"SIGN of circumcision, this was its common import to "all the Jews-he received the sign, its common name; "to him in particular a seal; of what? of his interest "in the covenant ?-No, this he had guaranteed by the "veracity of God.-A seal of what?-Of the righteous"ness of that faith-what faith? of the faith which he "should afterwards have?—No, no: but of the faith he "had.-When? Sixteen years before this time; when "his faith was counted unto him for righteousness: and 66 twenty-four years before this time he believed the "promise of God, and left his own country and his fa"ther's house in the obedience of faith. The whole 66 mystery dissolves at the touch of common sense, when "it is simply known, that Abraham received the usual "sign of circumcision, which to him was a pledge or "mark of the divine acceptance of his faith."

My Baptist Opponent is unhappy in his distinction between signs and seals. He pretends that circumcision was a sign both to Abraham and his descendants, but that it was a seal to Abraham only, and not to one of his descendants. It may be safely affirmed that this is one of my Opponent's original discoveries. It was entirely unknown even to Hezechius, the ancient Greek Glossographer. Of two significations which he gives to the word sign, seal is one :(a) and in explaining the word seals, he says that they are "those signs which are upon rings and clothes."(z) Harpocration also, in his Lexicon, explains the one word by the other, as follows, viz. "Signs, so they call seals."(g) Dr. Gill, who quotes

(α) Σημείον, τεζας, ἡ σφραγις.

(2) Σφραγίδες, αι επί των δακτυλιών και τα των ματιων σημεία. (β) σημεία όυτω λεγουσι τας σφραγίδας.

this with approbation, says that the text in question might be rendered "which sign was a seal." And Castallio's New Testament actually gives it this rendering.(h) After my Opponent's loud call to you, to "mark "the Apostle's style," in this passage, you will be surprised to find, that, in his New Testament, he has followed Macknight, in a translation which agrees with our views. His version is as follows, viz. "And he received the mark of circumcision as a seal," &c. Here is nothing about circumcision being a sign to the Jews in general, but a seal to Abraham only. This translation informs you that a sign is a mark; and he has repeatedly told you in this debate, that a seal is a confirmative mark. Now if, according to my Opponent's own shewing, a sign is a mark, and a seal is a mark, and if Abraham received the sign or mark of circumcision As a seal or mark of the righteousness of faith, then where is my Opponent's distinction between signs and seals? It is surely not in Dr. Macknight, whose translation he has copied with approbation; for the Doctor confirms my interpretation, in his version, commentary, and critical note.

But some Baptists who acknowledge that the view of my Opponent makes a distinction without a difference, are still unwilling to admit that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to any but Abraham. Yet the reason which they give for this opinion, is not only a gratuitous assumption, but is in manifest opposition to inspired authority. It is a mere assertion that outward

(h) ac circumcisionis notam accepit, quae sigillum esset, &c.

66

ordinances cannot be a seal of the righteousness of faith, and that nothing less than Christ and the Divine Spirit can be this seal. The greatest man among them speaks as follows; viz. "But alas! not ordinances, but other 66 things more valuable than they, are the seals of the covenant, and of believers; the blood of Christ is the ❝seal, and the only seal of the covenant of grace, by "which its promises and blessings are ratified and con"firmed; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest "pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day "of redemption."(i) This author will very readily admit that justification by faith is a blessing which believers derive from the covenant of grace: if therefore, his assertion be true, that ordinances are not the seals of the covenant and of believers, then it is also true that ordinances are not the seal of the righteousness of faith but this, as we observed, is in manifest opposition to the scriptures, which declare that Abraham "re"ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right66 eousness of faith.

Some, however, admit that Abraham received this ordinance as a seal, but deny that it was a seal in the case of any other person except Abraham. This is a sentiment, and a mode of interpretation, which, I suspect, neither Jew nor Gentile ever thought of, until it was found necessary to the enemies of infant-baptism. The opinion of the Jews may be ascertained from their Targum, as quoted by Dr. Gill, who says that "The Apos❝tle uses the word seal concerning circumcision, it being

(i) Gill on Rom. iv. 11.

"a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke "of it; thus, paraphrasing on Cant. iii. 8. [comp. iv. 66 12.] they say, 'every one of them was sealed with the "seal of circumcision upon their flesh, as Abraham ❝❝ was sealed in his flesh."" Moreover, in one of their Apocryphal books, the Jewish author represents God as saying to him, "Behold the number of those that be sealed in the feast of the Lord.") This feast was evidently the Passover, to which the sealing of circumcision was a prerequisite; and the number of those who were thus sealed, is, in the context, said to be "a 66 great people whom I could not number." This passage is referred to by Dr. Gill, in illustration of John's declaration that "there were sealed an hundred and "forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the child"ren of Israel."(k) The context of this passage shews that they were sealed by the application of the outward sign, as well as by the inward grace. In perfect conformity with this Jewish usage, inspired and uninspired, the Shepherd of Hermas, in a passage quoted by my Opponent against Mr. Walker, repeatedly calls the initiatory ordinance of the church a seal in relation to all who receive it. Among the Christian Fathers who followed him in this usage, we find Epiphanius saying, "The "law had the circumcision in the flesh, serving for a "time, till the great circumcision came, that is, Baptism; "which circumcises us from our sins, and seals us unto "the name of God." In the same strain, we find Augustine drawing a parallel between Abraham and Cor

(j) 2 Esdras ii, 38. Comp. 42.

(k) Rev. vii. 4. Comp. 3.

nelius, on the one hand, who were sealed with the initiatory ordinance, after they had believed; and on the other hand, Isaac and Christian infants, who, in maturity, enjoy that righteousness of faith, "the seal whereof had 66 gone before."

But to confine the seal to Abraham exclusively, my Opponent says, "It is only called a seal once, and in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual." Does he mean by this, that we are not to believe the Scriptures, if they say a thing only once? But let us try such reasoning in refutation of his argument for female communion; and see whether he will admit its correctness. In his debate with Mr. Walker, he professed to have express authority for female communion. It was in the following words, viz. "For there was a certain disciple there named Tabitha."(1) What would he do with an antagonist who would seriously deny the force of this evidence, and pretend to refute it, by say ing that "female discipleship is mentioned only once, and in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual?" I will tell you what he would do; he would

almost dance with ecstacy at obtaining, at last, one solid, though solitary evidence of his Antagonist's insincerity, or the weakness of his cause; and it would serve him for matter of declamation in almost every speech throughout the remainder of the debate. I am not disposed to furnish him with such provender, although he has gone on many a foraging excursion in pursuit of it. Although the case of Tabitha is not an express command for female

(1) Acts ix. 36. See his Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 69.