/ Q. •5r w ^ In "* 0> *^ IE & *"» Q_ # W *S*> & o ^ £ * £ (D C w O &0 cC »25 Eh ts g 3 to E 55 *» H cu SZ •S « to % % a> c 3 % a> £ *S> CL 1 SCR Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/pastorsgifttohisOOwarr A PASTOR'S GIFT TO HIS PEOPLE, TREATISE ON HOUSEHOLD CONSECEATION —AND— BAPTISM. BY WILLIAM £ WARREN, PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, WINDHAM, PORTLAND : HYDE, LORD & DUREN 1846. THURSTO.V, FOSTER & CO., Printers and Stzreotvpers, Portland. as a refutation of his pretences. He would have every thing against him. He would have the favorite argument of its connection with infant circumcision against him. He would have the standing argument of its being the substituted seal of the church's charter against him ; for intervening years must have broken off that connection with the ante- cedent usage. He must have the argument of church history traced to its commencement against him; for if he be the starter of this new custom, he could, of course, have no his- tory or precedent in its favor. And the argument which we draw from the new testament records and usage would avail him nothing, for it could not be supposed that a bible ordinance would fall into entire disuse and forgetfulness, any more than that an unauthorized one, could have sprung into general use and favor. Either is a moral impossibility. It comes then to a moral demonstration that this institution could not have had its origin in imposture, or the in- ventions of men. It could not have started into use subsequently to the days of the apos- tles. Such is its nature that it must have had TO HIS PEOPLE. 29 something real and solid, ns a foundation to stand upon ; but upon the present supposition it had nothing but vain pretense, or wild, unau- thorized speculation. But this is not all. The introduction of a new ordinance into the church must have been attended by a sharp controversy. And we have records of the birth and life and the obituary of a score of errors and schisms that have rent the church during the past periods of its history. But who has given us the history of the origin of this heresy 1 Who has recorded the author, the rise or the age of this error? We do often find allusions to this usage, as we shall show, as far back as the age after which the apostles were martyred ; but not a note of controversy, as touching its introduction can be found in all history. Prop. v. Though history does not record the 11 se and introduction of this custom into the church, it does record its existence and observance from the earliest periods of the new dispensation. The writings of the ancient fathers are re- ceived as authentic history by all classes of christians. Their religious speculations are to be taken for what they are worth. Their books 3* 30 a rASTOR's Girr from the writings of Justin to those of Augus- tine, are found in our best libraries, and stand wholly above controversy or criticism in respect to their authority. These fathers wrote before popery had an existence'; and they give us a clear view of the question of infant baptism, as it related to their times. Augustine, in a controversy with Pelagius concerning original sin, asks — " Why do christians baptize infants if they are sinless?" Pelagius admits his premises but not his con- clusions. Two hundred years after the apostles, a con- vention of bishops met at Carthage, A country bishop not being able to be present, sent in the following question to be discussed. " Ought children to be baptized at their birth, or when they are eight days old." The convention came unanimously to the decision that they should be baptised at the earliest convenient period after their birth. This question, you see, had no relation to the establishment of this rite. It was based on the fact that it was al- ready in general use. Origen, who was born about eighty-five years after the death of John, like Augustine, argued the doctrine of original sin from the universal custom of infant baptism in his day. He was TO HIS VT.OVhU. 31 descended from pious ancestors. His father must have conversed with those who were inti- mate with the older apostles. And Origen expressly declares that this rite was received from the apostles themselves. The practice of infant baptism is often allu- ded to by Optatus, Gregory, Ambrose, Basil, Cyprian, Chrisostom, Jerome and others. It was denied by none in the early church, except those who denied water baptism altogether. Ireneus, who wrote only about fifty years after the death of John, alluding to this custom, says " Christ came to save all persons who are baptized by him unto God — infants, little ones, children, youth and elder persons.' ' Justin wrote even earlier than Ireneus. He says " we have not received this carnal circum- cision, but the spiritual circumcision ; and we have received it by baptism." One of the early fathers wrote a tract, to set forth the efficacy and value of this ordinance, and to prevent its delay. As an offset against the historical proof in favor of this ordinance, an able writer on the other side of the question, urges the fact that one of those fathers opposes and condemns this rite. This is partly true. He advised its delay till children had come to years of discretion. 32 a pastor's gift But even if he had condemned the practice, it would only have shown that the practice was in existence. And this is what we wish to know. The testimony of this father, Tertullian, proves that infant baptism was no innovation. For if Tertullion could have shown that this practice had been introduced in his own day, or at any time subsequent to the apostles, he would have pressed this fact as an argument against it. But this he does not do. He enters his own solitary protest against the too hasty performance of a rite which is supported by all his contem- poraries, and for aught he pretends to show, by all his predecessors since the apostles. For he does not quote the authority of a single one to support his new theory. We have thus traced the records of the church back to the writings of those who shook hands with apostles ; and we find those early writers conversing freely and without reserve upon the great subject in question. We now step upon the sacred threshold of scripture, and ask for further light upon this subject. Prop. vi. The New Testament writers tin ght and practised just as we should sup- pose they would have done, provided infant TO HIS PEOPLE. 33 baptism idcis substituted for infant circum- cision. Notice, first, that it was then an anciently established custom to connect children with parents in the covenant relation. Notice, too, that children had always received the seal and token of that covenant. This was the estab- lished usage of the Jewish nation. Their prejudices and feelings were all strongly enlisted in its favor. From the above principle and usage they had never departed. Their faith and feeling and practice were unanimously in favor of this custom. Most exceedingly scru- pulous were the Jews of the recognition of this principle and the observance of this rite. Their tenaciousness of their covenant privileges was proverbial. Notice another fact, well established in Jew- ish history, that the children of proselytes, from the Gentiles were always connected with their parents in the rites both of circumcision and of baptism, for the children of these proselytes and their parents were both circumcised and baptised as a condition of their reception into the Jewish church. Now suppose this long established custom of connecting children with their parents in the covenant was to be contin- 34 a pastor's gift ued ; what course should we suppose Christ and his apostles would have taken in reference to this subject? why just such a course as they actually did take — not certainly to enjoin it, for the principle was already engraven upon the memories and heart of the nation ; but to drop, occasionally, such allusions and sugges- tions in respect to the principle and its seal as would indicate their views of their value, and of the fact that the long standing usage was still to be kept up. But suppose this principle, of which circum- cision was the seal, was to have been abolished by the planters of Christianity, what course should we suppose they would have taken in reference to it. I see but one way before them; and that was to terminate it by an express com- mand. Silence on their part would not have sufficed to effect this change. It would have been a virtual approbation of the custom. It would have given their powerful influence in its favor. Their silence, I say, would have sanc- tioned this ancient usage. So strong was the feeling of the Jewish nation in its favor ; so tenacious were the covenant people of this dis- tinguished privilege ; so essential a part of their faith and practice did their covenant and its seal constitute, that something more than mere silence would have been necessary to do it away. TO HIS FEOPLE. 35 May I not ask if the absence of a command to drop this custom, and silence in reference to it, would not have tended to confirm the views of the covenant people in its favor? Could that people infer from the nature of the new seal, and its relation to the covenant of their fath- ers, that it was not in all respects to be a successor of their dearly prized privilege of circumcision ? A converted Jew would naturally have ex- pected that his children would share the same privileges under the gospel, that they had under the law. The whole current of their feelings and expectations would have been on the side of the continuance of this covenant privilege. So deeply graven was this principle on their heart and mind ; so dear to them was this distinguish- ing feature of their religion, lhat a definite and authoritative command would have been needed to change their opinions and practice concern- ing it. The prejudices of the Jews in favor of the custom that characterised the covenant of their fathers, and their attachment to every thing connected with it, were strong enough to carry it along into the new dispensation, by its own natural momentum, without a word of en- couragement from the apostles. No express command then, was needed, to perpetuate it; 36 A PASTOR S GIFT but one would have been necessary to abolish it. Its identity with the feelings and expectations of the people of God was a powerful law in its favor. And its removal would have had to breast a very very strong tide of feeling in its behalf. To enjoin the continuance of this old testament principle, then, would have been to enjoin that which all understood and practised. But to overthrow this ancient institution, would be to work against an ocean of feeling in its favor. Nothing less then, than a very distinct and peremptory command would have effected this change. But where in the bible, do we find such a command 1 No where ! No where in that book, is it even intimated, that parents and children are no longer to be connected in their religious relations, But I shall show, by and by, that the contrary of this is true. One thing, however, at a time. I am upon the neg* ative side of my proposition. I am showing the bearings of the absence of a command to continue this long established principle, with its rite ; and of the silence of the apostles — as far as they did keep silence — in reference to it. This all argues in its favor. Let us illustrate. Sup- pose a long established policy had been pursued between this country and France — say in refer- ence to commerce or emigration, and this, by TO HIS PEOFLE. 37 virtue of an ancient treaty. But a revolution takes place in that country. The old line of kings is swept from the throne. A new order of things succeeds. But the new government is subtantially the same institution as the old one; having the same constitution — the same charter of rights. Our government sends an ambassador to the new court. But he receives no instructions in respect to a change of policy in reference to commerce and emmigration. His inference would of course be, that our government intended to pursue the same policy, in reference to these matters, as formerly. He appears at the French court, presents his pa- pers, and pursues the business of his mission. But he says not a word about a change of pol- icy in reference to commerce and emmigration. What inference would the French cabinet draw from his silence, in reference to these matters? Not, surely, that there was to be a change in respect to them. Farthest.from ihis, possi- ble ! No ! there would be no doubt in their minds, that the former policy was to remain. But we will vary the illustration to meet the case more exactly. Suppose that under the old government, the French people had enjoyed certain privileges that were very dear to them. We will suppose that they had reference to 4 38 a pastor's gift religious freedom or general education. The new government goes into power. But not a word is said in respect to these subjects of so much interest to the people. What conclusion would the French nation draw from the silence of their rulers, in reference to these matters 1 Would they — could they doubt, for a moment, that things were going to continue as before 1 Would not the silence of the government be a consent, on their part, to let the former state of things remain? But suppose the political prin- ciples adopted, and course pursued, by their new rulers, should harmonize with those followed by their former ones, and with the rights so long enjoyed by the people; would a shadow of doubt remain on their minds, that the ancient policy was going to continue ? Now let us apply this illustration to the case in question. There was a sealed covenant in vouge under the old dispensation, relating to previleges enjoyed by children, in connection with their parents. The old dispensation passed away. But the primitive church and its charter remained; — as will be shown in another place. It was essentially the same great establishment as before; but existing in a new and improved form. The ministers under the gospel go forth and publish everywhere, — but first to the Jews, TO HIS PEOPLE. J39 the same religion substantially as before, dif- fering only in the clearer light which the fulfil- ment of prophecy and the ancient types opened upon the world. But not a word is said about a change in respect to the covenant previleges of that people. Under the ancient economy, children were involved in the covenant of their parents, and received upon their flesh the seal of that covenant. The new dispensation opened ; but no command is heard, to abolish this cus- tom ; no intimation is made in reference to any change in respect to it. How then, could the shadow of a doubt remain on the minds of that people, thai their cherished covenant with its new seal, were to remain in force under the new dispensation. To be sure, if no seal had been established in lieu of the old one, it might have been inferred that this covenant relation would cease with the old seal. But as a seal was established in place of circumcision, the conclusion that the former principle, in reference to its application, was to remain, would be irresistible. Nothing short of a positive command would have wrought a change in the general feelings and prejudices of the ancient people. In accordance with analo- gies drawn from the various other relations which God had established in his government, children had been wont to receive the deed 40 a pastor's gift of their birth-right, and seal of their heirship in infancy. Their parents had always set this prin- ciple to the seal of their own covenant. Such was the state of things under the theocracy of the church. But the Christianity of the church suc- ceeded ; predicated, as will be shown, upon the same covenant as before. A new seal was adopted But not a word is said, in the records of Chris- tianity, or the writings of its founders, in re- spect to any change in reference either to the covenant, or the application of its seal. Now if there was not a word said to favor our view, in the gospel, — which is very far from the fact — even then, we should be compelled to conclude that the former custom was to continue under the new dispensation. But upon this hinge we will turn from the negative, to the positive view of our proposition. We think it stands in proof, as clear as sun- light, that if this ancient covenant and its ap- pendages, were to terminate at the christian era, a command to that effect would have been call- ed for; but if they were to continue, such a command would have been needless. So far then as the fact of the alleged silence of the apostles, or the absence of a command to perpetuate this custom, affects our argument, it is all on our side. It is all in its favors. But our proposition assumes that the new TO HIS PEOPLE. 41 testament authors wrote and practiced, just as we should have expected, provided infant baptism was going to take the place of infant circumcision. — They often allude to children as if connected in covenant with their parents. Christ rebuked those who forbade little children to come unto him, and gave tokens of approba- tion to those who brought them. He declared that his own kingdom embraced them. Of such, says he, is the kingdom of heaven. Peter assured those whom he addressed at the feast of Pentecost that the promise was to them and their children. This declaration fol- lows the command, "repent and be baptised." He thus gives as a reason for this command, the fact that the promise had been made to them and their children. Children must, therefore, have been involved in the command in question, so far as the nature of the case would admit. Again Paul speaks of tli£ effect of the faith of but one of the parents upon their children. Then, says he, are the children holy, — or to be devoted to the Lord. He declares again, that the blessing of Abraham had come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. But how .did that blessing reach the Gentiles ? Answer, through the covenant that had run down theline of his seed. In thy seed shall all the nations of 42 a pastor's gift the earth be blessed. But what was it that constituted the richest part of that blessing. It was the chain that bound parents and children together in their religious relations. It was the principle that linked the present to the future, that bound generations together ; and conveyed covenant blessings to posterity. But did the covenant of Abraham reach the Gentiles divest- ed of that which constituted its principal excel- lency? We confidently answer, no ! Again, the apostle speaks of baptising house- holds, which generally include children. Lydia, it is said, believed; and she and her household were baptised. Here is plainly a case of house- hold consecration, and baptism. It appears that only Lydia herself believed, but that, upon her believing, her whole household were bap- tised with her. There is no intimation in the narrative that a single individual of her house- hold believed, except herself. Were it other* wise, why does not the historian tell us the fact ? Why not inform us that the "Lord opened the hearts" of Lydia's children and servants, so that they, as well as herself, "gave heed to the things spoken by Paul V If they, as well as she, believed, why did not the writer speak of their helievinv, as well as their baptism ? Did the fact of their baptism interest the inspired TO HIS PEOPLE. 43 historian so much more than that of their faith, that he should record the former and pass the latter in silence? The Jailor, we are told, believed": and he and his household were baptised. The exact translation of this passage would make the word "believed" to refer solely to the jailor. It reads in the Greek as follows: — "And he made a feast, and rejoiced, together with all his household, himself having believed." Believed is in the singular number, and refers to the jailor only. And Paul tells us, moreover, that he baptised the household of Stephanus. Now it was very rarely that Paul baptised at all. And it seems that in about every case where he is said to have baptised, he baptised whole households. In fact, it is seldom that the new testament writers ever record cases of baptism ; though it would seem that they al- ways administered the rite where there were proper subjects for baptism They were com- manded to do so by Christ. "Go ye into all the world,'' &/C. And yet the performance of this rite, in circumstances where children could possibly have been included, is very rarely men* tioned. I do not now recollect a single case of this kind, except where it is affirmed that whole 44 a pastor's gift households zoere actually baptised. Allusions are as frequently made to household baptism, then, as the nature of the case would admit. Now connect these bible facts with those of history, brought to view under the preceding proposition, and it will be clear to a candid mind, that the course taken by the apostles was perfectly natural and consistent, upon the ground — and only upon the ground, that the principle of connecting children with their parents in the covenant relation, and applying to them the seal of that covenant, was to continue under the gospel dispensation. Step forward a cen- tury from the apostles, and you find the church all agreed in observing this rite. They speak of it as a bible institution, and refer to apostolic usage and authority. Is not the practise of the church during the centuries subsequent to the apostles, a commentary upon numerous passages in their writings, that refer to this and kindred subjects. I ask also, if the consistency of Christ and the apostles can be vindicated on any other ground, than that infant baptism was to take the place of infant circumcision. And now in conclusion, I ask, if a principle, so strongly interwoven with all the prejudices and habits of the Jewish people, had been drop- ped, at the christian era, would they not have TO HIS PEOPLE. 45 complained on account of such a deprivation? There can be no doubt of this. So strong was their attachment to every thing connected with their religion, that if they had suffered such a deprivation of privileges under the gospel, we should have heard them loudly murmuring on that account. With much opposition and remonstrance would the covenant people have submitted to such a change. A religion that did not embrace that one elementary principle of his faith* would have been the last religion on earth that a Jew would have embraced. Now, much as we hear them complain of other matters, we never hear from the Jews a word of complaint as to any privation in this respect. Not a note of murmer do we hear from Jewish converts, concerning a loss of privileges on the part of their children. Minds wedded to the principle of connecting children in covenant with their parents, would be exceedingly slow to yield that principle. Whatever constitutes the peculiar characteristic of a people, is very re- luctantly yielded ; and a loss of that privilege usually gives rise to long and loud complaints. But the bible does not record a single murmur or complaint from the Jews, concerning a loss of covenant privileges. 46 pastor's gift Prop, vil A correct view of the Abraham- ic covenant settles the question of infant baptism. The visible church on earth is constituted by its charter. The literal foundation for that church was laid in the covenant with Abraham. There is a sense in which the church had an indistinct existence even before its constitution was formed. Our own government had the shadow of an existence when the Pilgrims plan- ted themselves upon these shores. Its existence was more distinct when these colonies declared themselves tree ; and still more when their in- dependence whs acknowledged. And yet our confederated form of government had its proper existence when its constitution was formed and acceeded to by the people. So the church had a shadowy existence before the flood — perhaps in Adam. There were good men in those early times — there were sacrifices — there were worship and divine communications. But there was no visible, sealed covenant entered into be- tween God and his people, as constituting the charter of an organized, visible church. The foundation of the church was laid in the cove- nant with Abraham. This covenant preceded the giving of the law, and the establishment of TO HIS PEdPLE. 47 the Jewish economy by more than four hundred years. It was therefore wholly distinct from the covenant mentioned in Gal. iv : 34, and declar- ed to be the covenant from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage ; — mentioned, moreover, in Heb. viii : 7, as a defective covenant, and dated from the day when God took Israel from Egypt. This latter covenant was one of works — symbolised by a perishable, tabernacle. But the covenant with Abraham was a covenant of faith, running through the Jewish economy and giving it a Gospel complexion and bearing — but spreading itself out in its richness of blessing and fullness of glory over the final dispensa- tion. It was an everlasting covenant. So both testaments declare it to be. If the covenant of works given on Sinai could not disannul this covenant of faith, much less could the abroga- tion of that perishable covenant destroy the one which its first establishment did not supercede. Examine for a moment, this first covenant, Gen. xvii, — "And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting Cove- nant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." "And my covenant shall be in 48 a pastor's gift your flesh, for an everlasting covenant, " "Thou shalt keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. And ye shall cir- cumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." Such was the covenant with Abraham. It was called the " covenant of circumcision." That is, it has circumcision for its seal. And it is as clear as the sun at noon, that this cove- nant was a perpetual instrument, and had refer- ence principally, to the gospel dispensation. Let us demonstrate this fact. Read Luke i : 54, 55. " He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy — his covenant; as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever." Paul speaks of this covenant, as one of promise, " confirmed of God, in Christ." But if Christ confirmed this covenant, certainly he did not abolish it. Again, says he, " if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise ; but God gave it to Abraham by prom- ise," or covenant. Again, he declares that "the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." But how could this be, if Christ abolished the instrument or covenant that secured that blessing. Again, he says, " if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed ac- cording to the promise " or covenant. Again, TO HIS PEOPLE. 49 he calls Abraham, "the father of all them that believe." But how could that be, if the cove- nant made with him, was abolished by Christ- Again ; believers under the gospel, are spoken of as " children under the covenant with Abra- ham." That covenant then, runs along into the gospel dispensation. Again, Romans, xi. The Jewish branches are said to have been broken off, that the wild olive tree of the Gen- tiles might be grafted in. Grafted into what? That in which the Jews had stood — the cove_ nant of Abraham. Therefore the Gentiles were grafted into the same tree, or covenant from which the Jewish people were broken off. Again, after the fulness of the gentiles shall have been gathered in, it is foretold, that the Jews are again to he grafted into their own olive tree, and so all Israel shall be saved. For this is my covenant unto them, says God, when I shall take away their sins. By unbelief, the Jews had forfeited their place in the cov- enant of faith. But when their unbelief shall have been taken away, they are to be re-grafted into that covenant from which they had been broken off. The Christian Gentile church now stands in that primitive covenant; and they stand by faith. They stand upon the covenant 5 50 A PASTOR 8 GIFT of promise — the everlasting covenant of both the old and new testaments. The church and its covenant are the same, then, under both dispensations. But note one fact. A grand peculiarity of this first covenant, was, that it included children in its privileges, with their parents. The great distinguishing feature of this covenant was that it connected children with their parents, in its pale. It seized hold of the true element of moral influ- ence. It made the most of the parental relation. It touched the finest chord in human nature. It pressed the most powerful spring in the mor- al world. It recognized the responsibilities of parents for their offspring. It illustrated and sanctioned their natural and moral identity. This principle harmonizes with the relations which subsist between children and parents in the civil and social world. Erase this one feature of that covenant and you annihilate it. Take away this leading characteristic, and you make the covenant null and void. You cut the cords of its connection with coming generations. Separate the civil responsibilities of children and their parents and you destroy human gov- ernments. The civil covenant that involves children and minors with their guardians con- stitutes the strength and perpetuity of the civil TO nis PEOPLE. 51 compact. Just so, if you take away the moral dependence of children on their parents, and dissolve the religious relations and identity which subsist between them in God's moral government, and you remove a central pil- lar in that government. You break the golden chain of strength and perpetuity /that binds the present to the future, and the whole to heaven. The covenant of Abraham seized upon this vital principle. It recognized this first element of moral agency. It developed the true idea of moral propagation. This covenant was a bill of rights — an incontestible legacy, which the child, unless he should sell his birthright and spurn the blessing of God from him, was to inherit. This distinguishing feature of the first cove- nant was indicated and ratified by the seal of circumcision. Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uneircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that be- lieve. Romans iv : 2. Now a perpetual covenant must have a per- petual seal in some form. The validity as well as perpetuity of a covenant, depends on the con- tinuance of its seal. The final question now comes, has this un- 52 a pastor's gift changeable covenant any seal now ? There is no controversy here. All admit that the'application of water is the sign and seal of the righteous- ness of faith. But is the seal of water to be more limited than was that of circumcision? Where in the bible, do we find the warrant ever to narrow the application of that seal ? The church is the same constitutionally under both dispensations. The covenant of Abraham, in- cluding the offspring of believers, is an un- changeable covenant. It is a deed of blessings, warranted by its seal, which neither time nor place nor age, can annul. This covenant is in vogue now. It is the charter of the christian church. Its primitive peculiarity of connecting children with their parents, remains unaltered, and will to the end. Shall the seal that indicates and perpetuates this principle be applied as formerly? We answer, yes. For if a change was to take place under the new dispensation of the church, in reference to the recognition of this great principle that marked the church's covenant at the first, or the application of the seal of that covenant, to the children of believers, would not the faithful Savior have informed us of that fact ? Or would not the honest and truth-telling Paul or Peter have taken the veil from the eyes of the church. TO HIS PEOPLE. 53 RECAPITULATION. Prop. i. Children are moral beings though not moral agents. They are subjects of God's moral government ; and as such, their public consecration is his due and desire. PpvOp. ii. In the moral kingdom consecra- tions and vows have their approprite rite or seal. This renders them visible, valid and permanent ; it adds to their moral force and general influ- ence. Prop. hi. Parents assume for their infant children whatever pertains to their natural, mental and moral welfare. The infant child of itself, has no responsibility. The parent's responsibility covers that of his offspring. The parent is bound to do in all respects for the child, what the child would be bound to do for itself, if it were of age. This is illustrated by the relation of children to parents, under human governments. Consequently their consecration and public presentation to God devolves on their parents. This was illustrated by what takes place in the marriage covenant where there were children previously. Believers are said to be 5* 54 a pastor's gift "married to Christ.'' Christ then claims the offspring. Prop. iv. From the nature of infant baptism we cannot see how it could possibly be institu- ted after the time when it claims to have been. An attempt to establish such a visible, monu- mental ordinance would defeat itself. There must have been a long chasm between that which it claims as authority and as a foundation, and the commencement of the rite itself, which involves an absurdity. Prop. v. Church history records the exis- tence and observance of this rite, from the earliest periods of the new testament dispensa- tion. Prop. vi. The new testament writers talked and practised just as we should have supposed they would, in case infant baptism took the place of infant circumcision. They often allude to the principle on which the former rite was founded, and they speak of their own practice as if they were conforming to this ancient cus- tom. They do not, it is true, enjoin this custom ; for it was needless for them so to do. But what is more important to our argument, they do not forbid it> This fact cannot be TO HIS PEOPLE. 55 accounted for on any other ground, than that it was to continue. Prop. vii. The covenant of Abraham is an everlasting one. It embraced in its pale belie- vers and their offspring. Children as well as their parents were inscribed on its seal. This covenant comes with all its principles and privileges into the new dispensation 1 The Jews are finally, at the millennium, to be re-grafted intoit. The seal of this covenant now, is water. Its application must be as general as that of the former seal, unless we have an express command to the contrary. This command the bible does not contain. Therefore, infant baptism is a bible ordinance. CONCLUDING REMARKS. Baptized children and youth. You have been favored with pious parents. You have enjoyed peculiar privileges. You were early consecra- ted to God upon the altar of baptism. Your parents took upon themselves covenant vows in your behalf. They involved you in their own covenant relations to God. They did it because you were theirs, and they were God's : and because you were theirs, and you too, were God's. They looked upon you as moral and immortal beings — as subjects of God's govern- 56 a pastor's gift ment — and parts of his precious family. They felt that God had a right to you. They felt that their own consecration would have been defective and unsatisfactory to God, if it had not included you. There would have been a breach in their covenant contract and vows if you, who were parts of themselves, had been left behind. They could not do it; they dared not. They anticipated your duty — your re- sponsibility. They did for you what it would have been your duty to do for yourselves, if you had been capable of moral agency. They took upon themselves your vows and covenant obli- gations. But they were to bear them alone, no longer than while you were incapable of assu-, ming them yourselves. But the time has now come when those responsibilities assumed for you by your parents have rolled upon you. I fear many of you have thus far neglected them. It may be that your parents have been unfaith- ful in the discharge of their covenant vows in your behalf. Perhaps they have not reminded you of those vows as frequently as they should have done. If so, a criminal fault rests upon them ; and a loss it is, indeed, that you have suffered on account of such neglect. I would hope, however, that your parents have been faithful to you and to their covenant rcsponsi- TO HIS PEOPLE. 57 bilities in your behalf. In either case, your responsibilities are great : but if your parents have been faithful to you, they are tremendous ; they are overwhelming. You stand in covenant with God. You are involved in vows, to live to his glory and to die in his service. These obligations you can never throw off, without abjuring your responsibilities to God. If you fail to assume and perform the vows made for you, you repudiate the divine claims — you break allegiance with God, and voluntarily sell your birthright. Dare you do this 1 Dare you take this responsibility ? And dare you take the tremendous consequences 1 Then come at once to Christ ; resign yourselves to him : espouse his holy cause ; assume for yourselves the obligations assumed for you in your infancy, and ratify by your own acts the consecration then made in your behalf. And God will re- ceive you; he will receive the offering thus made over again, as doubly precious to himself. And your parent's hearts will be filled with gladness — your own souls will overflow with comfort and hope, and joy will be felt in heav- en. Parents whohave offered their children in bap- tism. As I address you, beloved christian friends, I have the happiness to know that I do not ad- 58 a pastor's gift dress the indifferent and the unfeeling. If you have aught of grace in your hearts, this subject is one of intense interest to you. It is one which I trust you have pondered well, and the signification of which is engraven deep on your hearts. You are aware that the power of this ordinance does not consist in the sprinkling of water upon the brow of the child, nor in the service said at the altar. It consists rather in the deep and perennial responses that go up from parent's hearts. This ordinance is itself a creed. The truths symbolized in it, are of vital importance ; deeply ought they to be gra- ven on every parent's heart. The truth of depravity is taught in this rite. The wash- ing of regeneration is shadowed forth in it. The necessity of the outpouring of the holy spirit upon the child, as essential to its salvation, is expressed in this ordinance. But this is not all. When you bring your child to the altar, you say it is Christ's — that he has redeemed it — that he owns it, and claims it as his own. You say that, if saved ever, it must be saved through the washing of regeneration, and the sealing of the spirit of promise. You thus publicly give to Christ what he acknowl- edges and claims as his own. You involve in your own covenant vows, your unconscious TO HIS PEOPLE. 59 offspring. You throw about them a chain of responsibility — and, it never by you or them- selves broken, a chain of salvation ; and if you hold on upon that chain of promise, and treat your children as if involved with you in the covenant of life — teaching them, warning them, and praying for them ; that chain will bear them with you, aloft to the heavenly world. Train up these little ones in the way they should go ; and they will be yours spiritually, for you are God's. The sprinkling of water, then, is but the visible token and counterpart of invisible and never-to-be-forgotten vows. Let me now ask you, have you regarded your children all along as the Lord's ? Have you looked upon them as lent to you for a little while, to be trained for a better world ? Do you feel that you are parents of children now not your own, — that those consecrated ones are given forever to God ? Do you realize that in high heaven are recorded vows and pledges that will appear at another day 1 Those vows may have been obliterated from your hearts. The rust of worldliness may have grown over them. But if so, the light of the last day, like lightning flashes, will bring those vows to view again, and in letters of fire ! Oh, then, 60 a pastor's gift keep those vows vividly in view every day : and act up to their import. Do this, and you will entail the blessings of the everlasting cov- enant upon your children, and your children's children, to the latest generation. And who can fathom the joy that will overflow your hearts when you appear before God with the children he has given you. A family in heaven ! The parent's brow encircled with shining spirits — shining spirits — their children in glory. Believing parents who have not offered their children in baptism. I trust that you are willing to do your duty when it is clearly made known to you. Perhaps you have waived this subject, at present, to wait for further light and stronger impressions of duty. But is not. the path of duty now sufficiently clear? I refer you to the argument which this treatise presents upon the subject. Has it not been fairly and candidly conducted? Are not the results legitimate and conclusive ? In view of this whole subject, can you longer forbid water, that these should not be baptised, concerning whom Christ has said, " of such is the kingdom of heaven." Do those germs of rational and immortal life, in the view of the Savior, belong to his own king, dom ? Are they, while in infancy, by his own acknowledgment, heirs of heaven, and candi- TO HIS PEOPLE. 61 dates for the upper kingdom? Is the relation of your babes to Christ and his kingdom such, that if the frosts of death should cut them down like early budding flowers, they would, in an instant, bloom in a better land ? Then ought you not to treat them as Christ's now? If these little ones are his by his own acknowl- edgment, dare you withhold from them the seal of his covenant and kingdom? Do you believe that Christ would replant these flowers in the paradise above, if the scythe of death should too early mow them down, and yet fear that he would be offended if they were only planted on the margin of his kingdom on earth? Do you believe that he would treat them as intruders, if brought only into the outer court of his king- dom here, when, if their breath should cease, he would take them, in a moment, to his kingdom above ? Are the bars of the earthly so much more rigid and insuperable than those of the heavenly ? Shall those be debarred from the one, who are not from the other ? Let me then affectionately ask you by what law of God, or of Christ, or of his kingdom here, or by what principle in the social, moral or parental relation, should they be shut out from such rights and privileges in the church here, as their infant capacities and relations will allow ? 6 62 a pastor's gift No one, however, can demonstrate that the public dedication of a child to God, may not affect its well-being hereafter, even though it should die in infancy. Many a parent has bit- terly wept for his neglect to offer his child to God, when he has stood by its dying cradle. Though my own hope and faith incline to the opinion that infant children are saved in death ; and yet I could not let a child of mine go into eternity unbaptized. Call it prejudice, if you please. Smile at my superstition if you will : and yet the feeling is among the choicest of my religious sentiments. It is there, and I have no doubt that God put it there. But it is principally for your own good, and the benefit accruing to your children in after life, that I now press this subject upon your consideration. You acknowledge the power of pledges: of social, civil and moral pledges. You acknowledge the virtue even of the tem- perance pledge. There is a place in our make, in our moral nature and constitution, then, for the principle of pledges. And God has provid- ed to fill this essential place in our moral nature. And the parental relation affords an occasion for vows and pledges which meet our moral necessities. And no vows nor pledges are so effectual upon our feelings as religious to nis PEOPLE. 63 ones. And where is the christian who is strong enough in himself not to need their help ? By and by you must appear before God with the children he has given you. And if they must be torn from your tender embrace at last, and banished to the left hand of the judge, will you not bitterly remember the present ? and reproach yourselves cuttingly, for your neglect of duty to your offspring while they were yours? Unbelieving Parents. You are stamping your- selves, upon your offspring. You are perpetuating your principles through them.— Such are the laws of light and its reflection, that the exact form of the countenance is thrown upon the silver sur- face. By a surer law of moral light, every princi- ple and feature of the moral man are communica- ted to imperishable tablets. Tender hearts are taking deep upon themselves, your imperishable image. How important, parents, that you should be what you would wish to perpetuate in the characters of your children. In sitting for your likeness, you should attend to your ap- pearance, and avoid whatever would mar that likeness, or cause a bad impression. But you are sitting for an imperishable likeness. How ought you to take care to be what you would see again in others forms forever ? Dear friends, the subject under discussion has a tremendous 64 a pastor's gift bearing upon you. Think not because you have neglected to give ycurselves to God, that therefore you are under no religious obligations to your children. Farthest from this possible ! You have not taken the first preparatory step in duty. And do not flatter yourselves that because you have not consecrated yourselves to God, that you are under no obligations to dedicate your children to him. If you should neglect to provide daily food and clothing for yourselves, would such neglect change your obligations to provide for your children ? Not in the least? But yet how can you do spiritually for others what you have not done for yourselves 1 How can you dedicate your offspringto God, when you have not dedicated yourselves to him ? You are parents of immortal beings, being trained under you for another world. But while impen- itent, how unfit are you for this charge. Your children lookup to you for religious instruction and guidance. But how can you guide others while you are spiritually blind yourselves? How can you train up others in the way they should go, when you do not walk in that way yourselves? Parents teach principally by their example. Actions have an oratory more impressive than words. Parents are epistles known and read of their children. Oh, for your children's sake then, TO HIS PEOPLE. 65 if you care nothing for yourselves, for your dear children's sake, say, as one anciently said, " as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Families break up at death. The riv- ers as they run into the ocean, cease to be rivers. So families, when they fall into eterni- ty, cease to be families. Death severs the social relations. And yet the point remains. And the happiness of parents for both worlds is to be very much in the hands of their children. And the happiness of children through all their ex- istence, is very much in the hands of the parents, while they are young. Suppose the government and destiny of several worlds were committed to your care, would you "not feel the weight of your responsibilities, and your need of help from heaven to bear them. But any one who has children, has the care and government of that which outweighs worlds in worth. Oh how responsible is the relation of parents ! How much grace and help from heaven they need ! Soon you and your children will be in another world. I would not lift the veil from the scenes of eternity. I cannot. But I forewarn you that by your conduct here, you are to be the chief contributors to the happiness or misery of your children hereafter, and by their happiness or their misery in another state, they will be 66 a pastor's gift large contributors to your blessedness or wo in the world to come. Your dear offspring will be witnesses in your case at the bar of God. They will testify to angels and the universe of your faithfulness or your unfaithfulness here. ARTICLES OF FAITH ADOPTED BY THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN WINDHAM, ME. Article 1. You believe, that there is one God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, self-exis- tent and omnipresent, infinite in power, wisdom, jus- tice, goodness, and truth, unchangeable in his perfec- tions and purposes, the Creator, Preserver, and Sove- reign of the Universe. Deut. 6 : 4. Eph. 4:6. 1 Cor. 8: 6. 1 Tim. 1 1 17. Rev. 4: 8. Mat. 28 : 19. 2 Cor. 13 : 14. Heb. 1 : 8. John 1:1.1 Cor. 2 : 10. 1 Cor. 12 : 3, 11. Eph. 4 : 30. 1 Cor. 3 : Ifi. Ps. 147 : Sl Acts 15 : 18. 1 John 4: 8. Deut. 32: 4. James 1: 17. Eph. 1: 11. Rev. 4: 11. Acts 17 : 28. 1 Tim. 6 : 15. Article 2. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only perfect rule of religious faith and practice. 2 Tim. 3: 16. 2 Peter 1:21. Heb. 1:1,2. Ps. 19; 7. Ps. 119: 105. 2 Tim. 3 : 15. 1 John 5: 10. lsa. 8 : 20. Article 3. That the Moral Law, revealed in the Scriptures, requiring man to love God supremely, and his neighbor as himself, and threatening eternal death to the transgressor, is holy, just, and good, and of per- petual obligation. Mat. 22 : 37, 4 1. Tit. 2 : 1 1, 12. 1 John, 3 : 4. Rom. 6: 23. Gal- 3:10. James 2. 10. Rom. 7 : 12'. Article 4, That God created man perfectly holy ; and that man became sinful by eating the forbidden fruit, in consequence of which all his posterity are by nature destitue of holiness and under the dominion of Gen. 1 : 27. Ecclna. 7 : 27. Rom. 5 : 12. Rom. 5 : 18, 19. Rom. 3, 10. Rom. 3, 23 2 Cor. 5. 14. Eph. 2,3. 67 ARTICLES OP FAITH. Article 5. That in the fulfillment of the merciful designs of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, being God and man, mysteriously united in one person, by his suffer- ings and death made an atonement for the sins of the whole world, and thus prepared the way for the offer of eternal life to all men and for the salvation of every penitent believer. John 1, 1—14. Isa. 53, 5-6. 1 John 1, 7. 1 Peter 1. 18—20. Rom. 5,8. J oli n «3, 16. Acts 4, 12. Acts 2, 38. John 3, 36. Rom. 10, 4. .Mark 16, 15, 16. Article 9. That no man will accept the proposals of the gospel, unless drawn by the special influences of the Holy Spirit, bestowed according to the eternal pur- pose of God; and that all, who are thus renewed, will be pardoned and justified, be preserved in the way of holiness, and admitted to heaven. John 5, 40. John 6, 44— 65. 1 Cor. 12, 3. John 3, 3. John 3, 6. Titus 3,5, 6. IPet.l.'S. 2Thess.2,13. Ephs. 1, 3— 6. Rom. 8, 30. Uoi.n3,2. Article 7. That none should be received to the visible Church of Christ, but those who exhibit scrip- tural evidence of repentance and faith; that the ordi- nances, appointed for perpetual use in the Church, are Baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and that it is the duty and the privilege of Church Members, who are heads of families, to bring all who are under their pa- rental eare, to the ordinance of Baptism, and to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Co]. ],8. Mat. 18,7. Mark 16, 16. Mat. 28, 19. 1 Cor. 11, 23, 24. 1 Cor. 11, 28. Acts 16, 15. Acts 16, 33. 1 Cor. 1, 1G. Eph. 6, 4. Article 8. That at the end of time there will be a resurrection both of the just and unjust, and a gen- eral judgment, when the Lord Jesus Christ will pass a decisive sentence upon all men according to their characters ; and that the happiness of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked will be endless. Acts 17, 31. John 5. 22. Rev. 20, 12, 13. Rev. 2, 10. Rom. 2, 9. 8 MAINE SABMTI Is kept at the Bookstore of £)vU, €oxh & JDurm, 61 Exchange Street. The publications of the American Sunday School Union, the New England Sabbath School Union, the Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, and various other societies and individuals who publish Sabbath School books, are kept constantly on hand at this De- pository, in quantities to supply the Sabbath Schools in this state, and sold at the societies' prices. Of the books for Sabbath School Libraries, there are nearly two thousand different kinds, at from one cent to fifty cents each. Besides these, there are several hundred different kinds of very small ones, done up in packages of 12 and 24 books in a package, at from 4 cents to 20 cents a package ; these are designed for very young scholars, and come Under the general title of " Infant series." ;£ S. S. QUESTION BOOKS AND PAPERS, Of Question Books & other Lesson Books for the classes, there are now over 100 different kinds. Among which are the Union questions, - - 12 different vols. Newcomb's questions, - 15 " " Barnes's questions, - 5 " Banvard's questions, - - 8 " Banvard's Infant series, - 4 nos. Biblical catechism, - - 6 " Hague's guide, 2 vols. New England S. S. question book, 3 " Lincoln's questions, - - two kinds. Mrs. Hopkins' questions on Proverbs ; do. on Acts. Assemblies' Shorter Catechism, with scripture proofs, and many other kinds, which can be seen and exam- ined at this Depository. From this Depository are also issued the following Valuable Sabbath School Papers; THE YOUTH'S COMPANION, SUNDAY SCHOOL JOURNAL, DAY SPRING, WELL SPRING, YOUTH'S PENNY GAZETTE, CONGREGATIONAL VISITOR, AMERICAN MESSENGER, YOUTHS FRIEND. TRACTS AND PERIODICALS. THE TRACT IEP0SIT0RY is also kept at this store, where all the publications of the American Tract Society, their bound volumes, as well as their tracts, are sold at the same prices as at the society's house in New York, or by their traveling agents. We are Agents for all the IIS®M§ : .OT]ii§ Midi IMteimiry PERIODICALS, and furnish them at the subscription prices, delivered at our store without expense of postage. AMONG THEM ARE The Christian Family Magazine and Parlor Annual, monthly, $1,00 The Christian Parlor Magazine, tt 1,00 The Mother's Magazine, it 1,00 National Preacher, u 1,00 Sailor's Magazine, It 1,50 Home Missionary, tt 1,00 Missionary Herald, (C 1,50 Biblical Repository, quarterly 3,00 New Englander, tt 3,00 Bibliotheca Sacra, (C 3,00 THEOLOGICAL BOOKS. Princeton Review, " 4,00 American Review, " 5,00 North American, 5,00 Foreign Quarterly Reviews, 8,00 Parley's Cabinet Library. Shilling Library, a series of useful books, designed to take the place of the trash so freely circulated in the land ; the former at 25 cents per number, or the two no's, in one volume, handsomely bound for 62£ cents, the latter at I2J cents per no. Musical World, a collection of good music, at less than two cents per page. HYDE, LORD & DUREN, Keep a very extensive stock of THI@t®iICAl BOOKS, probably the greatest assortment of valuable religious books that can be found in any one store in New Eng- land, which they will sell as low as they can be bought at Boston or elsewhere. They intend to make their store the most complete depository of good, evangelical, religious reading, and to be promptly furnished with every thing new in this department. So that clergymen, theological students, theological seminaries, families and individuals may here always find what they want in our line