Quote:
Originally Posted by a mere housewife  Is there some other source for this being an older tradition, and a majority view at the Westminster Assembly? |
Dear Mrs Zartman, I can't think of a single source which documents this. It might require some historical reconstruction to decide which divines would have adhered to the position on the basis of their writings; but I would have thought it was an accepted fact that the reformers and their children maintained the Christendom perspective. The Puritans (non-separatists) and Scottish Presbyterians adhered to it, whilst the Brownists and their followers challenged it. Both Samuel Rutherford and Daniel Cawdrey specifically affirm the covenant position against the Independents. Oliver Bowles is quoted by Thomas Boston (p. 140) as maintaining the covenant position in his work on pastoral theology. But the fact that the Westminster Standards adopt covenant language and nowhere require a personal profession of faith is conclusive evidence in favour of it. The Directory for Public Worship specifically extends the privilege of baptism to the children of those "born within the church." And at the end of the day it should be the Westminster Standards which determine what was the consensus view of the Westminster divines. Blessings!