passage we learn that many Jews believed in Christ; and likewise, that these believers were still the natural branches in the root Abraham, and partook of the fatness of the true olive. The natural branches, then, or the believing Jews, must have enjoyed the same privileges that ever they did; and, consequently, they must have had something answering to circumcision; and this could be nothing but baptism. Hence, the ingrafted branches, or the believing Gentiles, were entitled to the same; otherwise it could not be said, "Thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree." That the children of Jewish parents were included in the covenant made with Abraham, is beyond a doubt; but if the same privileges are not enjoyed by the children of believing Gentiles, that were enjoyed by Jewish children, they cannot be said to partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree; which would at once overthrow the apostle's argument; and, in fact, what he affirms would not be true. But, moreover, what can be more evident, than that the children of believing Gentiles are federally holy, as much as the Jewish children are, seeing they are ingrafted in among them without any restriction as to their enjoyment of the same privileges?

But finally, there is the highest probability that the apostles baptized infants; for we find that they baptized whole households or families at once. Thus we read of the baptism of the family of Lydia, and of the family of the jailor at Philippi, in Acts xvi., and of the family of Stephanas, in 1 Cor. i. In these passages there is no mention made of adults more than of infants; and, consequently, it will be as difficult to prove that all were adults, as that there were some children. But the whole were baptized; and may we not suppose that there were some young ones or infants as well as adults among them? That in all these families there was not one infant, is scarcely credible. Now, if there were infants, and if, according to our opponents' view of the subject, they were excepted, we should naturally expect to see such an excep tion recorded, as something new in the visible Church. no such thing is upon record,-an evidence that no infants were excluded from baptism. We may here remark, that the book of Acts contains the history of the Church for upwards of 30 years; in which time the infants of those who were first baptized must have reached the years of maturity. If they were not baptized in infancy, how comes it to pass,

But

that, among the numerous baptisms recorded in the New Testament, no reference is made to the baptism of any of them in an adult state? From the silence of Scripture on this head, taken in connection with the instances of the baptism of whole families above referred to, we conclude that they must have been baptized in infancy or childhood, or along with their parents.

Obs. 323.-Baptism is not to be administered oftener than once. There is no command to dispense this ordinance oftener than once; nor does its nature admit of its being oftener administered. By baptism we are admitted into the Church; and this admission can take place but once. And as it signifies and seals our ingrafting into Christ, we are to be baptized but once; because, if once in Christ, we can never be broken off.

Obs. 324.-The naming of a child at baptism is no part of the ordinance.

That the giving of a name at baptism is no part of this institution, is evident from the commission which Christ gave to his apostles.-Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. There are many, indeed, who maintain that naming a child is a part of baptism; but no one who is taught from above will maintain such an absurd opinion. Every thing connected with the ordinance was appointed by Christ; but it was never mentioned by him, that a child should be named then, as if it could not be named before. It is the parent who names his child, and who ought to do it; but it would be altogether absurd to say, that what is done by the parent in this respect, constitutes an essential part, or even any part of the ordinance. Baptism, then, is not the giving of a name to a child; but the dedication of a child to God, whose gift it is, together with a promise or vow on the part of the parent, that he will "train up his child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;” which, if he neglect to do, he becomes guilty of perjury; and thus renders himself obnoxious to the punishment threatened against the breakers of the Third Commandment.

Obs. 325.-None but the immediate parents have a right to present any child for baptism.

This is evident; for it is only in the right of the imme

diate parents that children ought to be baptized; and no conscientious parent, who knows the nature of baptism, will make application for it on any other right or ground whatever. They who do so, or they who have their children baptized in the right of a sponsor or godfather, cannot be supposed to be much acquainted with the great things designed by this ordinance. Such require it merely to serve a purpose (perhaps to conceal the wickedness of the parents, who are conscious that they have no right to receive baptism for their children, or for some other end equally bad), and when their children are baptized, they care no more about the ordinance, and frequently as little about their children, with respect to bringing them up for God. That children should be baptized on the right of another, who is a member of the visible Church, whether relation by blood or acquaintance, is most absurd. No one can give a right to his brother to the privileges of the Church; how, then, can he give a right to his brother's children for baptism? Or how can one relation give a right to another, except that of parents and children? They can no more do this, than Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob could have given a right to the descendants of Esau to all or any of the privileges of the Jewish Church. But, notwithstanding this, many who undertake to be sponsors for children in baptism, and who vow to Jehovah, the heartsearcher of all, that they will bring up the children for whom they engage in the fear of the Lord, are as ignorant of them, and pay as little attention to them, with respect both to this world and the world to come, as one on the other side of the globe.

INFERENCES.

From this subject we learn,-1. That the way of salvation has always been the same; and that the grace of God has been visible in all ages. 2. The fulness of our privileges, and of those of our children, 3. That when baptism is administered to any in our presence, it ought to excite our gratitude that we were born in a Christian land, and within the visible Church, so as to have a right to all its privileges. 4. That we have reason to bless God that we live under the New Testament dispensation. 5. That parents ought to consider how they have paid their vows to the Lord,—whether they make conscience of praying for and with their children -of bringing them up in the fear of the Lord-and of in

forming them of the necessity of an interest in Christ, and of true godliness, &c.

Of the Nature and Use of the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a sacrament, wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.

ANALYSIS AND PROOFS.

We are here taught,—

1. That the sensible signs to be used in the Lord's Supper are bread and wine. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27.-" Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it."

2. That by giving and receiving bread and wine in the sacrament of the Supper, according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed forth. 1 Cor. xi. 26.-"As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come."

3. That it is not in a corporal and carnal manner that Christ's body and blood are received in the sacrament. 1 Cor. x. 16.-"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ."

4. That in the sacrament the body and blood of Christ are received by faith. John vi. 35.—“I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

5. That in the sacrament, believers are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits. John vi. 51.-"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

6. That spiritual nourishment is conferred in the sacra

ment. John vi. 55.-" My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

7. That by worthily partaking of the Lord's Supper, the Christian is enabled to grow in grace. John vi. 14.—“The water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life.”

EXPLANATION.

Obs. 326.-The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is known by curious names.

1. It is called the Sacrament; the meaning of which word was formerly explained; and although it is not found in Scripture, yet its import is.

2. It is called the Lord's Supper; which is a scriptural expression, and therefore unexceptionable.-1 Cor. xi. 20. It is called a Supper, because it was appointed immediately after eating the last Passover, which feast was always eaten at night.-Exod. xii.; Matt. xxvi. And it is called the Lord's Supper, because Jesus Christ, the constituted Head and King of Zion, was the author of it. And it is highly requisite that it should derive its authority from him; because all the grace therein exhibited is treasured up in him, and applied by him to the soul. Its appointment was an act of dominion; and by observing it in obedience to his command, and in remembrance of him, who is the substance of it, we acknowledge this dominion.

3. It is called the Communion,--1 Cor. x. 16; and that, too, with great propriety. In this ordinance we hold communion both with Christ and with one another. And hence it is evident, that we must first be united to Christ, or brought within the bond of the covenant, before any real communion can be held with him in the breaking of bread.

4. It is called the Feast,-1 Cor. v. 8; and that very properly, seeing the import of this ordinance leads us to this idea. This is a term which is not often applied to it among us, although it is far more proper than some of those that are generally used. Gospel privileges and preparations are called by this name, both in the Old and in the New Testament.-Isa. xxv. 6; Matt. xxii. 2, &c.; Luke xiv. 16, &c. The Lord's Supper is a feast of remembrance, as the Passover was of old; and at it we dedicate ourselves to the Lord. -1 Kings viii. 65.