Now we're turning again to Colossians for the Bible reading for the message today. Colossians chapter 2, and we will read from verse number 6. Colossians chapter 2, and the verse 6. Let us hear again the Word of God. And ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, So walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him, established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power, in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, and putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." That is, in the cross. And we know that God will bless the reading of His own Word to each one of us. Please turn with me to Colossians 2, where we read earlier, and we come to verses 11 and 12 in this chapter, Colossians chapter 2, verses 11 and 12. In Him also ye are circumcised, with the circumcision made without hands, and putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Now, these two verses are of utmost importance in any study of the ordinance of Christian baptism, especially with regard to the subjects of baptism. That is, the issue of those to whom baptism should be administered. Now, already I have addressed you on the matter of the significance of baptism, and then last Lord's Day on the mode of baptism. But today we come to this matter of the subjects of baptism. At this point, may I just remind you again that according to our own church policy on baptism, liberty of conscience is granted on this issue of the subjects of baptism. I quoted that statement last week. I'm not going to do it again today, but in our own articles of faith there is a particular article that makes it absolutely clear that with regard to the modes then the subjects of baptism. Freedom of conscience is permitted to God's people so long as no one, that is in this denomination, so long as no one espouses the heresy of baptismal regeneration. When we come to the matter of the subjects of baptism, We enter into a realm where there is, of course, a lot of debate and there always has been down through the generations of time, with good and godly men ranged on either side of the matter. For example, C. H. Spurgeon stands as an avowed proponent of the baptism of believers only, while on the other hand, we have that mighty and saintly man, Robert Murray McShane, who was, of course, a paedobaptist, one who believed in the baptism of children. We think again in church history of a man named Peter Edwards. He may not be so well known as Spurgeon or McShane, but Peter Edwards once set out to write a work on the defense of the baptist position, if we may call it that, and during the course of his study and his research, he became an avowed paedobaptist. Then, on the other side of the spectrum, there was a very well-known Ulster Presbyterian minister, Alexander Carson, who had the opposite experience. Through his study, he abandoned the pedobaptist position and he became an avowed proponent of the baptist position with regard to both modes and subjects. I will mention those men from church history just to let you know right away that there has been debate on this issue, and furthermore to tell you today that it is not going to be resolved, this side of eternity. Never will be, obviously, because it has raged on down through generations of time. Nevertheless, God's Word teaches the administration of water baptism. And that means that we must give some attention to this matter of who should be baptized, and that's what I propose to do today by the Lord's help. And what I am doing today is actually setting forth before you the very policy of our church. What I say is within the framework of our own presbytery statement. I want to make that absolutely clear at the very outset. And ever what I say is nothing more, nothing less than what our own church has believed from its very inception with regard to policy on the subjects of baptism. Now, coming to these verses in Colossians 2, I want us to notice first of all the relationship between the Old Testament ordinance of circumcision and the New Testament ordinance of baptism. The relationship between the two is a clearly seen fact in these two verses. Indeed, it is important actually to say that all Orthodox believers on both sides of the issue of the subjects of baptism agree. Here's a place where they do agree. That there is a relationship between circumcision and baptism. And therefore, these verses are important on this matter of the subjects of baptism, and we should endeavor to understand these two verses. We should endeavor to see what they are saying because they highlight a number of points that are very important and are worthy of our attention as we deal with this particular theme today. So, there is a relationship between circumcision and baptism. Paul speaks of circumcision in verse 11. of baptism in verse 12 in such a fashion as to show the connection between the two. Now, in these verses, as I will show you in a moment or two, a little more fully, in these two verses the apostle is speaking of a certain spiritual experience in the life of a believer. But he does so in terms of circumcision and baptism both. Which means that the Holy Spirit brings together in these two verses the old ordinance and the new ordinance. And therefore he shows us, the Spirit of God shows us, that there's a connection between the two. And if we're going to deal with these verses honestly, then we've got to recognize that there is a relationship between circumcision and baptism, just as there is between the Passover and the Lord's Supper. Now, if you take the Passover and the Lord's Supper, what are they? Well, basically, they are both memorial feasts relating to redemption. The Passover of the Old Testament pointed forward to the Lord's redemptive work, and the Lord's Supper points back to the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ. So, there's a relationship between the Passover and the Lord's Supper, and of course, again, everyone who knows the Bible, irrespective of that person's belief concerning baptism, understands that, that there is a relationship between the ordinances of the Old Covenant and the ordinances of the New, between the Passover and the Lord's Supper. No one can deny that. And, of course, I'm not saying anyone here does, but I'm just emphasizing the point. It can't be denied. And by the same token, there is this relationship between circumcision and baptism, and God's people of an Orthodox kind have always recognized that relationship, and they still do, irrespective, again I say, of what position they adopt with regard to baptism. Now, circumcision is known in Scripture as the sign of the covenant. Genesis 17, 11, the Lord spoke to Abraham when circumcision was first practiced or was initiated. And He said to Abraham there, it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. In Acts 7, verse 8, where Stephen refers to Abraham's experience, he says this, and he, that is God, gave him the covenant of circumcision. On Romans 4 verse 11, a verse I will take you to a little later, Romans 4 verse 11, it says, And he received the sign of circumcision. And the reference again is to the idea of the covenant. So there are clear verses in Scripture such as these where we are taught that circumcision was the sign of the covenant. Now, the covenant in view is, of course, the covenant of grace. I know that with regard to Abraham and Israel, there was the national aspect to it all, but farther down, as it were, in a deeper sense, in a more spiritual sense, the circumcision covenant that was made between Abraham and his God, or God and Abraham, is a covenant that we know as the covenant of grace. And here is the point, and this is very important, because there is a connection between circumcision, the sign of the covenant in the old era, and baptism in the New Testament. Then baptism is a sign of the covenant in the New Testament era, along with the Lord's Supper. But thinking of baptism today, let us get this connection into our minds. Just as one was a sign of the covenant, and the other has replaced the old, for it has, then the new is also the sign of the covenant in this New Testament age. Now, on those matters that I've just mentioned, all are agreed. That is, all Orthodox Reformed believers with regard to both sides of the issue here in the subjects of baptism, they agree on that point. And therefore, the important thing here is to see Why there is a relationship between circumcision and baptism? It is because each is the sign of the covenant in each respective era represented by first circumcision and then baptism. Each is the sign of the covenant. There is a connection between them. Now, look again at these verses and notice that the experience which Paul speaks He essentially describes a spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism. He's actually talking in these two verses about union with the Lord Jesus Christ. And he refers to it in terms of its being a circumcision and a baptism, but in a spiritual sense. In verse 11, where he says, "...in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision," listen, "...made without hands." in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. In that verse, may I put it to you plainly, there is no knife in view. As you are aware, the Old Testament rite of circumcision was a surgical procedure, and that is all I need to say about it. But what I'm saying to you right now is, in verse 11, there's no knife in view. It's not physical circumcision right here, but spiritual. It's wrought by Christ Himself, indicated by those words, the circumcision of Christ. Then in the same breath, he goes on into verse 12, to bring in baptism, buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Now again, I put it to you, as I did on a number of occasions already about other verses, when you come to verse 12, there's not a drop of water in view. Just as in verse 11 there's no knife, So, in verse 12, there is no water. What is in view here? Paul is describing what he calls a spiritual circumcision, essentially, or a spiritual baptism. In verse 12, he refers to being buried with Christ. He refers to having risen with Christ. My friend, that is not what is the result of water in any sense. or any stretch of the imagination. I've already stressed this and dealt with this. Water does not seethe. Water does not put a person into union with Christ. It's a spiritual baptism that's in verse 12, but equally it's a spiritual circumcision that you have in verse 11. So he's referring here to circumcision and baptism as symbols of union with Jesus Christ. Now, I have dealt already to a great degree with the fact that baptism is a symbol of union with Christ, but here we are seeing in these verses where the two ordinances are brought together that circumcision in the Old Testament era is looked on in Scripture also as a symbol of union with Christ. And that is exceedingly important. The experience of which Paul speaks here, he describes as a spiritual circumcision, a spiritual baptism, because he is dealing with the new birth, he is dealing with our union with the Lord Jesus Christ. That means that in these verses, the Apostle Paul is showing that both the Old Testament rite of circumcision and the New Testament rite of baptism were symbolic of the new birth. I want you to get that. They symbolize other things. They have other matters attached to them. But I'm saying to you right now, from the light of these verses, that both of these ordinances, connected together here, are symbolic of the new birth. Therefore, when we come to examine the Scriptures on the matter of circumcision, it will actually turn out to be amazing to our minds and our hearts how often you will find that circumcision is used in Scripture as a symbol of the new birth, or the circumcising of the heart, just as baptism is used as a symbol of the new birth in the New Testament era. I want you to go to a few verses with me right now. First of all, Deuteronomy 10, verse 16. Deuteronomy 10, verse 16. Let's see it. Let's look at this verse for a moment and read it carefully and note its meaning. Deuteronomy 10, verse 16. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked. Notice how Moses speaks of circumcision here in this verse with regard to its spiritual significance, because he's talking here to Israel about the circumcising of their hearts. Now, there's something remarkable about the setting of this verse. I mean the very time when it was spoken. What was the time when it was spoken? Well, the book of Deuteronomy, all that it contains, was delivered by Moses when Israel were on the very verge of the promised land. Which means after the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, Moses, the leader of Israel, now delivers what we have in the book of Deuteronomy. That is why the setting is interesting. For this reason, during all those 40 years, circumcision, that is the physical circumcision of the Israelites, had not been practiced. How do I know that? You only have to read Joshua 5. I will not turn to it now for the sake of time, but you may do it. Joshua 5 records the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land after the 40 years wandering, after the very time when Moses spoke these words and this verse. And in Joshua 5 you will read that for those 40 years that generation had not been circumcised. And then they were when they entered the new land. But here is the point. Moses, the lawgiver, Moses the man who is responsible to teach Israel the ways of God, when he comes here on the very verge of their entrance into the Promised Land after the whole forty years when circumcision has not been physically administered, now tells them to circumcise their hearts. I think that is very important because that verse remarkably brings out what I have just been saying to you, that in Scripture circumcision is a symbol of the new birth. Turn to Deuteronomy 30, verses 4 to 6. Will you look at these verses with me now? Deuteronomy 30, verse 4. If any of you be driven out onto the utmost parts of the heaven, From thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee. And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed. And thou shalt possess it, and He will do thee good and multiply thee above thy father." Now listen to verse 6, "'And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed.'" Your children. to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Do you see what Moses is teaching right there? He prophesies here of times in the future when Israel would be scattered because of their sin, and then God would graciously bring them back to their own land. And He says when He brings you back to your own land, in other words, when He deals with you according to His covenant in grace, He is going to circumcise your hearts. He is going to circumcise the hearts of your children. What is Moses teaching there? Moses is essentially teaching the great doctrine of the new birth in that Old Testament language. The circumcision of the heart, not only of the parents, but the children. This is what he's dealing with here in these particular verses. Now, go over with me a little farther to the book of Ezekiel chapter 36. Because what I'm showing you right here is that both ordinances are connected, circumcision and baptism. Both of them describe a spiritual experience. It's so important, men and women, to see the spiritual meaning and nature of the ordinances. Let us not be so much attached to the physical level that we miss the spiritual meaning. That's always the danger, you know. Let me pause and say that right here. Our country today is full of people whose focus is on the physical only, whether we speak of believers' baptism or infant baptism. and the focus is on the physical, to the point, and especially regarding infant baptism, to the point where it has degenerated again into potpourri. I will clarify that statement a little later. I am not talking about the ordinance here. I am talking about what has happened to the ordinance. Attention on the physical. to the point where it is degenerated into something that's meaningless, indeed into something that's dangerous. That's very, very worthy of sounding out a warning. But, Ezekiel 36. Look with me in Ezekiel 36 at verse 26. And it says in this verse, a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. I'll take away the stony heart, I'll give you a heart of flesh. Verse 27, I will put my spirit within you, etc. What is the Lord describing here? He's describing the new birth. But my friend, look with me at the verse that precedes those two that I just brought to your attention. Look at verse 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you." What do you have in verse 25? Essentially you had baptism. Or the symbol of baptism, I should say. God sprinkling clean water upon men. Now, as I drew to your attention last week, sprinkling of water is one of the modes of baptism taught in this book. And here's one example. The Lord says, then, will I sprinkle clean water on you? But the point is, my friend, while He uses the symbol of baptism here, He's talking about the spiritual experience. Because baptism, as we've been seeing, is a symbol of the new birth and our union with Christ. And here it comes out very clearly in these Scriptures. So, do you see what I'm saying? Even in the Old Testament, where you had the covenant sign of circumcision, God made it clear that there was more to it than the physical aspect. God made it clear that it was a symbol of something much deeper and something much more spiritual, even the new birth, the circumcising of the heart. Have you ever wondered why the Lord talks about the heathen in the Old Testament as the uncircumcised Philistines, the uncircumcised Hittites or whoever? Why does He call them that? It's not merely because they weren't circumcised physically. It was because they were ungodly. And they knew nothing of the new birth and the Word of Grace in their hearts. That's the reason. That's the basic reason why they're called the uncircumcised. Because circumcision, just like baptism as we're seeing here today, is symbolic of the new birth. I need to go a step farther with this. And that is this, in this connection between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism, the focus is on Christ Himself as the Savior and the Redeemer of His people. Now, think about that statement very carefully. In both ordinances, the focus is on Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of His people. Think about circumcision again. As we've noted here in Colossians 2, 11 and 12, our union with Christ is seen in both ordinances, both circumcision and baptism. It's there, union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Circumcised, it says. by Christ Himself and then buried with Him in baptism. And again I say that's not water, that's not the knife, that's something spiritual. But the point is, notice this, union with Christ is there, therefore Christ Himself is clearly in view in those two verses. Now that means that we would expect the focus to be on Christ as our Saviour, our Redeemer, the One with whom we are brought into union when we go to the Old Testament Scriptures that deal with the institution of circumcision. And that is exactly what we find. Now, let me say something to you right now. I would encourage you to take Genesis 17 when you go home today and read it carefully. I am not going to it now because of time. But Genesis 17 records the institution of circumcision. I've already quoted from it. God said to Abraham, circumcision is a token of the covenant. He's talking about the covenant of grace. He institutes circumcision as a token or a sign of the covenant of grace in that Old Testament era. Here's the point I'm making right now. When you look at Genesis 17 and other related scriptures, it is very clear that circumcision was given as a token of the covenant, not only with regard to Abraham's promised seed, that is, Isaac, and his descendants, but as a token of the covenant with someone far greater, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Because Christ is the seed of the covenant. When you study Genesis 17, it is from Abraham that Christ came. The Lord Jesus Christ came, as we well know, or we should know, the Mediator of the Covenant, the Redeemer of the Covenant people, the Savior of the Covenant people, with whom they brought into union. Therefore, men and women, let us not miss Christ when we come to look at circumcision, and even the very institution of it, because the ultimate The ultimate focus of circumcision with regard to the seed of Abraham is, as I put it, not only Isaac and the nation that descended from him in the physical sense, but ultimately our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And there's so much scripture that can be brought in to prove that. I don't even bother to do so today because if you know anything about the Bible, you know this yourself. I don't have time either at this point. But you get this fact straight. In Genesis 17, where circumcision is instituted, the focus is on Christ. Now, on that very point, may I say again that people from both sides of this equation are in agreement that Christ is the center of the covenant of grace. There are brethren across our nation across the world today who are, for example, what are called Reformed Baptists. They believe in the covenant of grace. They believe that salvation is by covenant only. God agreed from all eternity to save a people for himself. That's what the covenant's all about. And they believe that. And therefore they see Christ in the covenant. But so also does the paedobaptist, the one who believes that baptism should be administered to the infants of believing parents. He sees it too. And that's very important. I quote here from Robert Candlish. who was a Free Church of Scotland minister in the 19th century, and he said this, circumcision pointed to the future birth of Christ, His assumption of our nature, pure and perfect. Now, I'm not going to elaborate on that statement in a gathering here like this today to any great degree, but what does he mean by that? That is, his assumption of our nature pure and perfect. Well, because of the nature of the physical rite of circumcision, it was being predicted thereby, being shown thereby, that Abraham's ultimate seed, the Lord Jesus Christ, was going to be born, yes, truly man, but he would be born without the fleshly nature. and therefore can which is right. The Lord Jesus Christ, His future birth was predicted in the very rite of circumcision. It goes on to say this, that birth being accomplished, the propriety of circumcision as a sacrament ceases. Any corresponding rite now must not be prospective but retrospective. Such a rite accordingly is baptism. Our baptism signifies our ingrafting into Christ as not merely born, but buried and risen again. Abraham and the faithful of old were circumcised into His birth, that is, with His birth in view. And, as it says here, the redemption being yet future, we are baptized into His death, that is, symbolically, the redemption being now past. Do you see Calvinist's argument there? I know that that statement needs to be read a number of times to get it, but what he's saying is this. Circumcision pointed forward to Christ the Redeemer's coming to be the Savior of His people. Baptism points back to the fact that He did come. He accomplished the work. He has redeemed His people. That is why I say that we must always keep Christ in view when you come to deal with these matters. Christ is in focus whether you look at circumcision or baptism. Now, let me go on from there. If you'll go back with me now to Colossians chapter 2, let me say this, that the relationship between circumcision and baptism determines who should be baptized. I've taken a lot of time here. to deal with the relationship between the two. If at least you get nothing else out of this message today, remember that one. Circumcision and baptism are connected in Scripture. And since that is true, we are given some insight into who should be baptized. Since circumcision in the old era was the sign of the covenant and baptism in the new era is the sign of the covenant, Here's the point. Here is the basic point. Since circumcision in the old, baptism in the new are the sign of the covenant in each era, then baptism should only be administered to a people who are within the covenant family. That's the basic premise. That's the basic situation with regard to those who are the subjects of baptism. It should only be administered to those within the visible company of the covenant people of God. That's expressed in our own shorter catechism. What have you been teaching your children down through the years? What did you learn when you learned the shorter catechism? In answer to question 95, to whom should baptism be administered? It says there, and I take part A right now, baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church till they profess their faith in Christ and obedience to Him. So then, catechism makes it clear that baptism should not be administered to anyone whose outside was called here the visible church, In other words, anyone who is not within the covenant family of God, that is the basic premise. And again, there would be agreement on that among believers who may differ a little later, but they'll agree right there that baptism should only be administered to those who are within the company of the visible covenant people of God. They may not use that term, but that's it. Now, then there arises the question. of whether baptism should be limited to those who have made a conscious profession of faith in Christ, or is it also to be applied to the children of believers? And I've just mentioned there the two positions that are in existence within the visible family of God, or the covenant people of God. There is the position that's generally known as believer's baptism. That's the position that baptism should only be administered to those who have made a public profession of faith in Christ. And he based that position on those scriptures in the New Testament where you see people who have professed faith in Christ and they are having baptism administered to them. Whether it's John the Baptist's day, or the Lord's disciples, or the apostles later on after Pentecost, all of them did administer baptism to people who had made profession of faith and had turned away from their sin. And there's a huge amount, therefore, of basis for that position in the New Testament. It is administered to those who profess their faith in Christ. Then the other position, as I said, is that of what's called pedobaptism. I simply use that term because it's the technical term that's always used for the baptism of children. The first part of the word comes from the Greek word that means child. But based on this matter, here's the point. Listen very carefully. I'm simply explaining to you right now that position called pedobaptism. Based on this matter of the connection between the symbols of circumcision and baptism, paedal baptism is the position that baptism should be administered to the children of believing parents. The argument is this. Since circumcision, the Old Testament sign of the covenant, was administered to Old Testament believers and their seed, And since baptism has replaced circumcision, therefore, baptism should be administered to New Testament believers on their seat. That's the argument. Basically, that's what it is. Now, Tito Baptist brethren also believe, of course, in the baptism of adults. in the case of the conversion of people out of heathenism or paganism, out of a background where there is no spiritual light. Turn to Romans 4 now, verse 11, and will you look at that verse with me? I see that both positions here. That's all I'm doing today. Let me make that absolutely clear. I'm not setting out to convince you either. You say, that's strange. Well, I told you at the outset, I am keeping within the policy of my presbytery. You get that well into your heart. I'm not here to make anybody believe any particular position. I'm here to show you all... well, not all of it, because there's much more than this, but these are the basic parts of the argument. But look at Romans 4, verse 11. This is a very interesting verse. It says, "...and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness, of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised. Now, what is that verse teaching? It's teaching that Abraham received the sign of the covenant after he was justified. That's essentially what it's saying. And that is why I have just said that pedo-Baptist brethren, that is, people who believe in the baptism of infants in the Reformed Presbyterian tradition, may I say, also believe that if they go on the mission field, And they win the heathens of Christ. And you've got men and women as well as children. What do you do with the converts of an adult age? You baptize them upon their own profession of faith. And those brethren baptize them, let me tell you, either by immersion or pouring or sprinkling. The point is they baptize these adult believers who come to Christ in the mission field. Now, they base that on what happened to Abraham. Abraham was a heathen, remember, he was a pagan. Do you understand that? Abraham had no spiritual light until God called him out of Ur of the Chaldees. So he was a pagan and a heathen. He was justified by faith. Then afterwards, The initiation of circumcision came in, and he was circumcised according to Romans 4.11, according to Genesis, after he had believed. Well, people of Baptism have no problem with that. Because I've just outlined for you, they believe that's the way it should be when there is a situation where someone is saved out of darkness and heathenism. In adulthood, baptize them upon the profession of their faith. But here's the point. Ever afterwards, it is Abraham was circumcised after he believed, but ever afterwards, the ordinance was applied to the children of Abraham or whoever it might have been. It was applied in childhood. Now, why is that important from the pedobaptist position? Because in their whole reasoning and presentation of their position, they place a lot of emphasis, and rightly so, may I say, on the promises that God has given to believers about their children. Let me say to you right now, my friend, and I put it to you this way, the traditional, historic, Presbyterian manner of the administration of infant baptism is as far removed from potpourri as heaven is from hell. Let's get that clear. Many people very uncharitably and unjustly and unfairly will say that infant baptism is potpourri. I know there is the papist kind where they teach baptismal regeneration. And let me tell you something, I subscribe the confession of faith at my ordination. It teaches infant baptism. Do you think for one moment I'm going to subscribe something that's potpourri? And every elder here today did the same. He subscribed the confession. What is it? It's simply saying God has given promises to believing parents concerning their children. And since the ordinance of the old era was applied to the children... I know there's a question, well, what about the females? I know that, but I'm not dealing with that today because the point is the principle. It was applied to the children according to the promises of God. And that's all our Presbyterian fathers were doing when they believed and practiced infant baptism. They were simply saying, God has given promises to His people concerning their children and their seed. And we are baptizing our infants in the belief that the God who gave those promises will one day save our children and bring them to Christ. Now, let me just say this to get it across to you. And by the way, when I finish today, you'll not know what I am. Let me say this to you. Those who hold the possession of believers' baptism only recognize that there's something special about children. Isn't that right? Why do Christian churches like our own have what we call dedication. Why do believing parents want to bring their children before the congregation, confess their faith, that is, the parents confess their faith, and furthermore, bow to bring up that child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Why do you do it? Have you ever thought about it? Well, I'll tell you why you do it. Because deep down in your heart you know there's something special about your children. I don't mean special in the sense of how they look, whether they're like daddy or mommy. I don't mean that special. But I mean you know there's something special about those children because you've read the Bible. And you've discovered in your Bible that God has given promises concerning the seed of believers. And let me just quote a few of those promises. Because the point is, they are exactly the same promises that are used in the infant Baptist administration of the ordinance. The very same. You remember, whenever Jacob returned from Paden Aram, and Esau asked him about his family, do you know what Jacob said? These are the children which God hath graciously given his servant. Psalm 127, verse 3, "'Lo, children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward.'" Isaiah 44, verse 3, "'I will pour My Spirit upon thy seat, and My blessing on thine offspring.'" I could go on and on here today. I don't want to take time quoting other verses. But I want to take you to one particular verse at this moment. 1 Corinthians 7, verses 13 and 14. 1 Corinthians 7. Look carefully at these two verses. 1 Corinthians 7, verse 13. It says, And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. You can see the situation immediately. Here is a marriage where the wife is saved and the husband is not saved. And the Lord tells that woman, don't leave that husband. As long as he's willing to stay in the marriage, you stay with him. Why? Verse 14, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife over the other way round is sanctified by the husband. Now listen, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. But obviously Paul's not talking there about physical uncleanness. He's not talking about external holiness when he says, now are your elves for your children unclean, but now are they holy. He's talking there simply about not holiness in the internal sense, but in the sense of the spiritual benefits and privileges that even the child in a home where there's only one parent saved is going to have. They get it well, men and women. The Holy Ghost is telling us here that children in Christian homes, even a home where there is only one saved parent, are holy in that sense of an external holiness. In the sense, therefore, of being born under privileges and benefits. Maybe it is the mother who is saved and that little boy or girl has got a praying mother and a mother who does her utmost to teach the child the Word, and so on and so forth. That is a privilege. That's a benefit that the children of the unsaved don't have. Get it well. Here's why. You know in your heart of hearts, though you be on that side that can't see the pedobaptist position, Yet at the same time, you know there is something special about your children according to the promises of God and the teaching of God through His own precious Word. In other words, the children of believers. Let's get this clear. Paul is telling us here, the children of believers are actually part of the visible church. Do you understand that? What do I mean by the visible church? Well, I mean what's represented here. There is the church invisible. It is the true company of the redeemed that only God knows. But men and women, the church invisible, the true company of the redeemed, they meet, they come together in a gathering like this. And will you think for one moment today that your children should be left at home? Why did you bring them to the service? Because you know they're part of the visible church. And you know that God has ordained these means for you and your family. When you come, you sit under the Word, you have them taught in the Sunday school and Bible classes, etc. What are you doing? You're following, whether you may not know the exact verses or not, it doesn't matter. You're following the whole flavor of Scripture. God has made promises to believers about their children, and believers then act upon those promises. And that's a marvelous thing, may I just say right now. For Christian parents here today as a whole, your children may yet be lost. What do you do? You get before God and you start to pray for your seed upon the basis of God's covenant promises that He will save them. and He will bring them unto Himself. So, in view of this, that the Bible gives tremendous promises to parents about their children and their seed, some of God's people believe that the New Testament sign of the covenant, that is baptism, should be administered to their children since they are born into the visible company of the covenant people of God. But may I say again, very emphatically, That is not Romanism. I want to disabuse you of that thinking, because I know that from various sources and circles it's presented that infant baptism is nothing more than potpourri. My dear friend, that's a serious charge. Look at it another way. Just because Rome baptizes children, does that make it wrong? Does that mean that God's people down through time should not have followed through on the covenant promises of God? If they saw it that way and baptized their children just because Rome got it all wrong, and Rome has it all wrong, there's no doubt about that. What she teaches is a lie. And there are other churches that have fallen into that, even in Protestantism, so-called. But that doesn't make it wrong that it's for those who see it that way. Let me put it to you this way. Isn't Rome wrong on the Lord's Supper? Does that mean that we abandon the Lord's Supper? Isn't Rome wrong when she says that marriage is a sacrament? She adds to the sacraments. Just because Rome is off there as well as she is just about everywhere, of course, Does that mean that we abandon marriage? You see, my friend, the whole thing is not even worth the paper it's written on when people say that infant baptism is always papist. It's an absurdity. It's a libel of our forefathers. And remember, remember as I come to a close today, our own church, allows freedom of conscience here. That means that the Free Presbyterian Church, some of our ministers administer infant baptism. You trying to tell me that my fellow ministers are papists? That's what ends, you see. But there is freedom of conscience. That means that should there be young couples in our church, for example, who at their own study are convinced of this position, they may have their children baptized, just as others are free to pursue believers' baptism. Why do we have that policy? Because, my dear friend, let's face facts. In any denomination, there are people from different doctrinal backgrounds. When you come to baptism, that's very true. There are people in this church today from a Baptist background, people from a Presbyterian background. Why are we in the free church? because we believe that God called us to it and raised it up to be a bulwark against the great wickedness of our day in apostasy and detention and all of that. And our goal is to stand as one man fighting apostasy and preaching Christ, not divided over baptism. So, our founding fathers, and I put it to you, they were wise men. They adopted this policy I've explained to you today and in previous weeks. And I, as your minister, am in full agreement with it. You are free to follow what your conscience and your study of Scripture leads you to believe in baptism, whether with regard to mold or subjects. But remember this, your brother or sister in Christ in this church has the same freedom. Therefore, we respect each other's views in these areas non-espousing, again I put it to you, the heresy of baptismal regeneration. God has blessed us with that stand. That's where we intend to stand. The Lord write His word on our hearts.