No parent, therefore, who neglects the baptism of the child, can have "the
answer of a good conscience towards God." If we are satisfied to have our
homes separate from the church; if we are satisfied with individualistic,
disembodied, unassociated christianity,--a religion that owns no church,
but which has its origin, root and maturity in the self-conscious activity
of the individual, we may then neglect this duty. But in doing so, to be
consistent, we must also discard the sister ordinance of the Lord's supper,
yea, all the churchly means of grace; yea, the church itself; for why
repudiate one ordinance,--one idea of associated Christianity, and not all
the others?
That baptism is greatly abused and neglected, none will deny. It is often
abused by neglect of the proper time of its administration. The earliest
period of infancy is the proper time; for then there will be a proper
correspondence in time between the dedication and the baptism. In this we
have an example from Jewish circumcision. The pious Jew took the infant
when it was but eight days old, and had it circumcised. But many Christian
parents defer the baptism of their children until late childhood, while
their vows of dedication are left in mere naked feeling and resolution,
having no sacramental force and expression; and as a consequence will grow
cold and indifferent. When parents thus delay having their children brought
within the fold of God and the bosom of the church, they presume to be
wiser than God, and oppose their own weak reason to His word and promises.
Pages:
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123