An Address to Anabaptists.
James Dodson
PART V.
AN ADDRESS TO ANABAPTISTS.
I HOPE, to such of you, as are candid enquirers for truth and instituted order, this publication will give no offence.
I am the more encouraged to hope this, because it is your ordinary argument and plea, that this sacrament should be administered strictly, punctually, and formally, according to the divine will. You also admit that the divine will is to be learned from the divine word. All these are features of professional character, which I can unhesitatingly say, are to me amiable and attractive.
I have thought of you as the Apostle did of his beloved countrymen, that you have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. If the matter of fact were as you suppose, if you had all scripture authority upon your side, you would deserve credit for your zeal, tenacity and industry. If the fact be otherwise, you stand in a delicate situation. The decision, upon your side of this controversy, is a very responsible one.
You decide not only that infants are not, cannot be members of the Church of Christ, but you decide also that the great body of Christian professors are unbaptized, and that the great majority of Christian ministers are unordained. You ought really to pause, and maturely weigh arguments upon both sides, before you decide and act upon such heavy matters. This certainly ought not to be done, by, “So I think; or so brother or elder such a one thinks. The Father of the Spirits of all flesh must decide this; the Redeemer of the Church who purchased her with his own blood, and who will finally judge every one according to his works, must settle this, and every other controversy. But his will is to be known from his word. Let that supreme standard then be candidly examined and fairly interpreted. You must not examine the sacred word with the spirit of party; but in candour and with the spirit of God. Compare the passages generally cited on this controversy with one another, and with the scope and tenor of the parts wherein they are found, and with the word, generally. Examine them in the light of divine grace. Remember as you read, This book is a history of redeeming love and divine grace. With regard to plain matters of fact we would have you to consider, that the examples of adult baptism recorded in the scriptures do not authorize you to re-baptize. Those who are mentioned as having been subjects of adult baptism, you must remember, were not baptized in infancy or youth. Now, if it be found that you are judging another man’s servants in a matter, which they perform upon as sound principles, and with as much faithfulness as you, it will not leave you in a comfortable situation. Have you no fears that you, thereby, take the name of God in vain by repeating that ordinance, which ought on one subject to be but once exhibited? We demand of you before you do this anymore to produce authority. Before the sixth, or even before the sixteenth century, where is there any instance of adult baptism, upon the principle that infant baptism was invalid and improper? There were some whose parents had been negligent. Some whose parents died, and no satisfactory sponsor being found it was thought best in some cases to delay their baptism. Some deferred the reception of this ordinance upon the same principle that communion is now delayed, viz. upon superstitious fears and licentious propensities; some put off this ordinance until they would reach their thirtieth year; some till they could be baptized in Jordan; and some till they could have it administered by a favorite bishop. There were some, such as the Waldenses and Albigenses, who had not a good opportunity of having this ordinance timeously and purely dispensed. They plead that it was not essential to salvation; they would rather have it undone than done by the corrupt Church of Rome. But where is the instance of their baptizing any of those who joined them even from that very corrupt Church? And even if they had, this would no more be an evidence that they denied infant baptism, than instances of re-baptism among the Donatists and Novatians would be a proof that they denied what they practised. They baptized proselytes from other connections, because they denied their authority altogether, and not because they denied infant baptism. The Waldenses, however, we believe, generally took the view of this matter which the subsequent Reformers have, and distinguished between the validity of an ordinance and the purity of its administration; sustaining the former in many cases where they could not admit the latter. Thus the Waldenses testified against the Popish notion, that baptism was regeneration or essential to salvation. They testified against the superstitious appendages, which Papists had affixed to this simple, but very expressive ordinance. But that they did not deny the validity of infant baptism, is evident from two notorious facts.
First. When the Reformers and they united, they never required the Reformers to be re-baptized, nor the ministers of them to be re-ordained. All the objection they had to the denomination, Reformed, was, that it seemed to imply that those so named had apostatized which they had not.
Second. The Reformers always speak very favourably of the Waldenses, and always speak very bitterly against the factious and heretical Anabaptists. That they called and accounted them heretical and disorderly did not make them so, but that they spoke of them, in such terms, while they were following the steps, and approving of the measures of the Waldenses, proves plainly that the Waldenses and the Anabaptists were then considered very different characters. I will also admit too that a number of the Anabaptists have by experience acquired more prudence than these who first disgraced with their errors, and disturbed with their factions, the cause of Protestants. Still, you must not take it amiss, if Pædobaptists, who can give you authority for their practice from the first and second century down, ask you, from whom have you derived your origin? It is clear that according to your system such an account is very necessary, much more so than with others, who, while they are as tenacious of truth and order, are more liberal in making allowance, and more learned, as I would say, in making judicious distinctions. What will become of you, if it really appear that you have neither John the Baptist nor the Apostles, the primitive churches, the Waldenses, nor the Reformers as your predecessors and patrons? You deny our ordinances, our ecclesiastical authority. Who first dipped the baptist brother? Who first ordained the baptist elder? You ought to know this very correctly, lest it be found that your own system and mode of judging will judge and condemn yourselves. Here you must not misunderstand me; I am not judging you, but exposing you to judge yourselves. Take your present practice as the rule of your decision. If you find that it is going to leave you fatherless, spurious and self created, we hope it will teach you to judge of others more charitably. Still, how ever, I would not have you think that I am urging you to the loose practice of the Church of England, which allows for secular purposes every profane creature, and people of every creed to partake of the holy communion. No, if you think us “disorderly brethren,” treat us as such; “withdraw from us,” till you be convinced of the contrary. But do not excommunicate us altogether from the visible church, because we have not been baptized at the particular time, and in the precise mode which you think proper.
We will readily admit that not only the Popish harlot, but also many Protestant societies have turned the Church too much into a worldly sanctuary, have admitted many both old and young to membership, neither for their own good nor for the honour of the Church, which should be a holy society. But is it fair, on that account, to infer that God hath cast off his people and their seed? Surely some of you have a sense of the great grace of God in Christ. Let such consider that “He gathers the lambs in his arms, and carries them in his bosom.” Ought not then his ministers to feel their obligation, if they have tasted that the Lord is gracious, to feed his lambs? If they have ever got a gracious and reclaiming look from Jesus whereby they say we love him, because he first loved us, they must feel this obligation; if they do, are they to prepare for them as of the household of faith, or as belonging to the world? If in the former sense, why do you not act consistently, and recognize their membership in the family of Jesus! If in the latter, you put the children of believers in a strange predicament. They visibly belong to the world, and yet their parents belong to the church. See how you divide families, and this too before they can divide themselves. See how contrary to the principles of all civil society, the grace of God, and the pious wish of every godly parent you act.
But you will say, We consider the children of parents that are pious as possessing great privileges, and the parents themselves as under great obligations to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Here again by considering the good of the child you impose a hard task upon the parent. You urge him to have constantly to do with those that are visibly without. You urge the parents to work without straw, to labor without symbol or promise. If, moreover, the religious education of children be a duty, why should we not vow to do that duty as well as others? “Vow and pay to the Lord your God.” If we cannot succeed in bringing them up for God, we shall be clear of our oath like Abraham’s servant. But certainly we have very comfortable promises and it does seem to me very improper, very imprudent, very unbelieving and very ungrateful not to apprehend them. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
You still ask, What is the use of this ordinance I answer at has six uses. First, It is a recognition of the grace of God. Second, It is a gratification of the pious parent. Third, It is a rendering to God what is his due. Fourth, It is a religious bond of mutual duties among godly families. Fifth, It is a solemn pledge of the permanency of the Church, and a bond among the several members thereof. Sixth, It is calculated in a peculiar manner to establish the mind of a pious parent, either when he is about to leave his offspring or when they are called away from him. In the acknowledgement of divine grace and mercy, justice ought not to be denied. In the baptism of infants the fall of man, in Adam is acknowledged. That this affects infants is obvious in the dispensations of Providence, why should not the covenant and dispensation of grace also affect this interesting class of juniors? You see their faces often bedewed with sorrow and sometimes pale with death, why will you not allow true believers to have their children’s faces sprinkled with the symbol of the grace of life? Why not allow us to acknowledge the grace of God, who “forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, did himself also take part of the same, that through death he might destroy death” &c. Our elder Brother knows what it is to be a babe as well as to be a man. If babes had not needed redemption by his blood, why should he have been circumcised in youth? The promises are all ratified in him; the testament, in which they are contained. He sealed with his blood. Are there then any promises to children? If none, where is the great grace of this, dispensation? The promises were to be to the seed. If the promise be to the children still, why should not the seal also be? It is not safe to separate that which God hath joined. It is evident that God has appointed baptism as the sign and pledge of regeneration; to whom he denies it therefore, he must be considered as denying the grace, signified. Why is it the will of God that unbelievers and impenitent sinners should not be baptized? It is because he denies them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If, therefore, God denies the sign to the infant seed of believers, it must be because he denies them the grace of it and then all the children of believing parents dying in their infancy, must without hope perish. Moreover, I argue, if the promise be not to the seed of believers, it cannot be to believers themselves. What was the promise: “I will be your God and the God of your seed.” Take away the latter part of it and it is not the same promise. Again, Christ came to ratify the promise made to the fathers, Rom. xv. 8, why then will you not allow us to acknowledge this grace of the Redeemer? Why not help us to do it? Surely you would not have him that is the messenger of the covenant. Mal. iii. 1, to come to disannul the covenant; if this had been the case, then Christ had not been a faithful messenger, and those who say that infants have no part in the promise and the seal, necessarily deny that He came to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers. You will make as little of it to say, that the promise which is to believers and their seed is the promise of the Spirit. Let it be so, that is the same promise. How is God our God but by granting us his Spirit. This is the very blessing which was promised and fulfilled to Abraham in the ancient dispensation of grace, and which is now graciously transferred to us poor Gentiles. Gal. iii. 13. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. v. 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Hear what Dr. Owen, who can be charged by none as a superficial man, says upon this passage: “Christ is the messenger of the covenant. Mal.iii. 1. (i.e.) the covenant of God made with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7, 1. That covenant was with and to Christ mystical. Gal. iii. 16. And he was the messenger of no covenant, but that which was made with himself and his members. 2. He was sent, or was God’s messenger to perform and accomplish the covenant and oath made with Abraham. Luke i, 72, 73. 3. The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent, might be blessed with faithful Abraham, or that the blessing of Abraham promised in the covenant might come on them.” Gal. iii. 9, 14.
To deny this overthrows the whole relation between the Old Testament and the New; the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of Grace mentioned, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. It was net the covenant of works, neither originally, or essentially, nor the covenant in its legal administration; for he confirmed and sealed that covenant, of which he was the Messenger; but these he abolished. Let it be named what covenant he was the messenger of, if not of this. Occasional additions of temporal promises do not in the least alter the nature of the covenant. Herein, he was the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made to the Fathers. Rom. xv. 7. That is undeniably the covenant made with Abraham, enlarged and explained by the following premises. This covenant was, that Ged would be a God to Abraham and to his seed, which God explains to be his infant seed. Gen. xvii. 12. that is, the infant seed of every one of his posterity that should lay hold on, and avouch that covenant as Abraham did and not else. This the whole Church did solemnly for themselves, and their posterity whereon the covenant was confirmed and sealed to them all. Exod. xxiv. 7, 8. And every one was bound to do the same in his own person, which if he did not, he was to be cut off from the congregation whereby he forfeited all privileges to himself and his seed.
The covenant therefore was not granted in its administrations to the carnal seed, of Abraham as such; but to his covenant seed, those who entered into it, and professedly stood to its terms. And the promise made to the Fathers were, that their infant seed, their buds and offspring, should have an equal share in the covenant with them. Isa. xxii. 24, xl. iv. 3. lxi. 9. lxv. 23. They are the seed of the blessed, and their offspring with them; not only themselves, who are the believing professing seed of those who were blessed of the Lord by a participation of the covenant, Gal. iii. 9, but their offspring also, their buds, their little ones are in the same covenant with them. If this be not so under the New Testament—if believers, those who lay hold on and avouch the covenant of God, be not taken into covenant with their infant seed, their buds and offspring; then was not Christ a faithful messenger, nor did he confirm the truth of the promises made unto the fathers.
To deny, therefore, that the children of believing, professing parents, who have avouched God’s covenant as the church of Israel did, Ex. xxiv. 7, 8, have the same right and interest with their parents in the covenant is plainly to deny the fidelity of Christ in the discharge of his office. It may be it will be said that although children have a right to the covenant or do belong to it, yet they have no right to the initial seal of it. This will not suffice: For, 1. If they have any interest in it, it is either in its grace or in its administration. If they have the former, they have the latter also, as shall be produced at any time: If they have neither, they have none. Then the truth of the promises of God unto the Fathers, was not confirmed by Christ. 2. That to whom the covenant or promise doth belong, to them belongs the administration of the initial seal of it, is expressly declared by the Apostle. Acts ij. 38, 39. be they who they will. 2. The truth of God’s promise is not confirmed, if the sign and seal of them be denied; for that whereon, they believed that God was a God to their seed, as well as to themselves, was this, that, he granted the token of the covenant to their seed as well as to themselves; if this be taken away by Christ, then, faith is overthrown, and the promise itself is not confirmed; but weakened as to the virtue it hath to beget faith and , obedience. Wherefore, the right of the infant seed of believers to baptism, as the initial seal of the covenant, stands on the foundation of the faithfulness of Christ, as the Manager of the covenant, and Minister of God for the confirmation of the truth of the promises, and those who deny it, deny the faithfulness of Christ, though not intentionally, yet by unavoidable consequence.” From all this then you may see one important use of infant baptism. It is a public recognition of the never-failing grace of God. Second. It is a gratification of pious parents. This use of infant baptism will not be considered a frivolous argument for the continuation of the practice, if we consider the analogies of nature, and the special clemency and kindness of this dispensation of grace. Parental affections, liberalized by an extensive contemplation of God’s ways, encouraged by scriptural precedents and promises, and especially when animated by divine grace, will cry, O that the child might live before thee! Gen. xvii. 18. He who hears the young ravens and the young lions, hears the distress and affliction of young mortals, and will gratify the pious prayers and earnest supplications of parents in their behalf. Behold the distressed Hannah travailing in her soul, before she conceived in her body, praying and weeping and vowing.—Read the instructive and encouraging passage, 1 Sam. 1, 9–18. Was the disconsolate Hannah neglected? No. Was the story recorded only for entertainment ? No. With all other scripture it was designed for direction in righteousness. Mark then, ye mothers in Israel, her conduct. She calls him Samuel, that is, asked of God, and she presents him again to the Lord, saying, “He whom I have obtained by petition shall be returned.” Her dedication of him is accepted; the pious parent is justified. This particular favour she acknowledges in an inspired hymn. The same general principle in relation to God’s kind and condescending disposition is noticed in the thirty-seventh psalm and fourth verse “Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.”
Can parents help having desires, fond desires for the salvation of their children? Can they be indifferent about obtaining every help of their faith? Can they, then, say that baptism is of no use, when it seals to their offspring the promises of salvation? Christian parents know that God’s word is sure, but still the considerate of them will rejoice that he establishes their faith by two immutable things. Party spirit, I admit, may prevail so much, in some, as to deprive them of natural affection; but we are speaking of ordinary cases, and can our Baptist friends suppose that God will reckon their neglect of their children, self denial and humility? No. He will ascribe it, if not to cruelty, to forgetfulness and ignorance. “Even the sea monsters draw out the breast; they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.” Lam. iv. 3. See a farther description of this unnatural animal in Job xxxix. 14, “Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust; 15 and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. 16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not her’s: her labour is in vain without fear. 17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom; neither hath he imparted unto her understanding.” We would then affectionately exhort those, who have yet some bowels of affection for their children, to take courage, and bring them to the king of Israel, who is a merciful king, although he may suffer you to be greatly exercised in mind about their right (so if you are pious you have been about your own) yet, he delights to gratify your pious solicitude for your offspring, and will approve even what some ill informed disciples may call presumptive audacity. Read for confirmation of this truth Math. xv. 21, 28–Mark vii. 24. You will certainly be more safe in imitating the approved example of the Syrophenician than in following the wild Arabian of the desert. See how even, the woman, of Canaan entreats for her young daughter, even in the face of frowning disciples, and a remonstrating Jesus, and she succeeds!!! Shall there be less faith among the matrons of Israel, who bring forth children whom the God of Israel claims as his? But this brings us to the Third Use of infant baptism, which we have stated, viz. That it is a rendering unto. God what is his due.
If faith be too feeble to appreciate the force of the first inducement, and calculation on divine kindness too low to catch the strength of the second, we would fondly hope, that a sense of justice would remove all scruple from the minds of our opponents, about the propriety of Christians dedicating their infant offspring to God in baptism. You listen to constables and collectors when they proclaim in your ears, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s,” and shall you not attend to the legates of heaven, when they call upon you to “Render unto God the things that are God’s?” The very first principle of equity and justice is, to give everyone his due. If, therefore, we can shew that the children of believers are his, you will allow him his due. That which is, in a peculiar sense, his, ought in a peculiar way to be marked as his. The children of his covenant people are in a peculiar sense his; therefore, the children of his covenant people should be in a peculiar way marked as his property. I have been the more particular in framing this argument, because, however solid its principle, it is liable to the attacks of insolent quibble. We shall not insult your understandings so far as to tell you, that this principle has the sanction of antiquity and obvious propriety both upon its side; but we would wish you to attend to two facts, which render its propriety, now, more obvious than in ancient times. First. In the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, God’s people were locally distinct from others, and so had less need of being peculiarly marked. Secondly. Society, at that time was not so formal in its negotiations as latterly it has been. Every shepherd and merchant can appreciate these observations, and apply them to the case in hand. These thoughts being kept in view, the conduct of those who profess to be under shepherds, and yet oppose the application of these principles to the lambs of Christ’s flock, must appear to the candid very suspicious. Forget, I entreat you, dear friends, that you are baptists, and think, should not those who love Christ pay marked attention to his lambs? Listen to what David or Solomon says, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” [Psalm cxxvii. 3.] To every pious parent, the Lord, whose heritage children are, says, “Take this child, and nurse it for me.” [Ex. ii. 9.] “Thus saith the Holy One of Israel, and his maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the works of my hands command ye me.” [Isa. xlv. 11.] Shall Christian worshippers of the true God suffer idolators to be more entirely devoted to their imaginary deities, and be more honest in their dealings with lying vanities, than they are in their transaction with the Blessed and only, Potentate, King of kings and Lord of lords?" Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. “Moreover, thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast born unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter? 21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?” The children of idolators are reckoned the children of the idol. Mal. ii. 11, “Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved and hath married the daughter of a strange god.”
We admit that adult believers are not unfrequently called children of God. Math. v. 9. “Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the children of God.” This is so far, however, from militating against the plea of God’s peculiar propriety in the children of believers, that it seems to me entirely in favour of it. If he had no people that were literally children, we cannot see upon what principle he would call some metaphorically so. He seems to take, if we may so speak, a pleasure in calling his people generally by that name, because of such is the kingdom of God. We are not to be understood, however as advocating the right of those, who have descended from any distant predecessor, or of those who are adult descendants of an immediate parent who is or was pious: Rom. ix. 7. “Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Here I very readily admit that the Apostle has a reference to a supernatural birth, according to a sovereign election, as the scope of the place will prove to every enlightened student; still it is well known that the descendants of the pious patriarch had a peculiar mark of being. God’s peculiar property, until the seed of the flesh despised the seed of the promise in adult years; and this too without any regard to evidences of regeneration, which could not then be obtained. This is the principle we would have you, injustice to God and your seed, still to observe. Reject not, we pray you, the counsel of God against your offspring, in refusing to have them baptized. If, when they grow up, they behave rudely as did Ishmael in Abraham’s house, let their baptism become no baptism; let them be ejected. If, like Esau, they sell their birthright you cannot help that, but for justice’s sake let babes, while babes, have their birthright. Let the children of the promise be accounted for the seed still. In doing so you are certainly making no great sacrifice. We are not calling upon you to give them to the arms of a burning Baal or a monstrous devouring Moloch, but you are giving them to the arms of a merciful Jesus, acknowledging the virtue and value of his redeeming blood to purify souls and purchase captive children. If you the roots be holy, so are they the branches, upon every analogy of nature and gracious dispensation. Ye have had your holiness or consecration to God signified by baptism, why should not your branches receive the same ordinance? Will you not allow God by his Spirit efficiently, and by his ministers symbolically, to pour his Spirit upon your seed and his blessing upon your offspring? [Isa. xliv. 3.] Will you not allow the Redeemer of his Church to sanctify and cleanse all the members thereof, young and old. with the washing of water by the word. [Eph. v. 26.]
Fourth. It is a spiritual and religious bond of mutual duties among godly individuals and families. All the ordinances of religion, as well as the arrangements of Providence, are evidently calculated to bind men together by social ties. Any usage, therefore, of the Church, which conforms to this general principle, is so far demonstrated to be consistent with the great whole. Any usage, on the contrary, which does not conform to this great social principle, is so far doubtful. By baptism administered to infants we obtain a solemn bond of parents, that they shall perform parental duties conscientiously to their children. There are few, we believe, so fanatical, as to say that parents do not owe some duties to their children, or to God; in relation to their children. There are few willing so far to acknowledge themselves descendants of Cain, as to say they should exercise no brotherly guardianship towards each other in relation to these duties. For the illustration of the practical advantage of infant baptism, in this view of the subject, we shall suppose two cases. 1st. Of two christian brethren who acted upon the plan of infant baptism and parental vows in the administration of that ordinance. 2d. Of two belonging to your society, who deny that infants are, or can be, members of the Church, and, of course, have no baptismal vow in immediate relation to their offspring. One of each of these parties has naughty children, and, like Eli, does not, with sufficient energy, and faithfulness, restrain them. One of each of these parties is exemplary, in his own conduct, and conscientious and vigilant to inspect reprove and reform his Christian brother. Upon the Pædobaptist system, the correct man can say to the offender, Dear brother, I am truly sorry to find that you so far forget your covenant engagements for your children, that you suffer them to live in ignorance, and in all that train of vice, and dissipation which haunt untutored youth. Did not you, when presenting your children before the Lord in baptism, vow, under all the solemnities of sacramental symbols there exhibited, that you would instruct them in the principles, and train them up in the practices of an holy religion?—that you would not only set before them a pious example, but also that you would use towards them a strict discipline, that they might not be allowed to profane the holy name whereby they were called, by following the propensities of the flesh, the fascinations of the world: and the standard of the prince of darkness, who rules over the children of disobedience?
The offender cannot in consistency but say, I acknowledge your reproof is proper. I have been too indulgent and too negligent. I have verily been faulty in the holy covenant; I confess I have not only dishonoured God, but also have given offence to my ecclesiastical brethren, who are united with me in the same covenant. All the comfort, I can now have is, that the God of Israel is merciful and ready to forgive, that he promises to heal our backslidings. Were not the covenant itself sure and steadfast, what would frail, failing mortals do Dear brother, help me by your prayers, advice, and co-operation to reform my family, that we may yet walk together in the light, as children of the light, rejoicing that the blood of Jesus Christ, which was sprinkled sacramentally upon us all in baptism cleanseth us from all sins. On the opposite system what shall the aggrieved say! What cannot the offender reply Does the former adduce, from general topics of morality, arguments to convince his brother of the impropriety of his conduct towards his family? By this very fact you may see the imperfection of your system. Why does not your system embody these principles in the social compact Even should there be some articles in the congregational covenant, relative to family government, it is clear that all sources of purification must be very liable to run dry, which are not connected with the fountain opened in the house of David for sin and for uncleanness. The great argument for, and the great agent of, sanctification in young or old must be, and is, the blood of Christ. Why then weaken that argument, why keep out of view the operation of that agent, in relation to your infants? What would your system answer should the reproved in the case before us say, “What have I to do with those that are without,” alluding to his own children? Would the laws of civilized society admit this answer, and is the system of your church less perfect? Suppose the first founders of the Anabaptist society had succeeded in demolishing this fabric of civil government altogether, by what laws would you either have corrected or protected your children? In the same way the advantage of infant baptism might be demonstrated from the hold upon youth which it affords to the ministers of the gospel. The covenant connexion established by circumcision, the Apostles employed as an argument with the Jews in urging them rightly to improve the opportunities of the gospel. Acts ii. 19. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. v. 25. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” Even in their negotiations with churches composed of a considerable proportion of Gentiles, they draw arguments from the ancient covenant which embraced the infants and households of professors. Thus, in urging upon the Romans the great duties of forbearance, mutual edification and united profession and reciprocal charities; he says “Wherefore receive ye one another as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers; and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles and sing unto thy name.” Rom. xv. When reproving the Galatians for their legal views and carnal disposition to be made perfect by the flesh, he recommends to them evangelical views, and spiritual exercises by the example of Abraham. Gal. iii. 6. “Even as Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. v. 7, Know ye not that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham?” Children must expect to be justified upon the same principles of their parents, Abraham was a very apposite example to those who were proselyted in adult years, and were made the fathers in a new dispensation. v. 8. “And the scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. v. 9. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham;” as if, he had said, You are entirely bewitched and dreadfully deceived, if you suppose that Abraham was justified by the law, or sanctified by external and ritual ceremony.
It seems from this last quotation obvious that the Apostle found no difficulty in counteracting the tendency of Judaizing teachers, in consistency with maintaining the evangelical principles and spiritual tendency of the Abrahamic dispensation. Those whom he reproves and their teachers, saw nothing, but legal principles and carnal forms in it; they considered it as a fleshly covenant, by conforming to the bodily exercise of which, they might obtain salvation. Thus you see, so far you and these deluded Galatians agree, and had the Apostle been of the same mind with them and you on this point, he must evidently have taken, quite, other, ground to refute them. But, by the Spirit of truth, he is preserved from that extreme, and shews, in the form of his reasoning, the advantage of having, in all our ecclesiastical proceedings, some view to a permanent, general and conspicuous covenant. Without this Christians will have upon each other no bond, even from the venerable revelation of truth, legislation of divine sovereignty, nor from the successive dispensations of God’s grace.
Fifth. It is a solemn pledge of the permanency of the Church ; and of course, in gloomy times, is an exhibition of cheering future prospects.
No truth is plainer than this, that “one generation passeth away, and another cometh.” Were the former only true, and nor the latter, all human society, must, inevitably become extinct. A permanent society, therefore, must have men, women, and children for its members. Take away any one of these and it becomes visibly imperfect. If it continue it must for that continuance be dependent. Is the Church, then, an imperfect and a dependent society, in its visible organization and obvious structure? So say the opponents of infant membership and infant baptism: but so says not the Bible. The Christian, while he contemplates, with pleasure, the correspondence of the charter and the seal of the covenant with respect to the persons interested in the promises, will also rejoice that the correspondence holds out a sure pledge of the permanency of the Church. We are not reasoning with you now that it does so, or we would be more particular in stating our arguments, but we are shewing that it is not in vain that this is done. It gladdens the hearts of those who love the prosperity of Zion and rejoice in her permanent charter and permanent seals. When the good old man feels his infirmities multiply, and is anticipating from year to year, his own dissolution, it will do his heart good to see an infant presented before the Lord in baptism. He will then remember that the Lord hath said, “My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure forever.” Psalm. lxxxix. 28. Frail as he is and fleeting as he sees all nature to be, he will rejoice in the permanent establishment of the church and the continuation of her infant members. “The children of thy servant shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.” cii. 28. Are the children related to him? He will feel as if this promise was immediately fulfilled to himself. “Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace upon Israel.” cxxviii. 6. He will pray that that may be fulfilled to the children. “I will pour my spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thy offspring, and they shall spring up as among the grass, and as willows by the water courses.” Isa. xliv. 4. He will pray that the substance as well as the sign may be present. Isa. xliv. 4. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, My spirit that is upon thee, and my word which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord from henceforth and forever.” lix. 21. Behold the scene a little produced, see those children join in the cheerful exercises of the sanctuary and tell what, good man, or angel, can but be pleased? Take but one peep in Zechariah’s glass, viii. 3. “Thus saith the Lord I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem shall be called the city of truth; and the mountain of the Lord of hosts. There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem and every man with his staff in his hand, for very age. 5. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.” If the prophet gives us a fair representation, a true picture of the Church in her Millennial glory, you see children shall be in her streets. Who is so misanthropic as to wish it should be otherwise?
Sixth. It is calculated in a peculiar manner, to support the mind of a pious parent, either when he is about to leave his offspring, or when they are called away from him.
The more religion there is upon any possession the more highly will its enjoyment be relished, and the more easily will its alienation be borne. The parent naturally wishes to see his children comfortably established in the world and in the Church before he and they separate. He may, in this, be disappointed. Is he called away before they grow up In baptism he has already dedicated them to God in a solemn covenant, and in a voluntary and cordial manner. It will be easy for him, therefore, new to comply with the scriptural injunction. Jer. xlix, 11. “Leave thy fatherless children, I will preserve them, and let thy widows trust in me.” Are they wrested from him in early infancy, with Job, he says, “the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and blessed be the name of the Lord,” or with David in faith of seeing them in the immortal country, he says, “I will go to him, he shall not return to me.” Is the good man taken off, while his children are young, but not before he has got evidence that they are going to be active in building up the Church, the temple of the living God? Will he not, in that case, take up David’s soliloquy, when Nathan told him that his son should build the intended house, for which he had laid up so much treasure? “Who am I, O Lord God? and what is my house that thou hast brought me hitherto And this was yet a small thing in thy sight, O Lord God, but thou hast spoken of thy servant’s house for a great while to come.” 2 Sam. vii. 18, 19. On the other hand, should his children not do as he would wish in their youth, he will be comforted that the covenant exhibited in their baptism, secures his own salvation and may yet effect their reformation even in old age. “Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, and this is all my salvation and all my desire, although he make it not to grow. 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. The parent’s precepts and prayers may do good to the son, when the father has long been in the dust. Eccl. xi. 1, “Cast thy food upon the waters; for thou shalt find it after many days.” Prov. xxii. 6. “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it?” What then? Shall the cavils of controversy be allowed to cancel from the tablatures of the Church, the bestowments of grace? Shall rude opposition without any reason, deprive at once, the pious parent of his highest gratification, and rob God of his peculiar right? Shall the sword of sophistry be drawn to sunder the bonds of mutual duty, and divide the ligaments of closest fellowship among the members of Christ’s body? Shall any opponent of infants’ rights and covenant privileges dare sacrilegiously to pillage from the Church, the pledges of her permanency and future glory? In vain. “The mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.—All thy children shall be taught of the Lord.—No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.” Shall the pillars of hoary infirmity be broken down, and all the balmy consolation of parental solicitude be torn away from our New Testament sanctuary? No; rather let the weakest stripling in the camp of Israel, stand forth again, the advocates of babes than suffer venerable age to be thus insulted. If from the dazzling glare of Jerusalem scenery you wish to recede; if from the sublime heights of Zion and divine documents on her monuments inscribed, you wish to descend to the duskier vale of later story—Agreed. On that area, Providence concurring, we are prepared to shew that infants were baptized in the earliest ages of the Christian era, and that the right of the infants of regular church members to that ordinance, was not, till about the sixteenth century, by any religious body, or even respectable individual, disputed. In the meantime, we readily admit that, by adroit address, your system can be rendered plausible, and by unwearied and exemplary assiduity it has been very successful. You are not, however, to suppose that certain victory awaits your cause by reason of the great accession of modern times. Number is tiny proof of anything. In the present age and state of the Church, it is presumptive evidence of something else than truth or instituted piety. “The spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some should depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits.”—“This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come,” &c.—“But there were false prophets, also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction, and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” 1 Tim. iv.–2 Tim, iii. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2. If you have the truth upon your side you need neither boast of numbers, nor fear the strongest armies which can be marshalled against your system. Truth will, in proper time, triumph. If you have not, you are not to suppose, that, by high pretensions, loud declamations, bold assertions, and fascinating hymns, you will prevail. With these remarks which, as they are candidly offered, I hope will be candidly received, I bid you, and all the truth you maintain, an affectionate—FAREWELL.