wholly occupied with the wonderful historical recollections of the nation, the night of terror to the Egyptians, and of deliverence to Israel, -the passage of the sea, and in subsequent ages, the countless instances of the out-stretched arm of Jehovah, in behalf of his chosen. The youth would indulge in all those sallies, which are the joint production of undisciplined feelings, and the inspirations of a national Jubilee. Let no one complain of this. It was the natural and necessary result of the law of the Passover; and when an aspect like this shall be given to our communion, and a command given for its promiscuous observance, and for a reason as purely national as that which was given for the observance of the Passover, it will be time enough to press us with the objection we are considering, -- till then, it will remain without the shadow of a reason to give it weight. There is nothing in the institution of the Supper, at all answerable to that very peculiarity in the Passover, upon which its promiscuous observation was enjoined. And would any have us now, to deprive children of their covenanted privi

leges, because their parents have not done that, the very law for which is abolished-which they cannot do--and for the very attempt to do which, on the principle upon which it was formerly enjoined, we should drive them from the church?

Since then it is manifest, that the Lord's Supper does not take the place of the Passover, by the operation of the law of that insti tution, which is utterly abolished; but is an entirely new and independent ordinance, to be regulated by its own laws; and since the laws of the two institutions are so different, that a promiscuous use of the one is enjoined, on national principles, and a similar use of the other is positively unlawful, on spiritual principles; and since nothing of this is true with respect to baptism and circumcision, the institution of the one being the warrant for the other, and the same law governing both; we wonder if there are any who can see how Dr. Wardlaw's inference can be evaded, though he could not? The question has been asked in reference to our doctrine, "is not the analogy between the former and the present dis

pensation too rigorously carried out?" It is added "the former was comparatively carnal, the present spiritual. The church was then a theocracy, and in her institutions, civil and religious matters were blended. The covenant with Abraham laid a basis for spiritual blessings, as well as for ecclesiastical privileges. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith." That as sin of the kind has been committed, is past all dispute. But who, in the name of consistency, we ask, are guilty of it? They who will confound all distinction between the Passover and the Supper-between things national and things spiritual; or we, who place our defence, in arresting that very analogy, which is adopted, and carried to the height of extravagance, in the objection before us? Let all men judge.

CHAPTER X.

THE PRACTICAL RESULT.

THE last objection is, that the doctrine attempted to be established, leads to the most lamentable laxness in the government and discipline of the church. In answer to this objection, I offer the following considerations:

1. If it is to be understood, that an objec

tion to any truth, doctrine or ordinance, from its supposed tendency to practical evil, is to invalidate the direct testimony in favour of such truth, doctrine or ordinance, I utterly deny the right to make it. Whatever is advanced upon the divine testimony; if it can be sustained by such testimony, is not the less true, nor sacred, on account of any objections which we may have to make against it. Observe where the principle of this objection leads. The Universalist professes to regard it as utterly repugnant to all ideas of the goodness of God, that sinners should be eternally punished; and therefore he concludes

that the doctrine of eternal punishment cannot be true. The Armenian professes to believe, that the doctrine of the divine decrees is utterly subversive of all practical holiness; and therefore he concludes that the doctrine of the decrees is not true. The Baptist considers it as a piece of solemn mockery, destructive of the purity of the church, to baptize an infant, who has no knowledge of a religious ordinance; and therefore he rejects the doctrine of infant baptism. Others regard the baptism of children whose parents are not real believers, or such at least by confession, as tending to lamentable laxness in the discipline of the house of God; and therefore they rely upon their objections, as a proof that what we contend for cannot be true. Pray what is the difference in the principle of these objections? It were idle to talk of any. We must go back to the law and the testimony; if here the matter be confirmed, the cognizance of consequences belongs not to us. If there be any evil in the case before us, it is inseparable from the transmission of religious privileges by natural gene