Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

tinued? And might it not be hoped, that God would graciously accept and reward the piety of such a parent, with peculiar blessings on such a child?

But, from this general view of the several dispensations of religion with respect to infants, from which their right to baptism may be strongly presumed,--We proceed farther to establish it by clear and direct proofs.

ARGUMENT I.

The FIRST ARGUMENT shall be presented under the following Propositions.

I. It is an incontestable fact, that the infants of believers, were, in former dispensations or ages of the church, taken together with their parents into covenant with God; and had, by his express command, a sacrament or rite given them, as a token that Jehovah was their God; and that in consequence hereof, he counted them for his children, and as standing in a peculiar relation to himself. GEN. xvii. 7, 10, 11, 12. DEUT. xxix. 10, 11, 12. EZEK. xvi. 20, 21. See these scriptures already cited, pages 4-6.

II. When these infants of believers were thus taken into covenant, it was certainly, a great privilege, a favour or grant most thankfully to be received; for, by this token, the Most High obliged himself and covenanted to be the God of that infant. And what that implies, see before explained, pages 4, 5. Now

III. If this great privilege was once granted by God to his church, it is a privilege still subsisting, and is now in actual and full force, if it has not been revoked. But

IV. This privilege or grant has never been revoked. No such revocation, nor any shadow of it, appears in the whole book of God. Therefore,

V. The infants of believers having still a right to their antient unrepealed privilege, of being admitted with their parents into covenant with God, and of having its token applied to them; it hence necessarily follows, that they have a right to christian baptism; for baptism is now the only appointed token or ceremony of admission.

These propositions it is humbly apprehended, amount to a demonstration of the point in debate. Which of them can be denied? Will any man say, 1. That the infants of believers, in the former ages of the church, were not taken, with their parents into covenant with God; had not, by his express command, a sacrament or rite given them in token that Jehovah was their God; and that in consequence of this, they were not considered and treated as being in a peculiar manner his? This no man will affirm. Will it then be said-2. That this, though it was granted to the infants of good men of old, was really no privilege nor favour to them? Neither durst any man assert this. Can it be urged then-3. That this privilege, though granted antiently to the church, and enjoyed by it many ages, does not, now, continue to it, nor ought, now, to be enjoyed by it; though it be at the same time acknowledged not to have been repealed? Absurd to imagine! Will it be said then :-4. That this antient privilege or grant has, indeed, been repealed? Let the repeal be shewn, and the point shall be given up. There appears no such repeal, nor any thing like it, in the whole sacred scriptures: on the contrary, there appear many things, as will presently be seen, abundantly to confirm this invaluable privilege; and to strengthen and enlarge it. And, in

tinued? And might it not be hoped, that God would graciously accept and reward the piety of such a parent, with peculiar blessings on such

a child?

But, from this general view of the several dispensations of religion with respect to infants, from which their right to baptism may be strongly presumed,--We proceed farther to establish it by clear and direct proofs.

ARGUMENT I.

The FIRST ARGUMENT shall be presented under the following Propositions.

I. It is an incontestable fact, that the infants of believers, were, in former dispensations or ages of the church, taken together with their parents into covenant with God; and had, by his express command, a sacrament or rite given them, as a token that Jehovah was their God; and that in consequence hereof, he counted them for his children, and as standing in a peculiar relation to himself. GEN. xvii. 7, 10, 11, 12. DEUT. xxix. 10, 11, 12. EZEK. xvi. 20, 21. See these scriptures already cited, pages 4-6.

II. When these infants of believers were thus taken into covenant, it was certainly, a great privilege, a favour or grant most thankfully to be received; for, by this token, the Most High obliged himself and covenanted to be the God of that infant. And what that implies, see before explained, pages 4, 5. Now

III. If this great privilege was once granted by God to his church, it is a privilege still subsisting, and is now in actual and full force, if it has not been revoked. But

IV. This privilege or grant has never been revoked. No such revocation, nor any shadow of it, appears in the whole book of God. Therefore,

V. The infants of believers having still a right to their antient unrepealed privilege, of being admitted with their parents into covenant with God, and of having its token applied to them; it hence necessarily follows, that they have a right to christian baptism; for baptism is now the only appointed token or ceremony of admission.

These propositions it is humbly apprehended, amount to a demonstration of the point in debate. Which of them can be denied? Will any man say, 1. That the infants of believers, in the former ages of the church, were not taken, with their parents into covenant with God; had not, by his express command, a sacrament or rite given them in token that Jehovah was their God; and that in consequence of this, they were not considered and treated as being in a peculiar manner his? This no man will affirm. Will it then be said:-2. That this, though it was granted to the infants of good men of old, was really no privilege nor favour to them? Neither durst any man assert this. Can it be urged then :-3. That this privilege, though granted antiently to the church, and enjoyed by it many ages, does not, now, continue to it, nor ought, now, to be enjoyed by it; though it be at the same time acknowledged not to have been repealed? Absurd to imagine! Will it be said then :-4. That this antient privilege or grant has, indeed, been repealed? Let the repeal be shewn, and the point shall be given up. There appears no such repeal, nor any thing like it, in the whole sacred scriptures: on the contrary, there appear many things, as will presently be seen, abundantly to confirm this invaluable privilege; and to strengthen and enlarge it. And, in

deed it were the height of absurdity to imagine, that Jesus Christ came to cut short the privileges of the church, in any single point; and to cast the children of believers out of God's covenant, who before were taken into it.

It being impossible to deny, then, that the infants of believers have still a right to their antient unrepealed privilege, of being admitted with their parents into God's covenant, and of having its token applied to them; the consequence is inevitable: That they have then a right to baptism, the appointed token of God's covenant, and the only initiatory rite by which persons are now admitted into it.

The point is farther proved thus.

ARGUMENT II.

From the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT.

THE covenant which God made with Abraham and with his seed, GEN. xvii. (into which his infants were taken, together with himself, by the right of circumcision,)-That covenant I say, is the very same which we are now under, even the christian or gospel covenant; and Abraham, in that transaction, acted and is considered under the character of our father, the father of us believing gentiles: the original grants, therefore, and privileges of that covenant must necessarily belong to us, believing gentiles, his seed.- Now it was an indisputable grant or privilege of that covenant, that infants should be received, together with their parents, into it; and solemnly pass under its sacrament or seal. This grant, therefore, or privilege, in behalf of our infants, we, believing gentiles, may now confidently claim.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »