Edmund Calamy on Denying Infants Baptism

[Reformed Covenanter]

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):

How cruel are men grown to their little infants, by keeping them from the seal of entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, and making their children to be just in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels?

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

 

[KMK]

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!

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

 

[CDM]

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!

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

 

[Reformed 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!

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?

 

[KMK]

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.

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? In other words,, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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? In other words,, 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.

 

[KMK]

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? In other words,, 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...

 

[KMK]

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!

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

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!

 

[CDM]

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.

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? In other words,, would you have me go against my own confession and baptize my infant in order to avoid charges of cruelty?

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.

 

[CDM]

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!

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

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!

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

 

[Davidius]

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!

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 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.

 

[KMK]

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

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!

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

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?

 

[CDM]

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!

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

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.

 

[Reformed 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!

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 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.

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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? In other words,, 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...

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.

 

[Me Died Blue]

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...