permitted

ince of used

rist,

deserve. If this petition-one of the most precious which we i to offer has any meaning, those for whom it is offered are guilty. The baptism of infants is not an unmeaning ceremony; it is an o divine appointment, both impressive and instructive. The water is for the sake of cleansing the body, but as an emblem of the blood c which is the blood of sprinkling, and which cleanses from all sin. apply the emblem of this blood if there is not guilt to be washed awa moral defilement from which the soul needs to be purified? If the wat applied by divine appointment, that blood of which it is an emblem, is neede of course, the subjects of this baptism are guilty. Nothing else can require the pardoning merit and purifying efficacy of this blood.

To the feelings of some parental hearts, it may be considered unwelcom perhaps repulsive and even cruel, to allege that infants are guilty. Is it, then more grateful to believe that infants are excluded from the mediation of Christ cut off from the mercy of God, and, of course, that they cannot be partakers of the blessings of salvation through the compassionate Savior? Would this belief, this view of their character and relations to God, be the source whence we would derive consolation, if, in the wise and holy providence of God, we are called to resign them to the grave? We appeal to all pious parents who have experienced these afflictive bereavements, if, when shedding the parting tear, they did not derive their chief consolation from the tender mercy of God, through the kind Redeemer, and not from the justice of God without a Savior? True it is, that our belief cannot change the truth; whether they be innocent or guilty, they are so, independently of our belief; yet we are certainly responsible for all the fair and legitimate consequences of this belief. We repeat, therefore, that if infants are not guilty, they cannot be included in the mediation of Christ-cannot be interested in the merit of his atoning blood-cannot be partakers of his salvation. If, in their dying moments, we commit them to God, it must be to his justice, not to his mercy.

IV. The next and last remark is, that infants are included in the covenant made with Adam; the conditions of which seem to have been, that his obedience would secure happiness, perfect, immutable, and eternal, to all his posterity; that his disobedience would subject himself and all his posterity to the penalty annexed to the law. The promise of life, as a reward of obedience, is, indeed, not understood; nor was it necessary that it should be. It was quite sufficient to state distinctly that death would be the certain consequence of transgression. He is already in possession of life, of which nothing but disobedience can deprive him. When the civil law makes death the punishment of crime, it does not promise life as the reward of obedience. The security of life already possessed is implied in the threatening. If Adam was obedient, during the time of probation, innocence and happiness would be secured to him and his posterity. True, it is not explicitly stated that infants, or any part of his posterity, were included in this covenant, generally called the covenant of works; but neither is it so stated that Eve was included. The language is addressed to Adam alone, in the singular number: and yet it is certain that she was included. It is equally certain that infants were. If Adam had obeyed, his offspring, during the period of infancy, would have been secure from suffering and death; that they suffer the penalty of disobedience, is a fact which cannot be denied. That they suffer justly, or because they are guilty, is a truth established by the preceding remarks. But this cannot be the guilt of actual transgression, or of sin which they, as moral agents, have committed; because infancy is that part of human life which precedes this agency. The commencement of moral agency, in any degree, is, in the same degree, the close of infancy. To be infants, in the sense in which we use the term, and at the same time, to be moral agents, is impossible. We cannot,

therefore, see any possible way of escaping the conclusion that they suffer on account of the guilt of " Adam's first sin"-that sin which he committed as their representative; and, of course, that they were included in the covenant made with him.

This dootrine, if we mistake not, is plainly taught in the holy Scriptures. Rom. 5:12. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Death, the penalty of that law which Adam transgressed, is suffered by infants. This death entered by sin às its punishment; and this sin is the sin of one man: the one offence of this one man. This one man, therefore, was the representative of his posterity, and acted for them, so that they, as justly and as certainly, as if they had acted individually for themselves, should enjoy the blessings secured by his obedience, and suffer the punishment due to his of fence. The following context illustrates and confirms this view of the subject. The only other passage we will adduce is, 1 Cor. 15:22. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The apostle is here treating of the resurrection of the body; of course, by death, he means, not spiritual, but natural death; exclusively the death of the body. It is not true that all, in a spiritual sense, shall be made alive in Christ; but it is strictly true, that all who are in the graves, both the righteous and the wicked, shall hear his voice and shall come forth. From the fact which the apostle assumes, that all die in Adam, he affirms the certainty and the universality of the resurrection from the dead. Admit that Paul reasoned conclusively, then, believing in the resurrection, you believe in the fact which he assumes. If all die in Adam, then he represented all, and acted for all, when the penalty of death was incurred.

The result of the preceding remarks is this: 1. Infants are included in the mediation of Christ, and may be partakers of his salvation. Therefore, 2. They are subjects of the moral government of God. Of course, 3. They are guilty. And finally, 4. They were represented by Adam in the covenant of works.

From this subject we infer two duties relating to infants: baptism and prayer.

1. It is, at once, the privilege and the duty of Christian parents to devote their infants to God in the holy ordinance of baptism; and thus have their membership in the visible church publicly and solemnly recognized.

That circumcision was, by the appointment of God, applied to the infants of his professed worshipers, none will deny. That it was an ordinance of the gospel, an outward and visible sign of the spiritual blessings given through Christ, we sincerely believe. It was first enjoined on Abraham, more than four hundred years before the law was given by Moses. According to an inspired apostle, Rom. 4:11, Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not cireumcised." The faith of Abraham, and of all who believe since the death of Christ, is essentially the same, having the same reliance on the atonement of Christ. Hence he is their father, and they are his children. If their faith is evangelical, so was his. If circumcision was the sign and seal of his faith, baptism is of theirs. If they have the gospel preached to them, so had Abraham the same gospel preached to him. Gal. 3:8. "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." This promise was the gospel, which Abraham understood and believed. It was also the most important part of that covenant which God made with Abraham, and which was confirmed to him of God in Christ; and if in Christ, then it was an evangelical covenant. Circumcision was the token of this covenant; the sign and seal by which it was

1

confirmed. Circumcision was, therefore, an ordinance of the gospel; and as such was applied to infants. Christ has redeemed us, "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." This is not any blessing which Abraham confers on his children by faith; nor is it the blessing of entering into the earthly Canaan; but it was the blessing which God promised to Abraham and to his seed in Christ; the blessing of the gospel secured in that covenant, of which circumcision was the token and the seal. "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham;" that is, they enjoy the same spiritual blessings and privileges which he did. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Heirs, not of his temporal, but of his spiritual possessions. One of the blessings enjoyed by Abraham was the privilege of having his children received as members of the visible church, by affixing the token and the seal of the covenant to them. If his children by faith in Christ are blessed with him, they enjoy the same privilege. This blessing has come upon them. They inherit this part of their father's possessions. If they do not enjoy this privilege, then he was more fully blessed than they are. His blessing, in all its rich abundance, has not come on them. They are deprived of this part of their inheritance. The covenant, though "confirmed of God in Christ," has been disannulled. If they do not enjoy this privilege, we must believe all this to be true, or deny that there is any blessing, any spiritual advantage, connected with membership in the visible church. Now, although we do not believe that salvation is inseparably confined to this membership, yet certainly it does not follow that there are no advantages connected with it. Because a man may recover from sickness without a physician, and without medicine, it does not follow that there is no advantage derived from medicine prescr.bed by a competent physician. Because men may live, for a time, in a state of anarchy, it does not follow that there are no advantages derived from a well-ordered civil government. So, although salvation is not confined within the pale of the visible church, yet God has promised to this church, of course, to each individual member of it, great and numerous blessings. Hence it always has been, and ever will be, an object of desire to belong to the congregation of the Lord, to the fold of Christ.

But, perhaps, you will ask, what benefits can infants derive from membership? Your question is what logicians call, begging the question, taking for granted the very point to be ascertained. The meaning of your inquiry is, that, in your opinion, they can derive no advantage from this relation. Of course, if you had organized the church, you would have excluded infants. And as you consider this the only correct opinion on the subject, you suppose that God has acted as you would have done, and in forming his church has also excluded them. By circumcision infants were formerly received as members of the church. He that was not circumcised, "that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." The neglect, not the performance of this rite, was a violation of the covenant, a rejection of the principle on which the church is formed, and, of course, was rebellion against God. Your question might have been proposed to Abraham and the pious Hebrews with as much propriety as to us. What reply would they have made? God permits us to bring our infants with us into his church; we will, therefore, thankfully enjoy it as a privilege. God commands it as a duty; we will, therefore, cheerfully obey, and leave it with him to bless his own ordinance. We will not call his wisdom in question by supposing, for a moment, that he has appointed a useless rite in his church. We will plant and water; he will give the increase. We adopt this, for the present, as our reply to your question.

Neither wishing nor intending to pervert the apostle's language, or use it in any other than its most obvious sense, we affirm that it is the privilege and

the duty ef all parents to have their infants baptized; and by this rite, performed by a minister of the gospel, to have their membership in the church of Christ acknowledged. If this duty is neglected, not the infants, but the parents, are accountable to God for the guilt of this neglect. Those infants, who are thus neglected, are cut off from the people of God, and are deprived of the blessings connected with the church. Baptism is now, as circumcision formerly was, the ordinance by which members are received; if not, there is no such ordinance now in the church. 1 Cor. 12:13. "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body;" that is, the church. The former rite was discontinued by that synod which met in Jerusalem; but baptism will remain while there is a church on earth. Accordingly, when the Savior commissioned the apostles to disciple all nations, that is, to form them into churches, he commanded them, not to circumcise, but to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

2. Prayer is another duty, incumbent on all parents, in behalf of their infant children. They cannot instruct them, give them a new heart, or confer on them the blessings of salvation; but they can ask of God, who can accomplish this work and bestow these blessings; and who has promised to hear the prayer of faith, offered in the name of Christ. Parents, rejoicing themselves in the hopes of the gospel, cannot suppress the desire that their infants, so helpless and dependent as they are, should be embraced in the arms of redeeming mercy, be washed in the blood of Christ, and finally enter into the joy of their Lord. This desire, offered up to God, is prayer; and the privilege of offering it up will be esteemed precious, in proportion to the sincerity of their own piety, and the tenderness of their parental affections. Nor will they be perplexed or discouraged in the discharge of this duty by the question suggested by unbelief: How can infants, who can neither believe nor repent, be partakers of salvation? They are not required to bestow this salvation; it is the gift of God; and, therefore, a knowledge of the manner in which God bestows it, is neither essential to their own safety, nor their faithful discharge of duty. They know not how the Spirit operates on their own minds; and yet they do not cease to pray for his gracious aid. They rejoice in the fact, that infants are included in the mediation of Christ, and that this is not a vain participation. This Savior, who is mighty to save, who can save to the uttermost, can apply to them the merit of his death, and this will secure their salvation. He can bless them now, though in heaven, as effectually as he did when on earth, when they were in his own arms. Who can say this blessing did not include salvation!

But prayer is not only the duty of parents, but of the whole church, and especially when the ordinance of baptism is administered. When the church calls a minister of the gospel to labor among them, they call him to discharge this duty, as well as all others, which are peculiar to his office. When, therefore, he administers the ordinance of baptism, he acts for those who have called him in the name of the church. The parents give to God and to the church a solemn pledge that they will pray for these infants, and "train them up in the way in which they should go.' The obligation rests on the church to pray for these members, now received into the family of God, and to see that they receive a religious education. If both the parents should be taken away, it is the duty of the church, a duty which cannot be neglected without criminality, to appoint and authorize other agents to take charge of these orphans, and "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." If the church was found in the faithful discharge of these duties, attending, with parental affection, to the religious education of all her children, praying for them without ceasing, the results would furnish an answer to the question-What benefits can infants derive from baptism? The church may neglect her duty. This does not prove, however, that the faithful discharge of this duty is not

blessed of God, and followed with the happiest effects. If some do not believe, does this make the faith of God without effect? If some disobey the law, does this prove that the law is not good? that in keeping it there is not great reward? If the prayer of one righteous man availeth much, will the prayer of the whole church for these infants, now received into her bosom, avail less? We protest, most earnestly, against that opinion, and that paralyzing apathy, the result of this opinion, which reduces this ordinance to a mere ceremony, in which none but the parents and the minister have any interest. Infant baptism, when viewed in its true light, in all its bearings and relations, is both instructive and impressive; calculated to call forth the spirit of true devotion, and of earnest prayer in every breast. Those members of the church who 'take no part in the devotional exercises, who consider themselves only as witnesses, prove by this indifference, either, that they are criminally ignorant of the nature and design of this ordinance, or, that their hearts are cold and lifeless in the cause of Christ. Such members need to be "instructed in the way of the Lord more perfectly."

There are parents in our Christian country, who live in the habitual, and as we verily believe, criminal neglect of these duties; who never devote their infants to God in baptism, never ask the church to receive them to her bosom, to exercise over them her kind and maternal influence; who never pray for them; who devise plans and employ means to promote their temporal comfort, but never ask God to give them spiritual blessings. These neglected infants are sometimes removed by death. Then those parents attempt to comfort their bleeding hearts with the hope that their dear little babes are saved through Christ, and are happy with the redeemed of the Lord. But what reason have they to cherish this hope? How do they know that they are saved? They never thought this salvation worth asking for-never used the means of grace which have a reference to infants-how then do they know that they are happy? Parents who faithfully discharge their duty; who devote them to God; who request the church to "receive these little ones in the name of Christ," to watch over and pray for them; whose fervent and daily prayer to God is, that they might be saved: these parents, if bereaved of these objects of affection, have reasons for this hope and this belief. These reasons are derived from "the blood of Christ which cleanses from all sin," from their own prayers, and the prayers of the church. If God saves a guilty and helpless sinner, because he prays for it; if he heard Moses in behalf of Israel, Job's prayer for his friends, the church for Peter, will he not hear the parents and the church for these infants? When the Judge shall say to them, at the last day, "Come ye blessed of my Father”-ye lambs of my flock—“ inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world," he may assign as a reason for this sentence-For your parents devoted you to God, and prayed for you; the church received you in my name, and prayed for your salvation.