The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-10-20

Calvin says: "They were then Sanctlhed by
the holy covenant. =. He hence concludes
that from them an hereditary holiness had
passed to all their posterity, -. as the
Lord had sanctifed Abraham for this end
that His seed might also be holy, and as he
thus conferred holiness not only on his per-
son, but also on his whole race, the Apostle
does not unSuitably draw the conclusion,
that all the Jews were sanctitied In their
father Abraham" In note Calvin adds,
"That the holiness here mentioned is exter-
nal and relative, and not personal and in
ward is evident from the whole context. y
"For though" as he adds, "they were
wicked and disobedient they enjoyed all the
external privileges of the covenant which
God had made with their fathers.
DIR. Hodge in his commentary on 1st Cor.
vii: 4, says, "The third meaning of the
word sanctify is to consecrate, to regard as
sacred. =. Any person or thing conse-
Grated to God is said to be sanctifed.
Any child, the circumstances of whose birth
secures it a place within the theocracy or
commonwealth of Israel, was according to
the constant usages of Scripture said to be
holy. -. The child of a JeaOisA parent
had right to circumcision, and to all the
privileges of the theocracy. So the child Of
Christian parent has right to baptism. 8.
>. The children of Jews were treated as
Jews and the children Of Christians, Paul
assumes as thing no one could dispute, are
to be treated as Christians. F.. :. TO be
born IN holiness g. e. adds DIR. FL. within the
Church, was necessary IN order to the child
6eing regarded as am Israehte. So Chris.
tian children are not made holy By baptism,
but they are baptized because they are holy. y
Professor Wilson in his elaborate work re.
ferred to, fully vindcates the same interpre-
tation. "The holiness predicated of the
children (says he on page 516) is plainly
federal holiness. D.. In this federal holi-
ness the infant offspring of Gods ancient
heritage participated. =. possessed of
federal holiness, their claim to the initiatory
rite to the new covenant we hold to be as
certained and established
1t remains in the sixth place to prove that
the administration of the initiatory ordi-
nance has been the same under every dis
pensation of the Church and has always in
cluded the children of parents to one or both
of whom the initiatory ordinance had been
administered. This proposition has been al
ready substantially proved as it regards in
fants under all the dispensations of the
Church previous to the Christian, and is not
questioned by Presbyterians. With regard
to the practice of the Church under the Cos
pei there would seem to be as little room for
doubt. The total silence of Scripture as to
any change is itself very nearly conclusive,
of the practice of the early Christians in
regard to infant baptism. We find also, that
in every instance of adult baptism recorded
in the New Testament where they had chill
dren, those children were baptized as being
themselves brought within the covenant, just
as under the Jewish dispensation in the case
of every adult proselyte who was baptized
as well as circumcised, the children of the
family were also both circumcised ard bap
tized. 1t is also a fact, that there is not a
single instance, among all the baptisms re-
corded in the Scripture, of a person who had
grown up Christian who had not been bap
tized, nor single instance of any such per.
son who had grown up as a Christian to
whom baptism was administered when adult
Another fact is also strong corroborative
proof of the practice of the early Chris
tians, that while multitudes of those who
were converts from the Jewish faith by
whom the admission of their children unto
the Church, by the seal of the covenant, was
regarded as a privilege of the greatest i'm
portance, and while controversies about cir
cumcision agitated the early Church, ant
awakened the most intense and prejudicet
feelings, there is not single instance either
recordedin Scripture or history, of any Jewish
convert making any complaint or difficulty
because deprived of this privilege. Wher
therefore we read of the baptism of "house
holds" and families in which it is morally
certain, that there must have been infants
as is indeed declared by the Greek word useC
in speaking of them, the conclusion is inevi
table Thus it is said of Lydia "she wa
baptized and her household" that is tn
children of Lydia were baptized not sepa
rately, nor on account of any distinct per
sonal profession of their own, but as tn
children of one who by her baptism ha'
brought them also within the covenant AM
entitled them to baptism. To this, it is onl
necessary to add the uniform testimony O
the early fathers that the children of parents
one or both of whom were by baptism mad
members of the visible Church were ever.
where and always baptized.
I may therefore safely conclude that ou
general propositions have been demonstrate
to be the doctrine of Scripture, and that tn
statement of the Assembly is not only un
constitutional and contrary to our Standard;
but is also contrary to the system of doctrin
taught in the Holy Scripture.
will next proceed to show that it is Ant
PRESBYTERIAN. L. s.