Church. 98 elite ed to noiz-imba edt quitsoquer (sonatemporio aidT ni old-guildmute 189rg & bevorg forudɔ asiteirdɔ edt otni oT 9c201) oft gnidosong terit odt ts (awel, edt to yow alt es togim yods,medt ellot siteoqÀ sdt ¿ði of medt elionoɔs% bus tosle aid od ot awol out ozodo te te bo ydw des flow tadt and movie ed of 267 402897 on doidw of ; alqooq reiluveq no (bod ayse) y DISCOURSE VL o lliw aid asw ti des dyim yet to dil ol "yoxom oved lliw I modw enil et mort basoab blodz sieroM ont tent saodo boŋ ydw To the SACRAMENT 18 of 930erts 19 ai,dol to ed bloode ti 08 3811 OD BAPTISM, Considered as of -910 furnishing a Plea for Separation from zidt пl 19toy ads doule revoy the dt bekersxs dtail nam to 7018 1997 900 9am of fuel oilt yovo 2920 1929 gaids oft has suonodern ofur vajous on good ota godt tead ydW si bomo sedna od VP 92700 ei ba702 To the two pleas already advanced, a third is to be added, respecting the SACRAMENT of BAPTISM; which, as it is administered in the Church, is by some maintained to be invalid, for the follow ing reasons: First, because children are incapable of being subjects of it; and secondly, because, after the example of our Saviour, who was baptized in Jordan, it ought to be administered by the immersion of grown persons in a river. Did this plea stand upon firm ground, it ought, as relating to an essential service of the Church, to have weight; but standing as it does, according to our ideas, on no foundation, it can, in our judgment, have no weight at all. But as this constitutes one of the master prejudices against the Church, it may be proper to give it some consideration. The ground upon which the first part of this plea stands, respects the incapacity of children to fulfil the conditions of the baptismal covenant. ance. B But our He was .But this argument, if it prove any thing in the case, proves too much. For if no persons are to be baptized who are incapable of fulfilling the conditions of baptism, our Saviour himself was, of all others, the most incapable of baptism. noftrot891 The baptism of John was a baptism unto repent“He came (we read) preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."* blessed Saviour had no sins to repent of. Is the Lamb of God" without spot. On this account we find John refusing to baptize our Saviour, considering him an improper subject for the ordinance. "I have need to be baptized of thee, (says the baptist) and comest thou to me." But our Saviour, by his answer, convinced him, that though he had no sins to repent of, yet some other end was to be answered by his being baptized. "Suffer it to be so now, (says Christ) for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."+ In like manner infants, though incapable of some of the ends of baptism, are not incapable of all. They cannot, it is true, make profession either of their faith or repentance; because they cannot * understand what is meant by the one, nor are they (in want of the other; having no actual sins to repent of. But as infants, they are capable of receiving a sign of God's grace and favour. They are capable, for instance, of being admitted into the communion of the Christian Church, and of having the privileges of the Gospel covenant convsigned to them; although they are too young to 916 * Luke iii. 3. ́ ́ ́ ́ ́ + John í. 29.—1 Peti il 19,Anidi ris Matth. iii. 14, 15. 10, understand the nature of that covenant, on perform the duties enjoined upon its members. In a word, they are capable of being washed fromstheir original corruption, and of receiving the sign of their restoration to God's grace though they may not at the time be capable of understanding the condition upon which it is suspended.no H » .9300 TO And if "God has been pleased to regard the offspring of believing parents as holy from their birth,* and thereby given them a present interest in, dand Sort of hereditary right to, those means which Christ appointed for the sanctifications ofshhis Church; ought we not rather to rejoice, that God's covenant of mercy to man is bestowed with a latihide extending to persons of all ages, than seek to set limits to Divine goodness, by restraining it within the narrow bounds of our uncharitable prejudices? If Christ was pleased to leave the door of his Church, which was open to children under the Jewish dispensation, still open to them under the Christian; as he gave his disciples to understand, by telling them to suffer little children to come to him, for of such was the kingdom of God ;”† (or, as the meaning may be better expressed, for theirs is the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of God belongs to them; it seems an unaccountable infatuvation, that parents, who in all other cases fail not oto manifest a zeal for the maintenance of their children's privileges, should in this be so ready to give them up.loqao orft to angeliving sds grived cwould ask such parents a questionDo they think that their children, dying unbaptized, are ₹ * 1 Cor. vii. 14. 14 Mark x. 14. capable of admission into the kingdom of heaven? Relying on the mercy of God, (though uncovenanted mercy is all upon which they can, in this instance, place any just dependence) they will doubtless answer, Yes. But persons who are capable of the greater, are certainly capable of the less, which is contained within it. If through Divine mercy, then, unbaptized children are capable of admission into the kingdom of God in heaven, they are surely capable, through the same mercy, of admission into the Church, which is the kingdom of God on earth. If they are capable of receiving the fulness of Divine mercy, in the possession of everlasting blessedness in heaven; where Christ has told us, their angels continually behold his Father's face ;* they are surely capable of being admitted into that Church membership which was designed only as preparatory to it. Although infants, therefore, should not suffer for the negligence, obstinacy, or self-opinion, of their parents; yet parents would do well to consider what may be the consequence to themselves, for showing less attention to the spiritual condition of their children, than God has done; by straitening that covenant, which, in the original delivery of it, was expressly extended to them; and, in the Jewish Church, scrupulously continued to them. At the same time they may remember, that though the child of Moses suffered no punishment for the delay of his circumcision, yet the father very narrowly escaped it on a memorable occasion.† But it may be observed further, in answer to * Matth. xviii. 10. Τ those who object to the admission of infants to baptism on account of incapacity, that the Jewish infants were admitted into the covenant by circum-, cision at eight day's old, by God's express command. That there is the same reason for infants of Christian parents to be admitted to baptism, is to be thus proved. The covenant entered into by God with Abraham* was, as St. Paul plainly tells us, the Gospel covenant. "The scripture, (says the Apostle) foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham," delivered beforehand the glad-tidings of that event to Abraham in the following words: “In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one: And to thy seed, which is Christ. This I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ; the law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”† "From these words, which distinguish so plainly between the covenant which God made with Abraham, or the promise which he made unto him, and the law; it is evident, that the beginning of the Jewish Church, purely considered as a Church, is to be dated from the covenant which God made with Abraham; and therefore, in the second place, to find out the nature of the Abrahamical the way or pure Jewish Church, is to consider the nature of the covenant or *Gen. xvii. VOL. I. se upon which it was promise L + Gal, iii. 8, 16, 17. |