Sermons Preached at Brighton: Third SeriesRobertson, Frederick William
Religion
Sermons Preached at Brighton: Third Series
Robertson, Frederick William
Church of England -- Sermons; Sermons, English -- 19th century
Now for us in the present day, the decision on this point is not of so
much importance as the reason which is adduced in support of it. The
proof which the Apostle gives of the sanctity of the marriage is
exceedingly remarkable. Practically it amounts to this;--If this were
no marriage, but an unhallowed alliance, it would follow as a
necessary consequence that the offspring could not be reckoned in any
sense as the children of God; but, on the other hand, it is the
instinctive, unwavering conviction of every Christian parent, united
though he or she may be to a heathen, "My child is a child of God,"
or, in the Jewish form of expression, "My child is _clean_." So the
apostle says, "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and
the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your
children unclean; but now they are holy," for it follows if the
children are holy in this sense of dedicated to God, and are capable
of Christian relationship, then the marriage relation was not
unhallowed, but sacred and indissoluble.
The value of this argument in the present day depends on its relation
to baptism. The great question we are deciding in the present day may
be reduced to a very few words. This question--the Baptismal
question--is this:--whether we are baptized because we _are_ the
children of God, or, whether we are the children of God because we are
_baptized_; whether in other words, when the Catechism of the Church
of England says that by baptism we are "made the children of God," we
are to understand thereby that we are made something which we were not
before--magically and mysteriously changed; or, whether we are to
understand that we are made the children of God by baptism in the same
sense that a sovereign is made a sovereign by coronation. Here the
apostle's argument is full, decisive, and unanswerable. He does not
say that these children were Christian, or clean, because they were
_baptized_, but they were the children of God because they were the
children of one Christian parent; nay more than that, such children
could scarcely ever have been baptized, because, if the rite met with
opposition from one of the parents, it would be an entire and perfect
veto to the possibility of baptism. You will observe that the very
fundamental idea out of which infant-baptism arises is, that the
impression produced upon the mind and character of the child by the
Christian parent, makes the child one of a Christian community; and,
therefore, as Peter argued that Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost,
and so was to be baptized, just in the same way, as they are adopted
into the Christian family and receive a Christian impression, the
children of Christian parents are also to be baptized.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account