and must have been obviously obnoxious to all the trainers of victims, the makers of shrines for Diana, and the whole tribe of artists and operatives who lived by the gorgeousness and costliness of the heathen worship.

IV. It was mocked at by philosophers, and reviled on account of its partaking of the narrow-mindedness and exclusiveness of Judaism, which was hated and despised by the Gentiles. As a variety of Judaism, it was called the new superstition. It tended to cut short all the subtleties and disputations of the Academy and Lyceum respecting the supreme good, which it summed up in love to God and man.

V. It had to encounter the virulent opposition of a whole army of the pagan priesthood, whose occupation it proposed to extirpate.

VI. It rooted out all the fascinating dreams of mythology and charms of divination, which were so intimately connected with the popular poetry and faith; and the games of wild beasts, the gladiatorial contests, the glory of war, the pride of enlarged territory, and love of the world in any of its forms, all fell under its denunciations.

VII. It was subversive indirectly of many civil institutions, so far as they were connected with the popular superstitions. It bore an aspect of turbulence and revolution to those who knew it slightly; and its apostles were called, they that had turned the world upside down; as it had been said of their Master, he stirreth up the people.

VIII. Its doctrines misunderstood - especially that of decomposed, drowned, wasted, burnt, or dispersed bodies, restored to life, which seemed absurd, and that of a crucified God to be adored, which seemed not only absurd but impious. To believe in a God without a sensible image or representation, was deemed akin to atheism. It was styled new, and offended those who entertained a reverence for antiquity: it presented to the world a mean mechanic, in place of that mighty conqueror of whom oracles and tradition had spoken.

IX. Instead of according with preconceived opinions, it had every prejudice to encounter; instead of a favourable world, contempt, scorn, pride, incredulity.

271. Καὶ ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ὄχλοις ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, Matt. xv. 35. Does any classical author sanction the common translation of ἀναπεσεῖν ?

The proper word would be ἀνάκειμαι or ἀνακλίνω: but both Xenophon and Lucian use ἀναπίπτω. Xenoph. in Econ. οἱ ἐμπλέοντες ἐν τάξει μὲν κάθηνται, ἐν τάξει δ ̓ ἀναπίπτουσιν. Lucian de Asino, xxiii. αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀναπεσόντες ἐδείπνουν. Cited by Wetstein.

272. And they covenanted with Judas for thirty pieces of silver, Matt. xxvi. 15: what was the coin here designated as a piece of silver-the sum paid to the traitor Judas? and how does it prove that our Lord did indeed take on him the form of a servant?

The piece of silver was the shekel, in value a little less than 2s. 6d. ; so that, taking it at that amount, the sum paid to Judas was 31. 15s. of English money; and this sum (or thirty shekels), as appears from Exod. xxi. 32, was the price given by the Mosaic law for a servant gored by an ox. As the ox was also to be stoned to death, this circumstance probably suggested to Judas the subsequent act of suicide. The fact throws light on Phil. ii. 7, Christ took upon him the form of a servant.

273. Had the Jews at their feasts any custom resembling the celebration of the Lord's supper?

They dipped their hands in a common dish, and had a cup of blessing. The later Jews had a wedding-garment, not their own, but given them by the master of the feast, which, being spiritualised, signifies being clothed with the righteousness of Christ. The most honoured or favourite guest sat nearest to the master of the feast. The three great festivals were religious commemorations-the passover, of the exodus; the pentecost, of the giving of the law; and the feast of tabernacles, of the dwelling in tabernacles in the wilderness. The Lord's supper was instituted for a perpetual remembrance of the Lord's death. The three great festivals were types, severally, of the true paschal Lamb — of the descent of grace on Whitsunday—and of Christ's tabernacling in the flesh for that the birth of Christ happened during that feast is rendered probable by the fact, that shepherds do not

CC

watch their flocks by night in Judea after the "former rains,” in Marchesvan, or October. The Lord's supper is itself a type of the great marriage-supper of the Lamb in the kingdom of heaven.

274. Prove that the baptism of young children is most agreeable to the institution of Christ.

Circumcision, the corresponding rite by which persons entered the Jewish church, was performed on the eighth day after the birth of the infant; and both circumcision and baptism were symbols of deliverance from the guilt of original sin, the one by abscision, the other by ablution. The Jews added baptism to circumcision in the case of proselytes. When some brought young children to be touched and blessed by our Lord, and the apostles would have repulsed them, Jesus was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven: and he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. If, then, they are fit to be brought to him for a blessing, they are fit to enter, by covenant, into his church. If he had intended baptism to be confined to adults, no doubt he would have somewhere mentioned it; but there is no manifest intimation of such a prohibition of infants in his words, or in the apostolic writings. The jailor of Philippi was baptised in the middle of the night, with his whole house; and so was Cornelius, with his family,-both probably including young children. The apostle tells the Jewish converts, that all their fathers were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and the children of their forefathers passed through the Red Sea, and partook of that baptism. The promise, said Peter on the day and after the miracle of pentecost, when he exhorted the Jews to be baptised for the remission of sins,-the promise (that is, the promise of the covenant) is to you and to your children, Acts ii. 39. If this rite be omitted in regard to children dying in infancy, the only authorised gate of salvation, through the name by which alone salvation comes, is shut. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, 1 Cor. vii. 14.

As circumcision had been the federal act of admission into

the Mosaic covenant, so was baptism into the Christian covenant - being only the change of the symbol. In whom (Christ) we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism. Without an express prohibition, therefore, every thing respecting the age of the parties admitted into covenant continues the same.

All the early Fathers mention, and the primitive Christians used, infant baptism. "Christ came," says Irenæus, "to save us all by himself—all, I say, who are born again to God through him; infants and young children, and boys and young men, and old men." Adv. Hær. 1. ii. c. 39. And Cyprian, in his sixtyfourth epistle, "If no one is debarred from receiving baptism and grace, however sinful, how much more ought not these benefits to be denied to an infant, who has as yet no way sinned, except according to the sin of Adam," &c.

275. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Lord's supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual

manner.

This question is directed against the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, on the one hand, and the Socinian notion of a mere act of commemoration, on the other. If we admit the latter, all men, good and wicked, might partake of a mere commemorative rite, nor would there be any necessity for self-examination before eating of that bread, or, indeed, any eating unworthily; and, consequently, there could not be such an offence as being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, 1 Cor. xi. 27, 28; there would be no discerning of the Lord's body, and no man's eating and drinking damnation to himself, 1 Cor. xi. 29. The holy communion would be little else than an anniversary dinner at Freemasons' Hall; and the most joyous companion would be the worthiest communicant. But how will this tally with John vi. 51-55? I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his

flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, &c. There is, therefore, a real presence; and these words are so strong as to have led to Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation, verus panis et verum corpus Christi. Thus he reconciled the unchanged substance with a communion, in which believers might be "one in the Father and the Son, as the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father." But here he did not sufficiently discern, that that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit—that faith is required to detect, in the element of water, received grace, which constitutes the one sacrament, and in bread, the received body of Christ, which makes the other, John iii. 6; for the things of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned, and without faith in the recipient the body of Christ is not spiritually present in the eucharist.

As to the real corporeal presence, by transubstantiation, in the eucharist, it contradicts the evidence of sight, touching, and tasting - which no miracle ever did. It makes a thing the symbol of itself, which overthroweth the nature of a sacrament. When Christ said, This is my body, he could not speak literally, for his body was before his disciples: neither could he say, which is broken for you, for he was not yet crucified, and his words could only mean, "which is to be broken;" just as his blood was then actually in his veins, and could not literally be Isaid to have been shed. The Jews had a horror at drinking blood, as they would feel repugnance to the cannibalism of eating flesh; and as the apostles were inquisitive on other occasions, their taking the bread from their Master's hand, without surprise or question, shews that they were satisfied that they only received a symbol.

This is, is a frequent idiom of Scripture, signifying, "this signifies," or, "is equivalent to." This is the law and the prophets; this is eternal life to know thee, &c.; this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. Christ says of the cup, This is the new testament in my blood; not, "this is my blood in the new testament." Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my