་

66

the relation of baptized children to the church is an indirect relation. It is through the medium of their parents. It should seem, therefore, to belong to parents or guardians, rather than to the church, to exercise all the discipline that is required, during their minority. And this was evidently the manner of discipline under the covenant of circumcision. In this light we are to understand that most solemn charge given to parents, in the 6th and 11th of Deuteronomy. Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children; and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Parental discipline is also clearly implied in the direction given to parents, concerning the rebellious and incorrigible son. They were to bring him, with a complaint to the judges, who were to judge and condemn, and cut him off, by death, from the congregation of the Lord.

Under the present, as well as under the Mosaic dispensation, it would be acting the part of benevolence and faithfulness, for the church to assist in the government of the rebellious son; especially in cases where complaint is made by the parents. And beyond a doubt, in such cases as this, it belongs to the brethren of the church, if the rebellious son proves irreclaimable, to cut him off, by a public act, from all further connection with them, or relation to them.

As to those who are past the age of minority, and of subjection to family government; it must be agreeable to gospel rule, either to admit them as members, or to reject them as covenant breakers. But, as they cannot be received to divine ordinances, without christian qualifications, neither can they be rejected from their present relation to the church, without a regular course of discipline. In the present languid and feeble state of the church, household baptism, practically, stands for almost nothing. As matters are now conducted, or rather neglected, in the church, baptists are emboldened to say, that infant baptism amounts to little or nothing. If it be asked what is our first and immediate duty in this deplorable case? the answer is difficult. Neither the church nor individuals are bound to do things which are impossible. With regard to the subject of christian disci

pline, the Apostle admonished the feeble and corrupt church of Corinth in these words: "Having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled."

On the whole, as respects the treatment of persons baptized in infancy, we ought, first of all, to be agreed, and to be correct in theory on the subject; and in the second place, to use all our influence, to effect a reformation in practice; not expecting, by a single effort, to effect a complete reformation of such an accumulation of errors and difficulties.

ous.

Respecting the mode of Baptism, provided it he done in the use of water, and in the name of the sacred Trinity, the candid part of christian professors are not very strenuThe truth, on this point, however, is of some importance. And does it appear probable, that the kind and merciful Saviour would insist on a mode of baptism, which is most hazardous of life? Thousands of shining converts, on the bed of death, who have as good a right as others to this ordinance; and to leave their names enrolled with the followers of Christ, are utterly deprived of these privileges, by the arduous mode of baptism by immersion. But where do we learn the doctrine of immersion? Certainly, not from John's baptism. For his baptism was before Christ made his appearance; and it was preparatory to his coming. It was before the distinct names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known. Apollos, a famous preacher under John's baptism, did not ⚫ know, till he was taught by Paul, whether there were any Holy Ghost. Do we learn the doctrine of immersion from the transactions of the day of Pentecost? No. How could three thousand be baptized by the Apostles, in three or four hours, by immersion? Especially, when the event was unexpected, and without any preparation. The thing was impossible. Insuperable difficulties also attended the baptism of the jailor and his household by immersion. The transactions were in the night; and the events named were numerous. Much must be said, and done, preparatory to going abroad in the dark, to find, or prepare, a place for the unexpected solemnity. Paul and Silas were greatly mangled with stripes; utterly unfit for such a service. The converted family hasted to re lieve their distresses; and previous to the baptisms, the

jailor took them, the same hour of the night, at midnight, and wasted their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway All this was done, before he brought them into his house. All was done in the outer, or common prison. All was done straightway. All was done about midnight; and then he brought them into his house, and set meat before them. This whole story is perfectly inconsistent with baptism by immersion. Nor do we find evidence in the scriptures, of a single instance of baptism by immersion.

INFERENCES.

1. From the doctrine of infant baptism we infer, that infants are morally polluted and defiled. Were they, from their birth, pure and undefiled; what propriety would there have been in an ordinance, importing spiritual cleansing? Had there been no need of the washing of regeneration; what need was there of a symbol of this holy washing; and what need was there of receiving anciently, the bloody ordinance of circumcision? This and baptism are unmeaning ceremonies, upon any suppo sition, but that of the native moral depravity of infants. Consequently, they who hold, that children are born in a state of purity, are guilty of a gross absurdity, in the practice of infant baptism. Infant baptism is perfectly inconsistent with Arminianism.

2. From the view we have taken of the promises in the covenant of grace, and of the import of infant baptism, and of the relation which baptized infants bear to the church, and of the duties which result from this relation; we infer that God did actually reveal, and propose to fallen man, in the day of his apostasy, a plan of salvation, calculated to secure the restoration of all his posterity from their fallen and condemned state. Had Adam been as faithful as Abraham, would he not have equally secur ed the salvation of his household? And had the next, and every successive generation, been equally faithful; why would they not have been equally successful? Nothing, it is conceived, but the want of parental faith and faithfulness, has prevented the salvation of the whole human family! Can any subject then, be more interesting than this? Can any person, any parent especially, con

template this subject with indifference? That parent, we have reason to fear, "has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

HAVING discussed, at considerable length, the ordi nance of baptism, about which there is a diversity of opinion; we proceed to a brief view of the ordinance of the Lord's supper: in which we may hope for a greater harmony of sentiment and practice. The Lord Jesus, on the night, in which he was betrayed, partook of his fast passover with his disciples; and the scene was unusually solemn. For at this feast, he gave them to understand, distinctly, that one of them should betray him. All began to suspect themselves, and to say, one by one, Lord, is it I? Even Judas, to conceal his treachery, said, Lord, is it I? Jesus, then divulged the secret; and Judas, being exposed, went immediately out, and collected an armed force. In the absence of Judas, Jesus instituted the sacramental supper. Having finished the passover, “He took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." The broken bread represents the body of Christ, "wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities ;" and the wine poured forth, represents the blood of Christ, shed in the garden, and on the cross, to make an atonement for our sins, and to redeem us from the curse of the divine law, "being made a curse for us. A plain example of the celebration of this ordinance was exhibited; to which was added the command of our divine Lord and Saviour, "This do in remembrance of me. The remembrance of Christ, as he s set forth crucified before our eyes, is cal culated to excite in our minds a lively sense of his infinite condescension and grace; as well as a solemn sense of

وو

our own sinfulness and ill desert. Infinite must be the evil of sin, to render it necessary for the Lord of glory to die on the cross, to make an adequate atonement. 6. If one died for all," and one so infinitely dignified and glorious, "then were all dead," dead in trespasses and sins. To commune together, therefore, in the use of the symbols of Christ's death, is virtually to commune on the affecting subjects of human depravity and guilt, as well as of divine love.

The design of this sacrament, therefore, is two-fold. 1. To express the infinite guilt and wretchedness of fallen man; and, 2. To manifest the riches of divine mercy, in his redemption and salvation. By a view of our guilt and condemnation, as they appear in the light of Christ's sufferings on the cross; repentance and humiliation are excited. And by a view of the infinite mercy of Christ, displayed in his sufferings for us; faith, hope and joy are excited. For these important purposes, was the ordinance of the Lord's supper instituted.-These effects of the Lord's supper do not take place, however, except in humble and pious minds. Proud and impenitent hearts are disgusted with a clear view of the import of Christ's sufferings on the cross. They do not realize their sin and guilt, as they are represented in this awful scene; nor can they place their hope and confidence in the bleeding and dying Saviour. To them, Christ crucified is a "stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence." They can see no propriety in the doctrines and ordinances of the cross. In every thing which is self-exalting or self-gratifying, they can have fellowship with one another; but in nothing which is self-condemning, like the sacramental Supper. This ordinance is, in every view, selfabasing. Whatever we read in the scriptures, respecting the price of our redemption; we find applied to ourselves, when we contemplate Christ crucified. Do we read of the inflexible justice of God? It is seen and realized in Christ crucified. Do we read of the necessity of evangelical repentance, and faith in Christ? and of personal holiness? These are clearly realized, when we look on Christ crucified. Surely, he, who died on the cross, to vindicate and magnify the divine law, while he opened a door of mercy to sinners, must be an infinite enemy to sin; and an infinite advocate for holiness. Do