to provide relief for their poor and suffering members. In every church a charitable fund ought to be begun, and con tinually supplied by continual collections. Of this fund the deacons ought to be the standing almoners, as being by the authority of God designated to this office.

It may here be objected, and not unnaturally, that the state has by law made provision for the relief of all poor persons; that all members of churches contribute to this charity, in common with others; and that their suffering members take their share of the bounty. My answer to this objection is the following:

(1.) That the poor, both of the church and community at large, have exactly the same right to the property supplied by this tax, which the contributors have to the remainder of their own possessions.

The law alone creates every man's right to what he calls his estate. To the great mass of the property denoted by this word he has by nature no right at all. But the same law gives exactly the same right to the poor, of receiving whatever is taxed upon others for supplying their necessities. The payment of this tax therefore is in no sense an act of charity, but the mere payment of a debt, by which, together with other acts of the like nature, each man holds a right to his estate.

(2.) The charity in question was immediately instituted and required by God, and is independent of all human institutions.

No conformity to any regulation, no obedience to any law of man, can go a step towards excusing us from obeying a law of God.

(3.) The provision in question is not made by human

Faws.

The intention of furnishing this fund is not to relieve the absolute necessities of poor Christians; these being customarily supplied by the operation of law. The object here in view is to provide for their comfort. Nothing can be more contrary to the spirit of Christianity, than that one part of the members of a church should abound in the conveniences and luxuries of life, and another be stinted to its mere necessaries. Every one ought plainly to share in blessings superior to these. This provision ought to extend to all those enjoyments which are generally denominated decencies and comforts. Without

the possession of these, in some good degree, life, so far as its external accommodations are concerned, can hardly be said to be desirable.

I am well aware, that the unhappy neglect of this great duty by many of our own churches will be urged and felt as a defence of the contrary doctrine. It is hardly necessary to observe, that no negligence can justify a further neglect of our duty. Nehemiah and his companions, when they found it written in the law, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths,' at the feast of the tabernacles, went forth, and made themselves booths, every one of them,' although their nation had failed of performing this duty, as this excellent man declares, from the days of Joshua the son of Nun.'

6

I am also aware, that the love of money, the root' of so much 'evil' in other cases, is the root of great evil in this; and will, even in the minds of some good men, create not a little opposition to this duty. Until such men learn to love this world less, and God and their fellow-christians more, objections springing from this source will undoubtedly have their influence.

My audience is chiefly composed of those who are young, and therefore neither devoted to avarice, nor deeply affected by the too customary negligence of this duty. Before them therefore I feel a peculiar satisfaction in bringing up to view this benevolent and divine institution. On their minds the arguments which have been urged will, I trust, have their proper weight. To quicken his just views of this subject, let every one present remember, that even the Emperor Julian has said; "I do not believe any man is the poorer for what he gives to the necessitous. I, who have often releived the poor, have been rewarded by the gods manyfold; although wealth is a thing on which I was never much intent." Above all things, let every one remember, that Christ alleging the beneficence of Christians as a ground of their endless happiness in the world above, closes his infinitely momentous address to them with this remarkable declaration: Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.'

SERMON CLVI.

THE MEANS OF GRA C E.

EXTRAORDINARY MEANS OF GRACE.

THE ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH.

BAPTISM:

ITS REALITY AND INTENTION.

GO YE, THEREFORE, TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST.

MATTHEW XXVIII. 19.

IN seven Discourses preceding this I have considered the institution of the church; the members of which it is formed; the officers appointed in the Scriptures to superintend its affairs; and the principal duties which they are appointed to perform. The next subject in a System of Theology is the ordinances which belong peculiarly to this body of men, and which they are required to celebrate.

Of these, the first in order is Baptism; as being that by which the members of the church are, according to Christ's appointment, introduced into this body.

In the text, Christ directs his apostles to go forth into the world, and teach,' or make disciples of, all nations, and to baptize them in (or into) the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' This then is a duty which the apostles were required to perform towards all nations, so far as they made them disciples of Christ.

The text therefore presents the subject of baptism to us, as an ordinance to be administered by the pastors of the church to its several members, in consequence of their discipleship. What was the duty of the apostles in this case, is equally the duty of all succeeding ministers. Of course, it is the duty of every person who wishes and is qualified to become a member of the church, to receive the ordinance of baptism.

In my examination of this subject, I shall consider,
I. The reality,

II. The intention.

III. The proper subjects of this ordinance; and,
IV. The manner in which it should be administered.

I. I shall make some observations concerning the reality of baptism.

To persons at all acquainted with ecclesiastical history it is well known, that several classes of men have denied baptism, in the proper sense, to be a divine institution. Some of these persons have supported their opinion from Heb. ix. 10; Which stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. The word here rendered washing,' is in the Greek Brious, baptisms. In this passage they have, without any warrant, supposed the baptism of the Gospel to be included. The apostle in this passage refers only to the Jewish worship, as is evident from the preceding part of the chapter, particularly from the ninth verse. That evangelical baptism was in use, as an institution of Christ, when this epistle was written, is abundantly manifest from the following chapter, verses 19—22, particularly from the two last of these verses: Having an High Priest,' says the apostle, over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in full as surance of faith; having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water;' or, in other words, being baptised.

The same persons endeavour to support their opinion also from 1 Pet, iii. 21, The like figure whereunto even baptism, us (not the putting away of the filth of

doth also now save

the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,.) by the resurrection of Christ.' But the objectors are not less unhappy in their construction of this passage, than of that mentioned above. The true as well as obvious meaning in this passage is the following: "Baptism, the antitype of the water of the deluge, doth now save us by the resurrection of Christ; not indeed the cleansing of the filth of the flesh, but that which is signified by it, the answer of a good conscience towards God." This passage is a direct recognition of the existence of baptism as an institution in the Christian church; and therefore, instead of being a support, is a refutation of the scheme in question.

Persons who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, or the satisfaction of Christ, are in a sense constrained to deny baptism also, in order to preserve consistency in their opinions. The command to 'baptize in (or into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' is a plain, unanswerable exhibition of the doctrine of the Trinity. The cleansing with water also is too unequivocal a symbol of our spiritual purification by the blood of Christ, to suffer any rational denial or doubt. It seems therefore scarcely possible for those who deny either the Trinity or the atonement, to admit the institution of baptism, without a plain contradiction in their principles.

:

Others still have removed both baptism and the Lord's supper, by the aid of spiritual, or mystical, construction. These persons appear to build their scheme especially on the answer of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who came to his baptism: I, indeed, baptize you with water unto repentance but he that cometh after me is mightier than I; whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' From this passage chiefly the doctrine has been drawn, that baptism with water was not intended to be, nor actually made, by Christ an institution of the Gospel. It is hardly necessary to remark, that this interpretation of the Baptist's words is wholly erroneous; and that they have no connection with the doctrine to which they are here applied.

The proof on which this institution rests, as a perpetual ordinance of Christ in his Church, is so entire and so obvious, that every doubt concerning it is more properly an object of