The Baptism of the Children of Adherents

And 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 unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.”

Gen. 17:7

“At that time the Lord said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.  And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins… For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: unto whom the Lord sware that he would not shew them the land… And their children, whom He raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised.”

Josh. 5:2-7

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Eze. 18:20

 

 

Order of Contents

Introduction
Start Here  – MacPherson
Pro Articles

Calvin, Rutherford **Blake, Cawdrey **Mather, Kennedy

Pro Quotes 

Zanchi, Bowles **Mather, Kennedy

Contra Articles

Boston, Hodge, Peck, Murray

 

** – Denotes a Westminster divine

 

 

Introduction

An adherent is someone who is baptized but does not come to the Lord’s Table.  This category includes (but is not limited to) persons who:

Were baptized as a child, have grown, married, and have had children, but do not profess personal faith, and they desire their children to be raised in the church.   

Persons who have been baptized as children, but who struggle with assurance of faith and are hence reluctant to come to the Lord’s Table.

New converts to Christianity who are not yet ready to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Professing believers who are under the discipline of the church and have been barred from the Table.

 

Should their children be baptized?  

The answer depends largely on Covenant Theology.  If such baptized church members who do not communicate at the Lord’s Table are externally in the Covenant, then their children are too, and should be baptized.  If such church members are not externally in the Covenant, then neither are their children, and their children should not be baptized.

The older view of the Reformation and puritan era was largely: Yes, baptized church members who do not partake at the Lord’s Supper are still externally in Covenant with God, and hence their children should be baptized, baptism being the sign and seal of being externally in Covenant with God. 

Start with MacPherson’s 8 pages below, which is a necessary introduction to the question.  Then see the writings of the most prominent persons in church history who have answered this question: Samuel Rutherford ** and Thomas Boston.

 

 

 

Start Here

MacPherson, John – The Idea of the Church and Membership in it, p. 82-90, 8 pages, being part of Lecture 2 from his, The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology, 1903

MacPherson, of the Free Church of Scotland gives the best introduction to the topic, giving the historical background and theological issues relating to the difference of opinion between Rutherford and Boston.  

 

 

Pro Articles

Calvin, John – Letter 549: to John Knox, Answers to different Ecclesiastical Questions, 1559, 4 paragraphs, being pp. 74-76 of Letters of John Calvin, vol. 4

Rutherford, Samuel ** ‘On the Baptism of the Children of Adherents’  PDF  1642, 29 pages, being ch. 12 of his A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland.  An updated, easier to read edition.  

Rutherford (1600-1661) was a Westminster divine, and minister of the Church of Scotland.    To see how Rutherford interprets 1 Cor. 7:14, and hence Westminster Confession 28.4, see the 9th Argument, 4th Objection.

Rutherford, Samuel ** On the Baptism of the Children of Adherents, Part 2  1644, 16 pages, being the 2nd Part, Chapter 4, Section 6 of The Due Right of Presbyteries, pp. 256-66, with a 3 page extended outline 

Rutherford further argues against the Independent John Cotton.

Blake, Thomas – The Covenant of God, Chapters 58 & 59  Buy  1652, 37 pages  being pages 621-659 of the 2009 reprint by Puritan Publications

Blake’s work was intended to be a defense of the majority view and practice of his day (1652) on this point and other points related to God’s Covenant of Grace.  From the original title: 

“Vindiciae Foederis, or a Treatise of the Covenant of God… in the several kinds and degrees of it, in which… the just latitude and extent [of it is] clearly held forth and fully vindicated… infant baptism in that latitude as now in use in reformed churches maintained.”

Cawdrey, Daniel ** A Sober Answer to a Serious Question Propounded by Mr. Giles Firmin, minister: Whether the ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to baptize the children of all such parents which say they believe in Jesus Christ.  Which may serve also as an appendix to the diatribe with Mr. Hooker, concerning the baptism of infants, 1652, 30 pages, the book is incomplete: the end is missing.

Mather, Cotton – The Great Works of Christ in America, vol. 2, p. 276-316  Buy  1702, 40 pages

Mather (1663-1728) gives the historical account of this issue coming to prominence in old congregationalist puritan New England.  He sides with baptizing the children of adherents.  

The 7 propositions put forth affirmatively in favor of the practice by the Synod of Boston in 1662 are concisely stated on p. 279.  The Synod’s arguments from scripture for each proposition then follow for 21 pages.  Mather’s commentary then follows on pp. 302-315

Kennedy, John, of Dingwall – ‘On the Paucity of Communicants’  1861, 23 pages, being the last section (section 5) of Chapter 4 of his The Days of our Fathers in Ross-shire  Buy  pp. 131-154

Kennedy was a famed conservative of the old Free Church of Scotland.  Here he gives an explanation and defense of the practice in the highlands of Scotland from spiritual experience, contra the lowlanders practice and view (held by such notable figures as William Cunningham, etc.).  Kennedy rightly distinguishes the scriptural differences between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

 

 

 

Pro Quotes

Girolamo Zanchi  1516-1590

Commentary on Ephesians, p. 226.  As quoted by Thomas Boston, Works, vol. 6, ‘Miscellaneous Questions’, Question 6, p. 139-140

The children of those that are indeed in the church, but, because of their unclean way of living, declare that they are not indeed of the church; if they be offered to baptism, they cannot be debarred therefrom, nor ought they.  The reason is, because though the parents be wicked, yet their impiety ought not to prejudge their children which are born within the church.  But if you say, only the children of the faithful are to be baptized, because those infants only are judged to be within the covenant, and they only holy; I answer, the impiety of their nearest parents is not to be considered here, but the piety of the church in which they are born;—as also their ancestors who have lived godly and holily.

 

Oliver Bowles  1577-1644  **

De pastore evangelico tractatus, Book 3, Ch. 3, as quoted by Thomas Boston, Works, vol. 6, ‘Miscellaneous Questions’, Question 6, p. 140

All infants who, in the judgment of charity, are within the covenant, are to be baptized.  And baptism is to be administered exactly according to this judgment of charity.  And that judgment concludes all to be within the covenant, whose parents were sometime sealed with the seal of the covenant.

 

Cotton Mather  1702

The Great Works of Christ in America, vol. 2, p. 309

Baptism is a seal of the whole covenant of grace; but it is by way of initiation.  Hence it belongs to all that are within the covenant or have the first entrance thereinto.  And is there no danger of corruption by overstraining the subject of baptism?  Certainly, it is a corruption to take from the rule, as well as add to it.  Moses found danger in not applying the initiating seal, to such for whom it was appointed.  Is there no danger of putting those out of the visible Church, whom our Lord would have kept in? If we do not keep in the way of a converting, grace-giving covenant, and keep persons under those church dispensations, wherein grace is given, the Church will die of a lingering, though not violent, death.  The Lord has not set up churches only that a few old Christians may keep one another warm while they live, and then carry away the Church into the cold grave with them when they die; no, but that they might with all care, and with all the obligations and advantages to that care that may be, nurse up still successively another generation of subjects to our Lord, that may stand up in his kingdom when they are gone.

 

 John Kennedy of Dingwall  1861

The Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire, Chapter 4, p. 132-133

They of the south [of Scotland, such as William Cunningham and others] maintain, that both the sacraments, being seals of the same covenant, and imposing the self-same obligations, ought to be administered on the same footing, the same kind and measure of profession and of qualification being required, on the part of applicants for either; that no adult should be admitted to the one, without being admitted also to the other; and that the Christian profession required of a parent, in order to the baptism of his child, cannot be complete, without his being a communicant. The result of these views being carried into practice in the Lowlands, or rather the result of their mode of reducing them to practice, is, that with rare exceptions, all the members of a congregation, above a certain age, go to the table of the Lord, and that any parent, who is a communicant, receives, as a matter of course, baptism for his child.

The Ross-shire fathers [in the highlands of Northern Scotland] held, that though in general, the two sacraments were equally seals of the covenant of grace, they do in some respects differ, even as sealing ordinances; that baptism, being the door of admission into the visible Church, a larger exercise of charity is required in dealing with applicants for that sacrament, than is called for in administering the other, which implies a confirmation of those who were members before; that the lessons of baptism are more elementary than those of the sacrament of the Supper; that the connection of the child, and of both the parents, with an ordinary case of infant baptism, calls for peculiar tenderness on the part of church rulers; and that the rule of Scripture requires baptism to be given, on an uncontradicted profession of faith, while an accredited profession is required to justify the church, in granting admission to the table of the Lord. The result of carrying these views into practice is well known; the number of members in full communion is comparatively small, and parents who have never communicated, receive baptism for their children.

 

 

 

Contra Articles

Boston, Thomas – Who Have Right to Baptism, and are to be Baptized?, †1732, 94 pages, being from his Works, vol. 6, ‘Miscellaneous Questions’, Question 6, p. 125-219.

Boston (1676-1732) was a Church of Scotland minister and gives the fullest argument against the baptism of the children of adherents.

Hodge, Charles – ‘Whose Children are Entitled to Baptism?’  Buy  1873, 20 pages, being Part 3, Chapter 20, Section 11 of his Systematic Theology, vol 3,  p. 558-579 of the 1981 Eerdmans reprint

Hodge (1797-1878) was a professor of systematic theology at old Princeton and is writing from the later American context.  As usual, he has a comprehensive knowledge of the subject, is organized, and is very clear.  Hodge gives the next best defense of this later viewpoint after Boston.

Peck, Thomas – ‘Whose Children Have a Right to Baptism?’ 1855, 10 pages, in Writings of Thomas Peck  Buy  reprinted by Banner of Truth, 1999, vol. 1, p. 184-194

Murray, John – ‘Whose Children are to be Baptized?’ 1980, 6 pages, being Chapter 6 of his Christian Baptism  Buy  pages 77-82, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing

John Murray (1898–1975), the Scottish-American theologian of early Westminster Seminary deals with the question briefly.  Unfortunately there is a lack of interaction with the arguments of the other side.

 

 

 

 

Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto Me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured.  Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain My children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?”

Eze. 16:20-21

“Yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day…  Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.  Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God… with all the men of Israel, your little ones…  That thou should enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God makes with thee this day: That He may establish thee today for a people unto Himself, and that He may be unto thee a God…”

Deut. 29:4,9-13

 

 

 

Related Pages

Baptism

Infant Baptism

Children of Professing Believers are Baptized Because they are in the Covenant

The Covenant of Grace

Historic Reformed Quotes on the Visible Church being Outwardly in the Covenant of Grace