Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

covenant of God upon them, and professedly consecrated themselves and children to his service. Their children were brought into a covenant relation to God, and his people, which he has ever regarded with peculiar interest. And although their parents had degenerated, and become wicked; yet, even their degeneracy did not deprive God of his covenant right in their children, or break the established connexion of the children with the church. He, therefore, asserts his right to them, and his interest in them, as children of the covenant, to whom his seal belonged. It is on account of this covenant relation to him, and his church, that he calls these infants his children, which were born unto him. It is also on account of this covenant relation to God, and consecration to his service, and separation from the heathen, that the people of Israel, including their infants, are called "an holy people." They are repeatedly called an holy people, and their children the holy seed, as it is written; “For thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God." "Ye are the children of the Lord God." your holy seed have mingled themselves with the ple of those lands."—"The holy seed shall be vi. 13. the substance thereof." Here we can see plainly, that God reckons the children of his professing people his children, and calls them holy, and the holy seed, because they were included in his holy covenant, and connected with his church by a religious rite, which was a mark of separation from the heathen, and consecration to God. Let this be remembered-they were called holy, not because they were holy at heart, but because they were included in God's holy covenant, and had the token of the covenant applied to them, and they were thus connected with his church, and marked as the lambs of his flock.

Deut. vii. 6. xiv. 1, 2. Ezra

ix. 2. Isaiah

"The

peo

On the other hand, those who were not included in the holy covenant, or did not have the token applied to them, and were not connected with the church, nor marked for God-such-all such, were considered uncircumcised and unclean. They were so called, till they had united with Israel in holy covenant. This distinction was made by God, and too little regarded by the Jews. It was unlawful for the Jews to marry with those of other nations,

Ezra

x. 2, 3. Now therefore

who did not unite with them in their religion. And after they had unlawfully married with such, it was their duty to put them away, and the children which were born of them, also, for they were both reckoned unclean. Therefore, we find this confession, "We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land. let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that trembled at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the law." But when both of the parents were believers, or professed to be, their children were called holy, because they were brought into holy covenant, and devoted to God, and connected with his church. For these reasons, the children were called holy, when both of the parents were believers; and for the same reasons, the children are now called holy, when one of the parents is a believer. "Else were your children unclean

but now are they holy."

1 Corin.

vii. 14.

The believers at Corinth were uncertain, whether it was their duty to dwell with their unbelieving companions, or to put them away. They therefore wrote to the apostle Paul, on the subject, and he gave them this answer; "If any brother hath a wife that believeth 1 Cor. vii. not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let 12-14. him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Their children, then, were not treated as unclean, but holy, that is, they were included in God's holy covenant, devoted to him in baptism, and connected with his church as her children. This is a plain fact appealed to by the apostle. The children are holy, in a covenant sense, and therefore, they should have the token of the holy covenant applied to them, as God commanded concerning the holy seed. It is as much the duty of parents to apply the token to their children now, as it ever was. Indeed, God is reaching farther after the beloved offspring of believers. He now

calls them holy, and considers them fit subjects for the seal of the covenant, when one parent is a believer, the same as he formerly did, when both were believers. I say therefore, he is extending the cords of his covenant love, and giving them a greater scope, to take in the children of his people and save them. This is according to the very spirit of the Gospel. It is expansive and benevolent in its character, spreading farther and wider its blessings, and giving greater support and encouragement in parental duty. And here I must add one more declaraRomans tion of Scripture,—it is this; "If the root be holy, so are the branches." Let us never think lightly of this connexion, which God has established, between the root and the branches, for He says it is holy. Let us therefore regard this connexion as God does, and treat it tenderly, as he does, not in a natural sense, merely, but in the holy sense of the Scriptures. Let us never break this holy connexion, if we would not see the branches wither and die an eternal death. God would have given us timely notice, if, in his opinion, the branches would flourish better, by being broken off from the root.

xi. 16.

16. The Jews considered infants proselytes, and Christ commanded his disciples to baptize proselytes. He commanded them to proselyte all nations, baptizing them. And this certainly means, that the proselytes, at least, should be baptized.

Esther

viii. 17.
Acts
ii. 10.
xiii. 43.

We know that the Jews made proselytes to their religion. We read of them in Scripture. And the Jews considered infants proselytes, as well as their parents. The celebrated Jewish writer, Maimonides,* says, "If an Israelite take a gentile child, or find a gentile infant, and baptize him in the name of a proselyte, behold, he is a proselyte." According to the testimony of the Jews then, they considered infants proselytes. The apostles were Jews. And Christ commanded them to proselyte and baptize. This cannot mean anything less, than that the apostles should baptize all the proselytes. And as the Jews considered infants proselytes, as well as their parents, then, the apostles, who were Jews, must understand that Christ com

* See the testimony of others under head 19.

manded them to baptize infants, as well as their parents. And indeed, it really appears, that here is a plain command for infant baptism. The meaning of every command, depends on the meaning of the words, in the circumstances in which they were spoken. And did not Christ, when he gave his apostles their commission, use words as they understood them?

17. The church to which the apostles belonged, and in which they had been educated, had, for two thousand years, put the token of the covenant upon the infants of those who professed religion.

The apostles were well acquainted with the practice of their church, in putting the token of the covenant upon her children, according to the command of God. And if he did not plainly direct them to stop this practice of the church-to withhold the token from infants, and not to

put it upon them any longer-if he did not thus direct the

apostles, when he changed the token of the covenant, they could have no right to withhold it from infants, or to direct the church to withhold it. And the apostles had no such direction, and they gave the church no such direction, for this plain reason, it was not their duty to withhold the token of the covenant from infants-this is the case with others, it is not their duty. This is known, and felt, by many of the ministers of Christ, therefore, they never tell the church, that the token of the covenant should not be put upon their children, or that their infants should not be baptized.

But others, our brethren too, beloved in the Lord, tell the church, that their infants should not be baptized. We ask them why? And they answer, The token of the covenant is changed; circumcision is done away, and the character of the church is improved; that is, there are not so many unbelievers in it now, as there were before

Christ came. These are poor excuses, indeed, my breth

ren-The token of the covenant is changed! There are not so many unbelievers in the church as there used to be, when the children were circumcised! I say, these are poor reasons, brethren, for withholding the token of the covenant from the children of the church.

The case is like this-A shepherd has a large, and valuable flock of sheep. He has goats, also, in his posses

sion. He has a number of under shepherds, to take care of his flock. He suffers some of the goats to go with the sheep. He tells his shepherds what mark to put upon his flock, and they obey him. The flock multiplies, and he improves their pasture. It is clothed with a richer verdure, the dews distil more abundant and enriching, and it exhales a sweeter fragrance. Now the chief shepherd, tells his under shepherds, not to use the old mark any longer, and he gives them a new one, and commands them to put that upon the flock. They take the mark, and apply it to the sheep, and also to the goats that are with them, but do not apply it to the lambs. I observe the course they take, and ask them why they do so? and they answer; "The mark is changed; and there are not so many goats in the flock as there used to be." But these answers are nothing to the purpose. They afford no excuse for neglecting to mark the lambs. The question is; Did the chief shepherd, when he changed the mark, tell you not to put it upon the lambs, as you used to do? If hẹ had, this would settle the point. But they confess he did not. I then urge the question; How came you not to mark the lambs? Is not the mark you now have, applied to the sheep, and even some of the goats, as the other was? Is it of any higher character than the other? Could it not be as easily, and as pleasantly applied to the lambs? But the records of their master, and the history of his flock, present no answer to these questions, which justifies the shepherds, in not marking the lambs.

Now all this is a just representation of facts, that exist, in connexion with the cause of Christ. He is the chief and good shepherd of Israel, who gave his life for the sheep. He feeds his flock like a shepherd. He gathereth the lambs in his arms, and carrieth them in his bosom. His ministers are his under shepherds. Those in covenant with him, are his flock. Some of this number, at every period, have been wicked men, such as Christ will consider goats in the day of judgment. He gave his ministers command to apply the mark of circumcision to those who joined his church, his flock, or entered into covenant with him. He considered the infants of his people in covenant with him, and called them holy, and his children, and ordered them to be marked for him, and so it

« AnteriorContinuar »