In light of recent discussions on the exclusion of infants from the visible church, here is a quote from the Puritan Edmund Calamy (he is saying this not me):

E. Calamy, The Great Danger of Covenant Breaking, p. 18

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy!

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calamy guilty of calumny!

I know this will be defended as GNC, but these kinds of statements are really an argument from sentimentality. It moves the discussion forward about as well as us credos following Gill and posting that infant baptism is Part and Pillar of Popery, etc. But if we must post them all there is a quote from Owen that conveys a similar message.

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Mr. Calamy is advocating and defending Christian Baptism not antichrist's mockery of it.

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

What he is saying is that if infants cannot be members of the visible church, then they cannot be members of the invisible church. Baptists cannot have it both ways. If you do not think that infants should be part of the visible church then I respect your position, however, if this is taken to its logical conclusion you will have to affirm that they cannot be part of the invisible church (this is not to say that all covenant children are members of the invisible church).

The whole argument comes down to this: are the children of Christians pagans, or are they part of the visible church?

I agree and it was this kind of argumentation that really began to turn me off to the paedo view with which I fully intended to agree. I recommend, if the paedos truly desire to further their cause, they refrain from such statements. It makes them sound elitist.

Question: Does the paedo desire that every believing parent, regardless of their conscience, baptize their infants? Is that really what you are after? IOW, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?

You have to remember the historical context in which this was written, it was at a time in which denying believers children the sacrament of baptism was seen as a truly radical thing, both theologically and socially.

Even if you think that Mr. Calamy is guilty of overstatement (which he may be), his basic point stands: Baptists exclude the children of believers from the visible church, and thus, by implication, from the invisible church.

I am aware of this caricature set forth by paedo baptists.

But you have not answered my question...

Sorry, I will not be cruel by taking my infant to the RC church. How about if I join the local Methodist church? I know Pastor Susan will baptize her!

Yes, I would have you go against your own confession and baptize children of believers...but not to "avoid charges of cruelty" but because all of God's covenant people have always included their children in the covenant of grace in accordance with God’s will.

Glad to hear it! Pastor Susan is also in league with antichrist, so, no, do not go there either.

I guess the correct answer for us Presbyterians would be that they are wet pagans, wouldn't it? For all intensive purposes they're pagans (or to use Mr. Calumy's terminology and be more specific, Turks and Infidels) who attend church more regularly than the dry pagans.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

Darn! Well, lets see... (thumbing through the yellow pages) How about the local Nazarene church? The United Church of Christ? Maybe I could just baptize her in the kitchen sink?

I fail to see your point.

They may be unregenerate, but they are not "pagans" - those outside the visible church.

I desire that every believing parent have their children baptized, but only if it is in line with their conscience.

As I have said elsewhere, both sides can make this doctrine into an idol, my point with the OP was to show that the argument I made about children in the visible church (in other threads) was not a novel one.

I think this thread has run its course already. It can stay as a reference for, and brief commentary on, a particular Puritan quotation on baptism, but beyond that, I can't see anything good coming out of the discussion, in the last several posts or anytime in the foreseeable future.

Closing...

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?