Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

and two pieces of Lamb, viz. a shoulder boiled, and a shoulder roasted, to which she adds bitter herbs, &c. **** The table being furnished, the father of the family sits with his children and servants, because his ancestors were once slaves in Egypt; takes of the bitter herbs, dips them in the mustard, distributes the remainder among the rest; divides also the pieces of the lamb, &c."*

The following extract from Lewis appears to hold forth the idea that children did not partake of the passover until they were thirteen years of age. "During the time the boy is learning the five Books, he is called the son of the law, and when he is thirteen years old, he is styled the son of the precept; for now the youth receives the passover, and is purified; until he comes to be a son of the precept, the Father stands chargeable for all his miscarriages, but at thirteen years old the lad being supposed to be able to discern virtue from vice, and good from evil, he is bound to answer for his own faults." Does Lewis here contradict what he had before asserted? By no means. Until the child arrived at thirteen it was his pripilege to partake of the passover, but it lay with his parents whether he partook or not. If they lived so far from Jerusalem that they could not take up their little ones, they were excused, and their little ones were not accountable to the public officers. At thirteen they were accountable, and *Brown's Ant. of the Jews. First Amer. Edi, vol. i. p. 428. † Book vi, Chap. 39,

bound to partake of the passover. Before it was their privilege; and the duty of the father to put them in the enjoyment of their privilege, if no natural, or legal, obstacle rendered it impracticablebut now, it was at once their privilege and their duty; and if they refused to enjoy their privilege and perform their duty they were liable to be cut off by the judges.* This was the law respecting all that were accountable to the rulers for their conduct, and would not partake of the passover. When a man was unclean, or on a journey so that he was prevented observing the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, there was a second passover for such on the fourteenth day of the second month; and he who was clean and not on a journey, and would not keep the passover was to be cut off. If unclean, it appears they had a month to attend to the duty of cleansing, but no longer. They could not plead, that the time was too short-that they' could not cleanse themselves, and that God must do it for them; and that until he did it for them, excommunication must be delayed.

The following propositions may now be consider ed as established.

*Lewis as before cited. †Num. ix. 10-14.

Until the preceding evidence was submitted to the Kentucky Synod, I found none who would grant that little children partook of the passover, and some said if it could be proved, their right to the Lord's Supper would be established beyond all refutation. This is my apology for spending so much time on this point.

1. Infancy among the Jews, and according to the law of God, natural and revealed, included three years from the birth; and that children of this period, were identified with the mother, and that no provision was made for them in the feasts upon the sacrifices, offered to the Lord.

2. When three years old there was provision made for them-they partook of the passover with their parents; and of the other holy things, as their privilege, until thirteen years of age and then it be came their indispensible duty.

3. Those who were unprepared to partake of the passover according to the law, and did not become prepared in a month, were excommunicated.

4. The religious, and positive institutions of God in the Old Testament, particularly the passover, did not violate the law of nature establishing the family unity, by which children, until capable of acting for themselves, are identified with their parents, and live, and enjoy privileges through them. Whether he laws of God, natural and revealed, contained in the above propositions have been repealed, will be a question for future consideration

Yours, &c.

LETTER 6.

The Law of the Passover not annulled-but in force with respect to the Lord's Supper-proved from the Scriptures; and that little children did partake of this ordinance under the administration of the Apos tles.

DEAR SIR:

*

THE Pædobaptists generally maintain that baptism has come in the room of circumcision, and the Lord's Supper in the room of the passover.' They also contend that the law of church membership, by which infants were formerly members has remained unaltered. If this be so, a question arises which we must endeavor to determine; viz. Was the law of the passover annulled, and has a new law been introduced respecting the Lord's Table by which other terms of admission are required, and little children are excluded, contrary to the original law of nature, tenderly regarded in the Old Testament? You must not think it strange, and heretical if I take the negative of this question, and endeavour to support it. If I should have opponents, who take the affirmative, I would request them, to

*This, to my great astonishment was denied in the Synod of Kentucky at its last meeting, by two cham pions for the faith!

G*

show explicitly that the law of the passover was repealed; and that the privilege, which little children enjoyed of partaking of the passover was taken from them by the Saviour, or his Apostles, and that he debarred them from the Supper, which he instituted in its place. In other words they must show from the New Testament, that the covenant with Abraham, the original charter of the church was altered; and that new terms of membership and of enjoying distinguishing privileges were introduced. When they have done this and driven me from my position, how will they face the Baptists, and maintain the membership and baptism of infants? With this hard task, and in this awkard situation I might safely leave all my Pædobaptist opponents, and spare myself the trouble of any further argument. But to satisfy some, and to remove the prejudice, which has been supported by the practice of ages, it becomes necessary for me to endeavor to prove the negative-to prove that the law of the passover, is the law of the Lord's supper-to prove that the little children of baptism are as highly privileged under the Saviour, as the little children of circumcision were under Moses; and that as the latter partook of the passover the former have the right to partake of the Lord's Supper.

We have been in the habit of arguing thus against our Baptist brethren. "The membership of children, in the church, under the Old Testament, and their participation of circumcision were privi

« FöregåendeFortsätt »