ONE
"1. Baptists allow that the Lord included the children of the Jews in the ministration of the Covenant. In the Old Testament days that ministration was confined to one nation. After the day of Pentecost the ministration of the Covenant was to be extended to all the nations, but, say the Baptists, now the Lord excluded the children from it. Is there ONE text in the whole Bible where it is stated that the Lord made such a change?
And if not, who gives the Baptists the right to exclude children from the ministration of the Covenant, if the Lord does not do it? Likely there were some of the same mistaken notion even among Christ's disciples who rebuked those that brought young children to Him; see in Mark 10:13, 14, how much it displeased Him. And it is plainly taught in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that the children of believers are, with their parents, in a covenant relation."
In this first point the writer is assuming that the "ministration" of the Covenant in the Old Testament and New Testament are the same. But the Westminster Confession of Faith correctly states, "This Covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel" (ch. 7; sect. 5 and 6). I agree that the Covenant of Grace is essentially the same in both the Old and New Testaments, but if the ministration of it is supposed to be the same, there are three pertinent questions I would ask:
(I) Why is baptism administered to female infants? Circumcision was administered to males only in the old dispensation.
(2) Why are not servants baptized as well as children? They were circumcised in the old dispensation.
(3) Why is not the Lord's Supper observed by the whole household as the Passover was in the old dispensation?
The writer also assumes that the Church of the Old Testament was the same as the Church of the New Testament, and because the infant children of the Israelites were included in the former, therefore all the infant children of believers have a right to be included in the latter. The fact is, however, there never was any organised body of believers in the Old Testament dispensation which exactly corresponded to the Christian Church; and in no essential outward manifestation can it be said that the Commonwealth of Israel is the same as the Church of the New Testament, It will be seen that the writer draws an unscriptural and unwarranted analogy between the covenant of circumcision and what he calls the "ministration" of the Covenant of grace, and in doing this he confounds and confuses things that differ.
Simply stated, the position of infants in regard to the Covenant of grace has always been the same from the time the Covenant was made until now; they are wholly out of it in the same way as adults are, that is, they are either elect or non-elect. The view that there is a New Testament "ministration of the Covenant" wherein non-elect people, infants or otherwise, are admitted, we reject as unscriptural. Taking the whole tenor of the writer's arguments, we are asked to 'believe, so it appears, that there is something in the nature of two phases or stages in the Covenant of grace; the first possessing certain undefined privileges falling a little way short of the salvation of those who are in it; the second, that which finally secures their salvation. Several advocates of infant baptism have spoken to me about this and they all argue differently.
Candidly, I have yet to find a mere three people in the church to which this writer belongs, who will argue the same and give any semblance of agreement among themselves. Even their ministers do not agree among themselves. I take it that this sort of "external sphere" of the Covenant is the same as the "ministration" of it; some have spoken of the "scope" of it. We Strict Baptists do not believe that there is such a thing as a Covenant with a kind of outer court wherein the baptized infants (whether elect or non-elect) of believing parents receive privileges denied to infants not so baptized.
I do not want to be unduly personal, much less unkind, or use any unfair argument in contending for what I believe to be the truth, but I cannot forbear considering the case of my own dear children. If it were possible, how gladly would I present them to the writer of "Why I am not a Baptist." I would invite him to question them on their upbringing, their parents' discipline (which I am sure they would remember), the form and mode of worship taught them; and finally ask them to "give a reason of the hope that is in them." And then, as they stood before him with their God-given husbands and God-given children - none of them baptized as infants - I would say to him, "Now friend, pray come and, in all honesty before God, tell me what these dear children lack in comparison with those whom you say are within the ministration of the Covenant."
However, it may be that the great covenant privilege which baptized infants are supposed to possess is that, if they die before coming to years of discretion, they are saved. But how is it - O will someone please tell me! - how is it that if they live to reach the years of discretion and become "covenant-breakers" they are irretrievably lost?
It will be noted also that in this paragraph the writer tells us that it is plainly taught in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that the children of believers are, with their parents, in a covenant relation. I could readily name and quote many paedo-baptist divines who emphatically disagree with this premise. If we look at the context in Scripture, we find that, in the Corinthian church, there were Christian wives who, at the time of their conversion, found themselves married to pagan husbands; and Christian husbands who were married to pagan wives. This led the believing Corinthians to ask, "Is it lawful for us to continue to live with our unbelieving spouses?" In verses 12 and 13 Paul gives them his advice and says, "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now they are holy." This cannot mean that an unbelieving wife or husband possessed spiritual holiness; for in that case, a person could be spiritually holy and yet remain an infidel or heathen at the same time.
The words "sanctified" and "holy" must be understood in a relative sense, and Paul says that, in spite of the unbelief of one of the parties, their matrimony was lawful; that they were sanctified or set apart to each other as husband and wife, and that their being together in this relationship was pleasing to God. 'If it were not so,' Paul seems to teach, 'if you were unclean to each other, that is, not fit to associate together as husband and wife, your children would be also unclean to you, and you would have to put them away; but now they are holy, that is to say, legitimate and clean to you, so that you may retain them in your homes as objects of your affection and care.'
In this passage there is not one word about baptism, nor even an allusion to it; nor does the argument bear upon it. In fact, the more the passage is studied, the more readily may we conclude that at the time the apostle writes, infant-baptism was unknown in the Corinthian church. Had it been otherwise, the apostle would have inferred the holiness of children from their baptism instead of from their having a Christian father or mother.
).
