credit St. Paul, it is also a federal rite in which, in token of our reconciliation with God, we eat and drink in his presence: it is a feast upon a sacrifice, by which we become partakers at the altar, not less really, though in a manner more elevated and spiritual, than those who under the ancient economy presented their offerings in the temple. In this ordinance, the cup is a spiritual participation of the blood, the bread of the body of the crucified Saviour:* and as our pædobaptist brethren are allowed to be in covenant with God, their title to every federal rite follows of course, unless it is barred by some clear unequivocal declaration of scripture; instead of which, we meet with nothing on the opposite side but precarious conjectures, and remote analogies.

Our opponents are extremely fond of representing baptism, under the New Testament, as essential as circumcision under the old, inferring from thence that no unbaptized person is admissible to the eucharist, for the same reason that no one who was not circumcised, was permitted to partake of the paschal feast. But besides that this is to reason from analogy, a practice against which, when applied to the discussion of positive institutes, they on other occasions earnestly protest, the analogy fails in the most essential points. Circumcision is expressly stated as a necessary condition of admission to the passover: a similar statement respecting baptism will decide the con

* 1 Cor. xi. 26.

troversy. The neglect of circumcision, which could proceed from nothing but presumptuous impiety, incurred the sentence of excision; that soul shall be cut off from the people. Whatever may be meant beside by that commination, it will not be doubted that it included the entire forfeiture of the advantages of that peculiar covenant, which God was pleased to establish with the Israelitish people: and the exclusion from the paschal feast, as well as from the other sacrifices, was the necessary appendage of that forfeiture.

The most violent baptist will not presume to insinuate that the neglect of baptism, from a misconception of its nature, is exposed to a similar penalty. It is evident, from the history of the Old Testament, that an Israelite became disqualified for sharing in whatever privileges distinguished that nation, only in consequence of such a species of criminality as cut him off from the covenant. An interest in that covenant (the particular nature of which it is not necessary to insist upon) and a free access to all the privileges and institutions of the Jewish people, were inseparable, so that nothing would have appeared to an ancient Jew more absurd, than to disunite the covenant itself from the federal rites by which it was ratified and confirmed. The invention of this ingenious paradox belongs exclusively to the abettors of strict communion, who in the same breath affirm that pædobaptists are entitled to all the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant, and forbidden

to commemorate it; and scruple not to assert, that though interested as much as themselves in the great sacrifice, it would be presumption in them to approach the sacred symbols, which are appointed for no other purpose but to hold it forth. It is certainly with a very ill grace that the champions of such monstrous and unparalleled positions, ridicule their opponents for inventing a new and eccentric theology.*

Before I dismiss this head, I must remark, that in insisting upon the prior claim which baptism possesses to the attention of a christian convert, the advocates of strict communion triumph without an opponent. We know of none who contend for the propriety of inverting the natural order of the christian sacraments, where they can both be attended to, that is, when the nature of each is clearly understood and confessed. To administer

66

"The last century," says Mr. Booth, page 36, was the grand æra of improvement, of prodigious improvement, in light and liberty. In light, as well divine as philosophical, by the labours of a Bacon, a Boyle, and a Newton. In pretended theological knowledge by those of a Jesse or a Bunyan. Did the former, by deep researches into the system of nature, surprise and instruct the world, by discoveries of which mankind had never before conceived? The latter, penetrating into the gospel system, amused mankind by casting new light on the positive institutions of Jesus Christ, and by placing baptism among things of little importance in the christian religion, of which no ancient theologian ever dreamed-none we have reason to think that ever loved the Lord Redeemer." A little after he adds, "The practical claim of dispensing power by Jesse and Bunyan, made way for the inglorious liberty of treating positive institutions in the house of God just as professors please."

them under any other circumstance, it will be acknowledged, is impracticable. We administer baptism, let it be remembered, in every instance in which our opponents will allow it ought to be administered; and the only difference is, that we have fellowship, in another ordinance, with those members of the body of Christ, whom they reject. Let it once be demonstrated that the obligation of commemorating the Saviour's death, is not sufficiently supported by his express injunction, but derives its force and validity from its inseparable connexion with a preceding sacrament, and we are prepared to abandon our practice, as a presumptuous innovation on the laws of Christ. Till then, we shall not be much moved by the charge of claiming a dispensing power, with which we are frequently accused, a power which I presume no protestant ever dreamed of usurping, and the assumption of which implies such impiety as ought to render a christian reluctant to urge such a charge.

To remind us of " the destruction of Nadab and Abihu by fire from heaven, the breach that was made upon Uzzah, the stigma fixed, and the curses denounced upon Jerusalem, together with the fall and ruin of all mankind, by our first father's disobedience to a positive command," is more calculated to inflame the passions, than to elicit truth, or conduct the controversy to a satisfactory issue. When the sole inquiry is, what is the law of Christ, and we are fully persuaded that our interpretation

of it is more natural and reasonable than that of our opponents, it is not a little absurd, to charge us with assuming a claim of dispensing with its authority. We know that he commanded his followers to be baptized; we know also that he commanded them to shew forth his death till he came : but where shall we look for a tittle of his law which forbids such as sincerely, though erroneously, believe themselves to have complied with the first, to attend to the last of these injunctions? Where is the scriptural authority for resting the obligation of the eucharist, not on the precept that enjoins it, but on the previous reception of baptism? As the scripture is totally silent on this point, we are not disposed to accept the officious assistance of our brethren in supplying its deficiency; and beg permission to remind them, that to add to the word of God, is equally criminal with taking away from it.

Do we neglect the administration of that rite to any class of persons, whose state of mind is such as would render it acceptable to God? Do we neglect to illustrate and enforce it in our public ministrations? Are we accustomed to insinuate that serious inquiry into the mind of Christ on this subject, is of little, or no importance? Are we found to decline its administration in any case whatever, in which our accusers would not equally decline it? Nothing of this can be alleged. Do they argue from the language of the original institute, from the examples of scripture, and the