The Spiritual State of Baptized Children in the Reformed Tradition

Part 1

Introduction

Through the history of the Reformed tradition, at least three distinct views on the spiritual state of “covenant children” have been offered by theologians. For reasons unknown to the present author, many paedobaptists are unaware that so many views have been put forward. The purpose of this paper is not to make a historical judgment on which of these views takes precedence in the tradition. Rather, it is to summarize the positions of prominent theologians and note that they are mutually exclusive. Those who desire to justify infant baptism must choose carefully between these views, for which view you take will drastically impact the way in which you argue for the practice. The views could be summarized as follows: 1). Infants are ordinarily unregenerate and in Adam in the moments before and after baptism; 2). Infants are born unregenerate and in Adam, but they are regenerated and cleansed from original sin in the act of baptism; and 3). Infants are ordinarily regenerated before baptism.

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583)

        Ursinus was an extremely influential Reformer who taught at the University of Heidelberg and co authored the Heidelberg catechism. His published lectures through the catechism became a very popular theology textbook and are generally understood to be authoritative in explaining the theology of the catechism. Commenting on question 74 of that work, Ursinus provides a lengthy argument for infant baptism. In it, he begins by asserting that infants are “disciples of Christ, because they are born in the church, or school of Christ.”^[1] He concludes from this assertion that said infants are taught by the Holy Spirit “in a manner adapted to their capacity and age.”^[2] Citing Acts 2:38, Ursinus claims that those who have “the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration” should not be excluded from baptism.^[3] However, “this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult.”^[4] It is on this basis, Ursinus argues, that infants should be baptized. He strongly rebukes the anabaptists because in denying infant baptism they “boldly contradict the apostles who declare that water should not be forbidden those whom the Holy Ghost is given.”^[5] 

        After stating the position for infant baptism in positive terms, Ursinus moves to consider possible objections to the practice. The second objection he considers is to the effect that “faith is necessarily required for the use of baptism.”^[6] Ursinus is quick to respond that baptism is not given on the basis of possessed faith but on the basis of a profession of faith.^[7] In the same breath, however, he admits that “faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism.”^[8] He only adds that there is a distinction between the faith required for adults and infants: “Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants.”^[9] He reasons as follows: “Infants born of believing parents have faith as to inclination . . . for infants do believe after their manner, or according to the condition of their age; they have an inclination to faith. Faith is in infants potentially and by inclination, although not actually as in adults.”^[10] That Ursinus is only speaking of infants born into the Church is clear from his later contrast between “infants born of ungodly parents” and “those who are born of godly parents.”^[11] 

        He is emphatic that infants of godly parents should be regarded as indwelled by the Holy Spirit: “Infants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by him . . . If infants have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation, or he at least supplies them with every thing that is requisite for their baptism.”^[12] It is important to note that Ursinus is appealing to the regenerate status of covenant infants to provide a basis for the practice of infant baptism. His argument is that “The church administers baptism lawfully to all, and only to those whom she ought to regard among the number of the regenerate.”^[13] Since the children of godly parents are regenerated by the Holy Ghost, they should be baptized.^[14]

John Davenant (1572-1641)

        Davenant is a lesser known theologian, but he was rather prominent in his own day. A minister in the Church of England, Davenant was a member of the Church’s delegation sent to the Synod of Dort. He likewise served as the president of Queen’s College and was appointed Bishop of Salisbury. Part of Davenant’s obscurity in the modern day may have something to do with his views on the extent of the atonement. Reformed Christians today tend to hold John Owen’s view of particular redemption while Davenant held to a “hypothetical universalism”. This view of the atonement, I believe, undergirded Davenant’s position on baptismal efficacy as found in a letter he wrote entitled, “Baptismal Regeneration and the Final Perseverance of the Saints.” The letter was written to a fellow minister in the Church of England named Samuel Ward. The letter is Davenant’s attempt to square the Reformed doctrine of perseverance with the falling away of covenant children.

The solution for Davenant is found in the difference in kind between the regeneration, justification, and adoption that infants receive in their baptism with the regeneration, justification, and adoption that adult believers receive in their conversion. Rather than denying that infants receive any inward grace in baptism from which to fall, Davenant contends that the New Testament only ascribes perseverance to “adult”^[15] conversions which are followed by an infusion of spiritual habits.

        Davenant believed that regeneration, justification, and adoption certainly occur in the act of baptism regardless of the status of the child’s election. It was his view that “the remission of original sin, (as it respects Infants) is the primary effect of Baptism.”^[16] This remission is not confined “to the elect alone.” On the contrary, “a temporary ordination therefore unto life, by the remission of original sin in Infants, may be maintained without the benefit of election which infallibly destines and leads to eternal life.”^[17] 

        As to their covenant status, Davenant seems to hold that children of believers are born with original sin and under the federal headship of Adam. However, the act of baptism transfers the child into the covenant of grace:

The same is to be said also of the translation of Infants from the old Adam, and their implantation and incorporation into the new; for this also is joined with the remission of original sin. And as soon as the guilt is removed from an Infant, which it contracted in the first Adam, it is considered as ipso facto to belong to the family of the second.^[18]

Baptism bequeaths the child with certain spiritual benefits “through the blood of Christ.”^[19] Davenant even includes “their having the Holy Spirit living in them” among the blessings incurred by the rite.^[20] 

        He contends that “the justification, regeneration, and adoption of baptized Infants brings them into a state of salvation.”^[21] Because infants have not yet committed “actual sin,” the forgiveness of their original sin removes “the only obstacle by which Infants were prevented from an entrance into heaven.”^[22] However, while infants receive a form of all the aforementioned spiritual benefits at their baptism, “the justification, regeneration, and adoption, which we grant to be the privilege of baptized Infants, is not exactly the same with that justification, regeneration, and adoption, which in the question about the perseverance of the saints, we contend, can never be lost.”^[23] Once the child commits “actual” sin, he or she loses the certainty of heaven and must be converted to God in a way which is fitting for that stage of life; “for such persons do not perish because they have lost the sacramental regeneration appropriate to them as regenerated Infants : but because they never were partakers of that other regeneration by the seed of the Word and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for the effectual regeneration of Adults.”^[24] 

Cornelius Burgess (1589-1665)

Summarizing the view of Cornelius Burgess on the spiritual state of baptized infants is crucial in forming a robust historical survey of Reformed views. Understanding Burgess’ view is so pertinent because of his prominence at the Westminster Assembly. Burgess even “headed up the first committee on Baptism at the time of debate on the sacrament.”^[25] Although his view was heavily criticized by some of his colleagues, Burgess seems to have endorsed the final product of Westminster’s 28th chapter. Summarizing Burgess’ view will not prove that the view was dominant among the seventeenth century Reformed, but it might prove that certain versions of baptismal regeneration are compatible with the Westminster Confession.

The modern reprint of Burgess’ work is entitled Presumptive Regeneration. However, the original title read Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants Professed by the Church of England. In it, he maintains the following: “It is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that all elect infants that are baptized, (unless in some extraordinary cases) ordinarily receive from Christ, the Spirit in baptism, for their first solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation, in God's good time, if they live to years of discretion, and enjoy the other ordinary means of grace appointed to this end.”^[26] While many “quarrel against [him] for this position of baptismal regeneration,”^[27] Burgess attempts to prove it from Scripture, the Fathers, Reformed Confessions, and prominent Reformed theologians.  

Burgess distinguishes between initial and actual regeneration. The first is initial, which Burgess says can also be termed “seminal or potential life.”^[28] This initial regeneration is a passive reception of the Spirit which creates no actual habits in the soul. He contrasts this with actual regeneration which is a moral renovation by which a man “is enabled actually to believe, repent, etc.”^[29] He employs Junius to make this distinction, summarizing his view by describing initial regeneration as “the transplanting of a man out of the first Adam, into the second.”^[30] Actual regeneration involves a drawing of virtue from Christ and “living by it.”^[31] 

Against those Reformed authors who entirely push off the efficacy of baptism to an age of reason, Burgess emphasizes the fact that “baptism is understood as the whole ordinance, consisting of the inward grace, as well as of the outward sign.”^[32] In other words, Burgess is arguing that baptism, to be baptism, cannot be considered as a bare symbol. It must convey that which it signifies. Attempting to bolster his case historically, Burgess brings forth the testimony of John Chrysostom “when he makes the Spirit to be the chief part of baptism, as if there were no baptism worth that name, which is not accompanied with the presence of the Spirit to make it efficacious.”^[33] 

        Burgess does admit that there is an efficacy in baptism which extends beyond its time of administration: “I do not deny the future efficacy of baptism after the act of administration; but I only plead for some efficacy of it when it is administered.”^[34] It is in this way—I would imagine—that Burgess would be able to agree with WCF 28.6. That text insists that, “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.” However, Burgess could agree with this statement with a couple of clarifications. He did not believe that regeneration was inseparably tied to baptism, but that it was ordinarily and normatively tied to baptism. He also believed that baptism’s efficacy extended far beyond the moment of its administration. In fact, Burgess argued that the fullness of baptism’s efficacy awaits the regenerated child’s “actual conversion” in later years.^[35] With those qualifications, it is not impossible to understand how Burgess could subscribe to WCF 28.6.

While their views might sound similar, Burgess differs from John Davenant in one important area; where Davenant holds that baptism has an effect on all who receive it, Burgess limits the efficacy of baptism to the elect alone. In the elect, baptism ordinarily conveys the Spirit which will in after years work actual faith and repentance in the lives of the elect. In sum, Burgess believes the following: “either elect infants do ordinarily partake of the Spirit, in baptism, or else they do not receive the whole baptism, but only a piece, if we consider this ordinance, as the Scripture does; viz, not only as an outward sign, but as that which ever is accompanied with the inward grace to all that are elected.”^[36] 

Richard Baxter (1615-1691)

        While Richard Baxter wrote several full length treatises on baptism, they are all currently out of print. However, we have a brief summary of Baxter’s view as he provides it in his massive Christian Directory. It should be noted at the outset that Baxter prefaces his comments in the Directory by admitting he has struggled to understand the efficacy of baptism as it relates to the children of believers. He confesses that he is not “undoubtedly certain of” his view “knowing how much is said against it.”^[37] That being said, he proceeds to outline his position by stating “that all the children of true christians, do by baptism receive a public investiture by God’s appointment into a state of remission, adoption, and right to salvation at the present.”^[38] 

 Baxter directly names John Davenant as a theologian with whom he mostly agrees on the issue: “And I confess that my judgment agreeth more in this with Davenant’s than any others.”^[39] He qualifies his answer by noting one area of disagreement he has with Davenant. Baxter wants to limit the “benefits of baptism to the children of sincere believers” while Davenant holds that baptism confers benefits to the child regardless of the spiritual state of his or her parents.^[40] Nevertheless, Baxter agrees with Davenant that “all the baptized seed of true christians, are pardoned, justified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit of salvation.”^[41] 

With Davenant, Baxter sees the kind of justification, sanctification, and redemption which infants receive in baptism to be of a different sort than the mature benefits which are received in one who exercises actual faith. However, all children of true believers “do receive initially by the promise, and by way of designation and sacramental investiture in baptism, a jus relationis, a right of peculiar relation to all the three persons in the blessed Trinity: as to God as their reconciled, adopting Father; and to Jesus Christ, as their Redeemer and actual Head and Justifier; so also to the Holy Ghost, as their Regenerator and Sanctifier.”^[42] The benefit which is shared most directly with that of a mature believer is the pardon of original sin. The baptized infant of a true believer “hath presently the pardon of original sin, by virtue of the sacrifice, merit, and intercession of Christ.”^[43] That Baxter believes the status of a covenant child is secure at the moment of his or her baptism can be discerned by the following words:

Though an infant cannot be either disposed to a holy life, or fit for glory immediately, without an inward holiness of his own, yet by what is said it seemeth plain, that merely on the account of the condition performed by the parent, and of his union relatively with Christ thereupon, and his title to God’s promise of these grounds, he may be said to be in a state of salvation; that is, to have the pardon of his original sin, deliverance from hell, (in right,) adoption, and a right to the needful operations of the Holy Ghost, as given to him in Christ, who is the first receiver of the Spirit.”^[44]

Leiden Synopsis (1625)

        The Leiden Synopsis, published today under the name Synopsis of a Purer Theology, is not known by many American Christians. This is partly due to the dense and scholastic style of the theological disputations, but its obscurity is also heightened by the fact that it was only recently translated into English. Despite its obscurity in the English speaking world, the Synopsis has been an extremely influential work in the history and development of Reformed Theology. “The Synopsis, first published in 1625, was composed between 1620 and 1625 by four professors at Leiden University: Antonius Thysius (1565–1640), Johannes Polyander (1568–1646), Andreas Rivetus (1572–1651), and Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639).”^[45] It was written to be a textbook for theological students, summarizing the main heads of Reformed Theology. The 44th disputation on the sacrament of baptism was written by Antonius Walaeus.

Walaeus rejects the opinions of  “certain Ubiquitarians^[46] who bind the Holy Spirit’s regenerative power in baptism to the outward water in such a manner that this power is either inherent in the water itself or at least does not initiate regeneration except in the very act of baptism.”^[47] The reason why Walaeus rejects baptismal regeneration is that “it conflicts with all the passages of Scripture wherein faith and repentance, and so also the beginning or seed of regeneration, is required beforehand of those to be baptized.”^[48] One might think that Walaeus is only speaking of the baptism of adults, but he specifically says that regeneration is required before baptism in the case of adults and infants alike: “Nor is there any validity to the exception some of them make by distinguishing between the baptism of adults and the baptism of infants so as to allow adult baptism to be a sign and seal of the regeneration that has been received, but who want infant baptism to be an instrument to start the regeneration.”^[49]

Walaeus is careful to assert that the efficacy of baptism isn’t necessarily tied to the moment of its administration, but he does “require faith and repentance beforehand in all who are to be baptized, at least according to the judgment of love. This holds both for the infant members of the covenant, in whom we assert that the seed and spirit of faith and repentance must be determined to be present by virtue of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant, as well as for adults in whom a profession of actual faith and repentance is necessary.”^[50]  Thus, Walaeus can be rightfully categorized as holding to a form of presumptive regeneration.

Wilhelmus À Brakel (1635-1711)

        Tracing à Brakel’s view on the spiritual state of covenant children is a bit difficult. It is my sincere conviction that the difficulty arises from the confusing and contradictory statements à Brakel makes throughout his systematic theology. He begins by denying that the basis for infant baptism rests on any kind of external relation to the covenant of grace:

Never, that is, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament has [God] established an external covenant wherein both converted and unconverted alike would be members on equal footing, such that God, upon external obedience, would have promised some external benefits—regardless of what name may be given to this covenant, such as a national, typical, worldly, or external covenant. One may therefore not baptize children in reference to an external covenant, but only in reference to the covenant of grace.^[51] 

À Brakel seems to contend that the members of the covenant of grace and the regenerate are coextensive. In discussing the nature of the Church, à Brakel refutes the idea that “the unconverted are truly members of the church with equal right, that is, in its external and visible gathering, and therefore have a right to use the sacraments.”^[52] À Brakel argues for several pages that the unconverted are “not members of the external, visible church. Believers only constitute the true church. They alone are members of the church.”^[53] He then goes on to state succinctly “as the covenant is, so is the church.”^[54] Thus, for à Brakel, the covenant of grace is constituted of true believers only. Because baptism is intrinsically connected to the covenant of grace, à Brakel says that “the unconverted . . . have no right to use the sacraments, since they have neither part nor lot in the sealed benefits.”^[55]

        With such a strong insistence on the necessity of regeneration for a proper use of the sacraments, one might think à Brakel contends for presumptive regeneration in order to justify the baptism of infants. However, he denies presumptive regeneration. Even elect children are born “identical to all other children, missing the image of God, having the image of the devil, without the seed of faith, without regeneration and the least gracious inclination, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus, hateful and worthy of condemnation. Therefore, the basis for their baptism is neither a measure of grace which they have within themselves, nor eternal election, which is hidden for us.”^[56] 

        À Brakel admits that God could regenerate a child in his or her infancy, but “God generally does not do this.”^[57] Neither does the baptism of unregenerate infants “bring the child into an internal state other than was previously the case, and God does not love the child with the love of His delight any more than before.”^[58] If a baptized child is converted later in life, à Brakel says that they were never members of the covenant—as much as they might have looked like it. The children are, indeed, sanctified, but “to be sanctified does not imply that the children at that moment are in truth possessors of the principle of faith, regeneration, and sanctification. It also does not imply that all baptized children are, and particularly, that my child is elect, will be converted, and be a partaker of salvation.”^[59] 

In light of his strong insistence on the necessity of regeneration for church membership, covenant membership, and proper use of the sacraments, it seems contradictory for à Brakel to say that the children “of members of the covenant are in the covenant.”^[60] He further states that “children are partakers of the benefits of the covenant, the merits of Christ, the promises, and salvation itself.”^[61] He also seems to contradict his earlier statement that God rarely regenerates children in their infancy when he writes that  children of believers should be considered “children of God until the contrary manifests itself.”^[62] In the final examination, it is unclear exactly where à Brakel falls, but his strong insistence that children are rarely regenerated in their infancy seems to push the scales in a direction away from presumptive regeneration.

Herman Witsius (1636-1708)

Herman Witsius was an irenic Dutch Reformed theologian who is most known for his Economy of the Covenants. In 2006, the “Mid-America Journal of Theology” republished Witsius’ rather extensive taxonomy of Reformed views on the efficacy of baptism for elect infants. In it, he lists four views on the relationship between baptism and regeneration in elect infants held by theologians:

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.^[63] 

While he recognizes rare exceptions to the rule, Witsius falls within the second group. Normatively and ordinarily, God regenerates elect infants prior to baptism. He summarizes his view as follows: “Not only is it in the freedom of God to bestow the grace of regeneration upon elect infants prior to the rite of baptism, but it is to be believed that this is the course he usually pursues.”^[64] 

        Not only does Witsius contend that the sacraments work inward grace in the elect alone, he also argues that the sign, in its proper use, is reserved exclusively for the elect. Non-elect infants are improper recipients of baptism:

In the meantime, let it be observed that if we take the strictest view of baptism, it is in its true nature and in the judgment of God suited only to the elect, because it is always agreeable to truth. For since baptism is a sign and seal of that covenant in which God has made over to his covenanted people the benefits of saving grace and whatever has a sure connection with eternal life, it follows that those who neither have nor ever will have any right to the benefits of the covenant, in like manner have no right before God’s tribunal to the seal of the covenant.^[65] 

Although, non elect infants will sometimes receive the rite due to a minister’s fallibility and limited knowledge: “The ministers of religion, indeed, who, in regard to individuals, must be guided by the judgment of charity, cannot distinguish elect from non-elect, and thus they do not sin although they should occasionally sprinkle with the baptismal water those whom in strictness they ought not.”^[66] 

        The recurring phrase “judgment of charity” in Witsius’ writing refers to the presumption that the church should have of a covenant child’s regeneration. “For charity requires that children so distinguished be regarded as children beloved of God and reckoned of the family of God until they manifest the reverse by an evil disposition and a wicked course of life.”^[67] In fact, Witsius argues that this “judgment of charity” is the very ground of paedobaptism: “Fellowship with Christ and his mystical body seems in the case of elect infants to go before baptism, at least in the judgment of charity, for it is made the foundation of infant baptism.”^[68] 

        Witsius teaches a complete dichotomy between the federal headship of Adam and that of Christ. If one is in Christ, he is not in Adam. If one is in Adam, he belongs to Satan rather than Christ, “for as there is no middle condition, he who is not yet in Christ must belong to Satan.”^[69] Covenant children are—at least by judgment of charity—under the federal headship of Christ. Unlike pagan converts, it can never be said of covenant children that they were “at that time aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”^[70] 

        The efficacy of baptism in the view of Witsius is wholly “moral (moralis), to speak scholastically, and is altogether distinct from an efficacy real (reali) and physical (physica).”^[71] After this comment, Witsius anticipates an objection to the degree that this moral efficacy “seems to require a certain knowledge of which infants are not capable,” and so “the question comes to be, of what use and efficacy is infant baptism?”^[72] His answer is threefold: (1) There is an advantage to “pious parents” who see their children sealed in God’s covenant; (2) There is an advantage to grown children in contemplating the fact of their infant baptism, assuring them of God’s love and favor in their lives; and (3) There is an advantage to the infant because they are put within the community of the faithful and prayed for earnestly.^[73] It seems that in listing these three advantages Witsius does not answer how the baptisant can gain the moral efficacy of which he spoke while the infant is still under the age of reason.

        Witsius acknowledges that there were some in the Reformed churches who held to a form of baptismal regeneration of elect infants. He names two leading Reformed theologians who held to such a view, John Davenant^[74] and Cornelius Burgess. However, Witsius strongly disagreed with their views and claimed that they were out of step with the mainstream of the Reformed tradition.

Theodorus VanderGroe (1705-1784)

VanderGroe was a prominent theologian and preacher involved in the Dutch “further reformation.” His sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism have long served the Dutch Church as examples of warm practical theology. As valuable as his sermons through the catechism are, it is clear that VanderGroe departs from the theology of the catechism’s author, Zacharias Ursinus, in relation to the spiritual state of “covenant children.”  

Justifying the baptism of infants, VanderGroe writes appeals to Peter’s sermon in the second book of Acts:

“The promise of future covenant blessings is consequently theirs according to the declaration of God’s Word as recorded in Acts 2:39. This does not mean, however, that all children of believing parents (or they who are deemed to be such) are truly believing children who are elect unto salvation and internally and spiritually belong to God’s covenant. This is by no means the case, for the Holy Scriptures and experience teach that this is true for only a small number of children.”^[75] 

While his sentiments on the spiritual state of baptized infants seems to be low, VanderGroe also states the following: “the Lord also deems our children as belonging to His congregation and includes them as true members in His kingdom.”^[76] 

However he conceives of the infants in relation to God’s covenant and kingdom, VanderGroe makes it abundantly clear that baptism does not change the infant’s spiritual state in the least: “Regarding the efficacy and effect of external water baptism toward the souls of baptized children, no one ought by any means to think that this external baptism yields any change or improvement in their hearts or communicates to them any measure of grace that they did not already have . . . baptism leaves children as they are.”^[77] 

VanderGroe does admit that some children might be regenerated in infancy, but he claims that the majority of elect children “are utterly void of all grace at the moment of their baptism, and by virtue of sin, they are subject to God’s wrath, curse, and condemnation.”^[78] (16). In short, VanderGroe is not optimistic about the spiritual state of baptized infants. With all his pessimism, however, he paradoxically argues that parents should assume that their children are partakers of God’s covenant: “As to our child or children whom we present at baptism, we can know neither specifically nor with certainty whether they are truly in God’s covenant. However, believing and godly parents must, according to God’s promises, nevertheless view and esteem their children to be true partakers of God’s covenant.”^[79] Thus, a tension exists in VanderGroe as he readily admits that the vast majority of baptized infants are devoid of grace at the moment of baptism, but he also wants to argue that parents should regard their children as true Christians in spite of this countervailing set of probabilities.

William Cunningham (1805-1861)

        In his book on the theology of the Reformation, Cunningham dedicates a chapter to explaining the Reformed view of the Sacraments over and against Lutheran, Roman, and Zwinglian conceptions of the sacrament. Cunningham seems to be dealing with a rising anti-evangelical sentiment in his day to the effect that one could use infant baptism as a means of gaining assurance in one’s salvation despite having no other evidence of conversion. He labors to prove that the Westminster standards and the canonical authors of the Reformed tradition were staunchly against any conception of baptismal regeneration. He states quite firmly: “It is very certain that the Westminster divines did not intend, in this deliverance^[80], or in any other which they put forth, to teach baptismal regeneration.”^[81] In fact, Cunningham does not even countenance the possibility that his historical analysis could be false: “They [the Reformed] never intended to teach baptismal regeneration, and they have said nothing that appears to teach it, or that could be supposed to teach it, by any except those who were utterly ignorant of the whole course of the discussion of these subjects as it was then conducted.”^[82] 

Along the same lines, he claims to represent the historic Reformed position when he denies that any person other than a believer in Christ receives any inward grace in the sacraments: “It has always been a fundamental principle in the theology of Protestants, that the sacraments were instituted and intended for believers, and produce their appropriate beneficial effects, only through the faith which must have previously existed, and which is expressed and exercised in the act of partaking in them.”^[83] Commenting upon the Shorter Catechism, Cunningham asserts the following:

On the grounds which have now been hinted at, and which, when once suggested, must commend themselves to every one who will deliberately and impartially examine the subject, we think it very clear and certain, that the we, suggested by the our in the general description of baptism^[84], are only the believers who had been previously set forth as the proper and worthy recipients of the sacraments; and that consequently the statement that ‘baptism signifies and seals our ingrafting into Christ,’ etc., must mean, that it signifies and seals the ingrafting into Christ OF THOSE OF US who have been ingrafted into Christ by faith. This construction, of course, removes all appearance of the catechism teaching baptismal regeneration.^[85] 

        The importance of Cunningham’s work is to furnish evidence that the stronger statements of the Westminster Standards regarding baptismal efficacy were not intended to be applied to the baptism of infants. Rather, believer’s baptism is to function as paradigmatic when defining the efficacy of the sacrament: “We have no doubt that the lawfulness and the obligation of infant baptism can be conclusively established from Scripture; but it is manifest that the general doctrine or theory just stated, with respect to the import and effect of the sacraments, and of baptism as a sacrament, cannot be applied fully in all its extent to the baptism of infants.”^[86] He states his position even more firmly in the following words:

It is in substance this, that infant baptism is to be regarded as a peculiar, subordinate, supplemental, exceptional thing, which stands, indeed, firmly based on its own distinct and special grounds, but which cannot well be brought within the line of the general abstract definition or description of a sacrament, as applicable to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

The Westminster divines, then, have given a description of a sacrament, which does apply fully to adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but which does not directly and in terminis comprehend infant baptism. This, which is the plain fact of the case, could only have arisen from their finding it difficult, if not impossible, to give a definition of the sacraments in their great leading fundamental aspects, which would at the same time apply to, and include, the special case of the baptism of infants. This, again, implies an admission that the definition given of a sacrament does not apply fully and in all its extent to to the special case of infant baptism; while it implies, also, that the compilers of the catechism thought it much more important, to bring out fully, as the definition of a sacrament, all that could be truly predicated equally of adult baptism and the Lord’s Supper, than to try and form a definition that might be wide enough and vague enough to include infant baptism, a topic of a peculiar and subordinate description. This is the only explanation and defence that can be given of the course of statement adopted in the catechism.^[87]

He quotes Martin Vitringa to bolster his opinion, “the unbelieving and impenitent persons receive only the naked signs but not the things signified; that nothing is sealed to them.”^[88] 

Cunningham also straightforwardly rejects presumptive regeneration. He seems to argue that one should only regard a child as regenerate if he or she has outward evidences of an inward conversion:

Neither parents nor children, when the children come to be proper subjects of instruction, should regard the fact that they have been baptized, as affording of itself even the slightest presumption that they have been regenerated; that nothing should ever be regarded as furnishing any evidence of regeneration, except the appropriate proofs of an actual renovation of the moral nature, exhibited in each case individually; and that, until these proofs appear, every one, whether baptized or not, should be treated and dealt with in all respects as if he were unregenerate, and still needed to be born again of the word of God through the belief of the truth.^[89] 

If Cunningham were only stating his personal theological position, I would not have much to say on this matter, however, he seems to be arguing that his view is the historic, Reformed view. His analysis, however, does not seem to deal with the Reformed Tradition in a straightforward manner. For example, he fails to interact with Cornelius Burgess’ Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants. This seems to be a massive oversight given Burgess’ prominent role in the Westminster Assembly. The strong presumptive regeneration found in the writings of Ursinus and the Leiden professors passes without comment. Neither does Cunningham interact with early Reformers such as Richard Hooker who said that “in our infancy, we were incorporated into Christ and received the grace of his Spirit by baptism without any sense or feeling of the gift which God was bestowing.”^[90] Speaking of the efficacy of the sacraments, Hooker claims that “everyone confesses that the grace of baptism is poured into the soul, and that we receive grace by water.”^[91] For these reasons, Cunningham’s claims about the unanimity of the tradition should be discarded.

James Bannerman (1807-1868)

        Bannerman’s The Church of Christ has long served Reformed seminaries in their courses on ecclesiology. In fact, some Reformed Baptist seminaries assign portions of the text because of its value in summarizing key issues regarding the regulation of the Church. The book was constructed from Bannerman’s college lecture notes from Edinburgh’s “New College.”

        Bannerman speaks of the sacraments in general as ordinances instituted primarily for believers: “The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants.”^[92] He contends that the efficacy of baptism as it is described in the New Testament cannot be directly applied to infants:

The true type of Baptism, from examining which we are to gather our notions of its nature and efficacy, is to be found in the adult Baptisms of the early days of Christianity, and not in the only Baptism commonly practised now in the professing Church, the Baptism of infants. It is of very great importance, in dealing with the question of the nature and efficacy of Baptism, to remember this . . . It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule.^[93]

Bannerman’s view has a great deal of overlap with the view of his colleague, William Cunningham. He insists that “it is an error . . . to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and adults,” and that “the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance.”^[94] The most succinct of his claims is that “the Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.”^[95] 

        Bannerman insists on the primary import of adult baptism because he sees the ordinance as a strengthening and nourishing sacrament for those who partake in faith—which infants cannot do:

It is only in connection with faith, indeed, that grace can be imparted in a manner consistent with the nature of a man as a moral and intelligent being, and without a subversion of its ordinary laws. The case of infants is an exceptional case, to be dealt with apart, and by itself. But in the case of adults, the communication of supernatural grace, whether through Word or Baptism, must be in connection with, and not apart from, the exercise of their own spiritual and intelligent nature, and in connection with that act of the spiritual nature which we call faith.^[96] 

Because baptism functions as a seal of inward graces, baptism is only properly administered to believers: “But if Baptism be the outward seal of a federal engagement, distinctively marking the true Christian, then the very nature of the ordinance forbids it to be administered to men with no profession of Christianity.”^[97] Sacraments only function as means of grace “through the faith of the recipient, and in consequence of his own spiritual state and act. There is no inherent power in the ordinance itself to confer blessing, apart from the faith of the participator.”^[98] Sacraments are “not causes and not means of justification, but seals of it and of other blessings of the new covenant.”^[99] So, the efficacy of the sacraments as the New Testament describes it is tied to the nurturing and strengthening of preexisting faith, thereby acting as a seal of God’s new covenant mercies.

        When he speaks of the sacraments in such direct terms, Bannerman recognizes the tension in his system: “The practice of baptizing infants may be regarded at first sight as running counter to all those views which we have already asserted in regard to the nature of Sacraments in general, and of Baptism in particular. Add to this, that it seems at first view directly to traverse the principles we have so lately laid down on the question of indiscriminate Baptism.”^[100] He even admits that “Antipaedobaptists have the advantage of an argument on their side which is both popular and plausible,” however, he attempts to prove that the baptism of infants is still justifiable.^[101] Although, infant baptism is “peculiar and exceptional.”^[102] 

        He says that “the benefits of Baptism in the case of infants are not fully experienced by them until in after years they add to Baptism their personal faith, thereby really making out a complete title, not only to the property, but also to the possession of salvation . . . Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.”^[103] However, Bannerman does contend that baptism does something for the infant—even if it is not what the New Testament describes in terms of baptismal efficacy.

        The sprinkling of infants gives them no subjective, inward grace, but it gives them an objective relationship to the people of God as members in Christ’s visible Church. In this environment, they will be exposed to the preaching and prayers of God’s people. It does not bring the infant into the “kingdom of heaven, but it brings him to the very door, and bids him there knock.”^[104] He says that “by the act of Baptism . . . his name is put into the covenant with his God.”^[105] However, paedobaptists usually argue in the reverse—that being put into the covenant with God gives one a right to baptism. He also claims that “there seems to be reason for inferring that, in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily connected to that regeneration.”^[106] However, he provides no theological rationale or justification for this line of thought other than stating that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Conclusion

        When it comes to the spiritual state of baptized infants, popularizers of Reformed Theology have had a tendency to latch onto one view among several in the tradition and put it forward as the Reformed view. Usually, popular presentations of infant baptism echo the sentiment of R.C. Sproul: “Normally, we do not expect the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit to occur until we are older.”^[107] Parents are often assured that the baptism of their newborn is not any indication of his or her spiritual state. However, the tradition is quite diverse when it comes to the spiritual state of “covenant children,” and which view one adopts could have a massive effect on the manner in which the children are raised. Do they need to be called to repentance and faith in Christ, or have they already come to be a partaker of Him through baptism?

---

[1] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1992), pg 366.

[2] Ibid, 366.

[3] Ibid, 366.

[4] Ibid, 366.

[5] Ibid, 368.

[6] Ibid, 370.

[7] For Ursinus, however, ““to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith” (370).

[8] Ibid, 370.

[9] Ibid, 370.

[10] Ibid, 370.

[11] Ibid, 370.

[12] Ibid, 370.

[13] Ibid, 373.

[14] Ursinus does argue that the unlawful baptisms of the unconverted can later become valid: “As the promise of the gospel, so baptism being unworthily received, that is, before conversion, is ratified and tends to salvation to those who repent, so that the use of it which was before unlawful is now lawful” (373).

[15] The choice of the word “adult” is Davenant’s.

[16] John Davenant, Baptismal Regeneration and the Final Perseverance of the Saints, (London: William Macintosh, 1864), 15.

[17] Ibid, 15.

[18] Ibid, 16.

[19] Ibid, 18.

[20] Ibid, 17.

[21] Ibid, 25.

[22] Ibid, 17-18.

[23] Ibid, 19.

[24] Ibid, 21. Davenant’s view is critiqued by Herman Witsius in his discourse “On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents Are Under the Covenant.”

[25] Matthew McMahon, “Presumptive Regeneration, High Calvinism and Resting on the Word of God,” in Presumptive Regeneration, or, the Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants (Crossville, TN: Puritan Publications, 2014), 25.

[26] Cornelius Burgess, Presumptive Regeneration, or, the Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants (Crossville, TN: Puritan Publications, 2014), 54.

[27] Ibid, 101.

[28] Ibid, 50.

[29] Ibid, 50.

[30] Ibid, 51.

[31] Ibid, 51.

[32] Ibid, 53.

[33] Ibid, 123.

[34] Ibid, 115.

[35] Ibid, 230.

[36] Ibid, 102.

[37] Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2023), pg 651.

[38] Ibid, 651.

[39] Ibid, 657.

[40] Ibid, 657.

[41] Ibid, 657.

[42] Ibid, 657.

[43] Ibid, 657.

[44] Ibid, 659.

[45] Kevin DeYoung in Reformed Faith and Practice Theological Journal, vol. 8, 66. https://journal.rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Cumulative-8.2-w-cover.pdf

[46] That is, Lutherans.

[47] Walaeus et al., Synopsis of a Purer Theology, vol. 2 (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2023), pg 569.

[48] Ibid, 569.

[49] Ibid, 569.

[50] Ibid, 569.

[51] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1993), pg 505.

[52] Ibid, 6.

[53] Ibid, 9.

[54] Ibid, 11.

[55] Ibid, 11.

[56] Ibid, 505. For more on à Brakel’s view of a regenerate church, see https://richardaustincox.substack.com/p/the-distinction-between-the-visible.

[57] Ibid, 506.

[58] Ibid, 506.

[59] Ibid, 507.

[60] Ibid, 509.

[61] Ibid, 509.

[62] Ibid, 507.

[63] Herman Witsius, “On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents Are under the Covenant.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 142. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001540799&site=ehost-live.

[64] Ibid, 147.

[65] Ibid, 131.

[66] Ibid, 131.

[67] Ibid, 130.

[68] Ibid, 140 emphasis mine.

[69] Ibid, 141.

[70] Ibid, 141. It is worth noting that Paul wrote these words to the Ephesian church, whose pastor was a “covenant child” (2 Tim. 3:14-18). According to Witsius, the words of Ephesians 2 could not be applied to the pastor who in all likelihood read this letter aloud to the congregation.

[71] Ibid, 168.

[72] Ibid, 170.

[73] Ibid, 170-171.

[74] He even compliments Davenant as “a theologian of solid judgment and great erudition” (133).

[75] Theodorus VanderGroe, The Christian’s Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 10.

[76] Ibid, 13.

[77] Ibid, 15

[78] Ibid, 16.

[79] Ibid, 17.

[80] Cunningham is here referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

[81] William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), pg 241.

[82] Ibid, 249.

[83] Ibid, 244.

[84] Cunningham is here referring to question 94 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

[85] Ibid, 244 emphasis in original.

[86] Ibid, 246-247 emphasis in original.

[87] Ibid, 250.

[88] Quoted in Ibid, 265. After quoting Vitringa at length, Cunningham does admit that he cannot adopt “every expression in this summary just as it stands. But, we have no doubt, that in its substance, it is in full accordance with the teaching of Scripture, and of the Reformed” (265). Some might claim that Cunningham would object to the portion of the quotation given above, but such an objection would fail to grasp that the quotation summarizes the thrust of Cunninham’s entire argument. It would be a strange thing indeed for Cunningham to disagree with this quotation given that he has repeatedly said as much in different words.  

[89] Ibid, 291.

[90] Richard Hooker, The Word Made Flesh for Us (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2024), pg 108.

[91] Ibid, 114.

[92] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2023), 620.

[93] Ibid, 620-621.

[94] Ibid, 621.

[95] Ibid, 621.

[96] Ibid, 559.

[97] Ibid, 570.

[98] Ibid, 542.

[99] Ibid, 534.

[100] Ibid, 577.

[101] Ibid, 578.

[102] Ibid, 559. See also 617.

[103] Ibid, 628.

[104] Ibid, 625.

[105] Ibid, 627.

[106] Ibid, 629.

[107] R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess (Sanford: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019), pg 606.