You will observe, that in all these points of difference between the principal and his substitute, there is not one which, in the least, invalidates the vicarious character of the latter; nor one which does not make him superior to his principal. Just so it is with the two forms of our initiatory seal: there is not one feature of difference which disqualifies baptism from serving as a substitute for circumcision; nor one feature which does not make it superior to it. If, therefore, my Opponent could muster thirty points instead of fifteen or twenty, they would only shew the great superiority of the New Tesment form, to that of the Old Testament, without, by any means, impugning their substantial identity.

But I am far from admitting that there are as many points of difference as my Opponent's increasing zeal may choose to enumerate. If he had stopped at five, he would probably have had all that deserve the name. Baptism differs from circumcision, 1. In its being an aspersion, or ablution, or affusion of water, instead of an effusion of blood. 2. In its being administered usually to the head, forehead, or face. 3. In its being lawful to

administer it to infants of any age, as well under as over eight days. 4. In its admitting subjects of both sexes. 5. In its not requiring a profession of faith in both parents. Any person who knows the nature of seals, must see that all these points are merely circumstantial; not one of them belonging to the essence of a seal. Any one may perceive, moreover, that there is not one of them,. which does not make the substitute superior to the original form. My Opponent, therefore, might have spared the remark that I had illustrated the subject by a military substitute, on account of “finding the points of difference between circumcision and baptism so numerous and so glaring."(s) They are few in number, and indifferent in their nature.

My Opponent would persuade you that the case in question does not deserve an answer: yet it is amusing to see that he is obliged to answer it; and in doing so, is compelled to relinquish his original ground. His words are as follows, viz. "He [M'Calla] introduces a mili"tary substitute instead of a theological one. And this ❝is not all, nor the worst of it; he draws his conclusion "from the personal differences between the substitute ❝and his principal, and not from any difference in the 66 performance of the offices or duties, which the substi"tute is obliged to perform for his principal. Had we "made objection to baptism as a substitute for circum"cision, because the one was a watery rite, and the "other a bloody one, there would have been something "more specious in his sophistry. But we objected to

(s) Spur. Deb. p. 237.

"the substitute, as differing from the principal, on the "ground of its not performing the offices or duties of "the principal. If a military substitute performs all the "duties incumbent on the principal, he is completely a "substitute, although his person might differ in one "hundred respects from him. Now if baptism perform"ed all the offices and duties of circumcision, neither "more or less, we would not object to it, as a substitute, "because of its personal or characteristic differences, "already mentioned under the idea of blood and "water.”(t)

So much for my Baptist Opponent. Now in these remarks, I say, he has made a retrograde movement. In his original ground, he required that the principal and the substitute should quadrate, not only entirely, but completely; not only in their nature and ends, but in their appendages and circumstances. On this ground his first, third, and fifth objection, required that they should both be confined to one sex, both be applied to one part of the body, and both be administered on the eighth day. His fifteenth objection will not admit of the administration of the substitute to a child, "one hour before it was eight days old." But now he says, "We "would not object to it as a substitute, because of its "personal or characteristic differences already mention"ed under the idea of blood and water." That is, he would not deny that baptism was a substitute for circumcision, merely "because the one was a watery rite, and the other a bloody one." How can these things be re

(t) Spur. Deb, p. 237.

conciled? Is not a change from the shedding of blood to the application of water as important as changing the part of the body to which the seal is applied? Is not a change from blood to water as important as subtracting "one hour" from eight days? and is it not as essential as any feature of difference which can be discovered between circumcision and baptism? If so, then all the twenty objections, according to my Opponent's new principle, have no more weight against the identity of the two rites, than my thirty objections have against the vicarious standing of the military substitute.

But in taking his new ground, my Opponent would persuade you that he has reserved a secure refuge. He says, "If a military substitute performs all the duties "incumbent on the principal, he is completely a substi"tute, although his person might differ in one hundred 66 respects from him." This, however, is so far from being a formidable principle to the Pedobaptists, that it is the very ground upon which their doctrine rests. We admit that the Christian rite differs from the Jewish, in five non-essential particulars, just as one man may differ from another in a hundred non-essential particulars; yet we say that baptism and circumcision have the same essential qualities, as seals; just as these two men may be able to perform the same essential duties, as soldiers. In despite of all my Opponent's sophistry on this subject, it has been shewn that circumcision is an initiatory seal; so is baptism: circumcision is a sign of pardon and justification ; so is baptism: circumcision is a sign and means of sanctification; so is baptism. And while they agree in these essentials, (as it has been proved at large

that they do agree,) they may differ in one hundred particulars, and yet the one may be the substitute of the other, according to my Opponent's own shewing; howsoever contradictory it may be to his exploded doctrine of quadrations.

Mr. Gale(u) says that "the argument for infant baptism from circumcision was not insisted on by those called Ancient Fathers; and though he might have instanced in some of them, who, indeed, do not mention its succeeding circumcision, he unluckily picks out for his only instances St. Cyprian and St. Austin, who are known to have mentioned it; but he says it was not insisted on by them, for aught he finds!" Perhaps a more diligent and candid search would have enabled him to find it. The audience will recollect, that, before I formally commenced the defence of the present proposition, my Opponent was eager to enter upon it; and in doing So, "declared that Calvin and Beza were the first who "argued Infant-baptism from Jewish circumcision."(v) You recollect how emphatically I called upon you to mark that declaration. Startled at my request, and fearing that exposure which I promised to make, in due time, if Providence allowed, he came forward to support his assertion by what he called a respectable writer. Suspecting from the outside of the pamphlet, as well as from the ignorance and rashness displayed in its contents, that its author was Dr. Fishback of Lexington, I

(u) As reported by Dr. Wall, in his Defence, p. 370. The words quoted are the Doctor's.

(v) Lowry's Abstract of notes taken at the Debate.