FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64  
65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   >>   >|  
to be cut off from among the people. Proselytes of the covenant and their children were baptized, very early." _Mr. K._ But where is the command to apply baptism to children? _Mr. M._ Where, my dear sir, is the command to discontinue that which was enjoined upon the founder of the race of believers for all time? I believe in the perpetuity of Abraham's relation to us as the father of the faithful, as I believe in Adam's relation to us as the representative of the race, and in the Saviour's relation to us as our representative. God seems to love these federal headships, as we call them. Abraham did not receive circumcision being a Jew, but, as the apostle says, "as a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, which he had while he was yet uncircumcised." We have Scripture for that, Mr. Kelly. And "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after," did not disannul that covenant "that was confirmed before of God in Christ." How can you call circumcision a Jewish ordinance, when the Bible so explicitly denies it to be of Jewish origin? _Mr. K._ O, I do not understand this Abrahamic covenant. I take the New Testament for my guide. _Mr. M._ You think well of the book of Psalms, I presume, as a help to prayer and pious feelings? _Mr. K._ Yes; but in all matters of faith and practice, the New Testament, like the doings of the latest session of the legislature, is the rule for New Testament believers. You might as well have tried to govern the ancient Jews with the New Testament, as enforce the laws of the Old Testament on us. _Mr. M._ Is the privilege of having God stand in a special relation to my child an Old Testament ordinance, in the same sense with ceremonial observances? _Mr. K._ Not exactly that, but it is a superstition to baptize children, now that circumcision is done away, and believers' baptism is enjoined. _Mr. M._ Believers' baptism is enjoined, but children's baptism is not therefore prohibited. _Mr. K._ But where is it enacted? _Mr. M._ If the original form of dedicating children is essential, why is not the original form of the Sabbath essential, the very day which was first appointed? How dare we change a day which God himself ordained from the beginning, until he makes the change as peremptory as the institution itself? Have we any right to infer, in such an important matter? Where is the express, divine command,--not precedent, example, usage, but where is the enactment,--mak
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64  
65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Testament

 

children

 
relation
 

baptism

 

circumcision

 

command

 

enjoined

 

covenant

 

believers

 

change


ordinance
 

Jewish

 

original

 

representative

 

essential

 

Abraham

 

precedent

 

enforce

 

divine

 

special


privilege

 

matter

 

express

 

govern

 

doings

 

latest

 

practice

 

matters

 

session

 
enactment

ancient

 
legislature
 

Sabbath

 

institution

 

dedicating

 

feelings

 

ordained

 

beginning

 

peremptory

 

appointed


superstition

 

baptize

 

important

 

ceremonial

 

observances

 

prohibited

 

enacted

 
Believers
 

federal

 

headships