« ForrigeFortsæt »
thee here, and enjoy thee for ever. But do with them as thou pleasest.". And, if he is pleased to take them to himself, or take them out of this world, shall they feel dissatisfied? Or shall they not feel entirely resigned ?
5. Infant baptism is designed to engage the prayers of the church for the salvation of the children of the church. They ought, indeed, to pray for all children and youth, and for all men. But as they are bound, more especially, to pray for their brethren and sisters, so it is their duty to pray, particularly, for their children, who have been baptized. For they stand in a special relation to the church, as the lambs of the flock, and have been, by their concurrence and joint prayers, devoted to Christ.
And now, is it not a privilege to have the prayers of the church thus engaged for them? They can plead covenant mercy for them. For God has promised to shew mercy to the children of those," who love him and keep his commandments." And have we not more reason to expect that those will be converted for whom the church thus pray ?
6. Infant baptism affords a weighty motive to children, who have been devoted to Christ, when they come to years of understanding, to give up themselves to that gracious Saviour, to whom they have been devoted.
It affords them great encouragement to come to him for pardon and salvation. Mrs. Osborne, an eminently pious Christian, observed, that when she was in great distress of mind, the consideration, that her pious parents had given her up to Christ, kept her from despair, and encouraged her still to hope and seek for mercy.
But the weight of obligation to be the Lord's, is increased by being devoted to Christ in the solemn ordinance of baptism. Their parents have given such devoted children to Christ. And they ought to realize this, and feel that they belong to him, and are sacredly bound to give themselves unreservedly to him. And if they refuse, they rob Christ more than others, and their guilt will be greatly enhanced, and their condemnation will be more aggravated, if they are impenitent, and die in their sins.
And now, let me address a word to those who may read this article, who have been devoted to Christ by their parents, and yet refuse to give their hearts to him. You are his, and are bouud to him by every tie, except that of your own voluntary surrender of yourselves to him. You are his by creation, preservation, and redemption, and by
the gift or dedication of your parents. And now you violate all these solemn obligations. You practically say that it is nothing to you, that your parents have given you up to Christ, and refuse to ratify, by your own voluntary consent, what they have done for you. And, O, if you continue disobedient, how can you meet him as your Judge, whose you are, and whom you refuse to serve ?
(From the Scottish Guardian.)
OUR readers will observe from the proceedings in the Synod of Ulster, reported in our columns, that our Presbyterian brethren have resolved on having schools in connection with their Church, similar to the parochial schools of Scotland. It is delightful to observe the fresh and vigourous spirit of enterprise of our Presbyterian brethren. These things fill us with recollections of the indomitable spirit of the first settlers, whose characters rose with difficulties which would have overwhelmed men of less force of character and strength of principle. If the Synod will now do as the Church of Scotlaud did, soon after the Reformation, anticipate the Legislature, and plant Presbyterian schools by the side of the Presbyterian churches of Ulster, the Government will be sooner or later induced to endow, perpetuate, and extend the institutions which they have begun and settled upon a sound Scriptural foundation, in the same way as the Legislature came to the aid of the parochial schools originally planted by the voluntary contributions of the Church of Scotland. But the Synod must first make proof of its zeal by voluntary efforts, and after it has helped itself, and evinced a determination not to be put aside, and can show many schools already in operation, its claims for national support will be irresistible. It is well worthy of the consideration of the excellent ministers and elders of that Synod, whether, in the very outset of their admirable undertaking, it would not be wise to begin by forming in Belfast a model or normal school, to present to the inspection of the public that system of Scriptural, moral, and intellectual education of which the Synod approves, and would establish in all its schools. Such a seminary would be the Presbyterian normal school of Ulster, and under one or two well-educated superintendants, would be a nursery for the future teachers of the Synod's schools, each candidate being required to study for a time at the Synod's normal schools.
Having once established such an institution, every step afterwards would be a step in a right direction. Every new school would partake of all recent improvements in the art of education. The want of such a seminary has been the great defect in the Scottish parochial system; and we would have our Ulster brethren not only to imitate, but to improve upon our system, as we mean to improve upon it ourselves. Unless the schools in connection with our religious institutions exhibit the very best system of instruction which modern times can exhibit, and combine with a thorough Scriptural system the best literary and intellectual advantages, they will not be able to triumph over the hostility and detraction to which they will for a time be exposed. Therefore would we suggest that the Synod should begin by establishing a normal school in Belfast. The friends of education in Edinburgh and Glasgow will be delighted to communicate their views, and correspond with any of the members of the Synod on this subject.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN..
I Do not feel inclined to take up your time by treating of the Greek derivations of these words, because, 1st, it would not be agreeable to all your readers, for they are not all Greek scholars; and 2d, we take it for granted that all know that he is called CHRIST, or MESSIAH, because he is anointed, sent, and furnished by God to execute his mediatory office ; and he is called JESUS, because by his righteousness, power, and spirit, he is qualified to save to the uttermost them that come unto God through him, and is appointed of God for that end, and freely given in the offers of the gospel, Isa. lxi. 1-3; Matt. i. 21. But I hasten to a more particular part, concerning the Godhead of the Son, CHRIST JESUS.
I believe that he is the eternal Son of God, equal with his adored Father in every unbounded perfection. And I think that no man who doubts of his being the most high and only true God, can, in consistency with common sense, allow himself to be called a Christian. But, Sir, if Jesus be not the supreme God, he was a setter-up of idolatry-encouraging men to worship himself; and Mahomet, who zealously opposed such worship, was a valuable Reformer, and worthy of imitation! If CHRIST be not God, the Jews did well to cru
cify him, and rid the world of so noted an impostor and blasphemer, who made himself equal with God; they did well to persecute his apostles, who represented him as the object of worship.
If Christ be not God, the whole of the ministry of our redemption is erroneous or trifling. Where is the divine love in sending a nominal God to redeem us? or what can his death avail us, who are not nominal, but real transgressors against infinite majesty? If Christ be not the Supreme God, how obscure, false, absurd, and impious, must the language of the HOLY GHOST be, in the oracles relative to him! If Christ be not God, what is the whole Christian religion but a mere farce, in which a person appears in the character of God who is not really So ? What are the miracles, predictions, and mysteries of it, but a system of magic, invented or effected by Satan, to promote the blasphemous adoration of a creature? What an absurd thing is it for the opposers of our doctrine to say, we will worship Christ, although they do not believe that he is God: this is altogether unscriptural and idolatrous. On the other hand, what an absurd thing is it (if their doctrine be true,) for the Scriptures to command that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, which would be creature-worship; and, in other places, to say that it is God we are to worship, and him only are we to serve; here would be encouraging creature worship on the one hand, and discouraging it on the other. But farther, I would ask our opponents if Christ is not God, what is he? -he must be a creature, a created being, either an angel or a man. Now, I would ask, if this be so, what madness was it in God to cause his own son to suffer such things to redeem mankind? Could he not have chosen some other man, and have put the spirit of meekness within him, which was in Christ Jesus, and have redeemed the world by him? But it was impossible for any other than a divine person to be a Mediator, Redeemer, Surety Priest, Prophet, or King; therefore he could be none other only truly God and truly man.
But, sir, it appears to me that the odd contrast which is between the doctrine and the practice of our opponents, is an evidence against them; they tell us that they do not believe that Christ is God, and yet they worship him. Now here is an inconsistency-here is creature worship, according to their doctrine-why do they not lift up their
hands with Mahomet, against such worship? But, not to detain you, I say that after looking at the subject in this brief manner, and after examining the following portions of scripture:-Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23; Isa. Îx. 6, 7; Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6; Luke i. 17; John i. 1; John xx. 28; together with many others, I conclude that our opponents must either say that their doctrine is false, or that the Scriptures are erroneous.
The divine Sonship and eternal generation of Christ appear to me to be no less clearly marked in Scripture than his Godhead. What a number of texts represent him as God's proper and only-begotten Son, prior to all donation of him, Rom. viii. 3 and 32; John i. 14, and iii. 16. How often things proper to God are ascribed to him when marked with the character of SON. Compare Luke i. 32, 35, with 16, 17, 46, 47; John iii. 31, 35, 36, and i. 18, and vi. 46, and ix. 35, 38. How often is his character of SoN plainly distinguished from his official character of Christ. How often, by his silence, he plainly granted to his enemies that his claim to be the Son of God imported his asserting himself to be equal with God, John v. 17, 18, 19, and ix. 31-39, and xix. 7. To pretend that he is called the proper, the only begotten Son of God, because God sent him as our MEDIATOR, or because of his miraculous conception by the Virgin, is not only groundless, but absurd; for if the personal properties of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be given up, there must either be three distinct Gods, or but one person, manifested in three different characters.
These, sir, are my thoughts on the name Christ Jesus, which I briefly communicate to you, expecting, that if you will consider them worthy, you will grant them a place in your periodical. I am, sir, yours, B. January 8th, 1835.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
A SAILOR'S RETROSPECT-A NARRATIVE OF FACTS..
THIS is the history of a person of no ordinary qualifications and adventures, written by himself. He commenced the profession of a sailor so early as his tenth year, and passed through a series of events strikingly illustrative of the depravity of the sinner, the hardening nature of transgression, and the sovereignty, the mercy, the power, and the providence of God. For a time he lived as a pirate, but by the grace of God he be