ents were under twelve years of age. In such ins stances did the parents go from their houses and leave their little ones, there, and unite with families where all were above twelve years-where there were no little ones! Verily, this would have been so repugnant to nature, that it would have required a more explicit and imperious command than will be found in the twelfth of Exodus. There is nothing said there, of separating families of leaving houses and little children exposed to the destroying angel, without the blood of sprinkling. There are no directions to the parents to kill, and eat, with their grown sons and daughters, but to drive back their little ones. All the members of the families, except the infants, identified with their mothers, had usually took their stand, or seat with their parents around the family table. This table on the passover night became the table of the Lord-there was no provision in the house but the unleavened bread, and the body of the paschal lamb*--they are spread upon the Lord's Table-the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort presides-he says to the family come and eat-they all young and old come forwardand who now will make the separation? Who will step forward and say, the Father, whose this table is, meant by the family only the parents and those who have arrived at mature age--the years of discretion? Why Sir, we must look for such bold, and heaven daring expositors somewhere else than * Verse 15.

among the simple hearted Iraelites, or those unfet tered by the doctrines and commandments of men." All such exposition appears to be precluded by the maker of the feast. "According to the number of the souls, every man according to his eating, shall make your count for the lamb." The number of souls in the house were to be countedbut this in some instances, would include infants; true--and can infants eat the flesh of the lamb, and the unleavened bread and bitter herbs? No, and therefore some restriction must be made with res pect to the number of souls; and this restriction is added, "every man according to his eating"--that is, according to his caters. Every man knew how many of his family eat at the family table, and he knew how much they usually eat at an ordinary meal; and thus he was to make his calculation with respect to the passover. How any person, from such plain definite language, could take up the idea that little children, weaned from the breast and partaking of the family table, were debarred from partaking of the passover, is truly marvellous.

2. If little children did not partake of the pas ver, how did it operate as a distinguishing ordinance? The face of the history shows that it was intended, and did actually separate between the families of the Israelites and Egyptians---between the circumcised, and the uncircumcised. It is said explicitly, that no stranger should eat of it. And in aftertimes if any stranger would eat of it, all his males were

first to be circumcised. Now if all his males who eat at his table were not to eat of the passover, and if even the infant on the mother's breast, and identified with her, was not to be present, why must they all be circumcised? In one ordinance they and their parents are recognised and distinguished as the Lord's people; in the other some of them are recognised, and distinguished as his, and the others are disowned and put out with the uncircumcised! Thus the passover would operate upon the family of the stranger coming in among God's people, and thus it would operate upon the families of Israel. And instead of having the line drawn between the Egyptians and Israelites, the circumcised and uncircumcised, it runs through the families of the latter, and separates all the little ones from the parents, and their elder brothers and sis ters, and throws them among the former!

3. The demand which God made by Moses and Aaron upon Pharaoh, was, "let my people go that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." And this feast is called, "a sacrifice unto the Lord.”* When Pharaoh was sorely pressed with the judgments of God, he enquired of Moses and Aaron, who should go to hold this feast? They replied, K we will go with our YOUNG, and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds, will we go: for we must hold a feast unto the Lord. And he said unto them, * Exo. v. 1-3 and x. 9, 25.

let the Lord do so with you as I will let you go and your little ones."* The reason why the flocks and herds must go, was afterwards explained-they were necessary for sacrifice. But where was the necessity of the little ones going if they were not to partake of the Lord's feast, and sacrifice? Whether the passover was particularly meant by this feast or not, does not affect my argument. The passover was a feast, and a sacrifice unto the Lord, or a feast upon a sacrifice, and therefore required the same qualifications in those who partook that any other feast upon a sacrifice did, and no objections can be produced against little ones, partaking of the passover, that will not be equally strong against their partaking of any feast upon a sacrifice to the Lord. Pharaoh wished, as a cruel monster, to violate the law of nature and separate them from their parents; but Moses and Aaron said, "we hold a feast unto the Lord," therefore the little ones must accompany us-we cannot appear at the feast of the Lord without them. He might have replied with the logic of modern times and said, "what is the use of their attendance-if it is a feast to the Lord it is holy, and they will profane it—if it is a sacrifice, it is significant, and requires the exercise of mature understandings, which they have not, and therefore they are precluded."..

Will any one say that the little ones were to go to be mere spectators; and that when their parents *Exo. x. 10..

feasted upon the sacrifice of the Lord at his table, they were pushed off to eat something else by themselves? This is too grossly absurd to be seriously urged by any rational man. The feast of the.

passover was one of the feasts celebrated in the wilderness;* and the law of its institution stands thus,

65

seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that SOUL shall be cut off from the congre gation of Israel, whether he be a stranger or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened: in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread." Here every soul was shut up to a participation in this feast, or to cutting off and starvation. It may be said that the little children partook of the feast of the passover, but not of the passover itself, or of the flesh of the lamb. This is a distinction worthy

a Jesuistical casuist. Upon the same principle, and with as good reason, there may a distinction be made between the bread and the wine in the Lord's Supper; and the one be made common for children and the other sacred for the adult. But on the night that the passover was first celebrated, when all the family that could walk, and for want of wagons, or carriages, must walk, and had a hard days march before them, were drawn up around the paschal table, with their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their staves in their hand, and required to eat in haste, did not the little ones need the *Num. ix. Exo. xii. 19.