1st. Carnal descent from Abraham. This however, will not answer his purpose; because it is not a fact. Carnal descent was not essentially necessary, in order to entitle to circumcision. Were Abraham's servants, born in his house, or bought with his money, or those heathens who became the prosolytes of the Jewish religion, Abraham's by carnal descent? They were to be circumcised, and yet they did not possess Mr. C's prerequisite.

When a scriptural view is taken of this subject, Mr. C's prerequisite disappears. For a long period, the gospel was in a great measure, confined to the natural posterity of Abraham. The promise was addressed to them, and not to the other nations of the world. This continued through the former dispensation. So the apostle declares, Rom. 9. 4. 'Who are Israelites; 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.' But it is absurd to say that gospel ordinances should extend beyond gospel promise; this would be, to give ordinances to those who had no warrant to receive them. But, as the promi ses for that time, were chiefly confined to that people, so must the ordinances also. Circumcision, precisely like baptism, must extend only to its proper subjects; it belonged to the promise to point these out. The law, under both dispensations, required the administration of the ordinances; but it belonged to the promises to point out the proper subjects; a few observations will discover the true merit of Mr. C's distinguishing prerequisite. It was but a small share of Abraham's natural seed, who were to be circumcised. This rite he was bound to perform on his servants and

that the Jews were under the same moral obligation to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that the church, under the present dispensation is. The just shall live by faith,' was as characteristic of the Old, as of the New testament saints. It was as truly the ground of their justification, as it is of ours. That it was as necessary, that faith should precede their receipt of ordinances, as it is, that it should precede ours, should not, by any professor of the christian religion, be denied.

A Jewish prosolyte testified his assent to the gospel, by his submitting to the rite of circumcision, in the same manner as a heathen would now, by his receiving the ordinance of baptism. Members of both dispensations were equally bound to believe; because, without faith it was ever impossible to please God. By what authority then, does Mr C. require it as a prerequisite to baptism and not to circumcision. That an adult should believe before he is baptized, I grant. But that faith preceded the circumcision of Abraham, is proved in the epistle to the Rom. I would further ask, was not a Jewish prosolyte bound to believe before he was circumcised? Mr. C. will grant this in some sense. He was bound to believe the promises of God, made in the covenant of circumci sion, respecting temporal blessings; because circumcision sealed these. No matter, this faith was as really a prerequisite to his admission to the ordinance of circumcision, as saving faith is, in order to our admission to the sacrament of baptism; and children, being circumcised, when eight days. old, would form no excuse to the prosolyte, for being without faith. Would it have been a duty for one of these converts to the Jewish religion, in the way of discrediting God's promises, respecting the

earthly Canaan, to have submitted to the rite of; circumcision? Would not such conduct have been consummate hypocrisy? Mr. C. therefore, makes no escape by this distinguishing prerequi

site.

It teaches a new doctrine, that a person may warrantably, have a faith in the promises of God, respecting temporal blessings, and yet possess no faith in the promises respecting spiritual blessings; and that the former is accepted of God without the latter. It is plainly this, that an adult might be admitted to profess: the Jewish religion, by a faith in the promises of the covenant of circumcision, all of which were temporal, whereas, a person to be admitted a member of the New testament church, must have saving faith in the promises of the covenant of grace, of such doctrines, the simple statement, is a sufficient refutation.

In the 4th place baptism differs from circum'cision, in the character of its administrators.

Pa

' rents, relations, or civil officers, performed the rite of circumcision. Thus Zipporah circumcised the son of Moses; Joshua circumcised the Jews. Baptism is an ordinance connected with the ministry of Jesus Christ.' Page 13.

Mr. C. is evidently at a great loss to invent differences between these ordinances; or he would never have tried this difference. To expose it, however, and give the most ignorant reader an op

*This example of Joshua circumcising the Jews, proves that civil officers did it-Mr. C. you should have told your readers that Joshua did it, in the same way king Solomon built the temple I suppose neither Solomon nor Joshua touched elther of these pieces of labor.

portunity of judging of its true merit, we shall give one of a similar kind. On his plan of argument, I shall prove this position: that offering sacrifices before the flood, and for 600 years after, was entirely distinct in its nature and end, from the ordinance, from that time to the death of Christ. And Lestablish this position from a well known fact, that prior to the Aaronic priesthood, every person offered their own sacrifices. A king of Judah, for offering sacrifices, was struck with the plague of Leprosy, which deed, would, however, have been perfectly warrantable, prior to the delivering of the law from Mt. Sinai. Now although my difference possesses all the force of the one which Mr. C. presents, yet will any person be so ignorant as to believe me?

Christ Jesus, as the alone head of the church, possesses the alone right of instituting its ordinances, and appointing administrators as he pleases. He instituted the ordinance of circumcision; and as long as the initiating seal of the covenant of grace was administred in the rite of circumcision, he made no special appointment of Iministrators. But when he changed the form of the seal, HE appointed special administrators for the ordinance. This difference merits no further attention.

In the 5th place baptism differs from circum'cision, in its emblematical import. Baptism is 'emblematical of our death unto sin, our burial 'with Christ, and our resurrection with him, into. 6 newness of life. Circumcision was a sign of the 'separation of the Jews, from all the human family; and it was a type of the death, or circumci'sion of Christ.' Page 13.

Perhaps I do not understand Mr. C's. mode of expression, although we should grant all that he