Samuel Hopkins · 21 of 48

Section III. On the Public Institutions y Ordinances and Worship oj the Church. · Part 3

Secondly, That thousands m the second command, means a thousand generations; and so is a promise of mercy not only to those individual persons, now on the stage of life, who love God and keep his commandments; but that these by fearing God, and keeping his commandments, shall transmit and hand down mercy to the next generation, or to their children; and those children, by faithfully following their parents’ steps, and keeping covenant, shall likewise procure mercy for their children of the next generation. And in this way, unless the covenant be broken by unfaithfulness and disobedience, mercy will go down, from one to another, even to a thousand generations; that is, to all generations; and the course can never be interrupted; and in this respect it is an everlasting covenant.

And that this is the meaning of the words in the second commandment, is evident from the words themselves, taken together. For the promise is set in opposition to the threatening: The threatening respects posterity or children, or generations yet to come—“Unto the third and fourth generation.” Generation is not in the original, but is necessarily understood, and therefore properly supplied by our translators. Therefore, the promise has respect to the same; and “Shewing mercy unto thousands,” means a thousand generations; and might have been thus translated and supplied with as much reason and propriety as the foregoing clause, and agreeable to the sense Moses gives of the words, in the place just cited. As evil descends from father to children, to the third and fourth generation; so, on the other hand, mercy descends from parents to children, to a thousand generations: That is, to all generations, without any limitation, a certain number, or many, being mentioned, for an unlimited one. The descent of evil from father to children, from generation to generation, is limited, and has an end, either by the interposition of mercy, to put a stop to the succession of evil, as it sometimes does, and so “mercy rejoices against judgment;” or by cutting off the posterity, and putting an end to the succession of evil, which is often the case. But mercy descends from parents to children, from generation to generation, without limitation or end, unless the succession be interrupted and cut off by disobedience, and breach of covenant, by the parents.

And as the disobedient parents transmit a bad moral character to their children, by their iniquity, this being implied in the threatening, as has been shown; and their iniquity is in this way visited upon their children: so by the promise, which is opposed to the threatening, the love and obedience of the parents affect and form the moral character of their children; so that their piety and obedience do, by the promise, convey spiritual blessings to their children, which is the mercy promised and shown to the parents who love God and keep his commandments, in opposition to the judgment and evil threatened to disobedient parents. As their impiety and disobedience is in judgment visited on their children, in the manner above explained; so, on the contrary, the piety and obedience of them, who love God, and keep his commandments, is in mercy visited upon their children, transmitting a good moral character to them, and all those blessings which are implied in this; and thus, as the Psalmist declares, “The generation of the upright shall be blessed: His seed shall be mighty upon the earth.”

All that is to be inferred from this passage, at present, (though farther use may be made of it before this subject is finished) and from those mentioned before, under this particular, is, that God, in his transactions and covenanting with men, does include children with their parents, and they are so connected together, that children derive their moral character, at least in many instances, from their parents: And God, in entering into covenant with parents, extends the promises and blessings of his covenant to their children; which are suspended on the character and conduct of their parents, on their fulfilling the covenant, on their part, or not. It is presumed this is undeniably certain, from the passages of scripture which have been here cited.

As this has in fact been the way of God’s dealing with mankind, and this is declared to be his method of conduct, and the tenor of his covenanting with his people, in the second command; not as a temporary, but a perpetual rule of his proceeding and covenanting with man; and this appears rational and natural; no reason can be suggested, why it should not take place under the gospel, to as great a degree, if not greater, in God’s covenanting with christians; but this gives good reason to conclude, with great certainty, that this is the way in which God deals with christians, and christian churches universally; and that his covenant with them includes their children also.

This is thought to be one good and strong argument, for the baptism of children, of parents who are visible believers, and are in covenant with God, and members of a christian church. Since the covenant has respect to their children, as well as to them, and the children are really included in it; this is a good reason why the seal of the covenant should be applied to them, as well as to their parents; therefore they are proper subjects of baptism.

2. That the above reasoning is right and conclusive, from the facts and declarations recorded in scripture, which have been mentioned; that the children of those who enter into covenant are proper subjects of the seal of the covenant, and have an equal right to it with their parents, is confirmed by the express direction and command of God, to administer and affix the seal of his covenant to the children, as well as to their parents. Of this there is indisputable evidence, both from precept, and from fact.

When God entered into covenant with Abraham, the father and pattern of all believers to the end of the world, and formed a visible church in his house and family; and appointed circumcision to be a token and seal of the covenant, his children, and all the children in his family, were included in the covenant, and by an express direction and command were to be circumcised at eight days old. And this was the seal of die covenant, between God and the seed and posterity of Abraham, and all who were proselyted, and joined with them, by which they were visibly in covenant, and distinguished from others; and was constantly applied to children, from Abraham, down to the christian dispensation, and till the right of circumcision was expressly set aside and abolished in the church; and another rite appointed in the place of it by divine authority; which is baptism with water. And the circumcision of infants Was so strictly enjoined, and made so important and necessary, in order to continue and maintain a visible church, that when a parent neglected to circumcise his children, the covenant was broken with respect to the children, and the parent, and they were cut off from the church.

The Abrahamic covenant, and that into which the children of Israel entered, which is in substance the same, included the promise of spiritual blessings, even all the good things which are contained in the covenant of grace, which takes place between God and the visible churches of Christ, and every individual believer; and the latter is the same with the former, in the essence and substance of it. Nothing greater or more is promised to man in the Bible, nor can more be promised by God, than that he will be a God unto them. This promise was contained in the covenant made with Abraham, and his seed. And this promise contains all the blessings of the gospel covenant, or the new covenant, called so to distinguish it from the covenant published from Mount Sinai, in the form of a covenant of works; which did, however, under that form, more darkly contain the covenant of grace. And nothing more is to be promised on man’s part, than to keep this covenant, which was enjoined upon Abraham and his seed. “And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations.” To enter into covenant with God, and acknowledge and receive him as their God, is to engage to do all the duty enjoined in the covenant, which is necessary, in order to partake of the promises; to love God, and keep his commandments: Which is expressed to Abraham in the following words: “The Lord appeared to Abraham, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

This covenant did indeed contain a promise of temporal blessings, and of possessing the land of Canaan; but this does not make it essentially different from the covenant under the gospel; for this contains a promise of temporal good things, which shall be proper and needed: It has the “promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.”

Therefore, the token or seal of this covenant, on the part of those to whom it was applied, signified a new heart, a heart to love God, a humble, penitent, obedient heart. And an heart opposite to all this, is called an uncircumcised heart. “Circumcise therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” “If then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled.” “Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost.” “He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” Circumcision, therefore, implied, and did signify as much, and the same thing, as baptism does, when applied to the adult, or any other person.

The argument from this fact, and divine constitution, is stated in the following manner: When God formed a church in the family of Abraham, and in Israel his posterity, upon the same foundation and covenant, as to substance, with that upon which the church under the gospel is founded; requiring the same character in order to be members of it, and containing the same mutual promises and engagements; and appointed a token or seal of this covenant, by the application of which persons were introduced as visible members of this church, and were distinguished from all others, as a visibly holy people: He did, at the same time, order this distinguishing seal of the covenant to be applied and administered to their children, and they were taken into covenant with their parents. The children of parents in the christian church are as capable of being included in the covenant with their parents, and of having the qualifications for baptism, and the things signified by it, as the infants of Abraham and his posterity were, of being included in the covenant made with them; and of having the qualifications, and those things which were signified by circumcision, these being in substance the same; there being no other alteration or change, but that which is circumstantial; and the ancient initiating rite and seal of the covenant, changed from circumcision to baptism with water, which is the christian circumcision. Therefore, the children of believers in the christian church are included in the covenant into which the parents enter, and are to have the initiating seal of the covenant applied to them, as being the proper subjects of baptism. And the divine command to Abraham, and his posterity, to circumcise their children, is as binding on christians, who are the children of Abraham, to baptize their children; unless this command and institution of God be expressly, or clearly, by necessary implication, repealed and set aside; which is not to be found in the Bible, nor the least intimation of any such thing, but the contrary; as will be shewn under the next particular. It was a favour and privilege, to both parents and children, in the Abrahamic church, to have the latter admitted into covenant with their parents, and to have the seal of the covenant applied to them; and no reason can be given or thought of, why it is not as great a favour and privilege to both now, as it was then; no man, therefore, can set this divine institution aside, unless he have a warrant from heaven to do it, without disobedience to God, and injuring the church of Christ, and offending those little children, the children of believing parents.

God, by instituting a church in the family of Abraham, set a pattern, and appointed a form of a church, in all the essentials of it, agreeable to his own wisdom and goodness, in which he included both parents and their children, and ordered the initiating seal of the covenant to be applied to infants; hereby declaring them to be the proper subjects of it. This was a great favour and privilege to parents and children; and was therefore strictly enjoined, and much insisted upon as an important duty, the neglect of which brought the parents under censure, and excluded them from the privilege of the church, and injured the children. Therefore, this institution continues, and is binding on the christian church, and will continue to the end of the world; and there is no reason to expect or desire, that it should be set aside, and be made to cease; or that it should be expressly enjoined again, and the command renewed, under the gospel; because this is wholly needless; it having been once expressly enjoined, and actually put into practice, a total silence about it afterwards, is a tacit command to continue the observance of it.

3. It has been just now observed, that if nothing be recorded in the New Testament that was said or done by Christ or his apostles, contrary to including the children of believers, in the covenant with their parents, and baptizing them; then the constitution which God had already made in his church, with respect to this, must stand unrepealed; and it may be safely concluded, that it is the will of Christ, that this should take place in his church, and that it actually did take place, and was practised, though nothing be said directly concerning it. But it must be now observed, that there are things said in the New Testament, which do imply this, and show that the children of believers were then considered in the same light and character, and treated as the children were in the Abrahamic church.

What Christ said of little children and infants, and did to them which were brought to him for his blessing, is remarkable. The disciples rebuked those who brought them for doing it; but Christ was much displeased with them for doing so, and said to them, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And he took them in his arms, and laid his hands on them, and prayed for them, and blessed them. Upon this the following things are to be observed:

1. They who brought those children and infants to Christ were believers in him, and friends to him; for none but such would in these circumstances bring their children to him, to obtain his blessing.

2. They were not brought to Christ to be cured of any bodily disease: For if this had been the case, and the children had need of healing in this sense, the disciples would not have rebuked them for bringing them to be healed; beside, there is not a word said, intimating that they were cured of any bodily disorder, or that they had any.

3. Christ encouraged their bringing their little children and infants to him; and discovered his approbation, by shewing his displeasure with his disciples, for discouraging and forbidding them to do it; and charging them not to do so again; and by granting the request of those who brought them.

4. Christ, by taking them in his arms, and praying for them and blessing them, declared that they were capable of receiving spiritual saving blessings; of being the subjects of all the blessings contained in the covenant of grace, and of all that is signified in the ordinance of baptism; and that he actually fixed this character upon them, and conferred these blessings, and numbered them among the saved; those who are redeemed by him. For his praying for them, and blessing them, must imply all this; as he was always heard, and they whom Christ blesses are blessed, and shall be blessed forever.

5. When Christ says, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” he, in these words, gives the reason why little children should be brought to him for his blessing. By the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven, which is the same, is meant the visible kingdom of Christ in this world, or his church; in which sense, this phrase is most commonly used by Christ. What he here declares therefore is, that such children as these, that is, the children of his friends, who believe in him, belong to his kingdom, and are to be members of his visible church, and to be with their parents, numbered among the redeemed.

This declaration of our Saviour sets the children of believing parents under the gospel in the same situation in which the children of the visible members of the ancient church, in the family and posterity of Abraham, were placed. Such were introduced with their parents, into that church and kingdom, and were as real members of it as their parents. But they cannot enter into this kingdom of God, the visible church of Christ, in any way but by being baptized with water: Therefore, this is as proper, important and necessary, as was the circumcision of children, under the covenant made with Abraham. If children of visible believers are to be considered as having a right to be visible members of the kingdom of God, and to be treated as such; in which light Christ has set them in those words; then they are to be introduced to this visible standing: in this church and kingdom, by the only door which Christ has fixed and opened for this, which is, by being baptized with water, in the name of the sacred Trinity; or being born of water.

In sum, what Christ said and did on this occasion is entirely conformable to the institution in the covenant with Abraham, and the practice of the church of Israel, respecting children; and is really an approbation of it, and a manifestation of his will, that the children of his disciples, and members of his visible church, should be considered and treated as the children of Abraham, and his posterity were, as being in the same covenant and kingdom with their parents.

What the apostle Paul says to the church of Christ at Corinth, and particular members of it, respecting their children, is an evidence that they had the same station and character in the christian church, which they had in the church before the incarnation of Christ. “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

Here it is asserted, that the children of believing parents, even if one of them be a believer, are holy. The meaning of the word holy, here, is doubtless plain and determinate, and will appear so, when properly considered, and compared with other parts of the Bible. Is it not certain that this word, especially in the New Testament, when applied to a moral agent, denotes a moral character, and means real holiness, or the appearance of real holiness, in the view and judgment of those persons who are to form a judgment of their moral character, and treat them accordingly? This is the same with visible holiness; that is, real holiness in the sight and judgment of men, who are to judge and act upon it. To be visibly holy, is to be really holy in appearance to men, so far as they can, or have a right to judge; and is a sufficient warrant for them to consider and treat them who have this visibility of real holiness, as if they were in fact really holy, though this visibility, or the signs and evidence by which they are to judge, be not infallibly connected with real holiness.

In this sense all the members of the apostolic churches were holy. They Were therefore called “holy brethren,” and saints, which is the same word in the original, by which the character of children of believers is here expressed; and might be translated, “Else were your children unclean; but now are they saints.” This is an epithet common to all who were baptized and received into the churches, professing faith in Christ, and entering into covenant with him, and with each other, to obey his laws, and to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were thus called saints, or holy, and considered and treated as being really such, because they had that appearance in the sight of men, according to the rules by which they were to judge and act in their treatment of them; and not because they infallibly knew they were real saints. They were visibly real saints, according to the marks and evidence, and the appearance they made in the sight of men, by which Christ had ordered them to judge and act. Thus they were visible saints: All the members of every church were so. They were baptized and received as members of the church, as appearing to be real saints, which is meant by a visible saint. All who were not real saints, or really holy in the sight of Christ, which was true of some, were hypocrites, and not what they professed and appeared to men to be. In this case the fault was wholly in them, who made an appearance and profession, not agreeable to the truth; and not theirs who acted according to the rules which Christ has prescribed, in forming a charitable judgment of them, and receiving them, as being really holy, and friends to Christ.

In this sense, the children of the believer are holy, or saints. Christ has put this character upon them, and directed his people to consider and receive them as such; which character is derived wholly from the believing parent. If the parent of the children be a visible saint, or holy person, that is, appears to men to be a real saint, the children are visible saints, or holy also; that is, they have the appearance and character of real saints, as really as their parents, and are to be treated as such, until this appearance ceases. How this appearance and visibility may cease, and on what ground it is derived to children, from their parents, will be more particularly considered in the sequel.

It has been said, that the unbelieving parent is sanctified, according to this text; which is the same with being made holy: Such parent is therefore here represented to be as holy as the children; consequently the latter are no more, and in no other sense holy, than the former, according to these words.

Answer. No one can suppose, that to be sanctified, and to be holy, do here express the same character; or that the unbelieving parent is asserted to be holy, in precisely the same sense, in which the children of believers are holy. Therefore, the unbelieving parent being said to be sanctified by, in, or to the believing parent, whatever this may mean, does not in the least determine what is the character of the children, which is expressed by their being called holy; and is as consistent with their being asserted to be really holy, in the sense which has been now explained, as it is with their being holy in any other sense. And it is to be considered, whether the sense here given be not the most natural, consistent sense: and whether any other sense, which is consistent and unforced, has ever yet been mentioned, or can be suggested.

When the unbelieving parent is said to be sanctified by, or to the believer, the meaning is plain and easy, viz. That the believer may live in such a connexion, consistent with maintaining a christian character; and the unbeliever may, to such a degree, answer the ends of that relation to the believer, as to be improved by the latter to the holy purposes of true religion. Thus the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, as every kind of food, and every creature of God, is sanctified to such, by the word of God, and prayer. Therefore, the children of such parents are holy: they derive their character from the believing, holy parent, and not from the unbeliever: which could not be the case, if the unbeliever were not sanctified by, or to, the believer, in the sense above explained. Who does not see the difference between the unbeliever being sanctified by, in, or to, the believer; and the children of the believer being consequently holy? The latter, according to the use of the word in the New Testament, denotes a moral character, and fixes it on the children: the formed has no respect to the moral character of the unbeliever; but of the believing parent, from whom that of the children is derived.

According to this view of the words under consideration, the children of believers and members of christian churches are to be considered, and were considered by Christ and his apostles, and the primitive churches, as having the same character with their believing parents; just as the children of parents in the Abrahamic church were considered and treated, viz. as being in the same covenant, and having the same character with their parents. The children of Abraham, and of Israel, when more particularly formed into a church, and they renewed and entered into covenant at Mount Sinai, after they had greatly apostatized, during their long servitude in Egypt, were denominated by God, “A holy nation, and a holy people.” And all their children were included in this covenant, as has been shewn, and this epithet was applied to them, as much as to their parents: the seal of the covenant was therefore applied to them, by which they were visibly separated and distinguished from all other people, as a holy nation, both parents and children.

Is not this sufficient evidence, that it was the will of Christ that the churches erected by the apostles should make no alteration with respect to children, from that which took place in the church, formed in the family of Abraham; but they are to have the same character and privileges with them? How contrary is this to a supposed repeal of the institution, by which children were received into covenant with their parents, and had the seal of it applied to them, in the family of Abraham!

And if the children of believers be holy, in the sense explained, and were so in the apostolic churches; are they not the proper subjects of baptism? Who can forbid water, that they should not be baptized?

It may be added, that consistent with these words, thus understood, this apostle treated and addressed the children of believing parents, as being numbered with the saints, and so as saints. Headdresses his epistle to the church at Ephesus, and to that at Colosse, to the saints at Ephesus, and at Colosse, and to no other persons; and he speaks to such, and no others, in those, and in all his epistles. Yet here we find him particularly addressing, and exhorting children, as included in the church, and among the saints. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.”

Other passages in the New Testament have been often mentioned, by writers on this subject, in support of the baptism of the children of believers: But it is not thought needful, particularly to consider them here: Since these, which have been brought into view, are supposed sufficient to shew, that it is the will of Christ, that the institution of a church in the family of Abraham, so far as it respects children, including them with their parents, and applying the seal of the covenant to them, should not be repealed under the gospel.

4. That the apostolic churches and primitive christians did admit their children to baptism, as proper subjects of it, is argued from the general, and almost universal practice of it in all ages since, from that time. This is a fact, which writers on this subject have abundantly proved. From writings now extant it appears, that infant baptism was practised in the christian churches, in the second, third, and fourth centuries. And it was asserted by writers in the church in those ages, that it had been the universal practice from the days of the apostles; and not one person appears to have denied it, or to suggest that it was not thus handed down, as an institution of Christ. And it appears to have been the common practice in christian churches for above a thousand years, at least; and it is to this day the general practice in the christian world. If this were not the practice of the first christian churches, formed by the apostles, it seems impossible that it should be introduced at so early an age, as the universal practice, without opposition by any one church or person, as an innovation, and contrary to the practice of the primitive churches; and without any account, or notice given, when it was done, and by whom, and by whom it was opposed. Various heresies took place in the churches soon after the apostles’ days, by which christians were divided in their sentiments and practice in many things, of which we have the history handed down to us; informed when, and by whom they were introduced. And learned men, who took pains to inform themselves, and were under advantages to do it, who lived in the early ages of the church, have given a particular account of the heresies which had arisen among christians in different parts of the world, and at different times; but they never mention infant baptism, as one of them; nor the omission or denial of it, as a christian institution, by any church or single person, who practised the baptism of any with water. By those heresies, professing christians were divided into parties, and became spies upon each other; and if they had not all been agreed in baptizing infants, and it had not been the universal practice before those divisions rose, but was introduced afterwards, it would have been impossible that they should all agree in it; or that they should be silent about it; and that none should dispute against it, and oppose it. If one party had adopted it, the other would oppose it, as an innovation, never known to be practised before, &c. But while they differed about many things, in this practice they were all agreed, as an institution handed down from the apostles.