Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

SERMON XX.

SPONSORS IN BAPTISM.

By the Rt. Rev. ALEXANDER V. GRISWOLD, D. D., Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Church in the Eastern Diocese of the U. States.

GENESIS, xvii. 14.

That soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

AN Apostle comprised much truth in few words when he said, "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ:" and it is much to be regretted that Christians do not profit more than they seem to do by its instruction. There are many things in the religion of our Saviour Christ, which cannot be well and fully understood without recourse to the antecedent dispensation; to those typical institutions of the Mosaic law, which were a shadow of good things to come; in which every thing appertaining to the Gospel state was prefigured by prophetic ites and ordinances.

Many things in that law seemed dark and almost without meaning, till Christ came, in whom they were all fulfilled and made plain. And some things in christian practice might seem doubtful, were they not confirmed by God's dealings with his people Israel. Thus, for instance, if it is made a question whether infants or young children may be in covenant with God, we need but to hearken to the instructions of that schoolmaster, the law, and the point is clearly decided. The few words of our text, taken in connection with what precedes them, manifestly declare,1 that infants, though but eight days old, may, and it was God's command that they should be in covenant with him. This, the Lord tells Abraham is the token of the covenant, which he made with him and his posterity, that all their infants, whether born of them

or bought with their money, (all under their control) should be circumcised. And every man child which was not circumcised should be cut off from his people; should not be of those who belonged to his church; but as having broken his covenant, as being without that token or seal, by which, under that dispensation, the covenant was ratified.

We should remember, too, as St. Paul shows, that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, and that circumcision was the seal of that faith, which made him the Father of the faithful. Baptism is now the scal of our covenant with God. But there is no part of true religion against which the reason of man does not presume to urge objections. And against baptizing children this is urged as the most formidable objection, that they cannot covenant with God. But God himself, who is wiser than man, has declared the contrary. He has commanded that young infants should enter into the same covenant with him as adults did, and by the same ordinance; a covenant of faith too it was, no less than of works; even of that Gospel faith, which was reckoned to men for righteousness: they were scaled unto the faith, which should afterwards be more clearly revealed to them. They who were circumcised in infancy had the same promises scaled to their benefit, and the same obligations of duty (when they should come of age) laid upon them, and were in all respects, as completely in covenant with God, and as truly of his chosen people, as they whose faith was thus sealed at a riper age. They thus became his people and he their God.

If then, we deny this principle, we are not taught of God: we contradict the economy of his grace and the declaration of his word, and make ourselves wiser than God. But if we admit, what is not to be denied, that children did covenant with God in circumcision, then most certainly they may do it also in baptism. The change of the sign, or outward ordinance, is not at all material in regard to this question. As they who were circumcised were debtors to do the whole law, or what religion then required; so they who are baptized are bound to obey the Gospel. And if we maintain that children, on account of their tender age or want of actual faith, cannot justly be laid under such obligation, we contend with God and not with men.

Some think it very unreasonable that children should be bound, by what is done without their agency or consent. Is God, then,

unreasonable! Has not the Judge of all the carth done right. They are so bound by his express command, by what was done when they were but eight days old. The parents or ether sponsors were, by God's appointment, the agents of placing the child under that most solemn obligation; after which, as his understanding opened, he enjoyed the same privileges, and was bound to the same religious duties as they who were circumcised at any other agc. How could that be unjust, which was the will of a holy and rightcous God? It is equally just to bring them to Christ; to baptize them into his body, the church, by which they are obliga ted to repent of their sins, to believe in Christ, and keep God's commandments; duties which, when they come to age, they are bound to perform.

This point is so clearly established by Divine authority, that we might here leave the discussion of it, and proceed to some improvement. But it is a question of such high concern in Christian practice, and so mistaken are the views, which very many Christians have taken of the subject, that it may be useful to add some explanatory remarks on the nature, the reason, and the justice of the obligations, which are laid upon children, through the instrumentality of those who bring them to baptism. And I shall endeavor particularly to show, that there is no just ground for the scruples and objections, which many have respecting sponsors in baptism.

1. They who think it unreasonable that a child should be bound by what is done without his agency, would not think so if they duly considered that the baptismal obligation is grounded on the will and appointment of God, and not on any act of man. If baptism were of man's appointment, it would not bind chil dren, and no promises made in their name would lay them under moral obligation. God who makes baptism a sacrament, makes it the way of salvation, and binding upon all. And who does not know that in other instances God exercises the same sovereign authority, and who will deny his right to do it? We are his creatures, wholly dependent on his will and pleasure. We were all of us born into this world without our agency or consent; and will any infer from this that we are not bound to love and serve our Maker! Can we reasonably object to God's government over us on the ground that we never consented to be his subjects! Or when we are reproved for transgressing his laws, will it be

sufficient justification to say, that we had no voice in making those laws? None would so madly presume. He is the righteous Ruler of the universe; his will is the essence of Justice, his word the rule of right. And we may in truth say, that no act or promisc, of our own, however freely made, is or can be so justly, so lawfully binding upon our conscience as the law of God. We are born his subjects, and our utmost allegiance is his due from the moment our life commences. And if he has appointed this ordinance, has commanded his ministers to baptize all nations, his authority as justly binds those who are baptized in infancy, as in riper years. If their natural birth into the world justly binds children to live honestly, their spiritual birth into his Church may as justly bind them to repent and believe. Are not God's spiritual blessings of as great obligation as the gifts of nature?

And we know too, that this same principle is in its utmost extent adopted in human governments. A child, born in any kingdom or state, is subject to its laws, the same as if he had assisted in making them. He owes the same allegiance to those in authority; is under the same obligation to obey the laws, and to serve and defend his country, as those who voluntarily come into it. Though a man dislikes the constitution under which he was born, it does not at all release him from its authority. If this be reasonable and just in human governments, it is infinitely more so in the Divine.

So too in all the dispensations of God's providences does the like economy prevail. None of us gave our previous consent to that state of trial in which Adam was placed; but nevertheless the death he incurred has passed upon all men; and though we cannot see the justice of this, it is enough that God sees it. The fact at least is sufficiently obvious, that pains and sorrows and death are the portion of all-of infants no less than of those who have sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." And though we deny the fall of man, the miseries of life cannot be denied. Account for them as we please, they still continue: and after all the fine things we can say about the innocence of children, they still will suffer, and many of them die.

So too in the work of redemption, God acts according to the counsel of his own will. Mankind did not petition to God to send them a Saviour; so much the contrary of this is the fact, that only a part, and in some places, but a small part of them

can be prevailed on to receive his only Son sent in love to save them; but few will submit to his righteousness. And are not children then redeemed? Have they no Saviour, nor any claim to the privileges of his Church? Yes, to his glory and praise be it acknowledged, "of such is the Kingdom of God." The same infinitely wise and benevolent God, without asking the advice of any one, commands children of eight days old to be placed under the obligation of his covenant. His authority alone made the covenant of circumcision binding on all whether young or old who were circumcised, and still his authority alone makes baptism binding on all who are baptized. Of course the common objection, that children ought not to be bound in baptism without their consent, has no good foundation. It supposes that the obligation is imposed by men, which is very erroneous. It is the Redemption of Christ, it is the sovereign will of a righteous and merciful God which gives any kind of validity to what is done in baptism. It is not in the power of men to change the nature or obligation of a holy ordinance of Jesus Christ. Our part is to administer the sacraments according to his appointment, and in such manner as will best show the people their meaning and use. It is on this ground, to teach people the nature and obligations of baptism, that promises are made in the name of children, when they are baptized. And it ought to be distinctly understood and very carefully remembered, that all the duty or obligation, which is laid upon a child by baptism, arises from the nature of the sacrament and from the will of God, and not at all from the promises or any answers, which are made by the parents or Sponsors. If nothing is said in the child's name, which is sometimes the case, as in private baptism, the obligation upon the child is exactly the same. And when we receive to confirmation, which we often do, those that were baptized by other denominations of Christians, who require no responses, we consider them as being under precisely the same obligations of repentance, and faith, and obedience. And in this we are perfectly consistent, because as I have shown, we view the sacrament as implying the obligation; and they who bring children to baptism are instrumental in laying them under the obligation the same as if they declared it in words. The promises which we require, when we baptize children, merely express or recognize that part of the Christian covenant which baptism lays upon the child, and which is inseparably

« FöregåendeFortsätt »