“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
Acts 2:39
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”
1 Cor. 7:14
“But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matt 19:14
.
.
Subsections
Infant Salvation
Professing Believers’ Children are Baptized, being Outwardly in the Covenant
Baptism of Adherents’ Children
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 10+
Books 12
Quotes 2
Latin 6+
History 4
Nature of Infant Baptism & Church Membership
Conditionality of Baptism
Can Infants Have Faith?
Infant Baptism & Justification? Contra Davenant
How Infants of Professing Believers are Church Members
Gen. 17:14, Cut Out of Covenant
Sanctification of the Unbelieving Spouse 1 Cor. 7:14
Godfathers & Godmothers 5+
Ex Post Facto Consent
Do the Young Remain in the Church when they Grow Up, but do Not Come
. to the Table?
Household Baptism
Adopted Children 9
Foster Children 1
Older Children 4
Servants 10
Wife 3
.
Articles
1500’s
Bucer, Martin – What is to be thought of the Baptism of Infants according to the Scriptures of God after examining whatever arguments are commonly brought forward either for or against it. A letter to a certain person on this matter tr. by AI by Sollie J. Van Rensburg (Strassburg: Matthias Apiarius, 1533) 29 pp. Latin
Melanchthon, Philip – 21. ‘Of the Baptism of Children’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 209-17
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ch. 8, ‘Of Baptism, Baptizing of Infants & the Holiness of Them’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4, pp. 120-38
Calvin, John
Calvin, John – 1. ‘On Infant Baptism’ in A Short Instruction for to Arm All Good Christian People against the Pestiferous Errors of the Common Sect of Anabaptists (London: Daye, 1549), no page numbers
16. ‘Paedobaptism. Its accordance with the Institution of Christ, and the nature of the sign’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4, pp. 349-86
Bullinger, Henry
8th Sermon, ‘Of Holy Baptism… to whom it must be ministered. Of baptism by midwives; and of infants dying without baptism. Of the baptism of infants; against anabaptism or re-baptizing…’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 4, 5th Decade, pp. 351-401
10. ‘Of Baptism of Children & of the Anabaptists’ in Questions of Religion Cast Abroad in Helvetia [Switzerland] by the Adversaries of the Same, & Answered… tr. John Coxe (1560; London, 1572), pp. 85-88
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Of the Baptism of Children’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Baptism’, folio 288.a
Beza, Theodore – 48. For what causes the young children of the faithful be baptized in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1562), ch. 4
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
40. Of the Baptism of young children 35
42. Of the children that are born dead, and of the true foundation of the salvation of all men 36
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, & of the Christian Doctrine, made in Form of Dialogue
22nd Dialogue: Of the Baptism of Little Children & of Brotherly Confession & Reconciliation
.
1600’s
Walaeus, Anthony – ‘On the Baptism of Infants’ tr. Charles Johnson (2020) 9 paragraphs at Reformed Theology Delatinized
Marshall, Stephen – A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants… (London, 1644) 61 pp.
See also Marshall’s book on the topic two years later, below.
Stalham, John, John Newton & Enoch Grey – The Sum of a Conference at Terling in… 1643: held between 3 Ministers… Pleading for Infants’ Baptism, & 2 Catabaptists… (London: 1644) 36 pp. The rest of the large volume contains other treatises by Stalham on the atonement and the Quakers.
Lyford, William – An Apology for our Public Ministery & Infant-Baptism, written Some Years Ago… (London, 1652) 46 pp.
Rutherford, Samuel – The Covenant of Life Opened, or a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace... (London, 1655), pt. 1
ch. 14, ‘Considerations of the Arguments from Gen. 17; Mk. 10:15-16; Lk. 18; Mt. 19; Rom. 11, for Infant Baptism’, pp. 95-117
Amyraut, Moses – Theological Theses on Paedobaptism in Theological Theses on the Sacraments of the Gospel, and Specifically on Baptism, and on Paedobaptism and the Necessity of Baptism, pp. 15-32 tr. by AI
Turretin, Francis – Question 20, ‘Should the infants of covenanted believers be baptized? We affirm against the Anabaptists.’, sections 4, 9, 11, 18, 21, 26 in Institutes (P&R), vol. 3, 19th Topic, ‘The Sacraments’, pp. 414-21
Witsius, Herman – ‘On the Efficacy & Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants whose Parents are Under the Covenant’ (Utrecht, 1693) in MJT 17 (2006), pp. 121-90, Includes an introduction by Mark Beach. Originally an appendix in William Marshall, Popery in The Full Corn, the Ear & the Blade; or, The Doctrine of Baptism in the Popish, Episcopalian & Congregational Churches; with a Defence of the Calvinistic or Presbyterian View (Edinburgh: Paton and Ritchie, 1852)
Witsius critiques and gives his own opinions as he surveys the many views on the topic from the era that preceded him.
“XXIII. But with regard to the place of regeneration there is greater difficulty. On this part of the subject, I find four distinct opinions among theologians. Some think that regeneration takes place at different periods of time—it may be before, it may be at, or it may be after baptism. Others place it uniformly before baptism. Others teach that infants are baptized unto future regeneration, being incapable of it at the time. Indeed, many contend that God usually confers regeneration upon infants in the very act and moment of baptism. Let us look at the arguments of each class, and subject them to an impartial examination.
XXIV. That in the dispensation of his saving grace God is restricted to no particular period of time will be admitted by every person who entertains a becoming reverence for his supreme and almighty
dominion. The sole question is: What he may have prescribed to himself in the exercise of his unlimited freedom, or may have revealed in his Word, or made manifest by experience?” – p. 142
On pp. 132-137 Witsius critiques the English view of John Davenant, the Scottish, Aberdeen view of William Forbes and others, that:
“…a certain kind of regeneration and justification is not only signified but bestowed upon all the infants of covenanted persons without exception [involving the forgiveness of their original sin], although it may not be infallibly connected with salvation inasmuch as they may fall from it by their own sin after they have grown up.”
Witsius gives his own view in sections 31-32, pp. 150-151, which we do not agree with, that:
“There can be little doubt that this doctrine of the regeneration of infants, at least according to the judgment of charity concerning individuals, is the received view of the Belgic church…
…who hold that the initial regeneration of elect infants under the covenant precedes their baptism. I acknowledge that with those who maintain this opinion I am so far at one.”
Wallis, John – A Defense of Infant-Baptism in Answer to a Letter (here Recited) from an Anti-pædobaptist (Oxford, 1697) 24 pp.
Wallis (1616–1703) was a non-voting scribe at the Westminster Assembly.
.
1800’s
Hodge, Charles – ‘The Subjects of Baptism’ The Princeton Review, vol. 33 (1863) at WestminsterConfession.org
.
2000’s
Barth, Paul – ‘Paedo-Baptism, Yes; Paedo-Communion, No’ (2022) 34 paragraphs
.
Books
1600’s
Blake, Thomas
Infants’ Baptism Freed from Antichristianism… in the Third [Part], Arguments brought by [Stephen] Marshall & others for Baptism of Infants are Vindicated & Defended (London, 1645) 128 pp. no ToC
Blake (1597?–1657) was an English English puritan clergyman and controversialist of moderate Presbyterian sympathies. He disputed in print with Richard Baxter over admission to baptism and the Lords Supper.
chs. 45-60 of Vindiciæ Foederis, or a Treatise of the Covenant of God… (London, 1658) ToC
Marshall, Stephen – A Defence of Infant-Baptism: in Answer to Two Treatises… lately published by Mr. John Tombes. Wherein that Controversy is Fully Discussed, the Ancient & Generally Received Use of it from the Apostles’ Days, until the Anabaptists Sprung up in Germany, Manifested… (London, 1646) 256 pp. Index Scripture Index
Baillie, Robert – Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, Brownism, Antinomianism, Familism & Most of the Other Errors (which for the Time do Trouble the Church of England) Unsealed. Also the Questions of Paedobaptism & Dipping Handled from Scripture. In a Second Part of the Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time (London, 1647) 179 pp. ToC
Baillie was a Scottish covenanter and a Westminster divine.
Fuller, Thomas – The Infants’ Advocate of Circumcision on Jewish [Children] & Baptism on Christian Children (London, 1653) 24o pp. IA
Carter, William – The Covenant of God with Abraham, Opened, wherein 1. The Duty of Infant-Baptism is Cleared. 2. Something Added Concerning the Sabbath, and the Nature & Increase of the Kingdom of Christ… on Heb. 6:13-16 in The Covenant of God with Abraham Opened… Together with a Short Discourse concerning the Manifestations of God unto his People in the Last Days (London, 1654), pp. 6-66
Carter was a Westminster divine.
Flavel was an English puritan and presbyterian.
Mence, Francis – Vindiciae Foederis [a Vindication of the Covenant], or, A Vindication of the Interest that the Children of Believers, as such, have in the Covenant of Grace with their Parents, under the Gospel-Dispensation: being the Substance of Two Sermons… also Some Seasonable Reflections upon Various Unsound & Cruel Passages taken forth of Two Furious Books of Mr. H. Collins, Printed Against Infants-Baptism (London, 1694) 170 pp. IA on Acts 2:39
Harrison, Michael – Infant Baptism God’s Ordinance, or, Clear Proof that All the Children of Believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace & have as much a Right to Baptism, the Now-Seal-of-the-Covenant, as the Infant Seed of the Jews had to Circumcision, the Then-Seal-of-the-Covenant (London, 1694) 58 pp. ToC
Harrison was a reformed English minister.
.
1700’s
Wall, William – A Conference between Two Men that had Doubts about Infant-Baptism (2nd ed. 1708; London, 1812) 85 pp. ToC
Wall (1647–1728) was an Anglican minister, known for his history of infant baptism, below.
Taylor, Nathaniel – Two Brief Discourses: one concerning Infant-Baptism & the other concerning the Children of Holy Parents… 2nd ed. (London, 1718) 57 pp. no ToC
.
1800’s
Miller, Samuel – Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable, and Baptism by Sprinkling, pt. 1, 2, 3 & 4 Buy (1835) 163 pp.
.
1900’s
Kayser, Phillip – Seven Biblical Principles that Call for Infant Baptism (1990) 52 pp.
.
Quotes
Order of
London Presbyterians
Owen
.
1600’s
London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pt. 2, pp. 106-7
“6. That doctrine that lessens the privileges of believers under the New Testament, and makes their infants in a worse condition than they were in under the Old Testament cannot be the doctrine of the Gospel. For the Gospel tells you that Jesus Christ was made a surety of a better testament and that the new covenant is a better covenant, established upon better promises (Heb. 7:22; 8:6). This rule will preserve you from the poison of Anabaptism [baptists].
For if the children of the Jews were circumcised, and the children of Christians should not be baptized, either it must be granted that circumcision was of no benefit to the Jewish children, which is contrary to Rom. 3:1-2, or it must be granted that the children of the Jews had greater privileges than the children of Christians.”
.
John Owen
Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews new ed. in 4 vols. (London: Tegg, 1840), vol. 4, on Heb. 9:18-22, p. 153
“Observation 3. It was the way of God from the beginning to take children of covenanters into the same covenant with their parents. So He dealt with this people in the establishment of the first covenant, and He has made no alteration herein in the establishment of the second.”
.
Latin
1500’s
Bucer, Martin – What ought to be Thought of the Baptism of Infants according to the Scriptures of God is Shaken Out… (Argentorati, 1533) no page numbering no ToC
Piscator, Johannes
ch. 25, Paedobaptism 74 in A Forest of Sayings & Examples out of Sacred Scripture by which Christian Doctrine in Common Places are Distributed & Confirmed (Herborn, 1621), pp. 74-75
ch. 25, Baptism of Children 169 in Theological Common Places, Exposited in Brief Thoughts, or Aphorisms of Christian Doctrine, the Greater Part of which are Excerpts from the Institutes of Calvin (Herborne, 1589; 1605)
.
1600’s
Bachoff, Reinhard – Baptism of Infants, Question 74 in Catechism of the Christian Religion, which is Taught in the Churches & Schools of the Palitinate (Hanau, 1603) This is a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, following the order of its questions.
Bachoff (1544-1614)
Alsted, Johann H. – ch. 25, Paedobaptism 144 in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630)
Voet, Gisbert
On the Subject of Baptism in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 5 Abbr.
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663), vol. 1, pt. 1, bk. 2, tract 2, section 3, ‘Of the Administration of Baptism’
2. Of the Ones who Ought to be Baptized 645
Hubner, Johann Rudolph – A Theological Disputation on the Baptism of Infants, to the Place, Mt. 28:19 (Bern, 1671)
Hübner (-1692) was a reformed professor of Hebrew and theology at Bern, Switzerland.
.
History
On the Whole of Church History
Article
Cunningham, William – ‘Infant Baptism’ 10 pp. in Historical Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), pp. 144-54
.
Books
Wall, William – The History of Infant-Baptism, together with Mr. Gale’s Reflections & Dr. Wall’s Defence, vol. 1 (History of Infant Baptism), 2 (Reflections & Defence) (1705; Oxford Univ. Press, 1862) ToC 1, 2 Index Wall’s Defense starts here (no ToC).
Wall (1647–1728) was an Anglican minister, known for this work.
Wikipedia: “David Russen had written an anti-Baptist tract entitled Fundamentals without Foundation in 1703, and this had been answered by the Baptist Joseph Stennett in An Answer to Mr. David Russen’s Book in 1704. Wall, who knew and respected Stennett, consulted with him and then answered with A History of Infant Baptism. Wall was answered in turn by John Gale in Reflections on Mr. Wall’s History in 1711.
Wall’s book was enormously successful. He cited numerous patristic sources for the practice of infant baptism and yet pleaded with his opponents not to allow such a minor point to tear the church apart. His work was expanded in a second edition in 1707 and a third edition of 1720. Oxford awarded him the Doctor of divinity degree in 1720 for the work, and John Wesley excerpted it in his own works on the question. Despite being the primary voice against Baptist causes, Wall was sincere in his wishes for unity, and he met with his opponent, Mr. Gale, in 1719.”
.
On the Early Church
Jeremias, Joachim
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries trans. David Cairns (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962) 110 pp. ToC
Jeremias (1900–1979) was a liberal, German, Lutheran scholar of Near Eastern Studies and university professor of New Testament studies.
In these important pieces, Jeremias defends from the N.T. and early Church history that the apostolic Church baptized infants, mainly from historical considerations. Jeremias first published this work, then Kurt Aland, another liberal, German scholar, sought to prove the opposite in his:
Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? [No] trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963) 119 pp. ToC
In Aland’s preface, he says that Jeremias’s work:
“…appeared to make this position [of the NT Church practicing infant baptism] impregnable. It was expounded in brilliant style; in it Jeremias utilized everything known to exist in the sources, as well as in more recent literature, and he summarized all the arguments that have been brought into play up to the present.”
Aland’s work contains an ‘Introduction’ by G.R. Beasley-Murray that summarizes the baptismal controversy in the British scene leading up to the exchange between Jeremias and Aland.
Aland, despite his historical conclusion, yet “regards the practice of infant baptism in the Church today as both needful and legitimate”. His conclusion as to the historical matter is:
“…that infant baptism is certainly provable only from the third century and that its earliest literary traces belong to the outgoings of the second century, cannot be contested from the sources.”
Jeremias, not convinced, in response below yet further argued for the practice of infant baptism in the apostolic Church contra Aland. Jeremias, in his Preface below, says that:
“…there is no defence for the older conception, revived by Aland, that up to the end of the second century… children were not baptized until a mature age. Not only does this conception lack support from the sources, but… it arose out of an understanding of baptism which came to be adopted during the second century and which is incompatible with that of the New Testament.”
The Origins of Infant Baptism; a Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1963) 90 pp. ToC
Jeremias stated, with respect to Church history, “that direct evidence for the baptism of children startes only with Tertullian.” Jeremias says that the state of the question is, “What was the practice of the Church up to AD 200? That is the question on which everything turns.” Jeremias seeks to use indirect evidence regarding this to historically establish his case.
On the Post-Reformation
On John Bunyan
Haupt, Timothy
‘Why John Was Not a Baptist: The 7 Irreconcilable Differences Between John Bunyan & the Baptists’ (2022) 22 paragraphs
John Bunyan’s children were baptized as infants in the Anglican Church (even after Bunyan had been immersed as an adult, after his own infant baptism, documented here and here). This article argues, though Bunyan advocated for believer’s baptism, that he is best classified, not as a baptist, but as an evangelical Independent.
The article argues 7 points from Bunyan’s broader view of Christian unity and fellowship, and that he apparently held the baptist view as something of a secondary, indifferent matter of conscience (being something along the lines of Rom. 14), not a grounds of separation. Bunyan’s ecclesiological views were at odds in 7 points from the Baptists of his era, whom he debated in print with.
Bunyan sets forth his views in his late prison work, A Confession of my Faith (1672), Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism, No Bar to Communion (1673) and Peaceable Principles and True (1674).
Here is more on Bunyan’s children: “Mary [his wife] did not join the new church with John. She stayed in the Anglican church. Their children were baptized as infants at her church; John was immersed after his conversion at the separatist church.” “Mistress Mary Bunyan”
The Palace Beautiful: The Evangelical Independent Ecclesiology of John Bunyan PhD diss. (Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Haupt has been a lead pastor of First Baptist Church in Nixa, Missouri. This argues that Bunyan should not be considered a 17th-century Baptist, but an evangelical Independent.
.
The Nature of Infant Baptism & Church Membership
.
On the Conditionality of the Sign of Baptism & How it Seals
Quotes
1600’s
Lucas Trelcatius
Common Places…, Distinction 4, in ‘Defense of the End of a Sacrament’, p. 330
“The sealing of God’s promises has respect either unto the faith of the Covenant [objectively], or unto the faith of them that are in the Covenant [subjectively].
In infants, the sealing of God’s promise is made properly, in respect of the faith of the Covenant, but in them that are of ripe years, in respect of their faith in the Covenant.”
.
Anthony Walaeus
Synposis of a Purer Theology (Brill, 2020), vol. 3, Disputation 44, ‘On the Sacrament of Baptism’, sections 31-32, p. 155
“Therefore, when we say that the proper power of outward baptism resides in being a seal, we mean two things: firstly, that it makes more certain the promised grace that the principal cause has conferred or is to confer, and secondly that it strengthens and increases that grace.
But since that promise is not absolute but linked to the condition of faith and repentance, it follows that the grace is sealed only to those who believe and repent, and consequently do not use the signs in a unworthy manner, as the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 11:29.
In this regard we grant that this sacrament–just like the other ones–is also exhibitive of the thing that is promised, because in the lawful and worthy use of this sacrament these things that are promised are through the Holy Spirit not merely offered to believers but they are in fact exhibited to and conferred upon them. For God is truthful in sealing his promises, and our sacraments are not supplements of a letter that kills, but of the life-giving Spirit.”
.
Can Infants have Faith?
Order of Contents
Articles 3
Quotes 2
Historical 3
.
Articles
1600’s
Bucanus, William – ‘Have Infants Actual Faith?’ in Institutes… (London, 1606), Place 29, ‘Of Faith’, pp. 296-7
Turretin, Francis – ‘The Faith of Infants’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 15th Topic, pp. 583-87
This is the best article on the topic. Turretin says yes and no, and distinguishes.
Lutherans go too far in giving infants full fledged adult faith. Anabaptists go too far in denying any possibility of faith whatsoever in infants.
Turretin argues the historic reformed view that infants are capable according to their infant nature, to trust in the sense of divinity stamped on their souls. They may have a seed-form of faith, which, if present savingly by God’s regeneration, will blossom into trusting the Son of God to save them from their sins when they can understand and are taught such.
.
2000’s
Barth, Paul – ‘Paedo-Baptism, Yes; Paedo-Communion, No’ (2022) 32 paragraphs
.
Quotes
Order of
Le Blanc
Baxter
.
1600’s
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu
‘Theological Theses on Faith’ in Theological Theses put forth at Various Times at the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. Onku with AI (1645; London: Moses Pitt, 1683), p. 6 Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a reformed professor of theology at Sedan, France.
“XXXI. But as to what is often asked here, whether elect and saved infants also have faith, it is plain indeed that they cannot have actual faith; but nothing prohibits a certain habitual faith, or rather the seed and root of faith, from being infused in them. And certainly it cannot happen that God would purge from every stain of original sin as many infants as he admits into his heavenly kingdom, which nothing defiled and contaminated enters. Since therefore original sin in infants includes a certain seed of unbelief, just as of all vices, while God cleanses them, he undoubtedly takes away that innate unbelief, and so infuses the principle and a certain seed of faith. For God does not purge his own from vices except by infusing the contrary habits of virtues.
XXXII. Moreover, whatever that may be, whether faith or the root of faith and disposition to faith which can be found in infants, it is beyond controversy that it must be attributed to God alone, and that the offices of man do not concur with it: nor can it be called into doubt by anyone: but Scripture also manifestly teaches that the same must be thought about the faith of adults, for it calls faith the gift of God, Eph. 2:8, “By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” And to the Philippians the Apostle says that it was freely given to them to believe in Christ, Phil. 1:29.”
.
Richard Baxter
The Unreasonableness of Infidelity (London: R.W., 1655), An Advertisement Explicatory, p. iix
“Lest any understand what I have said a few pages hence, as if I wholly denied common innate principles, observe that it is only actual connate knowledge that I deny, and in respect to which I say that the soul is rasa tabula [a blank slate]; but I confess a natural passive power for the knowing of them, and a greater disposition, or aptitude in the intellect to understand them, than conclusions drawn from them;
and so that an infant also may have a sanctified intellect, by such aptitude and disposition. But I think not that ever these would be acted, in an ordinary natural way,
without the help of some sense.”
.
Historical Theology
Articles
Grundler, Otto – ‘From Seed to Fruition: Calvin’s Notion of the semen fidei & Its Aftermath in Reformed Orthodoxy’ Ref in eds. Elsie Anne McKee & Brian G. Armstrong, Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr. (Westminster John Knox Press, 1989) 461 pp.
Wisse, Maarten – ‘Habitus Fidei: an Essay on the History of a Concept’ Scottish Journal of Theology 56(2) (2003), pp. 172–89
.
Quote
1900’s
Richard Muller
Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms (Baker, 1985), p. 278
“semen fidei:
seed of faith; the ground or beginning of personal faith, brought about or implanted by the work of the Spirit in regeneration. Some of the Protestant scholastics use semen fidei as a synonym for the disposition of or capacity for faith, the habitus fidei (q.v.); others make the semen fidei more basic and regard the disposition, or habitus (q.v.), of faith as a fully developed capacity arising out of the seed, or semen.”
.
Infant Baptism & Justification? Contra Davenant
Order of
Articles
Quotes
References
Latin
.
Articles
1600’s
Gataker, Thomas & Richard Baxter – ‘Correspondence between Richard Baxter and Thomas Gataker with Reference to the Salvation of Baptized Children’ ed. Charles A. Briggs in The Presbyterian Review, no. 20 (Oct. 1884), sect. VII, ‘Notes & Notices’, pp. 700-711
In these two letters Baxter takes up what he considers to be Davenant’s view and essentially argues it by way of questions to Gataker, for his response. Gataker, holding the orthodox line very precisely, argues against Baxter’s view.
Burgess, Anthony – pp. 143-46 of Sermon 16, ‘An Examination of Some Distinctions about Justification, much Controverted by Several Authors’ in The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted & Vindicated… (London, 1654)
Burgess (d. 1664) was an Anglican clergyman (a rector) and a Westminster divine who did not conform in 1662.
Burgess says on p. 144 that Davenant and Ward “introduce a baptismal justification”, which sheds light on the novelty of Davenant’s position in his historical context. Burgess himself, later in that same paragraph affirms a certain baptismal justification of infants, however he states that it must be of the same kind as adult justification from which one cannot fall away. Despite Burgess’s lack of further qualification in this paragraph, yet in the subsequent paragraphs he goes on to offer views, with certain affirming statements, that appear to heavily qualify his own view, namely that such a baptismal justification is only for elect infants, in time, through faith in what baptism signifies, etc., which, in the end, appears to be very much inline with the statements of the WCF.
Baxter, Richard – An Appendix, being Some Brief Animadversions on a Tractate Lately Published by Mr. Thomas Bedford, & Honored with the Great Names & Pretended Consent of Famous, Learned, Judicious Davenant & Ussher, with an Epistle of Mr. Cranford, & a Tractate of Dr. [Samuel] Ward… to Plain Scripture Proof of Infants’ Church-Membership & Baptism: being the Arguments Prepared for (& Partly Managed in) the Public Dispute with Mr. Tombes at Bewdley on the First Day of Jan. 1649 (London, 1656), pp. 287-338
“…I lately met with the tractate here examined. It came to me as under Davenant’s name… I soon perceived the hook… I resolved to follow after with my household retinue (as Abraham to rescue Lot) rather than stand still and see the name and excellent labors of such a prince in Israel to be enslaved to attend the service of such an erroneous design.” – Premonition to the Reader, p. 289
Witsius, Herman – pp. 132-37 of ‘On the Efficacy & Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants whose Parents are Under the Covenant’ MJT 17 (2006). Originally an appendix in William Marshall, Popery in The Full Corn, the Ear, and the Blade; or, The Doctrine of Baptism in the Popish, Episcopalian, and Congregational Churches; with a Defence of the Calvinistic or Presbyterian View (Edinburgh: Paton and Ritchie, 1852)
Witsius critiques the view of John Davenant (English), the view of William Forbes (Scottish, in Aberdeen) and others, that:
“…a certain kind of regeneration and justification is not only signified but bestowed upon all the infants of covenanted persons without exception [involving the forgiveness of their original sin], although it may not be infallibly connected with salvation inasmuch as they may fall from it by their own sin after they have grown up.”
.
1700’s
Edwards, John – ‘The Distinction Used by Some Late Divines of Justification at Baptism & Justification at the Day of Judgment, is Groundless’ 1708 8 pp. in The Doctrine of Faith and Justification set in a True Light, Part 3, ch. 4, pp. 433-441
Edwards was an important, early 1700’s, reformed, Anglican minister.
.
Quotes
Order of
Polanus
Davenant
Tombes
Savoy Conference
.
Amandus Polanus
Syntagma of Christian Theology (Hanau: Wechel, 1609), vol. 2, bk. 6, ch. 43, col. 3140 top
“We do not teach that infants are justified by baptism.”
.
John Davenant
Letter to Samuel Ward in Morris Fuller, The Life, Letters & Writings of John Davenant... (London, 1897), p. 329
“Concerning your determination about the effect of baptism (unless there were great necessity of defending yourself), I would not advise you to set that foot controversy on foot. Though it be the opinion of Antiquity, and to me appears more probable than the contrary, yet at this time when the Arminians draw so close one to another, it is not convenient to be at open controversies amonst ourselves.”
.
John Tombes
Anti-Pædobaptism, or, The Second Part of the Full Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant-Baptism... (London, 1654), pp. 220-21. Tombes was an English baptist.
“What Mr. [Thomas] Bedford [d. 1653] has produced for the efficacy of baptism has been answered by Mr. [Richard] Baxter in his Appendix to his Plain Scripture, etc. [1651-1656]… Dr. [Cornelius] Burges, his Treatise of Baptismal Regeneration [1629], has been freely censured by many…
And therefore I deny baptism to be the remedy of original sin, or the cause of regeneration, or that Christ intended to assign the use to baptism to heal original sin, or to testify the freedom from it without actual [sin]. These things have been delivered by Augustine and taught by the Romanists and Lutherans, but by many other Protestants disclaimed and refuted; and therefore Mr. Stephens, Mr. [James?] Cranford [d. 1657], Mr. Bedford, etc. in using this argument do but symbolize with the Papists, and revive what many Protestants of best note have exploded.
([Errata, p. 341:] What Dr. [Samuel] Ward and Dr. [John] Davenant have said for regeneration and justification of infants by baptism has been accurately examined and enervated by Mr. Gataker in Latin.)”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘The Papers’, pp. 86-89
“[Anglican bishops:] ‘As for original sin, though we think it an evil custom springing from false doctrine to use any such expressions as may lead people to think that to the persons baptized (in whose persons only our prayers are offered up) original sin is not forgiven in their holy baptism, yet for that there remains in the regenerate some relics of that which are to be bewailed: the Church in her confession [in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer] acknowledges such desires of our own hearts as render us miserable by following them, that there is no health in us, that without God’s help our frailty cannot but fall, that our mortal nature can do no good thing without Him, which is a clear acknowledgment of Original Sin.’
Reply:
1. He that has his Original Sin forgiven him may well confess that he was born in iniquity and conceived in sin, and was by nature a child of wrath, and that by one man sin entered into the world and that judgment came on all men to condemnation, etc. The pardoned may confess what once they were and from what rock they were hewn. Even actual sins must be confessed after they are forgiven (unless the Antimonians hold the truth against us in such points).
2. All is not false doctrine that crosses men’s private opinions, which you seem here to obtrude upon us. We know that the Papists (and perhaps some others) hold that all the baptized are delivered from the guilt of Original Sin. But, as they are in the dark and disagreed in the explication of it, so we have more reason to incline to either of the ordinary opinions of the Protestants than to this of theirs.
3. Some learned Protestants hold that visibly all the baptized are Church members, pardoned and justified, which is but that they are probably justified indeed, and are to be used by the Church, upon a judgment of charity, as those that are really justified. But that we have indeed no certainty that they are so, God keeping that as a secret to Himself concerning individuals till by actual faith and repentance it be manifest to themselves.
Another opinion of many Protestants is that all persons that are children of the promise or that have the conditions of pardon and justification in the Covenant mentioned are to receive that pardon by baptism: and all such are pardoned and certainly in a state of justification and salvation thereupon; and that the promise of pardon is made to the faithful and to their seed, and therefore that all the faithful and their seed in infancy have this pardon given them by the promise and solemnly delivered them and sealed to them by baptism which invests them in the benefits of the Covenant.
But withal that:
1. First, the professed infidel and his seed, as such, are not the children of the promise, and therefore if the parent ludicrously or forcedly, or the child by error be baptized, they have not thereby the pardon of their sin before God.
2. That the hypocrite that is not a true believer at the heart, though he profess it, has no pardon by baptism before God, as being not an heir of the promise, nor yet any infant of his as such. But though such are not pardoned, the Church that judges by profession, taking professors for believers, must accordingly use them and their seed.
3. But though the Church judge thus charitably of each professor in particular, till his hypocrisy be detected, yet does it understand that hypocrites there are and still will be in the Church though we know them not by name. And that therefore there are many externally baptized and in communion that never had the pardon of sin, indeed before God; as not having the condition of the promise of pardon, such as Simon Magus was.
We have less reason to take this doctrine for false than that which pronounces certain pardon and salvation to all baptized infants whatsoever: And were we of their judgment, we should think it the most charitable act in the world to take the infants of heathens and baptize them; and if any should then dispatch them all to prevent their lapse, they were all certainly saved.
We hope by ‘some relics’ you mean that which is truly and properly sin. For our parts we believe according to the ninth Article [of the 39 Articles] that Original Sin stands in the corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is far gone from original righteousness and inclined to evil; and that this infection of nature does remain in the regenerate; and though there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet concupiscence and lust has of itself the nature of sin.
You say, ‘The Church acknowledges such desires, etc.’ Devices and desires are actual sins and not original, which consists in privation and corrupt inclination. The next words, ‘There is no health in us,’ it seems the translators that put it into the Liturgy misunderstood, but however you seem here plainly by your misinterpretation to misunderstand it. Nulla salus in nobis, is spoken actively and not possessively or passively: the plain sense is that there is no help, deliverance and salvation in ourselves: we cannot help ourselves out of this misery, but must have a better Saviour; as Christ is oft called our salvation, so we are denied to be our own: so that yet here is no confession at all of Original Sin, but of the effects. The two next sentences confess a debility and privation, but not that it was ab origine [from the origin], but may for anything that’s there said be taken to be since contracted. Nor are the words in this confession but in some other collects elsewhere, which proves not that this confession says anything of Original Sin.”
.
Further References
See the references of Richard Baxter on this EEBO-TCP search-results list.
.
Latin Books
1600’s
Gataker, Thomas & Samuel Ward – ‘A Disquisition Privately Held on the Power & Efficacy of Infant Baptism’ (London, 1652) 271 pp.
Gataker (1574–1654) was an Anglican clergyman (rector), convinced episcopalian, was against the Solemn League & Covenat, and was a Westminster divine.
Thomas Long (1621-1707), an Anglican prebendary, said that “by a letter impleading Davenant’s cause, I was the occasion of printing good Mr. Gataker’s Answer to him;” (Mr. Hales’s Treatise of Schism Examined… London, 1678, p. 217)
The layout is that first Ward proposes a thesis, then Gataker takes an exception to it, then Ward responds, then Gataker replies; then this process repeats.
Ward opens the debate saying, “All baptized infants are without doubt justified.” Gataker then makes an exception, and the responses follow.
Gataker, Thomas – ‘Some Strictures Premitted on the Epistle of Dr. John Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury’ 115 pp. appended to Davenant’s letter with separate pagination in An Epistle of the Reverend Man, John Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, to the Celebrated Man, Lord Samuel Ward, of the College in the Academy of Cambridge in the Prefect of Sidney… One with Some Strictures on the Same (London: 1654)
.
.
How Infants of Professors are Church Members
Quote
George Gillespie
An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland… (1641; Edinburgh, 1646), 2nd part, ch. 11, p. 62
“We may consider a visible Church either metaphysically or politically. It is one thing to consider men as living creatures endued with reason; another thing to consider them as magistrates, masters, fathers, children, servants, etc. So is it one thing to consider a visible Church as a society of men and women separated from the blind world by divine vocation [calling], and professing together the gospel of Jesus Christ; and another thing to consider it as a political body, in which the power of spiritual government and jurisdiction is exercised–some governing and some governed.
These are very different considerations; for first, a visible Church being taken entitatively or metaphysically, her members do ordinarily communicate together in those holy things which fall under the power of order, which I may call sacra mystica [sacred, mystical rites]; but being taken politically, her members communicate together in such holy things as fall within the compass of the power of jurisdiction, which I may call sacra politica [sacred politics].
Secondly, infants under age, being initiated in baptism, are actually members of the Church in the former consideration, but potentially only in the latter; for they neither govern, nor yet have the use of reason to be subject and obedient to those that do govern.”
.
On Gen. 17:14 & being Cut Out of the Covenant
“And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you… And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”
Gen. 17:11, 14
.
Intro
As there is a substantial spiritual continuity between the Old Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace and the New, it may be wondered what continuity Gen. 17:14 may have in the New Testament era.
If a man is not willing to have his child baptized, is he to be excommunicated? Is the child no longer in God’s Covenant? If a presbyterian daughter marries a baptist, and their child is not baptized as an infant, is the baby struck from God’s Covenant for not having the seal thereof?
The personal referent of the words, “that soul shall be cut off… he hath broken my covenant,” are inherently ambiguous, whether they refer to the infant or to the father in v. 11, or both. The timing of the child’s circumcision (or baptism), and his consequent being cut off, is also ambiguous: does it refer to the eighth day of life, or the period of infancy, or may it refer to when the child grows up and still, self-avowedly, will not be circumcised (or baptized)?
As is seen below (and as we will enlarge this section in the future), as might be expected in accord with the linguistic nature of the verse(s), the reformed variously interpreted Gen. 17:14.
.
Westminster & a Great Sin
While Westminster Confession of Faith 28.5 rightly says of infant baptism: “it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (Lk. 7:30 with Ex. 4:24-26),” it does not say anyone is to be excommunicated for it. Note further, it is “a great sin” to “contemn” (that is, to treat with contempt) or “neglect” the ordinance.
With regard to conscientious baptists, who seek to please the Lord according to the light they have, they neither treat the ordinance with contempt nor do they neglect it simply or formally, in knowing it is the plain, right thing to do from the Lord (as was the case in the proof-texts Westminster cited: Lk. 7:30 with Ex. 4:24-26).
Search results for “neglect” and “baptism” across the body of the literature in Westminster’s era show that part of the concern was the teaching in much of the early Church that neglecting baptism one’s whole life brought about damnation. Westminster lessened this to a “great sin”. The immediately following context of Westminster’s statement bears this out, that they were concerned to acknowledge, in light of that common early Church teaching, that persons can be saved without baptism and though baptism is morally necessary in ordinary circumstances, yet it does not save of itself (28.5):
“Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”
When Westminster says “this ordinance,” in reference to the neglect of it, it likely refers to the ordinance of baptism generally, as (1) that is what it goes on to speak of in the rest of the sentence, and (2) the next section, section 6, speaks of “the right use of this ordinance,” in which it specifies the subjects as “whether of age or infants”. While section 4 had mentioned the requirement of infant baptism, yet that is only a partial aspect of the ordinance of baptism generally. One of Westminster’s proof-texts for not neglecting the “ordinance” is Lk. 7:30, which speaks of adult baptisms.
The issue is not even what Westminster likely means by “this ordinance”. The phrase can mean the ordinance of baptism simply. Therefore, in Westminster’s original consensus context, the phrase need not refer to neglecting infant baptism particularly. Assembly members that did not think every case of a baptist not baptizing his infant was necessarily a great sin could still have voted for and affirmed the confessional teaching.
Search results in that era include Papists and other Christians who believed in infant baptism as among those who neglected the ordinance of baptism. Needless to say, baptists don’t neglect the ordinance of baptism as such when their children commonly receive baptism, and are encouraged to, when they are older.
Thus, in the case of conscientious baptists, while a falling short of the Law of God is involved, possibly out of weakness, their not baptizing their babies is not necessarily a “great sin” on par with contemning or neglecting God’s baptismal ordinance, as God’s ordinance.
.
Continuing in the Covenant
Regarding presbyterian daughters marrying such baptists,¹ it is possible, as seen below, that, while it is a sin, at least for the father, not to baptize the child, or allow such, yet the child may not be cut off from the Covenant till he grows up and self-avowedly will not be baptized as an adult, per the latitude that is inherent in Gen. 17:14.
¹ On the topic, see also ‘On Marriages with Persons of other Protestant Denominations’.
In Josh. 5:2-10, the Israelite fathers travelling for forty years in the wildness, had not circumcised their children, who now were to enter and inherit the promised land. As the grounds for being circumcised is being in God’s Covenant (circumcision being a seal thereof),¹ so the Israelites’ grown youth in Josh. 5 must have remained in God’s covenant.
¹ See Professing Believers’ Children are Baptized, being Outwardly in the Covenant
This is manifested in:
(1) God’s continued special dealings with them through that time (and not casting them off),
(2) in God telling them to be circumcised (Josh. 5:2) wihout any further explicit profession of faith going before (though there consent was cotemporaneous therewith and ex post facto), and
(3) in that, from before this time, they were designated the heirs of the promises of the Covenant in that they were to inherit the land of Canaan.
Their circumcision when they were older continued and confirmed their state before God and was appropriate to their inheriting the promises. The sins of the fathers in this scenario were not imputed to the children. How much more does all of this apply to baptism in the New Testament?
The invisible and spiritual is more foundational than the physical and outward, especially in the New Testament: if the parents continue with the child or children under the call of the Gospel, in submission to it with their outward, settled, implicit consent, this is in fact an external remaining in the Covenant despite the parents’ not allowing the application of the sign of God’s Covenant.
Moreover, if the young child believes upon the Savior and spiritually serves the Lord in growing before Him, receiving the substance of the Covenant, how can he or she be considered cut out of the Covenant? Rom. 2:26, about circumcision, applies just as much to baptism:
“Therefore if the uncircumcision [or the unbaptized] keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision [or lack of baptism] be counted for circumcision [or baptism]?”
In addition, as Rutherford notes, the fault in Gen. 17:14 was ceremonial; hence its punishment and degree (in parallel to regulations about lepers) were typological and instructive, not directly binding us in the New Testament era.
.
Quote
John Diodati
Pious Annotations on Gen. 17, verse 14
“‘Cut off’; By capital punishment by the magistrate, if the fact be notorious; by excommunica∣tion if the delinquent be out of the reach of him; or by the judgement of God, if the fact be secret, Ex. 31:14; Lev. 17:4; 18:29.
Now this is not to be understood of children, but of those who by their age were capable of voluntary rebellion, refusing, or contemning the use of this sacrament.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
A Free Disputation... (1649), p. 299
“I confess when the fault is ceremonial, though the punishment be real, as the cutting off of an infant not circumcised [Gen. 17:14], and some punishments inflicted on the leper, it is not reason the law should oblige us in the New Testament, either as touching the punishment or the degree.
Because these punishments for typical faults are ordained to teach rather than to be punishments, and the magistrate by no light of nature could make laws against unbaptized infants.”
.
Matthew Henry
Commentary on Gen. 17, verse 14
“The religious observance of this institution was required under a very severe penalty, Gen. 17:14. The contempt of circumcision was a contempt of the covenant; if the parents did not circumcise their children, it was at their peril, as in the case of Moses, Ex. 4:24–25.
With respect to those that were not circumcised in their infancy, if, when they grew up, they did not themselves come under this ordinance, God would surely reckon with them.
If they cut not off the flesh of their foreskin, God would cut them off from their people. It is a dangerous thing to make light of divine institutions, and to live in the neglect of them.”
.
On the Sanctification of the Unbelieving Spouse, 1 Cor. 7:14
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”
1 Cor. 7:14
.
Quote
Lyford, William
An Apology for our Public Ministery & Infant-Baptism, written Some Years Ago… (London, 1652), pp. 42-44
“Objection [from a baptist]: The sanctification of the wife is but a civil sanctification in that place, i.e. she is sanctified to his use, that he ought not to put her away. Again, the holiness there spoken of is a fruit of that sanctification of the wife, whereof it will follow, that seeing [as] the effect cannot be greater then the cause, the cause cannot produce a greater effect than itself, the cause being only a civil sanctification, the holiness of the children must be the same; thus argues Thomas Collier.
Answer 1: The question [in the text] was, Whether the believer were polluted by his unbelieving wife? The apostle says, ‘No’, quia pluris est pietas unius ad sanctificandum conjugium,quàm alterius impietas ad inquinandum, i.e. the faith of the believer is of greater force to sanctify their present cohabitation, than the unbelief of the other to pollute it. This he proves from a greater effect and fruit of the husband’s faith, viz. the holiness of the children born of such a husband by such a woman. The children are holy, not only civilly, as being born of lawful wedlock, but federally as being severed from all children of unbelievers by special prerogative, holy to the Lord, consecrated unto Him, whereas by nature they were aliens and unclean; according to that of Paul, Rom. 11:16, ‘if the root be holy, so are the branches.’
The faith of the believing party sanctifies the unbelieving wife to bear not only a lawful, but a holy seed; yea, it sanctifies the children and severs them from the common condition of other children, which are profane and unclean without the Church, without God in the world.
2. Note that the holiness of the child received from one of the parents believing is more than the sanctification of the wife by her believing husband, because such a wife is not taken into Covenant with her husband, but the child is; and therefore the apostle says not that such as is the sanctification of the wife, such is the holiness of the child: But thus, Such as is the holiness of the believing party, such is the child’s holiness in respect of Church-membership; and so the faith of the believing husband is the cause of both these effects, viz. That his coupling with his wife is not impure, and also that his children are holy: And this latter [is] an evidence of the former. And thus the holiness of the child is a sign of the mother’s sanctification to holy cohabitation, and an effect of the father’s faith by virtue of God’s Covenant.
To have said, ‘That their children were lawful’, was no more than to have said, ‘That their marriage was lawful’, which was not the question; But to say, that the children of their lawful marriage were holy, this did infer not only the lawfulness of their marriage but the sanctified use: As Mr Baily has well observed, Of Anabaptism, p. 138.
3. Lastly, If by holy, be only meant a civil holiness, then on the contray, by ‘unclean’, must be meant a civil uncleanness. But when Paul says (else were your children unclean) his intent is not to make them all as an unclean birth and impure offspring, which were born at Corinth of unbelieving parents, but to show that they are not comprehended within God’s Covenant: And so when he says ‘but now are they holy’, he notes some preeminence of the children of Christians above the heathens’ children: Though in civil respects, in respect of a lawful birth, both sorts of children were equal, yet that civil holiness being common to both, there is a preeminence of the Christian’s child above the heathen’s.
The child of an infidel at Corinth is today unclean and the next day holy in case his parents turn Christians; And what’s the reason of this so sudden alteration? It must needs be in regard of the Covenant into which the party now believing is taken with his children, his unbelieving neighbor with his children still remaining unclean: Hence I conclude with Calvin, in location, Seeing our children are exempted from the common condition of lost mankind, and admitted into God’s Church and family, Cur eos a signo arceamus? upon what reason can we drive them from the sign of their admittance?”
.
On Godfathers & Godmothers
Need to get from French Reformed Churches and Beza.
.
Order of Contents
Quotes 3
Articles 4
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
English Puritans
Baxter
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries... (1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, section 5, p. 193
“…Godfathers, who are civil witnesses that the parents shall take care to educate the child, in the true Faith…”
.
Partially Conforming English Puritan Ministers
A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025), pt. 3, Answer 1, pp. 277-78
“…children may lawfully be admitted to baptism, though both their parents be profane, if those who are in the stead of parents to them do require baptism for them, and give their promise to the Church for their religious education, seeing they may be lawfully accounted within God’s Covenant if any of their ancestors in any generations were faithful.”
.
Richard Baxter
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 11, 14-15 The preface is dated 1683.
“But those [leading presbyterian and congregationalist ministers] that were called by the king, and one another, 1660 and 1661, to treat of concord, and that assembled at Sion College, and elsewhere about it, did openly make known their minds: And I think they meddled not against any of these things following, by any accusation of them as sinful:
…
XXX. We are not against godfathers and godmothers as used of old, that is, when the parents are the covenanters for their child, and their death or apostasy is feared, for others to promise if they die or apostatize to take care of the child, or for any adopters or owners to do it that take the child as theirs.”
.
Articles
1600’s
Perkins, William – Ch. 9, Question 2, Whether witnesses which we commonly call Godfathers and Godmothers be necessary? in The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience… (Cambridge: Legat, 1606), bk. 2
Bucanus, William – ‘May Godfathers & Godmothers be Used? in 47. ‘Of Baptism’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606)
Dutch Theologians – ‘The Dutch Theologians at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 149-50 at Translationes Lyncei
Baxter, Richard
pp. 143-50 of section 8 in The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679)
Baxter describes the practice, necessity and crazy restrictions regarding godmothers and godfathers in the post-1662 Anglican Church, which all persons were to conform to upon pain of excommunication.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689)
ch. 10, ‘Of the English Sort of Godfathers at Baptism’, pp. 57-69
“Lawyer: What have you against our use of godfathers in baptism?
Minister: Negatively, we are not at all against the old sort of patrimi, ‘susceptors,’ or sponsors that were used at baptism in the ancient Churches, though we think it but a prudential thing and not of necessity to baptism.”
ch. 11, ‘Of Refusing to Baptize without such Godfathers’, pp. 69-72
The terms of the Anglican Church post-1662 were that a minister could not baptize a Christian’s baby without three godparents, and numerous other restrictions. Baxter argues against this as sinful.
ch. 49, ‘The laity denied baptism who refuse the foresaid way of godfathers, as it excludes the parents as unlawful’, pp. 186-87
.
On Implicit, Concurrent & ex post facto (After the Fact) Consent
See also, ‘On How Universal Consent Establishes a Thing’, ‘Church’s Implicit Consent: Sufficient for Officers’ and ‘Church-Governors’ Implicit Consent: Sufficient for Officers’.
.
Order of
Quotes 2
Article 1
References 2
Latin 1
.
Quotes
Order of
English Puritans
Ames
Rutherford
London Presbyterians
Scottish Indulged Ministers
.
1600’s
English Puritans
A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pt. 2, pp. 256-58
“Their [Separatists’] first reason against our entrance is: That we [Anglican ministers] are not chosen by that people over whom we are set or approved by an eldership. Whereunto we give this answer:
…
Thirdly, the faithful that are in those congregations where they are placed do either desire them or gladly receive them, or at the least by not taking exception to them, do even by their silence consent to their entrance, or by submitting themselves willingly to their godly directions in all things and profiting in knowledge and reformation of life by their labors, do manifestly approve of them and set a seal unto their ministry [1 Cor. 9:1–2; 2 Cor. 3:1–3]…
And seeing that the right that [civil] patrons now have was given them at first by the people’s free consent [in England] (though ignorantly and unlawfully as we are persuaded), we see not why the choice that the patron makes may not be accounted the choice of the people, as well as the acts done by the knights and burgesses of the parliament are deemed the acts of the whole Commons by whom they were deputed.
It is evident that by the law mentioned, Num. 30:8, that the silence of the husband or parent that testified not his dislike to the vow which he understood was made by his wife or child, made the said vow of as much force as if his consent had been requited and given: so it is judged in this case of the people’s silence in accepting of their ministers.
…
Thirdly, there may be some entrance into the ministry in substance sufficient where the people at first have not made election, nor their consent been required at all: as in case where the people have not knowledge of their right, or having known it, have not been suffered to use it, but yet have afterwards yielded themselves subject thereunto, as also in the case aforesaid, Num. 30:8.”
.
William Ames
A Second Manuduction for Mr. [John] Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former in an answer to his manumission (Amsterdam, 1615), p. 11
“Neither is that after-consent by acceptance and submission which Mr. [John] Robinson speaks of [with reference to a pastor and his hearers] so slight a matter for this purpose as he would make it.
For as in wedlock, the after-consent of parents or parties does often make that a lawful state of marriage which before and without that was none: and in government, acceptance and submission does make him a king which before was a tyrant, though in their nature these actions be rather consequences than causes of that calling; so is it [sometimes] betwixt minister and people.”
.
Conscience with the Power & Cases Thereof… (London, 1639), bk. 4, ch. 25, thesis 29, p. 69
“Question 7. Where the freedom of election is diminished by bishops, magistrates, [civil] patrons, what kind of calling is there?
29. Answer: Although election be not in that manner and degree free as it ought to be, yet a voluntary consent, as in marriage, so in the ministry, though procured by unjuft means, has the essence of an election and vocation.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Lex, Rex (Edinburgh: Ogle & Boyd), p. 47
“This title by conquest, through the people’s after consent, may be turned into a just title, as in the case of the Jews in Caesar’s time, for which cause our Savior commanded to obey Caesar, and to pay tribute unto him…
2. Though the consent be some way over-awed [by intimidation], yet is it a sort of contract and covenant of loyal subjection made to the conqueror, and therefore sufficient to make the title just; otherwise, if the people never give their consent, the conqueror, domineering over them by violence, has no just title to the crown.”
.
London Presbyterians
A Vindication of Presbyterial Government… (London: Meredith, 1650), p. 123
“most of them [Anglican churches] have had an after consent [of the people to the minister], which was sufficient to make Leah Jacob’s wife (Subsequens consensus Jacobi in Leam, fecit eos conjuges [“The subsequent consent of Jacob to Leah made them married persons”]; [David] Pareus, etc.), and why not (to use your own words) to marry a man to a people; and therefore according to your own [congregationalist] judgments, all such are lawful ministers.”
.
Scottish Indulged Ministers
John Bairdie et al., Balm from Gilead (London: Cockerill, 1681)
pp. 111–12
“…it being all one to them (as to the validity of their [ministers’] call) whether the people’s election was antecedent or subsequent to the [civil] ruler’s license: See [William] Ames, Cases of Conscience, bk. 4, ch. 25, thesis 29.
Yea, divines tell us that people’s consent subsequent to a minister’s entry (though it absolve him not of disorderliness, yet) does ratify and make good his right to labor among them as their pastor, even as Leah (unjustly obtruded upon Jacob) did by his consequent consent become his wife; and might no more after that be repudiated than his beloved Rachel, whom he chose before he married her [Gen. 29:16–32].”
.
pp. 114–15
“That solemnity therefore of [ministerial] admission [to a charge] (so called) being at most, and in best times, not necessary ad esse [to the being], but only expedient ad bene esse [to the well-being], that is to say, not essential and absolutely necessary, but only for solemnity and conveniency of stating the relation (as learned Voetius shows in his Desperata causa Papatus, [§2, ch. 20, ‘The Election to be Given to a Minister’] p. 263). What hinders but it may be wanted [lacked] without any detriment to the relation? like marriage consummate without some of the rites and solemnities, ordinary and fit when they may be had.”
.
Article
1600’s
Stillingfleet, Edward – ch. 7 in Irenicum, a Weapon-Salve for the Church’s Wounds, or the Divine Right of Particular Forms of Church-Government Discussed & Examined... (London: Mortlock, 1662), pt. 1, pp. 132-40
“The Law of Nature dictates that all who are admitted into this [Chuch] Society, must consent to be governed by the laws and rules of that society, according to its constitution. For none can be looked upon as a member of a society, but such a one as submits to the rules and laws of the society, as constituted at the time of his entrance into it.
That all civil societies are founded upon voluntary consent and agreement of parties, and do depend upon contracts and covenants made between them, is evident to any that consider that men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but whom they shall judge fit; that dominion and propriety was introduced by free consent of men: and so there must be laws and bonds fit, agreement made, and submission acknowledged to those laws, else men might plead their natural right and freedom still, which would be destructive to the very nature of these societies.
When men then did first part with their natural Liberties, two things were necessary in the most express terms to be declared: First, a free and voluntary consent to part with so much of their natural rights as was not consistent with the well-being of the society; Secondly, a free submission to all laws, which should be agreed upon at their entrance into society, or afterwards as they see cause.
But when societies were already entered, and children born under them, no such express consent was required in them, being bound by virtue of the protection they find from authority to submit to it, and an implicit consent is supposed in all such as are born under that authority.
But for their more full understanding of this obligation of theirs, and to lay the greater tie of obedience upon them, when they come to understanding, it has been conceived very requisite by most states to have an explicit declaration of their consent, either by some formal oath of allegiance, or some other way sufficiently expressing their fidelity, in standing to the covenants long since supposed to be made. To apply this now to the Church.
…
Our Savior has determined how this consent should be expressed, viz. by receiving baptism from those who have the power to dispense it: which is the federal rite whereby our consent is expressed to own all the laws and submit to them, whereby this society is governed: Which at the first entering of men into this society of the Church was requisite to be done by the express and explicit consent of the parties themselves, being of sufficient capacity to declare it, but the Covenant being once entered into by themselves, not only in their own name, but in the name of their posterity (a thing implied in all covenants wherein benefits do redound to posterity, that the obligation should reach them to; but more particular in this, it having been always the tenor of God’s Covenants with men, to enter the seed as well as the persons themselves, as to outward privileges, Dt. 29:15; Acts 2:38), an implicit consent as to the children in Covenant is sufficient to enter them upon the privileges of it by baptism, although withal it be highly rational for their better understanding the engagement they entered into, that when they come to age, they should explicitly declare their own voluntary consent to submit to the laws of Christ, and to conform their lives to the profession of Christianity…
…but in religious societies [in contrast to natural societies], though the act of consent be free, yet there is an antecedent obligation upon men, binding them to this voluntary consent… It is granted, Church-power does suppose consent, but then all Christians are under an obligation from the nature of Christianity to express this consent, and to submit to all censures legally inflicted.
…
…yet I no ways deny the lawfulness or expediency, in many cases, of having a personal profession from all baptized in infancy when they come to age (which we may, if we please, call Confirmation) and the necessity of desiring admission, in order to participation of all ordinances: which desire of admission, does necessarily imply men’s consenting to the laws of that society, and walking according to the duties of it; and so they are consequentially and virtually, though not expressly and formally, bound to all the duties required from them in that relation.” – pp. 132-40
.
References
1600’s
George Gillespie
A Treatise of Miscellaneous Questions (1649), ch. 2, p. 4 in The Presbyterian’s Armoury (Edinburgh: Ogle, 1846), vol. 2
An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland… (Edinburgh: Bryson, 1641), pt. 2, ch. 1, p. 120
.
Samuel Rutherford
Lex, Rex, or the Law & the Prince (Edinburgh: Ogle, Oliver & Boyd, 1843), pp. 2–3, 35, 37, 47, 188
The Due Right of Presbyteries (London: 1644)
pt. 1, ch. 8, p. 207
pt. 2, ch. 5, p. 272
A Survey of the Survey of that Sum of Church Discipline Penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker… (London, 1658)
bk. 2, ch. 9, pp. 257, 259
bk. 3, ch. 3, p. 307
.
Latin
1600’s
Alsted, Johann H. – Lexicon Theologicum… (Prostat, 1612), ch. 15, ‘De suffragiis‘, p. 380
Alsted cites Neh. 8:7.
.
.
Do Young People Remain Part of the Church when they Grow Up, but do Not Come to the Lord’s Table?
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
A Survey of the Survey of that Sum of Church-Discipline penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker… wherein the way of the Churches of New England is now Re-examined (London, 1658), bk. 1, ch. 14, p. 57
“…hence we seek a warrant, why these who were once members of the visible Church and baptized, as the Answer to the 32 [Questions, a previously published congregationalist work] says, and so [are] clean and holy, 1 Cor. 7:14; Rom. 11:16, (2) in covenant with God, Acts 2:38-39; Acts 15:14-15; Gen. 17:7; 2 Cor. 6:16-18, etc. (3) and so redeemed by the blood of Christ and baptized into his body, 1 Cor. 12:13, even unto Christ, Gal. 3:17; Acts 2:38-39, when they come to age, are for no scandal unchurched, and because they cannot give evidence of real conversion, yet for 60 or 80 years, and to their dying day, are no more Church-members than pagans?
([Margin note:] Our [congregationalist] Brethren cast out of the Church these who were baptized in their infancy, and members thereof, because visibly non-regenerated. What warrant for this censure?)”
.
On Baptizing Households
.
Should Adopted Children be Baptized
Yes
Quote
1600’s
Anthony Walaeus
Synopsis of a Purer Theology (1625; Brill, 2020), vol. 2, Disputation 44, ‘On the Sacrament of Baptism’, section 49, p. 165
“But we do exclude from baptism the children of those who clearly are strangers to the covenant, such as the children of heathens, Muslims, Jews, and of similar people… And for this reason we should leave them–like foreigners–to the judgement of God… unless they happen through lawful adoption or through the just and properly-designated status of slaves to be enrolled and taken up into the families of believers as though belonging to them.†
For in this case many Reformed churches do baptize those children, because they deem that God has adopted them into the fellowship of his covenant in this manner, that is to say by the covenant of Genesis 17:12-13, which in the early church was so far beyond debate that from it Augustine on several occasions deduced a powerful argument against the Pelagians for election by grace. [On the Grace of Christ & on Original Sin 2.35 in NPNF1 5.249-50]
† This is a remarkable position, given the fact that the Synod of Dort had decided negatively on the issue in response to a question from East-India if it was allowed to baptize a child from pagan parents adopted into a Christian family. At the synod, the professors and the delegates from Zeeland, Friesland and Utrecht did not object to baptism, together with the majority of foreign delegates, but the delegates from Holland and Gelderland objected because human adoption does not imply divine adoption.
Adopted children first had to profess faith and only then could be baptized, though as infants they could be commended to God’s gracious care by the laying-on of hands. See Acta of the Synod of Dordt, eds. Donald Sinnema, Christian Moser, and Herman Selderhuis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 30-32.”
.
Articles
1600’s
Around the Synod of Dort
‘The Dutch Theologians at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 149-50 at Translationes Lyncei
The Dutch theologians say ‘yes’ for infants, but ‘no’ for ‘those capable of instruction in the sacred religion,’ who should be instructed and make a profession first.
‘The British Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 132-33 at Translationes Lyncei
‘The [German] Hessian Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 134-36 at Translationes Lyncei
‘The Bremen Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 140-41 at Translationes Lyncei
.
No
Articles
1600’s
Around the Synod of Dort
‘The Swiss Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 137-38 at Translationes Lyncei
‘The Genevan Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 139-40 at Translationes Lyncei
‘The Palatinate [German] Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 133-34 at Translationes Lyncei
‘The Emden Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 147-48 at Translationes Lyncei
.
Should Foster-Children, where the Relationship is Conditional & Likely to be Termporary, be Baptized?
No
Quote
1600’s
‘The Hessian Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 134-36 at Translationes Lyncei
“I. Children of pagans, of whatever age and however they have come into the power of Christians, whether legitimately or illegitimately, if they are taken into Christian families as their slaves or servants, who can be manumitted [released] again at their masters’ pleasure and ejected from Christian families, should not be baptized, but should first be taught the Christian religion, and a confession of the same should be required from them before they are admitted to baptism.
For such children of pagans are not and should not be considered members of the visible church either by right of birth or by right of adoption into Christian families. Not by right of birth, for they are born outside the church from unbelieving and polluted parents, and therefore they themselves are also rightly considered unbelieving and polluted, according to 1 Corinthians 7:14. Not by right of adoption into Christian families, for this, if it is done only for the sake of servitude and with reserved liberty of expulsion, makes no one a member of the church.
For thus in the Old Testament, in the families of faithful patriarchs, and in the time of the primitive apostolic church in Christian families, many children were born from pagan servants, who nevertheless were outside the church no less than their parents, and were not considered its members, until their parents, having abandoned paganism, transferred to the Jewish or Christian religion and brought their children with them to the church.
Nor does the example of Abraham in Genesis 17 stand opposed [to our position], who also circumcised those bought with money and foreigners. For Abraham did not force such unwilling ones to circumcision, nor did he admit them while still unbelieving, for otherwise God’s covenant would have been profaned. Instead, he first instructed them in the doctrine of the covenant and circumcised those who embraced that doctrine along with their infants.”
.
On Baptizing Older Children
Order of Quotes
French Reformed
British Delegation at Dort
.
1500’s
French Reformed Churches
Synod of Loudun (1659), ch. 10, ‘General Matters’, section 15, p. 553
“15. Such as defer the baptizing of their children shall be sharply censured, according to the rigor of our discipline; and if any children are come unto years of discretion, and were never baptized, they shall first be catechized and well instructed in the principles of Christian religion before they be admitted unto baptism.”
.
1600’s
British Delegation at the Synod of Dort
‘The British Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children’ tr. Michael Lynch from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pp. 132-33 at Translationes Lyncei
“As for those who are fit to learn the principles of the Christian faith, we think they should first be taught the knowledge of these principles, which being known, if they assent and earnestly desire the sacrament of baptism, they should be washed in the font of regeneration without any scruple. But if, on the contrary, they resist the doctrine handed down to them and oppose baptism, we judge that such should neither be offered to the church by their masters, nor baptized by the church if they are offered.”
.
Articles
1500’s
Beza, Theodore – Question 147, ‘But thinkest thou that there is no consideration to be had of the age of those that are to be baptized?’ in The Other Part of Christian Questions & Answers, which is Concerning the Sacraments… (London, 1580)
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – ‘Are Persons of Years & Infants to be Admitted unto Baptism All after One Sort?’ in Institutions of Christian Religion Framed out of God’s Word… (London, 1606), 47th Common Place, ‘Of Baptism’, p. 712
.
On Baptizing Bond-Servants & Slaves
Order of Contents
Articles
Quotes
Latin
.
Articles
1600’s
Willet, Andrew – Question 30, ‘Whether the Servant might be Compelled to be Circumcized?’ in Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum... (London, 1633), on Exodus, ch. 12, 3, The Explanation of Difficult Questions, pp. 129-30
.
1800’s
Howe, George – Article 3, ‘The Baptism of Servants’ in Southern Presbyterian Review, no. 1 (June 1847), pp. 63-102
Howe (1802-1883) was a Southern presbyterian.
“…in favor of the baptism of infant servants, from the cessation of the Jewish Church to the times of Augustine, we can only say that Augustine speaks of it as a custom in existence; that it resulted, in his day, from the conviction that baptism came in place of circumcision, a conviction which we can trace up through the earliest fathers…
…we commend the resolutions of the Synod of South Carolina…
‘1. Resolved, That it is the duty of believing masters to train up their servants, as well as their children, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
2. Resolved, That the principles of the Abrahamic covenant, as to the cirucmcision of servants, is till in force in reference to the infant offspring of those who stand to us in this relation; and that as baptism succeeds to circumcision, it is the duty of masters to dedicate such servants to God in the ordinance of baptism, and to do all in their power to train them up in a knowledge of the truth and in the way of salvation through Christ.
3. Resolved, That though there are great and manifest dificulties in carrying out the principles of these resolutions, these difficulties have chiefly resulted from the long continued neglect of believing masters and of the church, and that these difficulties must be gradually overcome by continued and persevering efforts.'”
Hodge, J. Aspinwall – ‘Who may be Baptized?’ in What is Presbyterian Law as Defined by the Church Courts? (1882; 1899), pp. 85-86
This directs that infants of servants or slaves of Christian masters are to be baptized, with some qualifications.
.
Order of Quotes
Hooker
Walaeus
Blake
Virginia
Sherlock
Taylor
.
1500’s
Richard Hooker
The Works of Mr. Richard Hooker (that learned and judicious divine), in Eight Books of Ecclesiastical Polity… (London, 1666), bk.5, section 64, p. 244 Hooker (1554–1600) was a prominent Anglican apologist.
“‘It comes sometime to pass’ (says St. Augustine)
‘that the children of bond-slaves are brought to baptism by their Lord; sometime the parents being dead, the friends alive undertake that office, sometime stangers or virgins consecrated unto God, which neither have, nor can have children of their own, take up infants in the open streets, and so offer them unto baptism, whom the cruelty of unnatural parents casts out, and leaves to the adventure of uncertain pity.’
As therefore he which did the part of a neighbor, was a neighbor to that wounded man whom the parable of the Gospel describes, so they are fathers, although strangers, that bring infants to him which makes them the sons of God.”
.
1600’s
Anthony Walaeus
Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Brill, 2020), vol. 2, Disputation 44, ‘On the Sacrament of Baptism’, section 49, p. 165
“But we do exclude from baptism the children of those who clearly are strangers to the covenant, such as the children of heathens, Muslims, Jews, and of similar people… And for this reason we should leave them–like foreigners–to the judgement of God… unless they happen through lawful adoption or through the just and properly-designated status of slaved to be enrolled and taken up into the families of believers as though belonging to them. For in this case many Reformed churches do baptize those children, because they deem that God has adopted them into the fellowship of his covenant in this manner, that is to say by the covenant of Genesis 17:12-13, which in the early church was so far beyond debate that from it Augustine on several occasions deduced a powerful argument against the Pelagians for election by grace. [On the Grace of Christ & on Original Sin 2.35 in NPNF1 5.249-50]”
.
Thomas Blake
The Birth-Privilege, or, Covenant-Holiness of Believers & their Issue in the Time of the Gospel, Together with the Right of Infants to Baptism (London, 1644), p. 22
“We have examples not to be contemned of the baptism of whole households, and whether infants were there or no, as it is not certain (though probable) so it is not material: The precedent is a houshold; he that follows the precedent must baptize households.
It appears not that any wife was there, yet he that follows the precedent in baptizing of households, must baptize wives, and so (I may say) servants, if they be of the household.”
.
The Colony of Virginia 1667
A Complete Collection of All the Laws of Virginia Now in Force... (London [1684]), At a Grand Assembly held at James City September 3. Anno 1667, p. 155
“II. An Act Declaring that Baptism of Slaves does not Exempt them from Bondage
Whereas some doubts have arisen whether Children that are slaves by birth, and by the charity and piety of the owners made partakers of the blessed sacrament of baptism should by virtue of their baptism be made free; It is enacted and declared by this present Grand Assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of Baptism does not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedom;
That diverse masters freed from this doubt may more carefully endeavor the propagating of Christianity by permitting children, though slaves, or those of greater growth if capable, to be admitted to that sacrament.”
.
William Sherlock
A Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies… (London, 1681), pt. 2, ch. 5, pp. 303-4 Sherlock was an Anglican.
“…use the best skill you have to instruct your children and servants, yet this is no reason to withdraw them from public instructions: nor can any man, who understands his religion, think he discharges his duty to God and the Church, merely by his private instruction of his family, when he neglects, or refuses to bring them to public instructions.
3. For he must consider, that his children and servants, who are baptized, are members of the Christian Church, and therefore ought to be sub∣ject to the instructions and discipline of it, as far as their age and capacity will permit. They do not only belong to his private care, but to the public care of the Church, who is to provide for the instruction of her children; and to deny the Church liberty to instruct her children, or not to interpose their own authority to make them submit to it, is to withdraw their children from the communion of the Church, after a solemn dedication of them to God.”
.
Nathaniel Taylor
Paidobaptismos Orthobaptismos: or, The Baptism of Infants Vindicated by Scriptures & Reasons... (London, 1683), Argument 6, p. 51 Taylor was reformed.
“…yet we find [in the N.T.] whole families baptized, and several saints greeted with the Church of God in such an house, which may as reasonably infer the children and servants of such families to have been baptized, and to have been reckoned Church-members; and we may as reasonably believe there were children in some of their houses and families who were baptized, as they [baptists] can confidently deny it.”
.
Latin
Daniel Chamier
Last edition, Tome 4, bk. 5, ch. 11, section 2, as quoted in Giles Firmin, A Sober Reply to the Sober Answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey… (London, 1653), p. 42
“And learned Chamier speaks very warily upon the question:
‘Servi si fim verè servi quales olim, non diffitear•nam Abrahamo legimus imperatum ut circumcideret suos omnes servos, sed quales hodià not serves habem•• ut plurimum quia verè liberi suns, non putem sic tractandus, non cor quidem qui jure belli fiunt subditi principibus, nam hoc genus subditorum tamen liberum manet: De natu ergo ex parentibus insidelibus liberis, si consentiant parentes, distinguendum putem: Consentiunt enim vel ipsi facti fideles, ac tune nulla difficultas, etc. vel perseverates in infidelitate, ac tum non putem baptizandor, etc.'”
.
On Baptizing a Wife
Quotes, 1600’s
William Hussey
An Answer to Mr. Tombes [a Baptist], his Sceptical Examination of Infants’-Baptism… (London, 1646), pp. 44-45 Page 43 starts the context. Hussey was the Erastian minister who debated Gillespie on the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ. Not every particular in the larger context is endorsed.
“…from whence it will appear that a believing master may present his servant and children to baptism, though it does not follow that a believing master may or will present those of his servants or children that are adult or of years without their consent, yet he may by his authority require them to it as an external duty; he cannot compel them to any duty, or restrain them from any vice without their consent, yet he may correct them, and incline their will to any outward duty by his authority, and having wrought upon them to consent and submit, the commissioner may baptize them that come so presented: the master of a family is a king, a prophet, and a priest, if by any of these offices he can prevail with his houshold, he may bring them to the performance of their duties…
…though it be the master or husband’s duty to move his family, yet he cannot always prevail; and special direction concerning the wife is given to suffer her in regard of the bond of matrimony and that under some limited and restrained terms in hope of her conversion [1 Cor. 7]; yet nothing is said concerning servants but that he may either force them or be rid of them if they continue infidels in that sense, that is refuse to list themselves among disciples; the public worship of some God being the bond of all human society, Ps. 101:6, ‘He that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me:’ he that keeps any servant that will not be baptized, is not a good Christian; it is true, all men of discretion ought to consent to every duty…”
.
John Horn
…A Consideration of Infant Baptism, wherein the grounds of it are laid down… and many things of Mr Tombes [a Baptist] about it… Answered… (London, 1654), pp. 38-9 Horn (1614-1676) was an English minister.
“Nor yet do [they, the apostles] make their being of a household simply the ground of their being baptized; for I confess there may be diverse in and of a houshold, that in some case, that is, of positive refusing to stoop to the Gospel, may not be baptized; as an unbelieving wife, servant, or child grown, they are by persuasion to be won in, or else let alone, this springing from the foresaid ground of not forcing ordinances upon men:
But I make the grounds of their baptism: the tenor of the commission that bids them [ministers to] disciple all the gentiles, and of the gospel holding forth grace to all, one and other, no man being common or unclean in that respect in God’s account, but as they render themselves so by their willing rejections of the grace tendered to them, with their being under the tuition of those that profess faith, and subjection to the doctrine of Christ, and the non-resistance found in them, and the duty lying upon parents to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Whence it is to be noted, that it’s said of the jailor, he and all his, not all his ‘houshold’, but all ‘his’ were baptized; possibly some in the house might not be in his [to] dispose, but so many as were his were baptized.
If any man say, its an act of force to disciple an infant; I say no, of no more force to baptize them to Christ, than to lay them in their cradles or carry them in their arms; they have no will nor reluctancy against it, ye may do with them what ye will: whence they are a pattern of right entring the Kingdom: ‘He that receives not the Kingdom of God as a little child,’ etc. They receive it as God and his people order them into it, and in it. And for their discipling by instruction, they usually, if well educated, drink it in, and submit to it better than others, as to the outward profession at least, as was before said. And I find not that baptism was ever denied to any that would submit themselves to learn the Christian profession…
…who yet when they [infants] came to years of understanding, owning what was in infancy done to them, were never therefore reputed members of the Church or proselytes by compulsion.”
.
Charles Leslie
A Religious Conference Between a Minister & Parishioner concerning the Practice of our Orthodox Church of England in Baptizing Infants… (London, 1696), pp. 11-12 Leslie (1650-1722)
But if federal holiness be here meant, then the unbelieving wife may lay a claim to baptism as well as the children on the account of her husband’s faith.
Minister:
No, there is a double difference in the case: 1. Because there is not the same reason a believer’s unbelieving wife should be covenantly holy as that his children should be so: Almighty God having engaged Himself in Covenant to such children, which He has not done to such a wife; the tenor of which Covenant runs thus, Gen. 17:7:
‘I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant; to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee.’
And this Covenant which God made with Abraham is still in force and made with the believing gentiles and their children, by virtue of which a Covenant relation redounds to the children of a believing father, but not of the unbelieving mother; the Covenant is established with believers and their seed; and not with their wives that are idolaters; and so St. Peter expounds this Covenant, Acts 2:39, ‘The promise is to you and to your children;’ there is no mention in either place of unbelieving wives, neither are they included in the Covenant of Grace, as their believing husbands and children are;
As for instance, when Solomon married Pharaoh‘s daughter, she continuing a heathen still, had no benefit of the Abrahamical Covenant as her husband and children (if he begat any by her) had; they were both within the Covenant though she was out of it: In like manner is it with a believing Christian husband, he and his children are Covenantly holy, when his unbelieving wife is not so, but only civilly holy.
2. The wife is able, and therefore ought to make profession of her faith before she is baptized; the children are not able to profess their faith, and therefore may be baptized without it: And this distinction they must allow, because they have made it themselves in respect of Christ’s satisfaction, which they say, is but one, though there is a twofold way of applying it:
1. Through believing in those that are capable of believing.
2. Without believing is this satisfaction applied to dying infants:
And therefore they have no more reason to say we make two baptisms than we have to say they make two satisfactions of Christ: one for grown persons through faith and another for infants without faith. And if Christ’s satisfaction is one, so is our baptism one, notwithstanding this twofold way of applying it;”
.
.
.
“If the children of believers were excluded from membership in the new covenant when they had been an integral part of the old covenant, Pentecost would have been a day of mass excommunication.”
Robert Letham
Systematic Theology, 15.3.2, 445-6
.
.
.
Related Pages
Historic Reformed Quotes on the Visible Church being Outwardly in the Covenant of Grace