The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-02-16

1
ignores. Th
Of the Chur, .si,l, "
Old and New Testament u,
also the identity of the external e
cal Visible Church under it's Old an,
Testament FORM He teaches that while
there is ''much advantage every way" in the
Visible Church with its benefits and bless
ings, nevertheless man may be member
of the Visible Church, and yet not be a
member, or enjoy the benefits of the InVisi-
ole Church. Hence the Apostle Peter, on
the day of PentecOst, (see Acts ii: 38, 39,)
as DR.. Hodge himself argues in his Outlines,
page 436, "exhorts all to repent and be
BAPTIZED BECAUSE (his capitals, the
Abrahamic covenant still held in force for
all Jews AND FOR THEIR CHILDREN, and for
all those afar off; that is Gentiles, &c.
The proper conclusion from these facts
would seem unquestiOnably to be, to use DR..
A. A. Hodges own words, (see on Comics
sion of Faith, page 425,) "the truth that the
children, Of all professors Of the true rsli-
giOa '-(that is, members of the Visible
Church, )-"are, on that account, (his italics)
fellow-members with their parents of the
Visible Church." Or we may state this
conclusion as DR.. A. A. Hodge again states
it, (see ditto, page 472,) ''Now as this Church
is the same Church; as the conditions of
membership were the same then as now; as
circumcision signifed and bound to precisely
what baptism does; and since baptism has
taken precisely the place of circumcision, it
follows that church membership of the child
ren of professors, (that is as on page 425,)
professors of the true religion, ''should
be recognized now as it was then, and that
they should be baptized" The only ground
upon which this conclusion could be obviated
would be that Christ in the Gospel explicitly
turns them out of their ancient birthright in
the Church. With this conclusion | am sat,
is6ed, as the only one logically deducible
from the premises in this argument. The
reasons therefore given by DR.. A. A. Hodge
see On Confession of Faith, page Ats, and
Outlines, page 5OO,) are as contradictory,
as they are illogical and inapplicable. 1t is
sufficient in reply to say: 1st That while
all members of the Visible Church have not
fright in possession to all privileges of
church membership, they have a right of
property to all, and they have distinct in
defeasible right to have their children bap-
tized. End. This right no particular Church
can dare to take away, without taking away
Gods covenant. As to the idea of baptized
parents forfeiting their own birthright, and
also the birthright of their children it is
nothing less than an outrage upon all justice
and Presbyterian doctrine and order. Let
DIR. Miller answer this argument. In his
work on Infant Baptism, page 1880, he
says, every baptized child is undoubtedly
to be considered member of the Church
until he dies, is communicated, or regular
ly dismissed to another Church" 9rd. DR..
A. A. Hodges very serious charges of per-
Ijury and mockery, and sacrilege, and sin
both in the parent and in the minister, (see
On Confession of Faith, page ATS, and Out
lines, page 50O,1 are based upon two errO-
neous assumptions already refuted. 1st
That the validity and efficacy of the baptis-
NAL covenant depend on the reality of the
personal faith of the parents, and not upon
Gods promise in the covenant. This is out
and out the objection of Congregational
Baptists. "But," to use the words of Tohn
Calvin, (see Institutes Book ", ar
xvi, section 21, ''The delusion
leads them Il. e., COngregp''
is that they would always =
precede the sign, in the order oi
But if the truth must necessarily
ceded, infants would never have been dm-
cised by the command of God. . Where
fore nothing more of present effect is to be
required in the Pedo-Baptism, than to con-
firm and sanction the covenant which the
Lord has made with them, - Ii. e., children. }
"Why," tasks Calvin again, section "A, }
"dOes the sacrament come after faith in
Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his
son Isaac, d. he, according to the terms
of the promise, is included by hereditary
right from his mothers womb End. 1t is
evident that the baptismal covenant is not
made by, nor with the parent, and that it
does not depend for its efficacy upon the
moral state of the parent, but solely on the
covenant of grace made by Christ with the
Visible Church; and with the child of a
parent who is member of the Church, and
who is therefore an heir, having birthright
of property in that covenant, and to baptism
as its seal. The theory, therefore, of our
General Assembly, defended by DR.. A. A.
Hodge with all its apparent zeal, for truth
and purity, leads 1st, to the destruction of
any really existing Visible Church, and Wis
ible Church covenants, benefits and blessings.