spiritual grace, by which means, in every true believer in Christ, a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness are effected; but if, as appears to be the case, it refers, in concurrence with the doctrine of the Catechism, to the alleged spiritual efficacy of infant baptism, it is a most dangerous confirmation of this fatal error.

"Question. What is required of persons to be baptized?

"Answer. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament."

The first clause of this Answer is, evidently, scriptural; but I submit to your Grace, whether the latter part of it ought not to have been to the following effect:

"Answer. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; Faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises God made," [in Christ, to such as truly repent, and sincerely receive him, and Obedience to all his holy commands, as the necessary fruit of genuine repentance and faith,] but, instead of the attention of the learner being drawn to the essential points included in the brackets, it is directed to what is general and obscure, and of which an explanation on the baptismal principle of the Catechism would, perhaps, tend further to confirm the fatal errors involved in that principle. As this Answer, however, appears to have reference to

an adult candidate for baptism, the latter words, of course, admit, apart from that principle, in reference to such persons, of an explanation in accordance with the scripture doctrine concerning Baptism.

Question. Why then are infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them?

"Answer. Because they promise them both by their sureties; which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform."

It is plain that the reason here assigned for the baptism of infants is not to be found in the New Testament, and whether infant-baptism was instituted by Christ, or, by his Apostles, with his authority, it is impossible that it should be the true reason; inasmuch as the appointment of sponsors was unknown till more than 100, and, perhaps, more than 300 years after their time. Thus the catechumen is required to declare, as a reason for infant-baptism, that which has not, and could not possibly have, scriptural warrant, and which is obviously contradicted by the facts of history. Whether, abstractedly speaking, to any man, or company of men, authority has been delegated to assign a reason for the institution of a divine ordinance which God himself has not assigned, I shall leave for your Lordship's consideration. The exceptionable character of the latter part of the present Answer I have already

endeavoured to show in my remarks on the Answer to the 4th question of the Catechism.

66

Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained?

"Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby."

This Answer is strictly scriptural; yet I would respectfully submit to your Grace, whether, with a view to guard against an inconsiderate and un authorized appropriation of " the benefits," by the communicant, it may not be advisable to substitute for the pronoun we," words to the effect

66

of those subjoined in brackets.

"Benefits which [all true believers in Christ, scripturally communicating, may expect to] receive thereby."

66

Question. What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper?

"Answer. Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received.

66

Question. What is the inward part or thing signified?

"Answer. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper."

Whatever meaning was designed to be conveyed by the latter of these Answers, there can be no doubt, I think, that the language is more papistical than scriptural. It is true, that the words, "by

the faithful," imply, that the Body and Blood of our Lord are received, by such, in a peculiar, ie. in "a heavenly and spiritual manner."* But if so, would it not have been, my Lord, better to state what that "heavenly and spiritual manner” is; instead of leaving the learner to conclude that the "faithful" communicant "verily and indeed" takes and receives the Body and Blood of Christ? As it is, the catechumen, instead of being enlightened by the Answer required from him, must be involved by it, if he reflect at all, in greater darkness and perplexity.

Our Lord's own words, however, after the learned and laborious discussions of nearly twenty centuries, are as simple and intelligible as they were when he uttered them in the presence of his disciples. They, evidently, found no such difficulties in them as theologians have done, or they could not but have manifested (and they were accustomed to manifest their feelings on such occasions) the greatest possible amazement. Doubtless, they understood the figurative and symbolical language used on this solemn occasion by our Lord, as any plain man of sense and reflection would now understand it. There is, in reality, no difficulty at all in the matter; and it is a reflection on our Lord to suppose that, in reference to an institute which was to be observed by his real disciples as perpetually and universally as his earthly

* Art. XXVIII.

reign, and, withal, when addressing himself, on such an occasion, to plain and unlearned men, he should employ language which was justly liable to misapprehension and mistake. It, however, appears, my Lord, from what has subsequently transpired, as though, had the disciples happened to have been learned, instead of illiterate, men, it might have been wished that our Lord had added a few explanations for their particular use. But to be serious. We have said that our Lord's words are perfectly simple and intelligible, and we may venture to add, that all the difficulties belonging to the subject lie not in his language; but, as appears to me, in men's inconsiderate and preposterous interpretations of it. How easy is it for any one who attentively reads the New Testament to perceive, that a believing reception of the broken bread, and wine poured out, at the supper, considered as symbolical of the body of Christ erucified, and his blood shed, for the salvation of men, may tend, by means of the influences of the Holy Spirit, to invigorate the faith, inflame the love, and confirm the fidelity and obedience of his true disciples; but that the Body and Blood of Christ, themselves, however modified, should produce such effects, or any effect at all of a moral and spiritual kind, except as symbols, is beyond the power of the human imagination to conceive, and is at variance with all Scripture, all reason, all observation, and all experience. Yet this is