may differ from each other, and that a seal may change its form and retain its substance. It is in relation to this that he says, "The whole distinction is absurd." According to him they are inseparable: where the one is found, there is the other; and where the one is not, there the other is wanting. This would very readily decide the controversy between king Charles the First and his Parliament. According to this doctrine, while the Parliament held the seal of state, they were invested with the sovereignty; and Lord Clarendon restored the sovereignty to the king, by stealing the seal and taking it to him. This view of the subject, however, did not suit the religion or the politics of either party in that momentous struggle. While the Parliament had the seal, the royalists esteemed them as having the form, but the king as having the substance: so when the king obtained the seal, the enemies of Toryism and of the Royal Prerogative, considered the king as having the form, but the Parliament the substance. My Opponent very pertly says "the rite [or form] of circumcision was circumcision itself.” Very well; the Arabs and apostate Jews of the present day have this form. Again he tells us what is its substance or signification. According to him "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."" Does my Opponent consider this the language of the circumcision of the Arabs and of the excommunicated Jews of the present day? If not, then we have the rite distinct from the signification;

that is, we have the form without the substance. In sacred and profane antiquity we find seals affixed to soldiers and servants. The form of their devices would often doubtless differ, far more than the bald eagle differs from the American turkey, which Dr. Franklin proposed as a substitute for the bird of prey, on the seal of the United States; and would differ more than a cross mark, formerly appointed by our government, as a seal for bonds and notes, differs from a circular mark, which, as Mr. Walker informed my Opponent, they have lately ordained as a substitute. (r) Besides this difference in the figure of the seal affixed to soldiers and servants, there was a difference in the place upon which it was impressed. The command of God by Ezekiel, to "set a mark upon the foreheads" of his afflicted followers, Dr. Gill thinks to allude probably "to the marking of "servants in their foreheads, by which they were known "who they belonged to." For the word mark in this text, the Septuagint and Tremellius read sign, which, either in Greek or Latin, is equivalent to seal. In allusion to the same custom substantially, Calasio translates Job xxxvii. 7, "He shall seal all men in the hand." With this translation the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin agree. With the same allusion, Blanco White says that the Council of Trent "has converted the sacrament of "Baptism into an indelible brand of slavery."(s) Now I would propound a few questions. Was the substance of an ancient military seal affected, by changing its device from a beast to a bird? Was the substance of a

See Mr. Walker's Reply, p. 156. (s) In his 5th Letter against Popery.

Prince's seal affected by writing his name on the hands of one generation of subjects or servants, and on the foreheads of their children? Was the substance of the seal affected by changing the letters from square to round, or the words from Hebrew to Samaritan, or the ink from red to green? Has the change of our seal from a cross mark to a circular mark affected those bonds and notes to which it is affixed? Would the substance of our Federal seal be affected by undergoing the change which Dr. Franklin recommended? Would Popish baptism be either more or less a brand of slavery, by being administered to the head, the hands, or the feet, in the mode of aspersion, affusion, ablution or immersion? And is it not a fact that the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac have, at this day, the form of circumcision without the substance? What is there, then, so extravagant in the position that the form and the substance of a seal are distinct things? and what is there so incredible in the doctrine, that a God of sovereignty and mercy, may, in respect of form, change the initiatory seal of the church from blood to water, and from the foot to the forehead, while the substance remains the same?

A little unbiassed reflection will shew an intelligent hearer that it is much more to our purpose to prove a substantial identity of the Jewish and Christian seals than to prove their formal identity. The substance is incalculably more important than the form. The circumcision of the Samaritans and Ishmaelites had the form of the Jewish seal; but because it lacked the substance, it was no seal at all. Unitarian baptism has sometimes the form of Christian baptism; but because they

deny justification by faith in the vicarious satisfaction, and the imputed righteousness of a Divine Redeemer, they lack the substance of the Christian seal; and the form without the substance is no more a true seal than a counterfeit is true coin.

My evidence in favour of the sigillistical identity of Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism, shall be drawn from the Scriptures, which shew their common use and signification; and which substitute the name of one form for the other.

POINT I.

The use and signification of Jewish Circumcision and Christian Baptism, will shew that they are the same SEAL in SUBSTANCE, though in different FORMS.

This will appear from three particulars; that they are both initiatory seals, that they are both signs of justification, and both signs and means of sanctification.

I. THEY ARE BOTH INITIATORY SEALS. If you and I have heard alike, you have understood my Opponent as denying this position in relation to either of these ordinances. To pass over it, therefore, in silence, would not be proper, howsoever generally its truth may be received.

1. Circumcision was the seal of initiation to the Jewish church. On this item, I had prepared several texts to lay before you: but it is really too plain to justify me in occupying your time. Is there one of you who doubts that a Gentile was esteemed an alien until he

Gg