such alteration can be pleaded: for the Scriptures evidently contain none. The church is not now confined to a single nation; nor are the individuals of any one nation, as such, made members of the church. But the duty of professing the religion of the Scriptures, and the peculiar duties and privileges of those who have professed it, are now, in substance, exactly what they were under the dispensation made to Abraham.

It is evident therefore, that since no children, beside the children of those who publicly professed the religion of the Scriptures, could lawfully receive the initiatory seal of the covenant under the Abrahamic dispensation, no children but such as these can lawfully receive this seal under the Christian dispensation; unless the covenant with respect to this subject can be shown to have been altered. But this, it is presumed, cannot be shown.

2. The parents who are represented in Matthew xix. 13, 14, as having brought their children to Christ, that he might bless them,' were professors of religion.

As they were Jews, this will not be disputed. In addition to this, they were evangelical believers. They brought their children to Christ, that he might bless them;' and therefore believed that he was able to give them an efficacious blessing. Of consequence, they believed that he was the Messiah. For as he declared himself to be the Messiah, if he was not, he was an impostor; and therefore utterly unable to communicate any blessing. At this time of Christ's ministry it is hardly possible that these parents should have been ignorant of this subject, since it was the great topic of inquiry and debate among their countrymen. Nor is it conceivable that they should have adopted this remarkable conduct, if they had not acknowledged him as the Messiah.

It is to be observed, that Christ, when he opposes the conduct of his disciples, who would have hindered these children from being brought to him, says not, Suffer little children,' but, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.' The words in all the three evangelists, who have recorded this story are ra nadia, the little children; and cannot be pleaded as a warrant for bringing to Christ in baptism any other children, than such as are in the like circumstances with those mentioned in this passage.

3. The text directly declares the same doctrine.

6

The promise,' says St. Peter to the Jews, is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.' Those, who wore afar off,' were Gentilos; as St. Paul has taught us, Eph. ii. 17; Christ came,' says the apostle, and preached peace to you who were afar off, and to them that were nigh;' that is, to the Ephesians, and other Gentiles, and to the Jews. The promise,' St. Peter informs us, is to as many' of these Gentiles, as the Lord our God shall call.' That it is to them in the same manner, and on the same terms, as to the Jews, is decisively concluded; because neither St. Peter, nor any other scriptural writer, specifies any difference. The 'cions of the wild olive,' St. Paul informs us, were graffed on the good olive; where they grew, and partook of the fatness of the root, in exactly the same manner as if they had been the natural branches. The terms, it is to be remembered, are the same; and the promise conveys no more, as well as no less, to the Gentiles than to the Jews; unless the alteration is declared. Such children then among the Gentiles, as are born of those who profess the religion of the Scriptures, are included in the covenant, and are to be baptized. But the warrant extends to no others.

4. The same doctrine is declared still more explicitly in 1 Corinthians vii. 14.

For the unbelieving husband in sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.'

In this passage St. Paul declares, that, if both parents are unbelievers, their children are unclean:' that is, may not be offered to God; or, in other words, may not be baptized: there being no other mode of offering children to God under the Christian dispensation. Thus the doctrine under discussion is, I think, clearly evident from the Scriptures. Accordingly, it has been adopted as the doctrine of almost all Protestant churches; and exists in the plainest language in almost every Protestant catechism, and confession of faith.

This doctrine has, however, been opposed in two ways, and by considerable numbers of divines, and other Christians; and, among them, by many men of learning and piety.

One class of those who have rejected this doctrine, have

considered children as entitled to baptism in their own right; and without any reference to the relation which they bear to their parents. These, I suppose, build their scheme on the fact, that the Jewish children were universally circumcised;— on the direction given by Christ to ministers, to teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c.;-on the declarations of Christ concerning little children;-and, perhaps, on some other foundation, of which I am ignorant.

After what has been said concerning this subject in these Discourses, it seems to me wholly unnecessary to make any farther observations on the scheme in question. The views which I have formed of it, I have already expressed with sufficient minuteness. If what I have said is not satisfactory, I shall despair of giving satisfaction.

The other class require parents to make a profession of religion before they will permit their children to be baptized; but neither require, nor expect them to partake of the Lord's Supper. In this manner parents are taught, that there is a distinction between the qualifications which in the view of the Scriptures are necessary to warrant us to offer

up our children in baptism, and those which are necessary to make us, lawfully, communicants at the table of Christ. This distinction appears to me to be altogether unscriptural. In support of this observation I observe,

(1.) That the Scriptures have nowhere exhibited two suck distinct sets of qualifications.

If such a distinction be found in the Scriptures, it can be shown. Until it is shown, this position must be admitted. (2.) The tenour of the Christian covenant precludes every idea of such a distinction.

In this covenant we avouch Jehovah to be our God, and ourselves to be his children. This is a full profession of piety. That a profession of piety ought to be sincere, and to be made with the heart, will not be questioned. But, if the profession be sincere, it cannot be questioned that the professor has every possible right, and is under every possible obligation, to partake of the Lord's Supper. If he believes the profession sincere; he will certainly believe, that he has this right, and is under this obligation. If he believes that it is not sincere be will certainly believe that he has made it hypocritically and wickedly; for he cannot doubt that God requires truth in

6

1

the inward parts.' If before he has made a profession, he doubts whether he shall make it with sincerity, he certainly cannot but know that he who doubteth is condemned;' and that whatsoever is not of faith is sin;' that is, as I understand St. Paul, we cannot do that which we do not find to be, with a fair, rational probability, warranted in the Scriptures. That he who enters into covenant with God should possess 'truth in the inward parts,' cannot be doubted. For unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do, that thou shouldest declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant into thy mouth? That real religion, or the religion of the heart, ought to be professed in a covenant with God, where the words always contain a profession of real religion, cannot be doubted by a man of common sobriety. No more can it be doubted, that he who is about to make this profession ought first to be fairly persuaded, that he can, and shall make it sincerely. If it cannot be made sincerely, it is, I think, unanswerably evident that it ought not to be made at all. In what manner and on what grounds he who makes a profession which he either knows or believes to be false, can, in consequence of that profession, expect blessings for himself or his children, I confess myself unable to divine.

Tenderness of conscience is, I am aware, usually pleaded for the practice against which I contend; and is pleaded in the following manner. "The person who wishes to make a profession of religion for the purpose of obtaining baptism for his children, feels that they ought not to be deprived of such a privilege through his negligence; and is satisfied to enter into covenant with God, and to dedicate his children to him; but cannot come to the sacramental table, because of the denunciations contained in the Scriptures against an unworthy participation of that ordinance. To this tenderness of conscience," it is added, "Christian charity is bound to exercise a corresponding tenderness; and to permit him who is the subject of it to make a profession with these views; and, of course, to suffer him to absent himself from the table of Christ, until his scruples shall be removed." This plea, as it seems to me, proceeds wholly on a series of errors; and those, I think, of a very unhappy nature. The tenderness of conscience here alleged, appears to me to be wholly mistaken. Tenderness of conscience, in the true and proper sense, always supposes that

the person who is the subject of it is sincerely inclined to do his duty, wherever he knows what it is. Its only perplexities, therefore arise from the uncertainty of its duty. The person who did not know that it was lawful, and was not satisfied that it was unlawful, to eat things offered to idols, would feel himself deterred from eating these things by tenderness of conscience. A person who, with a belief that he was a Christian, has made a profession of religion, may afterwards doubt whether he was really a Christian, and whether his profession was sincere; and, of course, may entertain serious and distressing scruples concerning the lawfulness of his attendance upon the Lord's Supper. To tenderness of conscience thus existing, and thus exercised, or exercised in the same manner on any other occasion, Christians are bound to give every charitable indulgence.

But the case in hand appears to me to be of a widely dif ferent nature. Here the original supposition, as declared by the candidate himself, is, that he is not in his own view a Christian. Of this he exhibits himself as being clearly satisfied for he alleges it as a reason why he cannot come to the sacramental table. But he thinks, that, without being a Christian, he may offer up his children in baptism.

This error is founded on the supposition, that there is one condition upon which men may lawfully dedicate their children to God in baptism, and another upon which they may lawfully come to the Lord's Supper. This is a distinction wholly unknown to the Scriptures. The only condition on which both these things may be done is, that we first offer up ourselves to God in the covenant of grace. Until this is done, we can lawfully celebrate neither of these sacraments. When it is done, we can with exactly the same lawfulness celebrate them both. But the person concerned actually enters into this covenant. In this transaction he is sincere, or he is not. In other words, he is a Christian, or he is not a Christian. If he is not, he cannot make this covenant with God in truth, and therefore cannot make it at all. If he is, as he engages to walk in all the commandments of God, he is not only entitled, but obliged by his own engagement, as well as by the divine command, to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

Another error in this scheme is the supposition of the candidate, that he can dedicate his children to God, while he can