Daniel Featly, D.D., published in 1647 the book under review. The historical background is helpful in understanding the situation out of which this discussion grew, but the most important thing about it concerns the arguments that were made in trying to justify the baptism of infants, which both Catholics and Protes-tants practiced. The previous article began to examine the first argument offered, which arose out of a discussion between Featly and a group of Anabaptists in Southwark, in the central district of London, England.
The Doctor of Divinity asserted that infant baptism in the New Covenant takes the place of circumcision in the Old. While it is true that Paul compares baptism to circumcision, his point is that baptism removes sins (rather than flesh) for those who have faith in the working of God—which infants do not possess (which Featly even admits). No Scripture compares infant sprinkling with circumcision; this is merely an attempt to justify a practice that existed rather than forming this conclusion from the teaching of the Scriptures. Neither do the Scriptures call baptism “a seale of the righteousnesse of faith,” which Featly also alleged.
Featly’s book contains several other documents besides the 25-page disputation at Southwark. A later document concerning the Anabaptists is titled: “A particular confutation of six of their erroneous tenets,” found on pages 36-176 of the book. Since Featly again addresses the subject of infant baptism as he thinks it relates to circumcision, it shall be examined here before moving on to a different argument.
The author apparently thinks that the absence of a command to baptize infants is irrelevant because “there is no expresse and particular commandment, either for the baptizing of women, or administering the Lord’s Supper to them…” (48). This is a strange approach, to say the least. Does he actually think that women are not included in the Great Commission?
For example, Mark records Jesus as commanding, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Does Featly think that Jesus intended to exclude women in this saying? Paul affirms that the gospel had been preached “to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23). Jesus continued by saying, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…” (Mark 16:16). Although he is used, virtually all people recognize that it stands for male or female. Featly might argue (rather lamely), “Well, if it includes women, it can include infants.” It could—if they could understand the message and believe. But they cannot; so he has not proven his case. Besides, we know that women were baptized (Lydia, for example) and that ladies were members of the church (cf. Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 11; Phil. 4:2, et al.). Yet no Scripture describes the baptism of an infant.
Finally, Featly declares that: 1) if infants could not be baptized, they would be worse off than children under the Law of Moses; 2) circumcision admitted them to the congregation of God’s people; 3) it would be blasphemous to think that the children of Christian parents should be excluded from the privileges of the gospel system (48). Featly (as did Calvin before him) errs in thinking that children are excluded from anything. Infants are not sinners and have no need of salvation. They are safe until they understand the concept of sin.
Calvin’s problem was thinking that all who enter the world are born depraved and full of sin. Therefore, they need infant sprinkling to rid them of that sin they are born with. But this thinking is wrong and not taught in the Scriptures. Instead of children coming into the world tainted by someone else’s sins, they are actually pure and sinless. Calvin’s doctrine (which came primarily from Augustine) blasphemes the Creator Who, according to them, allows babies to enter the world full of sin and enter into eternity condemned to hell unless they were born to Christian parents and sprinkled.
This doctrine is monstrous. Although the infant mortality rate in our age is relatively low, it was considerably higher during the time in which Featly lived. If a child died from one of several childhood diseases and he had not been baptized to remove “original sin,” he was lost. Imagine how many children never made it to ten years of age under normal conditions, let alone at the time of the bubonic plague or the influenza in 1918. All of those children would be lost eternally before they ever had an opportunity to hear the gospel—according to Calvin’s and Featly’s theology.
Trying to justify infant baptism by appealing to Paul’s comparison of baptism to circumcision falls flat, to say the least. The circumcision of the flesh under the Law was only for males; the circumcision of one’s sins under Christ is for all who are guilty of sin and have the ability to believe. That excludes infants. The assumptions of Featly and others are just that—assumptions. Appealing to Augustine does no good, either. No Scripture upholds that position.
Argument 2: John 3:5
Returning to the discussion at Southwark, we find that the second argument Featly offers is from John 3:5, in which Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” What does this verse have to do with baptizing infants? Featly tries to make a connection. He writes:
If none can enter into the kingdom of God, but those that are borne of Water and the Spirit, that is, those that are baptized with Water, and regenerated by the Spirit ; then is there a necessity of baptizing of Children, or else they cannot enter into the Kingdome of God (that is, ordinarily) for we must not tie God to outward meanes. But the former is true. Ergo, the latter (11).
What a strange text to use for proof of infant sprinkling! Babies have barely been born when, according to the adherents of this doctrine, they must be born again. Does this claim make sense to anybody? Why would a newborn babe need to be regenerated? Who says they are out of the kingdom to begin with? Jesus said to allow children to come unto Him, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14). In other words, they are already in the kingdom and should not be denied access to Jesus. When they are older and begin to sin and understand the concept of sin, then they are separated from God and are in need of the blood of Christ and the salvation that comes through Him.
When asked what happens to the children who are not baptized (sprinkled), Featly says that “wee leave them to the mercy of God, conceiving charitably of their salvation, because the children of the faithful are comprised in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7…” (11). This response does not answer the question. First, he only deals with the children of the faithful. What about the children who were born to parents who are not among the faithful? What about the children who die that are born to Muslims, Hindus, Indians, etc.? He must condemn them all even though their children have never committed a sin of their own.
But, second, he fudged on the children of denominationalists. If they were not sprinkled before death, which is absolutely necessary for them to enter into the kingdom, then they must be lost. But he bids God to be merciful in this case because their parents are faithful. So if a baby has faithful parents but was not sprinkled, which he says is essential to enter the kingdom, he thinks God should save them anyway. But if a child born to unbelievers dies, he is automatically consigned to hell. So, salvation and entrance to the kingdom has nothing to do with one’s own choices; it just depends on who his parents are. Who can believe it?
The problem Featly has is with Calvinistic doctrine. Children are not born sinners; they are not responsible for Adam’s or anyone else’s sins. They have no need of baptism because they have no sin to cleanse; they are also incapable of having faith. They are in the kingdom already; thus they have no need of a means to let them enter in.
The Anabaptists correctly pointed out that Jesus, in John 3:5, was talking to an adult—not a child. Featly immediately resorted to an argument previously made.
You might as well and better say, that women are not men ; and doe you thinke that women ought not to be Baptized? This text speaks of children as well as those in riper years, male or female ; for, as the Apostle speaketh, In Christ there is no difference of sex or age (11).
Wait a minute! Galatians 3:26 says there is no difference regarding Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; where is the verse that says that age makes no difference?
Matthew 19:14
Some use this verse to argue that infants ought to be baptized in order to get into the kingdom; what they miss is that Jesus said, concerning little children, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” He did not say to let them into the kingdom; an adult must become like them (in other words, as they are) in order to become part of the kingdom of heaven.
In other words, children are fine the way they are; they are in the kingdom and not in need of salvation. It is only Calvinistic theology that turns them into depraved sinners in need of cleansing. Was Jesus saying that the kingdom of heaven is composed of depraved sinners (in need of washing)? Or was He saying that those in the kingdom of heaven must possess the qualities of humility and purity, as seen in little children? Obviously, it is the latter, for how could those in the kingdom be depraved after being regenerated? Ergo, Featly as yet has no case.
Argument 3: Apostolic Example?
.
That Southwark discussion got off onto another topic at this moment, but Featly decided to add to his two previous arguments in “Additions to the former Conference” as an addendum. He said he had an even more forcible argument, which was the “constant practice of admitting Children to Baptisme, even from the Apostles dayes unto this present” (20). He is confident that this argument will “convince the conscience of any ingenuous Christian.” Then he talks about the inspiration of the apostles, which is something that any believer agrees with, but the fact that we all know the inspiration of the Scriptures does not make his case for him; he must produce the Scriptures that prove his assertions.
He begins with a syllogism that basically says, if the apostles authorized children to be baptized in the New Testament, then it would be an appropriate thing to do today. No one can possibly disagree with that. Anything the apostles taught and authorized (that was intended to be permanent) cannot be challenged. However, again, where is the Scriptural evidence? He declares that the case is already proven and cites “the testimony of Origen for the Greeke Church, and St Austine for the Latine, and the Ecclesiasticall stories in all ages.”
The reader may be saying to himself, “I didn’t see any Scriptures offered as proof,” and that is correct. He is relying on those who were not apostles. Origen lived his adult life in the first half of the third century, and St. Augustine (Featly evidently misspelled his name, since there is no Saint Austine) lived from 354-430. Neither of these was within 100 years of the writings of the New Testament, and we know that many changes and departures from the teachings of the New Testament were made during that time period.
Psalm 51:5
Featly quotes from a commentary written by Origen on the book of Romans. He uses Psalm 51:5 to try to prove the doctrine of Original Sin (which, as already shown, would cause every child who died in infancy (or in tender years) to be punished eternally—unless they were fortunate enough to be born of “Christians” who had them sprinkled). In Psalm 51:5, David wrote: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”
Several explanations have been offered for this text. It is David’s mother, however, that seems to be at fault—not David. It is probably hyperbole, designed to show the kind of world we come into and the pervasive attitude of sin that surrounds us. David was not born sinful.
The view that Origen expressed was shared by some theologians, but he did not cite a New Testament Scripture that showed the apostles sprinkled children. He says that it was practiced from Apostolic times, but cites no writer—either in or out of the New Testament—to demonstrate his claim.
Romans 5:12
Finally, Featly gets to the New Testament, and he cites one verse to attempt to prove his case—Romans 5:12. The verse should be carefully considered:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus spread to all men, because all sinned….
What are the facts of Romans 5:12?
- Sin entered the world through one man (Adam).
- Death (both physical and spiritual) came through sin.
- Death spread to all because all sinned.
What does the verse not say?
- That infants inherit the sin of Adam.
- That the guilt of Adam’s sin spread to all men.
- That a child is lost despite having no sin of his own.
Ezekiel 18:20 teaches that a son does not inherit the guilt of his own father, let alone the sin of Adam. Many assume that this verse teaches that all are guilty of Original Sin, a phrase that appears nowhere in the entire Bible. But suppose Romans 5:12 did teach what the Calvinists believe that it does. Would this not have been the perfect time for Paul to have said, “Don’t you realize, brethren, that this is the reason we baptize infants?”
Not only would it have been an opportune moment for Paul to have referred to that teaching, the fact is that shortly thereafter he does discuss baptism. Just 12 verses later he writes:
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).
First of all, no infants are mentioned here or even insinuated. Second, the baptism is a burial in water—not sprinkling. Third, it is clear that this is the new birth that corresponds to what Jesus said in John 3:5, which likewise was for adults.
Nowhere does the New Testament set forth a case for infant baptism. Proponents of this false doctrine can only try to tie a verse here with a verse there and hope that no one notices the loose connection.