it appear, that the people in general who partook of the passover, knew that it signified the death of the Messiah, and the way in which he should make atonement for sin by his blood? Does it look very likely that they should know this, when Christ's own disciples had not knowledge thus to discern the Lord's body in the passover, of which they partook from year to year with their Master? Can it be supposed, they actually knew Christ's death, and the design of it to be thereby signified, when they did not so much as realize the fact itself, that Christ was to die, at least not till the year before the last passover ? And besides, how unreasonable would it be to suppose, that the Jews understood what was signified, pertaining to Christ and salvation by him, in all those many kinds of sacrifices, which they attended and partook of, and all the vast variety of ceremonies belonging to them; all which sacrifices were saeramental representations of Christ's death, as well as the sacrifice of the passover? The apostle tells us that all these things had a shadow of good things to come, the things concerning Christ; and yet there are many of them, which the church of Christ to this day does not understand; though we are under a thousand times greater advantage to understand them than they were; having the New Testament, wherein God uses great plainness of speech, to guide us, and living in days wherein the vail which Moses put over his face is taken away in Christ, and the vail of the temple rent, and have the substance and antitype plainly exhibited, and so have opportunity to compare these with those shadows.

If it be objected, as a difficulty that lies against our supposing a profession of godliness requisite to a participation of the passover, that they who were uncircumcised, were expressly forbidden to partake, and if conversion was as important, and a more important qualification than circumcision, why were not the unregenerate as expressly forbidden? I answer; Why were not scandalous sinners as expressly forbidden! And why was not moral sincerity as expressly required as circumcision?

If it be objected that they were all expressly and strictly required to keep the passover; but if grace was requisite, and

God knew that many of the partakers would have no grace, why would he give such universal orders?

I answer, when God gave those commands, he knew that the commands, in all their strictness, would reach many persons who in the time of the passover would be without so much as moral sincerity in religion. Every man in the nation, of every generation, and which should be in being each year, from the first institution till the death of Christ, were all (excepting such as were ceremonially unclean, or in a journey) strictly required to keep the feast of passover; and yet God. knew that multitudes would be without the qualification of moral seriousness in religion. It would be very unreasonable to suppose, that every single person in the nation was morally serious, even in the very best time that ever passed over the nation; or that ever there was such a happy day with that nation, or any other nation under heaven, wherein all were morally sincere in religion. How much then was it otherwise many times with that nation, which was so prone to corruption, and so often generally involved in gross wickedness? But the strict command of God to keep the passover reached the morally insincere, as well as others; they are no where excepted, any more than the unconverted. And as to any general commands of God's word, these no more required men to turn from a state of moral insincerity before they came to the passover, than they required them to turn from a graceless state.

But further, I reply, that God required them all to keep the passover, no more strictly than he required them all to love the Lord their God with their whole heart: And if God might strictly command this, he might also strictly command them, to keep that ordinance wherein they were especially to profess it, and seal their profession of it. That evil generation were not expressly forbidden to keep the passover in succeeding years, for the whole forty years during which they went on provoking God very often by gross sinning and open rebelling; but still the express and strict commands for the whole congregation to keep the passover reached them, nor were they released from their obligation,

If it be said, that we must suppose multitudes in Israel attended the passover, from age to age, without such a visibility of piety as I have insisted on; and yet we do not find their attending this ordinance charged on them as a sin, in scripture: I answer; We must also suppose that multitudes in Israel, from age to age, attended the passover, who lived in moral insincerity, yea and scandalous wickedness. For the people in general very often notoriously corrupted themselves, and declined to ways of open and great transgression; and yet there is reason to think, that in these times of corruption, for the most part, they upheld circumcision and the passover ; and we do not find their attending on these ordinances under such circumstances, any more expressly charged on them as a sin, than their coming without piety of heart. The ten tribes continued constantly in idolatry for about two hundred and fifty years, and there is ground to suppose, that in the mean time they ordinarily kept up circumcision and the passover For though they worshipped God by images, yet they maintained most of the ceremonial observances of the law of Moses, called the manner of the God of the land, which their priests taught the Samaritans, who were settled in their stead, 2 Kings, xvii. 26, 27. Nevertheless we do not find Elijah, Elisha, or other prophets that were sent among them, reproving them for attending these ordinances without the required moral qualifications. Indeed there are some things in the writings of the prophets, which may be interpreted as a reproof of this; but no more as a reproof of this, than of attending God's ordinances, without a gracious sincerity and true piety of heart and life.

How many seasons were there, wherein the people in general fell into and lived in idolatry, that scandal of scandals, in the times of the judges, and in the times of the kings both in Judah and Israel? But still amidst all this wickedness, they continued to attend the sacrament of circumcision: We have every whit as much evidence of it, as that they attended the passover without a profession of godliness: We have no account of their ever leaving it off at such seasons, nor any hint of its being renewed (as a thing which had ceased) when they

came to reform. Though we have so full an account of the particulars of Josiah's reformation, after that long scandalous reign of Manasseh, there is no hint of any reviving of circumcision, or returning to it after a cessation. And where have we an account of the people's being once reproved for attending this holy sacrament while thus involved in scandalous sin, in all the Old Testament? And where is this once charged on them as a sin, any more than in the case of unconverted persons attending the sacrament of the passover.*

ANSW. II. Whatever was the case with respect to the qualifications for the sacraments of the Old Testament dispen sation, I humbly conceive it is nothing to the purpose in the present argument, nor needful to determine us with respect to the qualifications for the sacraments of the Christian dispensation, which is a matter of such plain fact in the New Testa ment. Far am I from thinking the Old Testament to be like an old Almanack out of use; nay I think it is evident from the New Testament that some things which had their first institu tion under the Old Testament, are continued under the New; for instance, particularly, the acceptance of the infant seed of believers as children of the covenant with their parents; and probably some things belonging to the order and discipline of Christian churches, had their first beginning in the Jewish synagogue. But yet, all allow that the Old Testament dispensation is out of date, with its ordinances: And I think in a matter pertaining to the constitution and order of the New Testament church, that is a matter of fact wherein the New Testament itself is express, full and abundant, in such a case to have recourse to the Mosaic dispensation for rules or precedents to determine our judgment, is quité needless, and out of reason. There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as the stating the precise agreement and difference be

* Let the reader here take notice of what is observed in the conclusion of ray answer to the objection from the instance of Judas.

tween the two dispensations of Moses and of Christ. And probably the reason why God has left it so intricate, is, because our understanding the ancient dispensation, and God's design in it, is not of so great importance, nor does so nearly concern us. Since God uses great plainness of speech in the New Testament, which is as it were the charter and municipal law of the Christian church, what need we run back to the ceremonial and typical institutions of an antiquated dispensation, wherein God's declared design was, to deliver divine things in comparative obscurity, hid under a vail, and involv ed in clouds?

We have no more occasion for going to search among the types, dark revelations, and carnal ordinances of the Old Tes tament, to find out whether this matter of fact concerning the constitution and order of the New Testament church be true, than we have occasion for going there to find out whether any other matter of fact, we have an account of in the New Testament be true; as particularly whether there were such officers in the primitive church as bishops and deacons, whether miraculous gifts of the Spirit were common in the apostles' days, whether the believing Gentiles were received into the primitive Christian church, and the like.

ANSW. III. I think, nothing can be alleged from the Ho ly Scripture, that is sufficient to prove a profession of godliness to be not a qualification requisite in order to a due and regular participation of the passover.

Although none of the requisite moral qualifications for this Jewish sacrament, either of one kind or other, are near so clearly made known in the Old Testament, as the qualifications for the Christian sacraments are in the New; and although the supposing a visibility, either of moral sincerity, or sanctifying grace, to be requisite, is (both respecting the one case and the other) involved in some obscurity and difficulty; yet I would humbly offer what appears to me to be the truth concerning that matter, in the things that follow.

(1.) Although the people in Egypt, before the first passover, probably made no explicit public profession at all, either