Samuel Hopkins · 26 of 48

Section III. On the Public Institutions y Ordinances and Worship oj the Church. · Part 8

1. Though it be evident, that parents have not done their duty to those of their children, who grow up and continue in disobedience to Christ, and refuse to walk in the way in which they should go; yet if no course of actions, nor any particular overt act, contrary to their duty, nor any gross, known and designed neglect of their duty to their children, can be proved, or alleged against them, there can be no ground of public censure.

2. Though it could be proved, and were known, that they had been guilty of many mistakes, much imprudence, and great neglects, in the education of their children, and were far from doing their duty, and complying with all that is implied in bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and so had broken the covenant between God and them, with respect to their duty to their children; yet this may be consistent with their being true believers, or real christians; and therefore cannot be a sufficient ground of censuring them, and casting them out of the church; for nothing can be the proper ground of such censure, but those overt acts, or that neglect of duty, which, if persisted in, is inconsistent with a person’s being a real christian. It has been observed, that a person may be a true believer, and be entitled to the blessings of the covenant of grace, as to his own person, and yet not perform the condition of the covenant, as it respects his children: Therefore, though the latter may be proved, this is no evidence against him, with respect to the former; consequently is not a ground of rejecting him as no christian.

Question VI. It is a known truth, and often mentioned, that parents cannot give or convey grace to their children, by any thing they can do. Is not the doctrine now advanced, which teaches that the holiness and salvation of children, is the certain consequence of their parents doing their duty to them, contrary to this truth?

Answer. It is true, that holiness is wrought in the heart, by the power and energy of the holy Spirit, and cannot be communicated to children by any means or endeavours used by parents; but is wholly effected by divine influences. In this view and sense, parents do not convey grace to their children: this is wholly out of their power: It is the work of God. But it does not follow from this, that God has not so constituted the covenant of grace, that holiness shall be communicated by him to the children, in consequence of the faithful, commanded endeavours of their parents, so that, in this sense, and by virtue of such a constitution, they do, by their faithful endeavours, convey saving blessings to their children.

In this way, they give existence to their children.—God produces their existence by his own almighty energy; but by the constitution he has established, they receive their existence from their parents, or by their means. By an established constitution, parents convey moral depravity to their children. And if God has been pleased to make a constitution, and appoint a way, in his covenant of grace with man, by which pious parents may convey, and communicate moral rectitude or holiness to their children, they by using the appointed means, do it as really and effectually, as they communicate existence to them. In this sense, therefore, they may convey and give holiness and salvation to their children.

This is a maxim often mentioned by parents, when the faithful education of their children is brought into view, and urged, that parents cannot give grace to their children, however faithful they are in their education. This is not true, in the sense now mentioned, if the covenant of grace contains a promise that their children shall be holy, if they will use all proper and commanded endeavours to this end, by which there is a constituted connection between such means, and the end. And whether this has not been proved from scripture, the reader will judge, when he has considered what has now been offered on this point. There is reason to fear, and even to believe, that the above maxim is too often mentioned by parents, in order to exculpate and excuse themselves from fault, when their children grow up ungoverned, ignorant and vicious. In this view it is desirable it should be laid aside.

Question VII. If this be a doctrine plainly taught in scripture, and explains and points out the meaning, design and importance of the baptism of the children of believers, why has it not been understood and believed in all ages in the christian church; but remained in the dark, and unknown till this time?

Answer 1st. It was taught by Christ and his Apostles, as they said things which do necessarily imply it, as has been shown. And it was therefore doubtless understood and believed in the churches constituted by the Apostles; which, with other doctrines and practices enjoined by them, was soon corrupted, misunderstood and in a great measure lost in darkness and error. And that this was an apostolic institution, may be argued from the opinion which was handed down in the christian church, that baptized infants were regenerated: and hence their baptism was called regeneration, which appears by the writings of those who lived in the second century of the christian church, and since. Though the true reason of baptized children being considered and called holy, viz. their being the children of parents who dedicated them to God, and had engaged to bring them up for God, on which condition they were to be holy and saved, according to the divine promise, was soon after the days of the apostles too generally overlooked and misunderstood: yet the doctrine, that such children were to be considered to be regenerated and holy, was still taught and believed; and has been embraced by many, even to this day. But instead of understanding the true ground of this, and giving a rational and scriptural account of it, the most of them have either given no reason for it, or attributed it, not to what the parents had done, or should do for them, and the promise made to them in the covenant of grace, upon their faithfulness: but to the efficacy of the ordinance of baptism itself; and thought that the bare administration of baptism would sanctify and save them, without regard to any condition to be performed by their parents, or others.

Answer 2d. This doctrine has been expressly asserted by writers of this and the last centuries: And many divines, if not most, who have written in favour of infant baptism, have said that which really implies this doctrine, while they assert that the children of believers are received into covenant with their parents, and have a visible title to the promise of the covenant, which is, that God will be a God lo them, or their God; and therefore are federally holy. Which implies the whole that has been now advanced on this point, if these words be taken in any proper consistent sense; or if indeed they have any real meaning. It cannot be denied indeed, that many of these same authors have passed over this point, without an explanation, or have so explained this assertion, as to leave it without any consistent sense, or nothing but words without any meaning: And have denied that to be the meaning, which is the only natural and consistent one.

Answer 3d. If this doctrine were wholly neglected and lost, ever since the age in which the apostles lived, and had not been revived or thought of, till this time, or even till the millennium shall commence, this would be no argument against the truth of it, whenever, upon inquiry, it be found to be contained in the Bible.

Those doctrines and duties of christianity, which are most contrary to the selfishness, pride, worldliness, and the various natural corrupt inclinations of men, are most exposed to be soon rejected and lost, or greatly corrupted: and though once taught and established, and continuing to be contained in divine revelation, will be neglected and discarded, when the power and spirit of true religion declines. And they will not be long maintained and practised in their original purity and strictness, in christian churches, unless divine influences be granted, to form the hearts of successive generations, to discern and love the truth and practise it. This observation has been verified by fact and experience. The christian church, in general, soon became corrupt, and sunk into darkness and error, in principles and practice, after the days of the apostles. And this declension and apostasy from the truth once delivered to the saints, became greater and more general, as the spirit of true religion vanished: and error in doctrine, and superstition, and corruption in practice increased. There were, from time to time, some degree of partial revivals of truth and religion; and particular men were raised up to investigate and declare some of the most important truths contained in the Bible, and oppose the general corruption in christian doctrine and duty: and this took place to a remarkable degree and extent in the reformation from popery. But who will presume to say or think, that any of the different sects and denominations of christians in the protestant world, have come up to the purity in doctrine and practice, of the primitive church; or that the Bible is yet understood, in all the important branches of truth and duty, as they are there revealed? Christians in general are still in a great degree of darkness, and much of the light held up in the Bible is not received, through the inattention, prejudices and blindness of men. The scripture has not been so well and so fully understood, as it will be in the days of the millennium, when the Spirit of God shall be poured out on christians in general, in much greater degrees than it has been by which they shall have more discerning, and be disposed to search the Bible, with a sincere and earnest desire to know the truth, and a strong disposition to receive it, and practise agreeable to it. The Bible will then be improved to much better purpose, than it had ever been before; and many important truths and duties which had in ages before not been understood or seen, will then appear plain and easy to be understood. Then the Bible will answer the end for which it is given to men, as it never had done before, as it was chiefly designed for that day, by the proper improvement of which, the knowledge of God, and of all revealed truth, will fill the earth, as the waters cover the sea.

The doctrine now under consideration may be then well understood by all, and the evidence of it appear much more strong and clear, than it can be made to do now, and being reduced to practice, the good effect of it will be seen, as has been observed above. This doctrine, taken in its full length and breadth, when reduced to a practice agreeable to it, is directly contrary to the natural disposition of man, and peculiarly so in many respects: and it is not expected, that however evident the truth of it is from the Bible, that it will be generally believed; and that it will be received, and properly conformed to, and practised by many churches, if by any, in the christian world, at this day. Religion, even the true spirit of christianity, must rise much higher than it now does, in order to practise the duties implied in the baptism of infants, and many other duties which are commanded, and ought to take place among christians, and in christian churches.

Question VIII. If a right account of infant baptism has now been given, then the baptism of children of believers is an institution of vast importance, and an indispensable duty, as well as a great privilege; and they who deny, that infant baptism is a christian institution, and refuse to practise It, are very erroneous and wicked. Ought they not, therefore, to be rejected as no christians?

Answer. They who believe the baptism of infants is evidently a christian institution, and think it to be as important and useful, and suited and designed by Christ, to be of such advantage to parents and their children, and to the church, as has been represented above, must look upon those who refuse to comply with this institution, but oppose it, as in a great error, and as offending Christ, and those little ones, who being the children of believing parents, ought to be considered and received as believers in him. But they are to be thought of, and treated with great candour, tenderness and christian charity: especially since there is reason to believe, that most, if not all, who believe in the baptism of children, and practise it, are more guilty and offensive to Christ, in their treatment of this institution, than the Antipedobaptists are. The Pedobaptists believe infant baptism to be a divine institution, and baptize their children; but most of them, if not all, refuse to comply with, and practise the most important and essential duties implied in the institution, which they solemnly profess and engage to do. They make use of the external rite, but treat it as a mere ceremony, because it is the custom of their denomination, or to gratify their pride, or superstition: they generally shew, that they do not heartily devote their children to Christ, by their neglect to educate them for him. In this respect, their children are not distinguished from those who are not baptized: and let them behave as they will, they are not treated as being under the care of the church, or subjects of discipline, and most, if not all the parents who bring their children to baptism, do not desire they should be censured and cast out by the church, if when they are adult they refuse to obey Christ; but stand ready to oppose it. It is a common practice to baptize the children of those who are not visible believers, who do not obey Christ, in attending upon all his institutions, and, in many instances, are in other respects immoral: and in those churches where no children are baptized, but of parents who make a profession of religion, and are members of the church, the baptism of children is generally treated as a mere ceremony: when that is performed, no more is done for the children by the parents, or the church, than is done for those who are not baptized. How short do they come of the duty which is reasonable and important, and solemnly engaged by the parents, and the church, if the above representation of this duty be in any measure just! How greatly is this institution abused and perverted even to bad purposes, by most of the Pedobaptists! The error and sin of the Antipedobaptists consists in their not believing infant baptism to be an institution of Christ, and therefore rejecting it, as a mere human invention. Theirs is a sin of ignorance. Their ignorance and unbelief are criminal; but who are the greatest criminals in their treatment of this institution, it is easy to determine.

The words of Christ to them, who brought to him a woman guilty of adultery, and said Moses commanded such to be stoned, are applicable to this case. “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” Too many of the Pedobaptists have treated those who deny infant baptism, with unreasonable censoriousness and severity; especially since they themselves have been so faulty in this very matter; and have denied or neglected, in principle and practice, the most useful, important, and essential part of this institution. To such may be applied the words of the Prophet Obed, to the host of Israel, with a little variation. “Ye have condemned and censured your brethren, with a severity and rage that reacheth up to heaven. But are there not with you, even with you, sins against the Lord your God?”

This subject will be concluded by observing, that what has been offered from the scripture, to prove that the baptism of infants is a divine institution; and whatever other arguments from it have been mentioned by others, or may be thought of, stand good, and ought to be considered in their full weight, independent of what has been now said, to show what is the design and import of this institution; and whether this can be sufficiently supported from scripture, or not: Though it is thought that the view which has been here given of it, if it be admitted, will serve to strengthen the evidence that it is an institution of Christ, and to show the propriety and importance of it. Therefore, they who shall not be convinced that there is any promised connection between the faithfulness of parents in the covenant, as it respects their children, and the conveyance of saving blessings to the latter, will not find the evidence on which they believe and practise infant baptism, in any degree weakened: While they who believe that such a connection is evident from scripture, will, by this view of the matter, be more confirmed in the reality, usefulness and importance of this institution; and excited to improve it accordingly. It is presumed that this attempt has no tendency to prejudice any one against the practice of infant baptism, or to lead him to doubt whether it be a christian institution: And that no one can have any reason to think that the belief of such a connection, and a practice agreeable to it, can tend, in any respect, to slur the institution, or to render it less important and useful to the christian church; or be hurtful to any.

If V hat has been now offered on this subject, shall in any degree awaken the attention of divines, and christians in general, to this matter, and excite to a more careful and strict examination of it, which, it is thought, has not vet been thoroughly explored; but has been generally treated in too loose and indeterminate a manner; and if, in consequence of this, greater light on this point shall be obtained, and a more consistent and scriptural account of it shall be given, than is here exhibited, the composing and reading of these pages will not be in vain.

THE LORD’S SUPPER.

The Lord’s Supper is also an institution of Christ, which he has commanded his followers to observe, and attend upon; and has appointed it to be celebrated in his church to the end of the world.

The elements of this ordinance are bread and wine. The bread consecrated and broken represents the broken body of Christ, in his death on the cross. The wine poured out represents his blood in his death, which was shed for the remission of sins. The professed followers of Christ, by eating the bread and drinking the wine, when consecrated and blessed, by prayer and thanksgiving, and distributed to them by the officers of the church, do, by this transaction, profess cordially to receive Christ by faith, and to live upon him, loving him, and trusting in him for pardon and complete redemption, consecrating themselves to his service. And by the ministers of the gospel consecrating those elements, and ordering them to be distributed to the communicants, Christ is exhibited as an all-sufficient Saviour, and the promise of salvation is expressed and sealed to all his friends. This is therefore a covenant transaction, in which those who partake of the bread and wine express their faith in Christ, that they are his friends, and devoted to his service; and their cordial compliance with the covenant of grace; and solemnly seal this covenant by partaking of these elements. And at the same time, they are a token and seal of the covenant of grace, on the part of Christ. All this is asserted by the apostle Paul, when speaking of this ordinance. “The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” “For I have received of the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” And the church by coming together, and celebrating this holy supper, not only profess their love to Christ, and union of heart to him; but that peculiar love and union to each other, which takes place between the true disciples of Christ, and is essential to their character. This is expressed in the following words of the apostle Paul. “For we; being many, are one bread, and one body: For we are all partakers of that one bread.”

The appointment, therefore, of this holy supper, is an instance of the wisdom and goodness of Christ, as it is suited to be a repeated and continual exhibition of a crucified Saviour, and hereby to excite the faith and love of christians, and to lead them to renew their covenant with him, dedicating themselves to his service and honour. And is also adapted to the communicants’ united expression of their mutual love and union of heart to each other, while they jointly partake of one common good, even all the benefits of Christ crucified.

That this is appointed by Christ to be a standing ordinance, to be observed by his church, and by every professed baptized believer in him, to the end of the world, is evident by the words and manner of the institution of it, recorded by the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke; and is farther evident by the history we have of the observation of it by the churches, in the days of the apostles. We are told, that on the first day of the week, the disciples at Troas came together to break bread; that is, to celebrate the Lord’s supper. The church at Corinth attended upon this ordinance from time to time; which appears from what the apostle Paul says to them respecting it, when he undertakes to correct their abuse of it. And in order to reform them, he refers them to the original institution by Christ, and tells them particularly what it was, as he had received it from the Lord Jesus Christ himself; and adds the following words, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” Which words strongly assert, that this ordinance was to be observed to the end of the world, when Christ the Lord shall come the second time, without sin unto salvation.

This ordinance, according to the nature, signification and extent of it, is to be repeated by the same persons to the end of life, as it expresses the believer’s living upon Christ; and the nourishment of his soul, by faith in him, and is suited to excite renewed acts of christian love and holiness. There is the same reason why a participation of it should be repeated, as there is that it should be once attended. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” There is a difference between this ordinance and that of baptism, in this respect: As the latter is the initiating ordinance and seal by which persons are visibly introduced into the church and kingdom of Christ. And this being once done, the end of it is answered, and there can be no reason or propriety in repeating it, by applying it more than once to the same person.

The infant children of believers are as capable subjects of baptism, and of all that is signified by it, as adults are, as has been shown. But as they are not capable of that which is signified by partaking of the Lord’s supper, till they arrive to years of understanding, this is not to be administered to them before that time, when they shall be able to “discern the Lord’s body, and examine themselves.” There is no evidence that the circumcised children in Israel were admitted to the passover, and to partake of the paschal lamb, until they were able to understand the reason and end of that institution. The Jews say, children did not partake of the passover till they arrived to the age of twelve years. This seems to be confirmed by the history we have of the parents of Jesus taking him with them to the feast of the passover at Jerusalem, when he was twelve years old, which plainly implies that they did not do it before. “Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom of the feast.” This may be considered as a guide to christian churches, in admitting baptized children to the Lord’s supper.

This ordinance, according to the nature and design of it, is to be administered and attended upon publicly, by every particular church; and is not designed to be administered privately, to one single person. Of this we have no example in scripture: But the disciples, the whole church, came together to break bread, and eat the Lord’s supper. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.” “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.”

As to the frequency of administering this ordinance in a church; this does not appear to be fixed by any precept or example in scripture; and therefore seems to be left to the discretion of the church to determine how often they will attend upon it, and have it administered to them, according to their circumstances, and as they shall think it to be most convenient to them, and most for the honour of Christ, and their edification. It has been often said, that christians in the first ages of the church, celebrated the Lord’s supper, at least every Lord’s day. But it may be asked, by what authentic history this can be made evident? What author has produced this evidence? And if it were certain, that some churches did attend upon it every Lord’s day, and oftener, this would not prove that this was commanded by Christ, or his Apostles. Some have thought it evident that this ordinance was attended by the first christian church, which was formed by the Apostles at Jerusalem, at least every first day of the week, if not every time they met for public worship, which they must have done by the direction of the Apostles; and is therefore as binding on all christian churches to the end of the world, as if there were an express precept to attend upon it in the same manner, and so often. But the words on which this conclusion is grounded, do not appear sufficient to support it, when carefully examined. They are these: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did cat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” “They continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine.” That is, they attended constantly on the instructions and preaching of the Apostles, and stedfastly adhered to the truths delivered by them. “And in fellowship:” That is, in communicating and making collections and distribution, to supply the bodily necessities of those who stood in need of assistance and support. This is the meaning of the word κοινωνιω, which is here translated fellowship. “And in breaking of bread.” This probably means their partaking of the Lord’s supper, “And in prayers.” That is, joining in public prayers, and in singing psalms, which is included in prayer; which Mere constantly performed when they attended the other parts of public worship. Here then every part of their public worship is mentioned, viz. public teaching; distribution to the necessities of the poor saints; attendance on the Lord’s supper; and prayer; including psalmody, which is devotion, and a particular manner of prayer. But it does not follow, from this enumeration of the different parts of their public worship, that every part was attended upon every time they met for prayer or preaching; or that they made a contribution for the poor, or broke bread, every time they met together for public worship: But that these were performed, as often as was convenient and proper. Breaking bread from house to house, and eating their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, does not appear to mean their eating the Lord’s supper from house to house; but their partaking of their common food, and eating together; exercising liberality and friendship one towards another, in eating their common meals. But if breaking bread does here mean the Lord’s supper, and it were certain that believers at Jerusalem did, in their then peculiar and extraordinary circumstances, administer and partake of this ordinance, whenever a number of them met in a particular house, it would not hence follow, that the disciples of Christ are by this bound in all ages of the world to attend the Lord’s supper in the same manner, or thus frequently.