- Featly, D.D., thought he had proven his case for infant baptism when he published his reasoning in 1647, but most of what he wrote consists of a collection of assumptions. For example, he argued:
- Where the disease is, there ought the remedy to be applied. But the disease, to wit, original sin, is in children, as well as men. For, all have sinned in Adam, Rom. 5.12, and are by nature the children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. Ergo, the remedy, which is Baptisme, ought to be applied to Children as well as Men (22).
First of all, he assumes that the doctrine of Original Sin is true, though those words never appear in the Scriptures. Second, he assumes that Romans 5:12 says that all of us sinned in Adam when what it really says is that “through one man sin entered the world.” We do not experience separation from God because of what Adam did; “death spread to all men, because all men sinned.” The passage is not dealing with infants or infant “baptism,” and it certainly does not hold anyone responsible for what Adam did. Everyone stands in need of salvation because of his own sins. Featly and other Calvinists read a great deal into certain verses that is simply not there.
Third, he pulls one phrase out of Ephesians 2:3 without noticing the context. Every Bible student ought to consider the entire context of verses 1-3:
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, just as the others.
A student of the Word would first of all notice that nothing whatsoever is said about babies in this passage. A second important observation is that the evil described is chosen by those who participate in it. Children do not enter the world dead in trespasses. They do not walk after the course of this world, and they do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. No one could possibly think that Paul is describing infants.
But what about the phrase, by nature the children of wrath? Do these words mean that children are born that way? Not even all Calvinists believe that. Albert Barnes, noted Presbyterian commentator, wrote: “So far as this text is concerned, this might have been true at their very birth; but it does not directly and certainly prove that” (12:1:39). As a true Calvinist, however, he adds: “It proves that at no time before their conversion were they the children of God.” But they were—until they sinned. The Calvinist never considers that children are born free from sin; they cannot get away from the erroneous teaching that babies are born in a depraved state, tainted by “original sin.”
The word nature actually could refer to something obtained through birth. Galatians 2:15 mentions that some were Jews by nature. The olive tree is wild by nature (Rom. 11:24). [Incidentally, homosexuals do that which is against nature (Rom. 1:26). So, if nature does mean that which is from birth, then they were born heterosexual and became homosexual via some other means. In other words, homosexuals were not born that way but rather the exact opposite.]
However, by nature can also refer to something accomplished through training or habit. Gentiles sometimes did by nature the things in the law (which also proves they weren’t born depraved). How could unregenerated Gentile pagans do by their depraved nature the good things that were in the Law of Moses. They could not—if born with an evil nature.
Sometimes the Greek word translated “nature” refers to something that is by definition—by its very nature. Idols are by their very nature not actually gods (Gal. 4:8). On the other hand, Christians can be partakers of the Divine nature. The word nature obviously can have various definitions. But for Calvinists it can only have one meaning—the one that fits their theology. Once again, adults need to become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:14). The reason is that children are not born depraved but are innocent. They must be taught to be corrupt. For that reason Paul advises a selfish group of brethren: “In malice be babes, but in understanding be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20). Children are not born malicious; they have to be taught such attitudes.
Featly’s second argument related to this point is:
Those who are comprised within the Covenant of grace, ought to be admitted in the Church by Baptisme. For to them appertaine both the promises of the New Testament and the seale thereof, which is Baptisme. But the children of the faithfull are comprised within the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covenant betweene me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting Covenant. Ergo, Children ought to be admitted to Baptisme (22).
As pointed out in previous articles, quoting a covenant made with Abraham in the Old Testament cannot serve as proof that children in the New Testament should be baptized. Did any apostle teach or even intimate that the two covenants are parallel in that regard? If they had, Featly would have cited it, but all he can do is return to the covenant God made with Abraham—not us. Furthermore, an infant cannot comprehend even one blessing that comes to Christians—not even the forgiveness of sins. Featly has no case.
The third related point begins with: “No means of salvation ought to be denied the Children of the Faithfull, whereof they are capable” (22). Again, does not this imply that the children of the unfaithful are lost? Does Featly care anything at all about them? But he continues in his assumption that children are lost; everything hinges upon that, but he cannot prove children are born depraved, lost, or worthy of condemnation. Children are, in fact, safe.
He says that the children of Jews did not understand circumcision, but it benefitted them anyway, which is true, but the situation for Christians is not the same as it was for Hebrew children. They were made part of the covenant and then taught. No one becomes a Christian unless he is first taught (Jer. 31:31-34). Again, Featly’s doctrine is built on false assumptions which are just repeated ad infinitum—without proof.
Featly’s fourth point introduces new material that is both irrelevant and erroneous. He totally misunderstands what happened at the house of Cornelius.
All those who receive the things signified by baptisme, ought to receive the outward figure. It is the argument of Saint Peter, Acts 10.47. Can we forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as wee?
But the children of the faithfull receive the thing signified by baptisme ; to wit, regeneration and remission of sins. Ergo, they ought to receive the signe ; to wit, the baptisme of water.
- Featly does not understand why the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and those with him. It was to prove that God accepted Gentiles (Acts 11). Peter did not say they were saved; he said they had received the Holy Spirit as well as the apostles had. They had the same gift the apostles had—speaking in tongues. Nowhere does he indicate that they were saved—in fact, they needed to be baptized in order to be saved. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that baptism in water is just an outward sign. Apparently, Featly thinks that everyone agrees with his unwarranted assumptions.
Cornelius’ receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit was not a sign that he had been regenerated or that his sins had been forgiven. Generally speaking, it would have meant that, but in this instance it was to prove their acceptability to the Jews, who were still prejudiced against the Gentiles. This was the only occasion in all the New Testament in which anyone received a gift of the Spirit before baptism.
Does Featly think that the children of Christian parents are saved already and that baptism is just a sign of it? It would appear so, since he calls it an “outward figure.” When, then, was the infant actually saved—prior to birth, at birth, sometime after birth but before being sprinkled? The answer would be interesting.
Featly continues to remind his readers that Christ told little children to come to him. Yes, but even that is an expression of free will on the part of the children. Infants cannot make that decision; so infant sprinkling is not the equivalent of what Jesus taught on this subject.
But this last point really takes the cake. He says that unless “the Anabaptists will grant that children are regenerated, and receive remission of sins, they must needs hold that all children are damned, which is a most uncharitable and damnable assertion.” (22). Oh, so saying that all children are damned is uncharitable, but concluding that all children born to those who are not faithful Christians are damned is much more positive? Who cares about all the children born in Asia and Africa? We can write them off, so long as the European children are safe!
How ironic is that? They condemn all children to being sinful and then say those who don’t grant them salvation through sprinkling are monstrous. Hey! We aren’t the ones who pronounced them lost to start with.
Objection
Before closing this addendum to the discussion at Southwark, Featly decides to deal with an objection of the Anabaptists, who cited Matthew 28:18-20 as something that could not be done by infants. In other words, “children ought not to be baptized before they can heare and understand the Gospel preached to them” 22). So how does Featly respond?
His first point is that preaching does not have to go before baptism; the order is not important. As proof, he cites Mark 1:15, in which John says, “Repent, and believe in the gospel.” [Actually, he gave the Scripture reference incorrectly as Mark 1:25 (23).] Just because repent was placed before believe does not mean that this is always the order that should be followed. What he fails to realize is John was preaching to Jews who already believed in God. They had not been following their own law that well; they needed to repent of their sins under that system. But then they needed to believe in the gospel—something new.
This is far different than addressing those who do not already believe in the one true and living God. Such individuals need to first believe in God (and Jesus as His Son) and then repent of their sins. It was only to Jews that John first said to repent; in all the sermons of Acts belief comes first.
In fact, Featly admits this truth. He writes that “first men believe, and afterward are admitted to Baptisme,” but he hastens to add that, after the parents are converted, their children being comprised within the Covenant are admitted to Baptisme,” retreating to his usual argument regarding circumcision. Oddly enough, he admits that they must be “baptized” before they are taught because “they have neither the use of reason to apprehend the Gospel preached unto them, nor use of their tongue to profess their faith…” (23). He is correct, but these facts do not bother him. He rests his entire theology on a parallel with circumcision that does not exist.
Additional Arguments
This completes the substance of the arguments Featly made in the Southwark discussion. In a later section of the book, he spends nearly 30 pages making nine arguments and refuting objections to them. His first argument is that Christ’s command to baptize extended to all nations (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 [he erroneously typed Mark 15:16]). Children are a large part of any nation; therefore, they should be baptized as well as men. The usual objection of a lack of understanding is raised again. His response was that in Matthew 28:19 Jesus instructed the apostles to make disciples, baptizing them first and teaching them afterward (44). To make a disciple, however, one must be able to think, reason, and obey. Then they are baptized and taught further. Jesus is not even remotely hinting that infants should be sprinkled first (without any understanding) and then taught.
Featly says he does not want to take as rigid a view as St. Augustine did—namely, that children dying unbaptized are necessarily damned (45). But, wait. If a person truly thinks that children are guilty of any sin (original or otherwise) and that they must be baptized for the purpose of forgiveness, then why would they not be damned, if they died before that occurred? Featly thinks that God might save them anyway, if they are children of faithful parents. He reasons: “God is not tyed to his own Ordinance” (45). Really? Many of us would call such a practice dishonest. God did not make an exception for David when he sinned but rather punished him. God did not make an exception for Uzzah, though it looks as though he tried to keep the ark from falling from honest motives. When God gives His word, He abides by it. He cannot alter it or make exceptions for it.
The Apostles Baptized Children (?)
Featly’s second argument is simply a rehash of the one from Psalm 51:5. But the third one makes a new claim. “But the Apostles baptized children, for they baptized whole families, whereof children are a known part” (46). If this were true, it would absolutely settle the matter. After all, if the apostles baptized infants, it would not really matter why—whether they were born with original sin or not. If the apostles did so, the practice would be authorized. But what is the evidence for it? Three verses are cited: Acts 16:15, 33, and 1 Corinthians 1:16. Remember the verse cannot just mention a household; according to Featly’s own criterion, children must be a known part of the household.
Acts 16:15 concerns Lydia: “she and household were baptized.” The text does not say she had a husband, let alone any children. Her household may have consisted of a few workers or servants. We cannot assume she had children and then say, “See, her children were baptized.” None are mentioned.
Acts 16:33 concerns the Philippian jailer. All his family were baptized. Great! How many were in his family? The text does not say. What were their ages? The verse does not say. Were there any infants? No indication is given that there were. His children could have been 17, 15, 13, 12, and 10. Maybe there were only two—16 and 14. We cannot assume what we do not know. Featly has not proven his assertion.
In 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul mentions briefly, “Yes I al-so baptized the household of Stephanus.” Did he mention a wife or any children? Did he describe the color of hair or the ages of anyone? No. In none of these three examples do we have any evidence of young children or infants.
Featly’s response to these observations, which were made by the Anabaptists, also, is as weak as dirty dishwater. Although the burden of proof is upon him to show there were children, all he can do is say that if all three households lacked infants, Paul would have said so. How sad! D. Featly is utterly defeated in his efforts to prove infant “baptism.”