The Westminster Confession Of Faith And The Sin Of Neglecting Baptism

By Jonathan D. Moore

[Jonathan Moore is a member of Loughbrickland Reformed Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland and holds a Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Cambridge University.]

I. Introduction

The teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith ought, at the very least, to be of great interest to all theologically responsible members of a confessional Presbyterian church, and especially to office bearers who have subscribed to it or are about to subscribe to it as the condition of their admission to office in Christ’s church. The teaching of the Confession needs to be understood in its historical context and with due regard to the usage of the English language in seventeenth-century England. Only then can it be reliably concluded what the intent of the authors was in formulating its expression of orthodoxy in the way finally agreed upon. The meaning of the Confession is inextricably linked to this historical context, and interpretations of the Confession ought never to be dislocated from it or be presented in an anachronistic or a historical manner. A responsible reading of the Confession will, therefore, also be sensitive to areas where the Westminster divines pursued uncompromising and rigorous precision in the interests of purity and orthodoxy, as well as where they pursued a principled ambiguity in the interests of unity and catholicity.

The purpose of this article, therefore, is to examine just one clause of the Confession found in Section 5 of Chapter 28, the chapter devoted to the sacrament of baptism. The whole section reads:

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.[1]

The clause of particular interest here is the claim that it is “a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance” of baptism. At the outset, we should recognize that in the seventeenth century “to contemn” meant “to treat as of small value, treat or view with contempt; to despise, disdain, scorn, slight”—it is not to be confused simply with “to condemn.”[2] Nevertheless, the question still remains as to what exactly the Westminster Assembly actually meant and intended by this statement. What moved them so to highlight the serious moral implications of neglecting baptism? What exactly is it to “contemn or neglect” baptism?

II. Those to Whom the Confession Is Not Principally Referring

The very fact that the Assembly went out of its way to state so strongly that contemning and neglecting baptism is “a great sin” suggests that the divines had in mind certain activity—probably contemporary—from which they urgently wished to distance themselves. The question therefore naturally arises as to who these people might have been at the time of the Assembly who could be thus charged with contemning or neglecting baptism. This article will argue that antipaedobaptists were in view, something that commentaries on the Confession do not always bring out.[3] But what are the other possible polemical targets of this statement, and just how dangerous were such views or practices considered to be?

The papists were certainly continually before the minds of the Westminster divines. However, the divines could hardly have been charging the Church of Rome with neglecting baptism at this point, as Rome was very zealous in administering baptism and could not be reasonably said to despise or neglect it. The Assembly’s direct rebuke to Rome comes soon after, and is set in contrast with the opening caveat about neglecting baptism, when the divines assert that it is possible to “be regenerated or saved without” baptism, and deny that “all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.” Thus, Rome’s errors lie at the opposite end of the spectrum to the error of neglecting baptism condemned in the opening words of Chapter 28.5.

The Quakers and other minor heretical sects in the seventeenth century did not believe in practicing water baptism at all. However, the Quaker movement postdates the Assembly; and although at least some Westminster divines were aware of the similar claims of the Seekers and even some Antinomians in this respect,[4] the surviving three-volume collection of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, though replete with references to Socinians and Antinomians, contains no explicit reference to the denial of the perpetuity of water baptism as a Christian ordinance or any other similar proto-Quaker notions.[5] It is far from clear whether the Confession’s statement in Chapter 28.1 that water baptism is “to be continued in [Christ’s] Church until the end of the world” is consciously responding to this novel view as opposed simply to serving the interests of total clarity, especially since a parallel statement is made concerning the Lord’s Supper in Chapter 29.1.

Atheists can hardly plead innocent of the charge of contemning baptism, and atheism is occasionally mentioned in the surviving Minutes of the Assembly.[6]

However, the “great sin” of atheists is contemning the Christian religion as a whole as well as God himself, and it would therefore be unnatural to address atheism in terms of its neglect of one particular sacrament. Significantly however, and in contrast to this generality, the Minutes do contain approximately fifty references to “Anabaptists” or “Anabaptism.” This issue will be addressed further below.

A fourth possible interpretation arises from the fact that at the Westminster Assembly in 1644, during preparation of The Directory for the Publick Worship of God, it was debated whether or not baptism could be rightly performed privately as opposed to before the assembled congregation. Private baptisms were a widespread phenomenon at the time, and during the discussion Edmund Calamy lamented the situation in London saying, “I confesse a great abuse in the citty In 2 or 3 yeares none baptized in the church. The ministers could not get the people to bring them.”[7] But after a relatively brief debate, it was decided that all future baptisms ought to be administered in public, time-honored English traditions notwithstanding. The next day Robert Baillie, in a letter to William Spang dated July 12, 1644, was able to write:

We have ended the matter of the Lord’s Supper, and these last three dayes have been upon Baptisme. We have carryed, with much greater ease than we expected, the publickness of baptisme. The abuse was great over all the land. In the greatest parosch [sic] in London, scarce one child in a-year was brought to the church for baptisme. Also we have carried the parents presenting of his child, and not their midwives, as was the universall custome.[8]

It is clear, therefore, that at least some Westminster divines found themselves having to administer the sacraments in parishes where private baptism was the norm, and where they were finding it extremely difficult to ensure that parents came forward for a public baptism of their offspring The divines knew that simply condemning the practice was not going to eradicate this longstanding tradition overnight, and that they might still have to practice it for some time to come. So on those grounds alone it is most unlikely that the Assembly would describe private baptism as “a great sin.”

The nature of the debate at the Assembly also renders it unlikely that the divines would condemn private baptisms in such strong terms. Among others, Stephen Marshall, Herbert Palmer, John Lightfoot, Edmund Calamy and Jeremiah Whitaker (the last three being leading members of the Second Committee whose task it was later to draw up Chapter 28) did not object in principle to private baptisms, and a case was made as to why baptisms might be rightly administered at home if necessary.[9] In the case of Stephen Marshall at least, and according to his Royalist biographer, this was also a defense of his own personal practice.[10] Although the divines were unanimously opposed to antipaedobaptism, they were not so to private baptisms. This in itself does not rule out the possibility of the Confession later condemning private baptisms, but it does discourage the interpretation that private baptisms were now to be held by the covenanted British Reformed church as “a great sin” as opposed to just a regrettable abuse.

Furthermore, private baptisms cannot be what the divines meant by “neglecting or contemning baptism,” because in such practice baptism was in fact still being honored, albeit in a way that fell short of conveying the full biblical significance of baptism, just as when midwives instead of parents presented the baby to the minister. These are what Baillie and the divines called “abuses” relating to the sacrament of baptism and not a neglect of baptism itself. Such private baptisms were therefore capable of reform, but meanwhile were still held by all to be a valid submission to the ordinance of baptism. Finally, one reason the Westminster Confession does not explicitly touch on the matter of private baptisms is the fact that the Assembly had already dealt sufficiently and at length with the manner of administrating baptism in The Directory for the Publick Worship of God, requiring that all baptisms be administered not “privately” but “in the place of publick worship, and in the face of the congregation.”[11]

Nevertheless, some might still want to argue that the divines foresaw that if private baptisms were suddenly no longer practiced in a given parish, then some obstinate traditionalists might be tempted never to present their newly born infants for baptism at all rather than submit to some “new” public ceremony, and thereby would “contemn” baptism. Or perhaps others, lacking the motivation to initiate a public exercise, might indefinitely postpone the baptism of their child, and “neglect” baptism that way. Chapter 28.5 might be condemning in advance these predictable responses to the implementation of The Directory for the Publick Worship of God. For argument’s sake, let us grant this speculation as a real possibility, and acknowledge that some parishioners, even without consciously entertaining any baptistic tenets, might still fail to present their children for baptism out of sheer apathy and spiritual indifference. This would still fail to undermine the position that “neglecting baptism” in Chapter 28.5 could in fact be condemning antipaedobaptism as well. And even if the Assembly were condemning only those who failed to bring their infants to the public font out of traditionalism or apathy rather than out of conviction, by arguing from the lesser to the greater, it is possible that they would have condemned the latter practice even more. Arguably, to fail to conform to a newly introduced ecclesiastical stipulation due to traditionalism or apathy is not as serious as to oppose in tota an ancient ordinance actively and openly out of conviction, as the English Baptists were doing, even to the point of separating themselves from the Established Church (i.e., schism). Thus, at the very least, if a failure to conform to public infant baptism due to it no longer being available privately was a “great sin,” then it being rejected and condemned outright in all cases—whether privately or publicly administered—cannot have been far behind in sinfulness, even if it were not held to be more sinful. Even when parents are simply ignorant of the gravity of what they are doing in neglecting baptism, calling this behavior “a great sin” would be consistent with the biblical concept of sins of ignorance in Lev 4 and 5, especially 5:17.

It is surely not without significance that the end of Section 4 of Chapter 28 of the Confession asserts that “the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.” This statement concerning infant baptism is immediately followed by the words, “Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance.. . .”[12] Nevertheless, some Presbyterians still argue that the Confession at this point is not referring to infant baptism at all, but to baptism in the abstract. The argument is that, since Baptists generally do not neglect baptism in the abstract but in fact tend to be very conscientious and zealous about it, then the Confession can in no way be speaking against Baptists, who are, after all, very sincere. However, that the Confession at this point is in fact leveled primarily, albeit not exclusively, at Baptists—sincere or otherwise—will now be demonstrated.

III. Five Lines Of Evidence For The True Interpretation

The interpretation of Chapter 28.5 does not have to be left to speculation, whether about private baptisms or otherwise. In addition to the obvious point just mentioned, namely that infant baptism has just been asserted in the immediately preceding sentence in 28.4, there are five main sources of evidence in support of the contention that antipaedobaptism is denounced as “a great sin” in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. Scripture Proofs

The first piece of evidence is the Assembly’s choice of “Scripture proofs” for this phrase. Firstly regarding the divines’ use of Luke 7:30, and with reference to the erroneous interpretation of the Confession just mentioned, it should be noted that the Pharisees were not despising baptism “in the abstract,” but rather were neglecting the provision of a specific, God-ordained baptism in a given locality. The Pharisees were in fact very zealous about baptism, and made baptisms a part of their daily piety, being highly offended when Jesus’ disciples did not comply. But these baptisms followed “the tradition of the elders” and were not what God had actually commanded (Mark 7:1–9). However, when required by John the Baptizer to submit to a particular, local administration of baptism of divine appointment, they refused. But by “being not baptized of” John, they “rejected the counsel of God against themselves” (Luke 7:30). According to the Westminster divines, this was “a great sin” which the Pharisees committed.

The Westminster divines also used Exod 4:24–26 as a supporting text for the clause in question. This text reads:

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, . bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.[13]

This text refers to the omission or “neglect” of infant circumcision. In not circumcising his second son, Moses was guilty of “contemning or neglecting” infant circumcision, and as a result God was angry and sought to kill Moses (not Moses’ son).[14] Moses had not neglected circumcision in the abstractor denied its validity or suitableness for others, as the prior circumcision of his firstborn son and the immediate as suasion of God’s wrath the minute his second son was circumcised make plain. The Westminster Assembly presented this as an exegetical proof for their assertion that it is “a great sin to contemn or neglect” baptism. Infant baptism therefore appears to have been present in the divines’ minds as they formulated and defended this section of the Confession.

2. Directory Of Public Worship

The second piece of evidence is another piece of internal evidence from the Westminster Standards. In The Directory for the Publick Worship of God the divines had already prepared a whole section on the administration of infant baptism.

Infant baptism was so uppermost in their minds and historical context that the baptism of adults even fails to get an explicit mention. But it is in this section that the divines teach the same principles as are found in Chapter 28.5 of the Confession of Faith. They write that “outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had.”[15]

Here the Westminster divines intend that the congregation witnessing the baptism of an infant be carefully instructed that, while they are to have a high regard for the ordinance of baptism, it is not to be deemed so necessary that it is impossible for God to save someone who has not been baptized. The divines are making provision for such occasions where it may simply not be possible for children to be baptized due to the want of a minister in a locality, or, more commonly, due to the child dying very shortly after birth before a minister had time or opportunity to administer baptism. In such cases the lack of baptism is not to be seen as setting the infant “in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty.”[16] However, immediately anticipating that some might take this admission as an invitation to a low view of the value of infant baptism, a condition to this statement is introduced. The infant is not to be considered in danger of damnation or its parents guilty providing that the parents “do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had.” If baptism is available to the infant but the parents withhold the child for whatever reason and thereby “contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ,” then this does render that infant “in danger of damnation” and “the parents guilty.”[17]

This is the rigorous position of the Westminster Assembly. The Directory for the Publick Worship of God must be allowed to inform our interpretation of the Confession in Chapter 28.5. It is vital to note that in The Directory the divines employ precisely the same words as in Chapter 28.5 of the Confession, and do so because they are seeking, over against Anabaptism, to promote a high regard for infant baptism without falling into the errors of either sacramentalism or baptismal regenerationism. Given this parallel usage and the fact that few Westminster divines had probably ever witnessed an adult proselyte baptism, it is futile to try and argue that Chapter 28.5 of the Confession is not referring to infant baptism.

3. Comments In Minutes, Letters, And Statements To Parliament

The third area of evidence for this interpretation of the Confession is the behavior of the Assembly towards Baptists at the time of their drawing up this statement. Did the Assembly concede that the Baptist position had much to commend it, involving merely another credible and conscientiously held perspective on baptism, rather than a despising or neglect of it? Or did they in practice fiercely oppose Baptist theology and treat its proponents as a danger to the wellbeing of the church of Christ? There is abundant evidence for the latter. It has already been pointed out that the Assembly’s Minutes contain approximately fifty references to “Anabaptists” or “Anabaptism.” None is complimentary. The Assembly was clearly deeply troubled and preoccupied with the English Baptist threat to their envisaged settlement of Reformed religion, not least—but by no means exclusively—because it gave every indication of being intimately linked with the radical and extensively heretical Anabaptism of the Continent, and increasingly of England itself.[18]

This anxiety manifested itself in various attempts to restrain and limit the spread of what they deemed to be pernicious doctrine. Robert Baillie records for August 7, 1644: “At our sitting doune this day, a great many of our brethren did complain of the great increase and insolencie, in diverse places, of the Antinomian and Anabaptisticall conventicles. A committee was appointed for a remedie of this evill, to be represented quicklie to the Parliament.”[19] This “Committee for Antinomians and Anabaptists” went swiftly to work, and on August 9 Stephen Marshall reported to the Assembly concerning the Anabaptists that “their exorbitances we find them to be many and very high and extremely dangerous. If not some stop to it we are afraid it will prove soe great a mischefe as none of us shall be able to stand before it.”[20]

Later that day a delegation of the Westminster divines duly appeared in the House of Commons with a petition that something be done to “prevent the spreading Opinions of Anabaptism.” A particularly troubled spot in this regard was the island of Guernsey where the divines thought it was “high time to suppress” men who “held dangerous Opinions” such as “Anabaptism.” Parliament was willing to oblige, but first sought the Assembly’s help in determining “the most expedite and best way of preventing the Mischief that will arise from, and follow, the Divulging the dangerous Opinions of Antinomianism and Anabaptism.” The Westminster Assembly spent a number of sessions preparing such advice for Parliament, and the ensuing resolutions resulted in a number of Baptist leaders being taken into custody and a ban placed on all lay preaching.[21]

Whether one agrees with the Assembly’s tactics at this point or not, it should be quite clear that to call antipaedobaptism “a great sin” would have been quite consistent with the Assembly’s sustained stance towards Baptists, and would echo language that we know was used on the floor of the Assembly. Given that the English Baptist movement was still relatively small in their day, though growing and vociferously vocal, this censure is also characteristic of the behavior often seen among those in strong majorities against tiny minorities who nevertheless are felt to be a serious threat to the status quo.

4. Publications

The fourth line of evidence for the interpretation of the Confession advocated here comprises the published works of various Westminster divines. For example, the popular catechetical work of the prolocutor of the Assembly, William Twisse, helps the modern evangelical realize how normative infant baptism was in the Assembly’s historical context, and therefore how implausible it is that the Confessionis dealing with baptism merely in the abstract. Twisse’s catechism on the sacraments seeks to provide only the most basic propositions, yet even when giving what is supposed to be a generic definition of baptism, Twisse apparently cannot see beyond infant baptism:

Q. What is the signe in Baptisme? 

A. The cleansing of the childs face or body by washing it with water. 

Q. What is the grace signified? 

A. The cleansing of the childs soule from sin by washing it with Christs Bloud.. .. 

Q. What lesson doth this Sacrament teach us? 

A. As truly as the water doth wash the childs face, and make it clean, so truly doth the bloud of Christ wash our soules and make them clean.[22]

However, more important, particularly with regard to antipaedobaptism being considered a great sin, are the various treatises by Westminster divines, published both during and after the Assembly, specifically devoted to baptism and antipaedobaptism. Over a dozen such works exist, but space permits consideration of only a few of the most significant. It is important to note that we are not concerned at all here with general anti-Anabaptist comment, inspired by the gross heresies and immorality of many Anabaptists. Our concern is only with comment that exclusively addresses the nature of antipaedobaptism. Baillie, for example, was well able to make this distinction, and, despite the Anabaptists’ many heresies, still saw antipaedobaptism as “the grossest of their errours.”[23]

Of greatest interest for this study are the publications on infant baptism by Stephen Marshall, whose 1644 report to the Assembly concerning the Anabaptists has just been quoted. In that same year was published a sermon on infant baptism preached by Marshall to the House of Commons at Westminster Abbey. This address was part of an extensive series of lectures on sacramental theology, and consisted of a robust and passionate defense of the Reformed doctrine of infant inclusion in the kingdom of God and a blistering attack on antipaedobaptism.[24] During this sermon Marshall spoke fervently concerning how antipaedobaptists were guilty of a great sin. The following quotation is lengthy but extremely pertinent to this study:

And first it serves for just reproofe of the Anabaptists, and all such as by their rash and bloody sentence condemne Infants, as out of the state of Grace; it’s a great sinne to passe sentence upon any particular person for any one act, as was that of Eli, concerning Hannah, how much more heinous is it to condemne all the Infants of the whole Church of Christ, as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace, or the seale of it? We read of Herod the Tyrant, that he destroyed all the children in Bethlehem, and the Coasts thereof from two yeares old and under; is not this a farre more cruell sentence, to set these in no better state than Pagans and Infidels, ‘Without Christ, aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, as strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world?’ can any sober Christian thinke this is a small fault? Our blessed Saviour saith, ‘It is not lawfull to take the childrens bread and give it to dogs,’ but these men take Children, and in their judgement, conclude them for no better than dogs; baptisme is the bread of the Lord, which he would have given to his children, and to deny it to them as none of their right, is to make them no better than dogs. The Prophet Elisha wept when he looked upon Hazael, because he foresaw that he would dash the infants of Israel against the wall, and even Hazael thought himselfe worthy to be esteemed a dog if ever he should do such a thing. But certainly, thus to dash all Infant children of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace (as much as in them lyeth) & to deprive them of the seale of it, is in a spirituall sense farre more heavy. And I dare appeale to the tender bowels of any beleeving Parents, whether it were not easier for them to thinke that their Infants should be dashed against the stones, and yet in the meane time to die under Christs wing, as visible Members of his Kingdome, Church, and Family, rather than to have them live, and behold them to have a visible standing onely in the Kingdome of the Devill: These men know not how much they provoke Christ’s displeasure against themselves; He was greatly displeased with his owne Disciples for forbidding little children to come unto him; & one day such men will know, that he is much more displeased with them, who with so great violence oppose the bringing of beleevers children unto his holy Sacrament, that with unspeakable wrong, injury, and slander, they prosecute all the Ministers of Christ, who give Infants this their due, condemning them for Ministers of Antichrist, and limbes of the Beast; yea, some of them proceeding so farre, as condemning all the Churches of Christ, to be no Churches, who cast not their children out of the Covenant of Grace, and the seale of it, and doe cry out upon the Baptizing of Infants, as one of those great sinnes which bring and continue all our judgements upon us. The Apostate Emperour Julian is justly cryed out upon for his cruelty against the Christians, for denying to their bodies humane Sepulture; how much more cruell is it to deny to the souls of Infants the just priviledge and benefit of the Covenant of Grace? We know he did it out of hatred to Christianity, which I am farre from charging upon these men; but if we compare the sentence and fact of the one with the other, we shall find the latter (be their principle what it will) farre more injurious to the Church of Christ than the other: The Lord in mercy give them to see how unjust that sentence, and how heavy that doome is, which they thus passe, not only upon Infant Children, but upon all the Churches of Christ; and seriously to consider, whether the Lord, who once in his displeasure threatned to dash their Infants against the Stones, who had dasht the Infants of the children of Israel against the Stones, will indure it at the hands of any to expunge the Seed of the faithfull out of his Covenant, and to drive them from his City and Kingdom after this cruell manner.[25]

These were solemn words, accusing the English Baptists of heinous sin and unspeakable cruelty and injustice. Antipaedobaptist John Tombes published a response to Marshall’s sermon and in it stated that these words of Marshall’s were “a false accusation, and a fruit of passion, not of holy zeale.”[26] Yet in his subsequent extensive treatise on infant baptism and rebuttal of Tombes’s antipaedobaptist arguments, Marshall explicitly stands by his words at this point— words spoken well over a year previously—and reasserts his accusation.[27] Additionally, in response to Tombes’s pouring scorn on the notion that infants could be members of the kingdom of God, just as they may be members of the kingdoms of this world, Marshall stated that “it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing”[28]

At this point, it is important to recognize the relationship to the Westminster Assembly of this treatise by Marshall, who by now had become one of the leading authorities at the Assembly on sacramental theology in general and Ana-baptism in particular.[29] Marshall had dedicated this treatise to the Westminster Assembly on April 2, 1646, and on April 9 it is recorded in the Minutes that

Mr. Marshall having this morning presented his booke written against Mr. Tombes unto the Assembly[,] and dedicated it unto them[,] it was moved that thankes might be given to Mr. Marshall for his great paines, and Respect to this Assembly in his Dedication which was accordingly done by the Prolocutor.[30]

We are not talking here about the privately circulated tract of some marginalized crank. Rather, Marshall’s stance against antipaedobaptism was appreciated by the Westminster Assembly, and his contribution openly valued. His gifts were also harnessed in the drawing up of the Westminster Confession’s statements on baptism for on September 11, 1646, Marshall, along with Calamy and others, was appointed to a new committee dedicated to examining advanced questions concerning infant baptism.[31] The ardent conviction that antipaedobaptism was a great sin, therefore, forms part of the wider theological literature associated with the Westminster Assembly and was present at the heart of its preaching and debates. It should not surprise us, therefore, if it is also detectable in the text of the Confession itself

5. Contemporary Usage

In addition to the internal evidence of the Westminster Standards themselves and the evidence from the historical context and the published writings of Westminster divines, the fifth source of support for the interpretation of the Confession herein argued comes from contemporary usage of the phrase “to contemn or neglect the sacraments.” The Westminster Confession’s language at this point does not stand in splendid isolation, but rather involves a phrase that is used by other seventeenth-century writers in such a way as to support the claim that antipaedobaptism is being condemned by the Confession. Three illustrations of this must suffice.

The first illustration predates the Westminster Assembly and is found in the exegetical works of Dr. Andrew Willet (1561/2–1621), Calvinist rector of Barley Hertfordshire, and prebendary of Ely Cathedral. In his learned and scholarly commentary on Exodus, Willet applies the teaching of Exod 4:24 to his readers as follows:

He sought to kill him. We see by this what a great sinne it is before God to neglect the Sacraments: if the Lord spared not Moses his faithfull servant, for an oversight onely and negligence, how much greater shall their punishment be, that runne into open contempt of the holy mysteries? [Willet cites Johann Wild (1497–1554) at this point.] Let men learne then by this example, that they deferre not the baptisme of their children, nor omit the receiving of the Sacraments; for God holdeth this as a wrong done to himselfe, when his ordinance is neglected, contemned or prophaned: for this cause (saith the Apostle) many are weake and sicke among you, and many sleepe, 1 Cor. 11:30.[32]

In this significant quotation, we have not only an uncanny foreshadowing of the wording of Chapter 28.5 of the Confession, but also a direct connection made between one of the Assembly’s proof texts for Chapter 28.5 and the omission of infant baptism.

The second example is found in the works of James Durham (1622–1658), the Scottish Presbyterian minister who jointly authored The Sum of Saving Knowledge, a treatise that was usually bound with the Westminster Confession from its earliest days.[33] In his posthumously published treatment of “the Faults we are guilty of in reference to the Sacraments,” Durham first makes plain that he is not at this point concerning himself with “those faults common to Papists and others, which are more Doctrinal” but rather “those that are incident to us in our practice.” One such fault occurs when “there is little Zeal against the Errours that wrong [the Sacraments], as when they are denyed by Anabaptists.” After enumerating various other sins, Durham comes to the sin against the Lord’s Supper involved in “not Communicating.” According to Durham, this occurs when people “contemn and wilfully neglect it,” and also when “they are not frequent in it, but carelessly slight it, when conveniently it may be had.”[34] Thus Durham held that it was “a great sin to contemn or neglect” the Lord’s Supper by not partaking of it. Durham is explicitly not speaking about doctrinal errors here but practical ones. He is not speaking of the denial of the Lord’s Supper in the abstract, but a practical refusal to submit to the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as found concretely in the church of Christ in a given locality. We may deduce that Durham could therefore have naturally described a refusal to submit practically to the ordinance of infant baptism as found concretely in the church of Christ in a given locality as involving the “neglect” of the ordinance, and, of necessity, the showing of contempt for it.

Our third illustration of seventeenth-century English usage comes from the celebrated Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry (1662–1714). Numbers 19:20 reads, “But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.” We are dealing here with a man who, for whatever reason, refuses to submit to an Old Covenant baptism (Heb 9:10). Henry has this to say:

Though the Pollution contracted was only Ceremonial, yet the Neglect of the Purification prescrib’d, would turn into a Moral Guilt; He that shall be unclean, and shall not purifie himself, that Soul shall be cut off, v. 20. Note, It is a dangerous thing to contemn Divine Institutions, though they may seem Minute.[35]

According to Henry, therefore, it was “a great sin to contemn or neglect” an Old Covenant baptism by not partaking of it. Surely he could consistently have said the same about a New Covenant baptism, for in both cases the person concerned is, judicially at least, unclean and, as such, is in a state of being under the divine displeasure. Had Henry so said, he would have been articulating the very thought of the Westminster divines in Chapter 28.5 of the Confession.

IV. Possible Objections Answered

1. The Savoy Declaration of Faith

It might possibly be objected that the interpretation of the Confession argued for here cannot be reconciled with the Savoy Declaration of Faith of 1658. This confession was a modest revision of the Westminster Confession for use by the Independent churches and retains Chapter 28.5 unaltered. It might be argued that the Independents cannot have taken the Confession at this point to be an antipaedobaptist statement or they would have modified it, seeing that many Independents were far more sympathetic to the English Baptists than were any of the Presbyterians.

It is true that the Independents were divided over what to do about antipaedobaptism and antipaedobaptists.[36] However, paedobaptism is explicitly taught in Chapter 29.4 (which is Westminster’s Chapter 28.4), demonstrating that any antipaedobaptist minority was denied any distinctive influence over the wording of the Savoy Declaration, and that, whatever the internal tensions within the Independent churches may have been, Chapter 29.5 could still have been understood to have an antipaedobaptistic force to it, just like Chapter 29.4. The express purpose of the Savoy Declaration of Faith was to demonstrate to the watching world that the Independents were not schismatics and heretics, as was being widely claimed, but were in overwhelming harmony with the Westminster Confession and hence all the other Reformed churches.[37] It is understandable in that light that no concessions were to be made to Anabaptism at a creedal level.

2. The Case Of John Foxcroft (1595–1662)

The perceived propensity of many Independents and even certain other Presbyterian ministers to be far too soft on antipaedobaptists actually suggests that the Westminster Confession at Chapter 28.5 is seeking to warn against a present danger of sacramental antinomianism and indifference.[38] The case of John Foxcroft suggests that it might even have been a note to the Westminster divines themselves to this effect. Around 1646 Lucy Hutchinson, the intellectually independent wife of parliamentarian army officer John Hutchinson, took the lead in investigating for herself the case for infant baptism, and then led her husband also to reject the practice. Matters came to a head when Mrs. Hutchinson was about to give birth to a baby. John Hutchinson, by this time governor of Nottingham Castle, invited all the local ministers to dinner in order to settle the question of whether the expecting couple should have their forthcoming baby baptized. One of the ministers who attended this dinner was the Westminster divine John Foxcroft, minister at Gotham, who had taken the Solemn League and Covenant in March 1644.[39] According to Lucy Hutchinson, “None of them could defend their practice with any satisfactory reason.” So the couple, “professing themselves unsatisfied in the practice, desired their opinions, what they ought to do. Most answered to conform to the general practice of other Christians, how dark soever it were to themselves.” However, Foxcroft “said that except they were convinced of the warrant of that practice from the Word, they sinned in doing it: whereupon that infant was not baptised.”[40] Here we apparently have a Westminster divine positively encouraging the neglect of infant baptism. What are we to make of this?

Firstly the somewhat flimsy nature of this anecdotal evidence should be recognized. Lucy Hutchinson’s Memoirs are “far from the simple truth-telling she claimed.”[41] It is impossible to distinguish exactly what Foxcroft said from any interpretation favorable to her cause that Mrs. Hutchinson may have given to his words (or to his silence). Furthermore, she and Colonel Hutchinson were notoriously bitter against Presbyterianism and Presbyterians, as the Memoirs themselves amply demonstrate. Her reference to Foxcroft being “one of the [Westminster] Assembly” is clearly intended to score a point against Presbyterianism.[42]

Secondly Lucy Hutchinson and her husband were convinced Independents and “her name does not appear in the records of any particular denomination.”[43] So even if the above is a true account, Foxcroft was not giving advice to someone under his own jurisdiction, or even, it would appear, under any meaningful ecclesiastical jurisdiction, still less speaking into a Presbyterian context.

Thirdly, Mrs. Hutchinson herself records how she and her husband, because they had now become practicing antipaedobaptists, were

reviled by them and called fanatic and Anabaptists, and often glanced at in their public sermons. And not only the ministers, but all their zealous sectaries, conceived implacable malice against them upon this account; which was carried on with a spirit of envy and persecution to the last.[44]

Foxcroft was clearly out of step not only with all the other ministers at the dinner, but with the Presbyterian position as a whole. He cannot be cited as a representative example, even on Lucy Hutchinson’s own terms.

Finally, it could be argued that Foxcroft was not so much denying it is a great sin to neglect infant baptism, as merely pointing out that for the Hutchinsons in their context it would have been a still greater sin to engage in the externals of worship while being convinced that it was not positively required by God’s command. Perhaps, had he been their pastor, Foxcroft would have simply given the couple a longer time than usual to come round to a paedobaptist position and not rushed them into it prematurely. But surviving information concerning Foxcroft is so scanty that it is impossible to say. This solitary anecdote, therefore, cannot carry sufficient weight to undermine the thesis of this article.

3. Admission To The Lord’s Supper

Some might argue that if the Westminster Assembly deemed antipaedobaptism to be “a great sin” then we would also find them barring antipaedobaptists from the Lord’s Supper, whereas evidence for this is lacking. At the outset, it must be acknowledged that the Assembly and Parliament placed an important distinction between those who publicly taught error, and those who kept their views private. Parliament’s order against “Anabaptists and Sectaries” in 1646, for example, only targeted those who created a public disturbance over their views.[45] We have already seen how the Westminster Assembly encouraged Parliament to arrest all such offenders. But what about ordinary church members who quietly harbored scruples over whether their infants should be presented for baptism? What did the Westminster Assembly recommend in such cases?

The Assembly’s voice on this matter, as on others, was elicited by and mediated through Parliament. In October 1645 Parliament published the minimum doctrinal standards required of all who would partake of the Lord’s Supper. This ordinance was a lightly edited version of eight articles that the Westminster Assembly had submitted to the House of Commons in April upon their request.[46] The requisite knowledge included a basic belief in the Trinity, in creation and the fall, in Christ as mediator, and in the application of redemption through faith alone. A section on the sacraments follows, and, while nothing is said about infant baptism, it is made a requirement that the would-be communicant believe that “the Sacraments are seales of the Covenant of Grace.”[47] It is not at all clear whether this is leveled against the Anabaptists, but a denial that baptism was a covenant seal as opposed to just a symbolic ordinance was apparently understood in the 1640s to be a distinctly Anabaptist as well as a grievous error.[48] As such, this ordinance could have been used to exclude such Anabaptists from the Lord’s Supper.

Even if a Baptist were to grant that baptism was a covenant seal he would still not necessarily escape the force of this parliamentary ordinance if he did not keep his views to himself, for the ordinance also bars from the Supper “all persons that shall blasphemously speak or write any thing of God, his holy Word, or Sacraments.”[49] To the modern evangelical this would not for a minute appear to be a reference to antipaedobaptism. However, for at least some Westminster divines and leading theologians contemporary with the Assembly, antipaedobaptism was to be described in that very language. For example, Daniel Featley held that “it were. .. execrable blasphemie to think that Christ should abridge those priviledges to the children of the faithfull under the Gospell, which God granted to children under the law.”[50] Again, Westminster divine Francis Cheynell, who was later to become President of St John’s College, Oxford, and Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, lamented how “Baptisme of Infants is neglected by” the Anabaptists, and saw this as but one of their “blasphemies.”[51]

Even if a Baptist did keep his views to himself but quietly withheld his child from baptism, this too could fall under the category of “cases of Scandall” and be used to bar a person from the Lord’s Supper.[52] Not only have we already seen sufficient evidence to suggest that practicing antipaedobaptism must have been seen as scandalous by the majority of the Westminster divines, it is also interesting to note that an unattributed comment in the Minutes states, “By scandalous we understand the omission of necessary dutyes as well as the commission of grosse sins.”[53] Westminster divine Lazarus Seaman appears to have taken “scandalous offences” to be simply the opposite of “private” ones.[54] The public withholding of a child from baptism would fit such definitions of scandalous, and Question 173 of the Westminster Larger Catechism states, “Such as are found to be. .. scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament.”[55]

In March 1646, Parliament followed up these doctrinal requirements with another ordinance, this time declaring that

all persons guilty of notorious scandalous offences, and more particularly, all renouncers of the true Protestant Religion, professed in the Church of England; and all persons that shall by preaching or writing, maintain any such errours as do subvert any of those Articles, the ignorance whereof do render any person excluded from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: And all persons that shall make any Images, or Pictures of the Trinity, or of any person thereof: And all persons in whom malice appears, and they refuse to be reconciled; and the same appearing upon just proof, all such persons may be suspended from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.[56]

This was undoubtedly a reference to the eight articles of faith in the ordinance of October 1645, and further reinforced those doctrinal standards by barring from the Lord’s Supper anyone, for example, who disseminated the opinion that baptism was not a covenant seal.

It is far from clear therefore that antipaedobaptists could be admitted to the Lord’s Table in the national church envisioned by the Westminster Assembly. However, there is at least some evidence to suggest that the widespread belief that antipaedobaptism was a great sin was reflected in parliamentary ordinances on admission to the Lord’s Supper. The question of whether, according to the Westminster Assembly, antipaedobaptists should be barred from the Lord’s Supper is not easy to answer conclusively due to the fact that at this stage in history Parliament was jealously seeking to guard the terms on which someone could be suspended from the Lord’s Supper in the established church. The ecclesiastical authorities were not to be free to wield the keys of the kingdom according to their own convictions, but needed express civil backing for each case in question. The official standards for admission were therefore to be found in civil and not ecclesiastical documents, and the Westminster Assembly was not at liberty to draw up guidelines directly for the church to use. Nor were they keen to draw up guidelines for Parliament to use, since the Assembly was opposed to this Erastianism. Consequently, when asked by Parliament for advice on this matter in the spring of 1645, the Assembly appears to have been as uncooperative as possible so as to secure as much freedom as they could for church governors. When they finally did give their expanded “humble Answer” to Parliament concerning admission to the Lord’s Supper, it was not their exhaustive list of who should be barred by ecclesiastical authorities, but their summary of who might conveniently be barred by a parliamentary ordinance.[57] It is vital that the sources examined above be viewed through the lens of this historical context.

Perhaps the lack of substantial evidence on this matter also arises partly from the fact that in practice the vast majority of English Baptists voluntarily separated from the established church to form their own “pure” congregations. An antipaedobaptist desiring to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper in the state church in the 1640s would have been more the exception than the rule, and was thus not a pressing problem for most ministers and politicians. But were it to become an issue in a particular parish, it would appear that sufficient regulatory groundwork had already been set in place by Parliament to empower any local church authorities, should they see fit, to bar antipaedobaptists from the Lord’s Supper, in keeping with their conviction that it was “a great sin.”

V. The Testimony Of The Commentators

As has already been noted, the likelihood that the Westminster divines had infant baptism in mind in Chapter 28.5 has often been overlooked by commentators on the Confession. Nevertheless, the interpretation presented here is by no means a novel one. Robert Shaw, the highly esteemed nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian, commenting on Chapter 28.5 writes, “Baptism is an instituted means of salvation, and the contempt of it must be a great sin on the part of the parents, though the neglect cannot be ascribed to the child before he arrives at maturity, and cannot, therefore, involve him in the guilt.”[58]

Describing the denial of infant baptism as a “heresy,” Francis Beattie, Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, at the turn of the twentieth century, made the following comments on Chapter 28 of the Confession:

There is a tendency on the part of many who bear the Presbyterian name to regard it as a matter of but little importance whether their children are baptized or not. This is a very dangerous tendency, and it should be most carefully avoided by both ministers and people alike, if they would be loyal to the scriptural doctrine upon this subject, as it is set forth in the Standards, and at the same time be true to the best interests of their children whom they love so well.[59]

G. I. Williamson, minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in his commentary on Chapter 28.5 writes:

If neglect of circumcision elicited the wrath and displeasure of God against Moses (Ex. 4:24–26), and if the spurning of the baptism of John by the Pharisees and lawyers is likewise condemned (Luke 7:30), then how much more ought we to consider the gravity of a like disposition toward that which our Lord commanded! And it is important to remember that God’s wrath against Moses was not because Moses had neglected the ordinance for himself, but because he had neglected the circumcision of his children. Baptism is a moral duty. And a person who could be baptized (or who could present his children for baptism) but will not, is in a very different position from a person who would be baptized but cannot. There may be instances in which it is physically impossible for a believer to receive this sacrament (Luke 23:39–43). Because such an individual neither deprecates nor neglects the ordinance, we cannot say that he errs merely because divine providence prevents his baptism. But if a person is not baptized for the reason that he either condemns or neglects the ordinance, he is guilty of sin.[60]

That the Confession meant by the phrase “neglecting baptism” a failure to procure baptism for one’s infant seed is also recognized by social historians with no vested interest in the meaning of the Confession, such as Anne Gordon.[61]

VI. Conclusion

By now it should be clear that the divines, to borrow B. B. Warfield’s phrase, presented their faith “with its polemic edges well-turned out towards the chief assailants of Reformed doctrine,” and intended to oppose the nascent Baptist movement of their day in the strongest terms.[62] The Westminster Standards are an explicitly paedobaptist and anti-Baptist set of documents. Their opposition to antipaedobaptism is reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 28.5, a section intended to explain what their high view of infant baptism exactly entails. The authorial intent of this section is not merely to say that antipaedobaptists who withhold their infants from baptism are mistaken—something that has already been stated in 28.4—but that they commit “a great sin.” This should not surprise us, since the tenets of Baptist theology are not only completely incompatible with biblical and Reformed Presbyterianism, but are inimical to the whole system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith. This flows from the fact that Baptist theology rejects the Reformed understanding of the church, the kingdom of God, the Covenant of Grace, the sacraments, church discipline, and the ordinary way of salvation for God’s elect.[63] The framers of the Belgic Confession of Faith—one of the most widely used Reformed confessions of all time—saw this to be the case, and therefore stated, in the context of infant baptism, “We detest the error of the Anabaptists.”[64] The Westminster divines could also see the great dangers to the Reformed Church of this alien system of theology, and declared in their Confession of Faith their sure and certain belief that to neglect infant baptism is “a great sin.”[65] We may therefore end by amplifying Chapter 28.5 thus:

Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance [as do, for example, the antipaedobaptists], yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it [which would be sacramentalism], or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated [which would be baptismal regenerationism].

VII. Postscript

The correctness of the thinking of the Westminster divines at this point, and the wisdom in making this part of the Westminster Confession of Faith our personal confession today, is beyond the scope of this article, as is the question of whether subscription to the Confession is today compatible with making theoretical or practicing antipaedobaptists office bearers, trustees, and teachers in a confessional Presbyterian church, or even simply admitting them to the Lord’s Supper. But it is hoped that the correct reading of the Westminster Confession of Faith has been established at this point, and that a foundation for subsequent fruitful discussion among confessional Presbyterians has been laid.

Notes

1. The Westminster Assembly of Divines, “The Confession of Faith; agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the Assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, as a Part of the Covenanted Uniformity in Religion betwixt the Churches of Christ in the Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland. Approved by the General Assembly 1647, and ratified and established by Acts of Parliament 1649 and 1690, as the Publick and avowed Confession of the Church of Scotland, with the Proofs from the Scripture,” in The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture Proofs at Large: Together with the Sum of Saving Knowledge, (contained in the Holy Scriptures, and held forth in the said Confession and Catechisms), and practical Use thereof; Covenants, National and Solemn League; Acknowledgement of Sins, and Engagement to Duties; Directories for Publick and Family Worship; Form of Church Government, etc. Of Publick Authority in the Church of Scotland; with Acts of Assembly and Parliament, relative to, and approbative of, the same (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1988), 116. This edition of the Westminster Standards will henceforth be cited as The Confession of Faith.
2. The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), s.v. “contemn.” Cf. the seventeenth-century Latin translation of the Confession: “Quamvis grave peccatum fit institutum hoc despicatui habere vel negligere” (Confessio Fidei in Conventu Theologorum authoritate Parliamenti Anglicani indicto elaborata; eidem Parliamento postmodùm exhibita; quin & ab eodem, deindéq; ab Ecclesia Scoticana cognita & approbata; unà cum Catechismo duplici, Majori, Minoríque; et Sermone Anglicano summa cum fide in Latinum Versa [Cambridge: John Field, 1656], 72).
3. See, for example, John MacPherson, The Westminster Confession of Faith: With Introduction and Notes (1881; repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), 152; Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? The Westminster Confession: Yesterday and Today (rev. ed.; Phillipsburg NJ.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1965), 243; John H. Gerstner, Douglas F. Kelly, and Philip B. Rollinson, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Guide and Commentary (Signal Mountain, Tenn.: Summertown, 1992), 143–44.
4. For example, while the Assembly was meeting, army chaplain John Saltmarsh published his eccentric opinion that baptism in such places as Matt 28 and Mark 16 refers not to water baptism but to Spirit baptism (Saltmarsh, The Smoke in the Temple, wherein is a Designe for Peace and Reconciliation of Believers of the several Opinions of these Times about Ordinances, to a Forbearance of each other in Love, and Meeknesse, and Humility. With the Opening of each Opinion, and upon what Scriptures each is grounded. With the several Exceptions against each Opinion from the Scriptures. With one Argument for Liberty of Conscience, from the National Covenant. Tendred to all the Believers, to shew them how little we have attained, and that there is a more glorious Fulnesse to be revealed. With a Discovery of the Antichristian Way of Peace, &c. for Opinions. With a full Answer to Master Ley against my late New Quere. With some spiritual Principles drawn forth of the Controversie [London: Ruth Raworth for G. Calvert, 1646],15–18). In 1646 West minster divines Thomas Gataker, John Ley, and John Dury published half a dozen books against Saltmarsh, but focused on his other errors and not this particular one. Saltmarsh’s erroneous views on baptism, including his antipaedo baptism, also attracted the attention of the Scottish Commissioner Robert Baillie (Baillie, Anabaptism, the true Fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, Antinomy, Familisme, and the most of the other Errours, which for the Time doe trouble the Church of England, unsealed. Also the Questions of Pædobaptisme and Dipping handled from Scripture. In a second Part of the Disswasive from the Errours of the Time [London: M. F. for Samuel Gellibrand, 1647], 95). Westminster divine Stephen Marshall was aware that the Seekers were “content without baptisme” (Marshall, A Defence of Infant-Baptism: In Answer to two Treatises, and an Appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr Jo. Tombes. Wherein that Controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received Use of it from the Apostles Dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The Arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the Objections against it answered [London: Richard Cotes for Steven Bowtell, 1646], 245). The only mention of Seekers in the Minutes, however, is in the context of a debate on the legitimacy of gathered churches (not on the sacraments) and is simply a general observation by Jeremiah Whitaker that Seekers do not attend church at all: “They take themselves to be above ordinances[;] they will not goe to heare at all” (“Minutes of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, from 4th September, 1643 to 25th March, 1652 in three Volumes” [Dr Williams Library, London, MS. 35.1-3], III.f63v; henceforth, “Minutes”).
5. The eighteenth-century “Fisher’s Catechism” associates “neglecting baptism” in Chapter 28.5 only with “Socinians and Quakers.” This is then followed by an explanation of “the greatness of the sin of contemning and slighting this ordinance” in which the Assembly’s proof text of Exod 4:24–26 is completely ignored but not that of Luke 7:30 (James Fisher, Ebenezer Erskine, and Ralph Erskine, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism explained, by Way of Question and Answer. In two Parts. Part I. Of what Man is to believe concerning God. Part II. Of what Duty God requires of Man [1753; new ed.; Lewes, U.K.: Berith Publications, 1998], 400). For why this ignoring of Exod 4:24–26 was a significant oversight, see n. 14 below.
6. “Minutes,” I.ff47r, 47v; III.ff222r, 229v. Approximately only a third of these Minutes were reproduced in the nineteenth century (Alexander F. Mitchell and John Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines while engaged in preparing their Directory for Church Government, Confession of Faith, and Catechisms (November 1644 to March 1649) from Transcripts of the Originals produced by a Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland [Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons, 1874]). For his doctoral dissertation Chad Van Dixhoorn has completed a definitive critical edition of these Minutes, to be published by Oxford University Press around 2009, and I am very grateful to him for allowing me access to his work. See .org and Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652” (7 vols.; Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2004).
7. Minutes, II.f126r. For the medieval and social background of private baptisms in early modern England, see Will Coster, Baptism and Spiritual Kinship in Early Modern England (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing 2002), 51–57.
8. Robert Baillie, T he Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, A.M. Principal of the University of Glasgow, 1637–1662. Edited from the Author’s Manuscripts (ed. David Laing; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: For Robert Ogle, 1841–1842), 2:204–5.
9. Minutes, II.ff126r-29r; John Lightfoot, The whole Works of the Rev. John Lighoot (e. John R. Pitman; 13 vols.; 1684; new and enl. ed.; London: J. F. Dove for Hatchard & Son et al., 1823–1825), 13:297–99.
10. Anon., The Life and Death of Stephen Marshal, sometimes Minister of the Gospel at Finchingfield in Essex (London: n.p., 1680), 18.
11. The Westminster Assembly of Divines, “The Directory for the Publick Worship of God; agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the Assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, as a Part of the Covenanted Uniformity in Religion betwixt the Churches of Christ in the Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland: with an Act of the General Assembly, and Act of Parliament, both in Anno 1645, approving and establishing the said Directory” in The Confession of Faith, 382. Henceforth, DPWG.
12. This is not to argue that each subsequent section in the Confession can never be independent of the previous section, but merely to suggest that here is an example of where this is not the case.
13. All Scripture quotations in this article are taken from the Authorized Version, the main version in use by the Westminster Assembly.
14. Currently commentators differ on whether the “him” of Exod 4:24 refers to Moses or his son as there is some ambiguity in the use of the pronoun in the text. However, it seems clear that the Divines understood this as a reference to Moses. It is true that the renowned Hebraist and Westminster Divine John Lightfoot was of the opinion that the cause of God’s anger with Moses was “not the uncircumcision of his Sonne, as it is commonly held” but his taking his wife and children with him on the journey instead of leaving them at home (John Lightfoot, A Handfull of Gleanings out of the Book of Exodus: Probable Solution of some of the mainest Scruples, and Explanation of the hardest Places of that Booke. Scarcely given by any heretofore [London: Richard Cotes for Andrew Crooke, 1643], 8–11). However, the Westminster Standards clearly demonstrate that Lightfoot’s arguments did not convince the Assembly, for not only Chapter 28.5 of the Confession, but also the Larger Catechism Question 109 understands Exod 4:24–26 in the “commonly held” way of neglecting the sacrament.
15. DPWG, 383 (emphasis added).
16. The divines were anxious to avoid the erroneous response of the Roman Church to such eventualities, namely baptisms by non-ordained persons and baptisms in private places.
17. This of course must be so if their hypothetical baptism would have had any salvific import whatsoever. Yet Anabaptists, in a society where infant mortality rates were high, taught that unbaptized infants who died were nevertheless saved. Many Anabaptists, as if to make their position more plausible, also denied the orthodox doctrine of original sin.
18. The divines were no doubt particularly troubled that certain London Baptists had just recently published their own confession of faith in an attempt to position themselves as respectably distinct from heretical Anabaptists (The Confession of Faith, of those Churches which are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists; presented to the View of all that feare God, to examine by the Touchstone of the Word of Truth: As likewise for the Taking off those Aspersions which are frequently both in Pulpit and Print, (although unjustly) cast upon them [London: n.p., 1644]). But Westminster divines tended to see such confessional efforts as mere window dressing on the part of a few, and dismissed them as highly unrepresentative of the vast majority of English antipaedobaptists (Baillie, Anabaptism, 18, 49, 66; Marshall, Defence of Infant-Baptism, 76).
19. Baillie, Letters and Journals, 2:215. See also 2:224, 228.
20. “Minutes,” II.ff155v, 142v. Cf Lightfoot, Works, 13:302. Early on at the Assembly on November 10, 1643, Edmund Calamy had already indicated that the error of the ‘Anabaptists” was that they “will not baptize” (“Minutes,” I.f177v).
21. Journal of the House of Commons, 3:584–85, 697; “Minutes,” II.ff138v, 142r, 143r, 147r, 152r, 155v, 161v, 162v, 176v; Lightfoot, Wo r k s, 13:301, 303, 307, 308. The original “humble Advise of the Assembly” on this matter may be seen at Bod Tanner MS. 61, f162r. I am grateful to Chad Van Dixhoorn for drawing my attention to this manuscript.
22. William Twisse, A brief catecheticall Exposition of Christian Doctrine: Divided into foure Catechismes: Comprising the Doctrine of the two Sacraments, the Lord’s Prayer, the 10 Commandments, and the Creed (1632; repr., London: For John Wright, 1645), 6–7.
23. Baillie, Anabaptism, 29.
24. Stephen Marshall, A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants. Preached in the Abbey-Church at Westminster, at the morning Lecture, appointed by the Honourable House of Commons (London: Richard Cotes for Stephen Bowtell, 1644), B1r.
25. Marshall, Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants, 52–54 (emphasis added). Ephraim Pagitt, in his narration of the “Blasphemies” of the Anabaptists, notes their “abominable error” of antipaedobaptism and, in order to demonstrate the “barbarous cruelty” of antipaedobaptism, repeats Marshall’s arguments concerning Herod and Hazael (Pagitt, Heresiography: Or, a Description of the Heretickes and Sectaries of these latter Times [London: M. Okes for Robert Trot, 1645], 2, 15, 18–19, 42). Former Westminster divine Daniel Featley also took up this comparison with Herod in support of his own conviction that antipaedobaptism was a great sin and a “soul-murthering doctrine and practise” (Featley, Καταβαπτισται καταπτυστοι. The Dippers Dipt. Or, the Anabaptists duck’d and plung’d over Head and Eares, at a Disputation in Southwark. Together with a large and full Discourse of their 1. Originall. 2. Severall sorts. 3. Peculiar Errours. 4. High Attempts against the State. 5. Capitall Punishments: with an Application to these Times [2d ed.; London: For Nicholas Bourne and Richard Royston, 1645], 69–70; cf. 212). This influential book by Featley had reached its seventh edition by 1660. Calamy similarly saw antipaedobaptism as a “cruell” form of covenant breaking and a cause of God’s wrath on England (Edmund Calamy, The great Danger of Covenant-refusing and Covenant-breaking [London: M. F for Christopher Meredith, 1646], 24).
26. John Tombes, An Examen of the Sermon of Mr. Stephen Marshal, about Infant-baptisme, in a Letter sent to him (London: R. W. for George Whitington, 1645), 170.
27. Marshall, Defence of Infant-Baptism, 242–43. This exchange took place despite Tombes still being a fellow Church of England minister and the son-in-law of the Westminster divine Henry Scudder. The charge that antipaedobaptism was “a great unjustice” to infants was also later reasserted by Baillie (Baillie, Anabaptism, 133).
28. Marshall, Defence of Infant-Baptism, 122 (emphasis added).
29. Baillie saw Marshall as one o two very faithfull Divines who have had more dealing with the Anabaptists then [sic] any other on this side the Sea” (Baillie, Anabaptism, 49).
30. Marshall, Defence of Infant-Baptism, A3r-A4r; “Minutes,” III.ff148r-48v
31. “Minutes,” III.f177r.
32. Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Exodum, that is, a sixfold Commentary upon the second Booke of Moses called Exodus: Wherein according to the Method propounded in Hexapla upon Genesis, these six Things are observed in every Chapter: 1. The Argument and Method. 2. The divers Readings. 3. The Questions discussed. 4. Doctrines noted. 5. Controversies handled. 6. Morall Common Places applied. Wherein in the divers Readings these Translations are compared together: 1. The Chalde. 2. The Septuagint. 3. The vulgar Latine. Pagnine. 5. Montanus. 6. Junius. 7. Vatablus. 8. The great English Bible. 9. The Geneva Edition. 10. And the Hebrew originall maketh the tenth. And in the same there are wellnie two thousand theologicall Questions handled: and above fortie Authors old and new, writing upon this Booke, abridged. Divided into two Parts or Tomes: The first containing the Deliverance of the Israelites, with their Preservation: The other, the Constitution and Setling of their State by wholesome Lawes (1608; another ed.; London: By Thomas Man, Paul Man, and Jonah Man, 1633), 49 (emphasis added).
33. Cf. David Dickson and James Durham, TheSumof Saving Knowledge: Or, a brief Sum of Christian Doctrine, contained in the Holy Scriptures, and holden forth in the foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms; together with the practical Use thereof,” in The Confession of Faith, 321–43.
34. James Durham, A practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments. With a Resolution of several momentous Questions and Cases of Conscience (London: T. Milbourn for Dorman Newman, 1675), 92, 93, 97 (emphasis added). See also James Durham, A practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments (ed. Christopher Coldwell; Dallas, Tex.: Naphtali Press, 2002), 132.
35. Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Five Books of Moses, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Wherein each Chapter is summ’d up in its Content; the sacred Text inserted at large in distinct Paragraphs; each Paragraph reduc’d to its proper Heads; the Sense given, and largely illustrated, with practical Remarks and Observations (London: For T. Parkhurst, J. Robinson, and J. Lawrence, 1707), Hhhh3v (emphasis added).
36. Cf. Arnold G. Matthews, ed., The Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, 1658 (London: Independent Press, 1959), 16, 19.
37. Ibid., 12, 66.
38. Calamy lamented how “the Anabaptist labours to steale away the seale of the covenant of Grace” from “our little children,” but found it “worser than all” that “there are some godly people” who “love to have it so” (Calamy, The great Danger of Covenant-refusing, 24). In a similar vein Baillie wrote: “But that which I most regrate is, to see sundry unto whom God has committed the keeping of his truth, and whom he has indued with very notable parts above many, so sparing and coldrisse [sic], so sober and temperate, so calme and wise in managing the Battels of their Master against the Enemies of his dearly beloved truth, as if all their zeale were no more mixed, but totally overmastered, and well-near drowned in their moderation and prudence. It is the opinion of many, that the enemies of the truth have been assisted in their evill work of seducing millions of the Sheep of Christ by no one means more than the tepidity of some gracious and orthodoxe, yet too wise, and somwhat fearfull and faint-hearted Divines” (Baillie, Anabaptism, 105–6).
39. “Minutes,” I.f348r; Lightfoot, Wo r k s, 13:186.
40. Lucy Hutchinson, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson: Charles I’s Puritan Nemesis (ed. N. H. Keeble; London: PhoenixPress, 2000), 211. I am indebted to Chad Van Dixhoorn for kindly drawing my attention to his use of this incident in his thesis “Reforming the Reformation” (1:68), though he incorrectly states that the incident concerns Thomas and Mary Belasyse.
41. David Norbrook, Hutchinson, Lucy (1620–1681) in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: In Association with the British Academy: From the Earliest Times to the Year 2000 (ed. Brian H. Harrison and H. Colin G. Matthew; 60 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 29:27.
42. Hutchinson, Memoirs, 211.
43. Norbrook, Hutchinson, 27.
44. Hutchinson, Memoirs, 211.
45. The House of Lords, An Order of the Lords assembled in Parliament, for the Punishing of Anabaptists and Sectaries, that shall disturbe the Ministers in their publike Exercises, in the Kingdome of England and Dominion of Wales (London: For John Wright, 1646).
46. Bod Nalson MS. 22, ff49r-49v. This was a considerable expansion on what the Assembly had originally written, which concerned only the doctrine of God (Bod Nalson MS. 22, ff48r-48v). Parliament had explicitly asked the Assembly to add, among other things, something “concerning the Nature and Use of the Sacraments” (Journal of the House of Commons, 4:95–96). For the parliamentary background to these eight articles, see Journal of the House of Commons, 4:90, 92, 95–96, 105, 113–14; Journal of the House of Lords, 7:360–63. I am grateful to Chad Van Dixhoorn for drawing these newly identified Nalson manuscripts to my attention.
47. The Houses of Lords and Commons, An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament. Together with Rules and Directions concerning Suspention from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in Cases of Ignorance and Scandall. Also the Names of such Ministers and others that are appointed Triers and Judges of the Ability of Elders in the twelve Classes within the Province of London (London: For John Wright, 1645), 4. This wording is identical to that originally submitted by the Assembly to the House of Commons (Bod Nalson MS. 22, f49v).
48. Thomas Edwards, Gangræna: Or, a Catalogue and Discovery of many of the Errours, Heresies, Blasphemies and pernicious Practices of the Sectaries of this Time, vented and acted in England in these four last Years: As also, a particular Narration of divers Stories, remarkable Passages, Letters; an Extract of many Letters, all concerning the present Sects; together with some Observations upon, and Corollaries from all the fore-named Premisses (London: For Ralph Smith, 1646), 28. Cf. Thomas Edwards, The second Part of Gangræna: Or, a fresh and further Discovery of the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies and dangerous Proceedings of the Sectaries of this Time. As also a particular Narration of divers Stories, speciall Passages, Letters; an Extract of some Letters, all concerning the present Sects: Together with some Corollaries from all the fore-named Premisses. A Reply to the most materiall Exceptions made by Mr Saltmarsh, Mr Walwyn, and Cretensis, against Mr Edwards late Book entituled Gangræna. As also brief Animadversions upon some late Pamphlets; one of Mr Bacons, another of Thomas Webs, a third of a Picture made in Disgrace of the Presbyterians. A Relation of a Monster lately born at Colchester, of Parents who are Sectaries. The Copie of an Hymne sung by some Sectaries in stead of Davids Psalms (London: T. R. and E. M. for Ralph Smith, 1646), 142. The London Confession of 1644 in its treatment of baptism nowhere refers to it as a sacrament or seal but always only as an “Ordinance” (The Confession of Faith, of those Churches which are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists, Articles 39–41).
49. The Houses of Lords and Commons, Ordinance (1645), 5.
50. Featley, The Dippers Dipt, 46. Featley cites Calvin’s Institutes, 4.16.6 to support this claim. For more on Calvin’s position, see n. 65 below. Featley had already argued that “the parents and governours are guiltie of a hainous crime before God, who, in contempt of Christs command, or through error of their judgment take not care for their childrens baptisme, and thereby deprive them of the ordinary remedie of that originall maladie in which they are conceived and born” (Featley, The Dippers Dipt, 43). Featley’s early exit from the Assembly in September 1643 apparently would have done little to temper the atmosphere in this respect, since his successor at the Assembly was Richard Byfield, who later in his will was to record his “utter detestation of. .. Anabaptisme” (PRO, PROB 11/317, fol. 9; quoted in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 9:307). In 1644 Byfield styled antipaedobaptists as “Temple-defilers” and included them in a long list of heretics and schismatics whom God would destroy, according to 1 Cor 3:17 (Richard Byfield, Temple-defilers defiled, wherein a true visible Church of Christ is described. The Evils and pernicious Errours, especially appertaining to Schisme, Anabaptisme and Libertinisme, that infest our Church, are discovered. And Directions to preserve from the Sin and Punishment of Temple-defiling, delivered in two Sermons preached at the Lecture in Kingston upon Thames, Feb. 20. & 27. 1644 out of I Cor. 3.17 [London: John Field for Ralph Smith, 1645], 27). Byfield deemed it to be a sin even to attend Baptist meetings (Byfield, Temple-defilers defiled, 39).
51. Francis Cheynell, The Rise, Growth, and Danger of Socinianisme. Together with a plaine Discovery of a desperate Designe of Corrupting the Protestant Religion, whereby it appeares that the Religion which hath been so violently contended for (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his Adherents) is not the true pure Protestant Religion, but an Hotchpotch of Arminianism, Socinianisme and Popery. It is likewise made evident, that the Atheists, Anabaptists, and Sectaries so much complained of, have been raised or encouraged by the Doctrines and Practises of the Arminian, Socinian and Popish Party (London: For Samuel Gellibrand, 1643), 51, 56.
52. The Houses of Lords and Commons, Ordinance (1645), 5.
53. “Minutes,” III.f63r (emphasis added).
54. “Minutes,” I.f77r.
55. The Westminster Assembly of Divines, “The Larger Catechism; agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the Assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, as a Part of the Covenanted Uniformity in Religion betwixt the Churches of Christ in the Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland. And approved Anno 1648, by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to be a Directory for Catechising such as have made some Proficiency in the Knowledge of the Grounds of Religion, with the Proofs from the Scripture,” in The Confession of Faith, 262–63.
56. The Houses of Lords and Commons, An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for Keeping of scandalous Persons from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the Enabling of Congregations for the Choice of Elders, and Supplying of Defects in former Ordinances and Directions of Parliament concerning Church-Government (London: For Edward Husband, 1646), 9–10.
57. Bod Nalson MS. 22, f49r.
58. Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1845; repr., Fearn, U.K.: Christian Focus Publications, 1998), 346. This 1998 edition includes a recommendatory foreword by Professor Sinclair Ferguson of Westminster Theological Seminary. A. A. Hodge, another nineteenth-century commentator on the Confession, saw infant baptism as coming within the scope of Chapter 28.5, but did not comment any further (Archibald A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding The Westminster Confession [1870; repr., London: Banner of Truth, 1964], 350).
59. Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (1896; repr., Greenville, S.C.: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1997), 321–22.
60. G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (1964; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004), 277.
61. Anne Gordon, Candie for the Foundling (Edinburgh: Pentland, 1992), 468.
62. Benjamin B. Warield, Th e Westminster Assembly and Its Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), 55.
63. One illustration of this is the way the Baptist Confession of 1677 and 1688 (1689) radically alters all these doctrines in its source document, the Westminster Confession, and not least the way it completely expunges Chapter 28.5 (see William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith [1969; repr., Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson, 1989], 235–95).
64. Philip Schaff, ed., T he Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes (3 vols.; 1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 3:427 (Article 34). At this point the Belgic Confession continues in the spirit of the First Helvetic Confession of 1536. Jointly authored by Heinrich Bullinger, this confession, in the Latin original, rejects antipaedobaptism as “nefas,” a term rendered “wyckednes” in the Scottish translation produced by George Wishart before his martyrdom in 1546 (Schaff, Creeds, 3:224; David Laing The Miscellany of the Wodrow Society: Containing Tracts and original Letters, chiefly relating to the ecclesiastical Affairs of Scotland during the sixteenth and seventeenth Centuries [Edinburgh: The Wodrow Society 1844], 19).
65. In so doing, the Westminster divines were also maintaining continuity with the theology of John Calvin. Stephen Marshall makes the important observation on Gen 17:14 concerning the cutting off of uncircumcised children, that “he that rejected or neglected the seale, is said not onely to breake Gods commandement, but his covenant” (Defence of Infant-Baptism, 92). In his comments on the very same text, Calvin states that “the same reasoning is at this day in force respecting baptism,” and that therefore “the covenant of God is violated” whenever believers withold their children from baptism (John Calvin, Commentaries on the first Book of Moses called Genesis [vols. 1 and 2 of Calvin’s Commentaries; trans. John King; 1846; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993], 1:458). For Calvin, therefore, practical antipaedobaptism was also “a great sin.” Yet Calvin anticipates the balance of Chapter 28.5 of the Westminster Confession when he also states that “if, when the sign is omitted, this is neither from sloth nor contempt nor negligence, we are safe from all danger” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; LCC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960], 2:1323 [4.15.22]). Chapter 16 of Book 4 of the Institutes is vital reading for all who want to understand the seriousness with which Calvin viewed antipaedobaptism. For example, Calvin believed that “we ought to be greatly afraid of that threat, that God will wreak vengeance upon any man who disdains to mark his child with the symbol of the covenant; for by such contempt the proffered grace is refused, and, as it were, foresworn” (Institutes, 4.16.9).

I wish to thank Dr. Chad B. Van Dixhoorn and the Rev. Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III for their encouragement and helpful comments on previous drafts of this article. The published form of this article is particularly indebted to Chad Van Dixhoorn’s kindly given expert guidance.