The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-02-02
THE CHILDREN OF BAPTIZED PARENTS
Have a COVENANT Right to BAPTISM.

VI. THE ANTI-PRESBYTERIAN ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
Our General Assembly at Memphis has
declared that tits contrary to our Standards,
for minister to baptize a child, unless one
or both of the parents have made visible
profession of personal saving faith in, and
obedience to Christ and are communicants.
l believe, on the contrary, that the children,
one or both Of whose parents have been bap-
tized are thereby constituted members of the
visible Church, and that they have therefore
a covenant right to Baptism. This think
I have proved in my first article to be the
doctrine Of our Standards, and therefore
Constitutional; and in four following articles
to be the doctrine of Scripture. The sum
of that argument is: The Church of God
with its covenant and seals, its profession OF
faith, its principle Of formal admission and
membership, its sacramental rite, and Its
practical administration of that rite has been
essentially the same under the Old and New
Testaments, and has always included as
members of it children one or both Of whose
parents have received the initiatory rite Of
formal admission to it. The conclusion,
therefore, is logically inevitable, that such
children, and not exclusively the children OF
parents, one or both of whom have made a
credible profession of personal saving faith
and are communicates, have a covenant right
to Baptism. This last view which is that Of
the Assembly, is not an inference from the
premises. It is a fallacy, because it intro
duces into the minor proposition, and the
conclusion, what is not only entirely differ
ent in form but contrary to what is affirmed
in the premise. According to our six pro
positions, we have proved that an externa
visible and ceremonial profession Of faith, ODE
dience, and holiness has been the ground O
admission, both of parents and children
within the covenant, and membership of tn
visible Church,-whO were not Israeli
that is members of the invisible Churcl
by a saving faith. Many were Jew
outwardly who were not Jews inwardly
And in like manner does our Saviour an
Apostles teach, that many are visibly holy
and within the covenant, and members of tn
visible Church, who are not true believers
but "tarss" and ''bad fish, ," and even sen
emies of the cross of Christ. DR.. Mile
in his work on Infant Baptism considers, a
the eleventh objection of opponents to il
fant baptism, the argument that if baptisr
takes the place of circumcision, and if tn
Church is the same in substance now, a
when circumcision was the initiatory sea
then, Ito use his italics, Why as not 5aE
tism as uniuer8al IN the Ns10 Testamsr
Church as cirermeisiOn gas under the Ol
Economy & answer" says DR.. Miller
(again to use his italics ''tbis undOubtedl
ouqht to Be the case" And yet, strange
say, he Immediately proceeds to show th'
because all parents, where the Gospel com,
SOUGHT to be TRUE believers" therefore,
a privilege of covenant right none but tt
children of such ought to be baptized, whic
is only a re-statement Of the objection ne
answering, and is not statement of VIII
Is. but of what OUGHT to be-(see our infal
baptism, page So He again, on the san