Brethren frequently wonder how denominationalists justify certain religious practices, and the fact is that, today, few bother because the emphasis for many people has shifted from, “What does the Bible teach?” to “What makes me feel good?” So it is interesting to observe the way some doctrines were once defended. Dr. Dan Featly published the book under review in 1647, and he represents the best thinking of those of his age (or any age). Over a period of time, sprinkling infants became an acceptable practice, although it is not authorized (or even mentioned) in the New Testament. For a thousand years, Roman Catholicism practiced the sprinkling of infants, and they erroneously called it baptism. When Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII challenged the Catholic Church on many of its doctrines, they were cheered by many. When the Anabaptists went one step further and challenged the practice of “baptizing” babies, they were booed.
In general, that custom did not have to be defended before this time, but now it did. Many of the “justifications” are very poor. The religious world was emotionally tied to the teaching; so practically any defense would make them feel good about what they practiced because most had no desire to change anyway—even if this tradition was not according to the New Testament. Dr. Featly presented ten arguments to establish his case; none of them are very good. His eighth and tenth arguments will close out this series of articles.
Children Are Holy
This line of reasoning is confusing and involves contradiction, just as the seventh one did. The upshot of the argument is that children are holy, and therefore their parents should “baptize” them. They were born with “original” sin, according to Featly, and must be baptized to have forgiveness, but at the same time they are in the kingdom and holy. How is such a thing possible?
How did the “doctor” arrive at this conclusion? He begins by asserting that children are saved before they are sprinkled, which is confusing, since they are ostensibly to be sprinkled to get rid of “original” and all other sins. He states his position in three ways.
As they who are partakers of the grace both signified and exhibited to us in baptisme, may and ought to receive the sign and sacrament thereof ; this is the basis and foundation upon which S. Peter himself builds, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? (52-53).
For this discussion, his erroneous understanding of Acts 10 will be laid aside. He thinks that, since Cornelius and the others received a gift of the Holy Spirit, they therefore received the Holy Spirit, period, and were thus saved already when they were later baptized. A careful study of the text will demonstrate that this idea is not true. But Featly thinks it is, and he compares it to infants. The parallel must of necessity be that infants have received the Holy Spirit and must be baptized and not denied the privilege.
But wait a moment? On what basis has he determined that infants have received the Holy Spirit? Was it by observation or through the teaching of the Scriptures? He does not say at this juncture. While it is true that babies might sound like they are speaking in tongues; no one could make a serious argument out of “baby talk.” But he insists that they have received God’s grace; how does he know? So, do infants receive the Holy Spirit first and are then sprinkled as a sign that God has saved them, or are they “baptized” in order to have “original” sin washed away? Those reading his rationale must be totally confused when he argues the matter both ways. And if they were filled with the Holy Spirit, when did that occur? He continues:
If God bestow upon children that which is greater, the inward grace ; why should we deny the latter, the outward element ? (53).
This time, he substitutes God’s “inward grace” for the “Holy Spirit,” but the overall point remains the same. Again, the question must be asked, “How does Featly know that children have received God’s grace—if it is inward and not observable? The children of unbelievers evidently do not receive this grace; so how do Christian parents recognize it in their infants?
Notice that no Scripture is cited for the dichotomy he has created. He has, without any Biblical authority whatsoever divided salvation into an inward grace (discerned by what—a feeling?) and an outward action—“baptism.” Who told him he could do that? These are theological assumptions that have no foundation in the Bible.
He continues this line of thinking by asking parents how they can “allow unto children the grace of the remission of sins, and regeneration, and yet deny them the sign and seal thereof, to wit baptisme” (53)? There he said it again. Salvation is divided into two parts—the remission of sins, which involves regeneration—and the outward sign or seal of it—baptism. The same question persists: “Since baptism is allegedly the outward sign of what has already occurred, exactly when was the babe forgiven of his sins and regenerated?” (Of course, no such thing occurs in infants; we are merely taking what he says and showing the fallacy of it.) His final comment parallels these:
But children receive the grace signified and exhibited in baptisme ; for the Apostle teacheth us, they are not unclean but holy ; and therefore have both the remission of sins and sanctification (53).
So, what is he saying? Up to this point in his paragraph, he seems to have stressed that “baptism” cannot be denied infants because they have the Holy Spirit, God’s grace, forgiveness of sins, and regeneration. In this last sentence he seems to be advocating that they receive all those things in baptism. Which is it?
That aside, however, he refers to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:14 about the children being holy. But Paul is not talking about grace, the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins, or regeneration in that text. Nor is he speaking of infant “baptism” and citing reasons for sprinkling infants. When the Anabaptists challenged him on the use of this verse, Featly showed that he did understand the context. He mentions that in the text Paul is trying to persuade a Christian husband not to leave his unbelieving wife and a Christian wife not to leave her unbelieving husband. (53). The verse says:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
So the situation under discussion concerns a Christian married to a non-Christian. Apparently, one of the questions the Corinthians asked Paul concerning marriage was, “What if I am married to a non-Christian? Can I divorce him in order to marry a Christian?” The answer is, “No—if your mate wants to remain with you, do not seek a divorce” (vv. 12-13). In what way is the unbeliever sanctified by the wife?
Brad Price, in his commentary on First Corinthians, wrote that the believer sanctifying the unbeliever meant that the Christian has “a positive effect on the unbeliever!” (234). He adds on the same page that the word sanctified in this instance refers to mixed marriages that “are recognized and accepted by God.” The word translated “sanctified” “is a perfect tense,” referring to the time “when the couple was married” (234). Even though one is a Christian and one is not, the two are still married (if they were eligible when they wed), so far as God is concerned.
What is the status of the children? If the parents were not legitimately married, the child would be illegitimate, but since they are married, their children are legitimate. A couple not authorized to be married cannot have legitimate children. Likewise, a couple that is legitimately married cannot give birth to an illegitimate child. The children are holy.
But none of this has anything to do with “original” sin or the idea of “baptizing” infants. Featly should not have even cited 1 Corinthians because it has no bearing on his case. Holy refers to “legitimacy” in this instance—not whether or not children stand guilty of sin before God. According to Calvin and Featly, children are born with sin that needs to be removed. They think that sprinkling will make the children holy, but in an en-tirely different sense than what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:14. Besides, Featly is confused even over that, having argued that children need to be baptized because they have sin and also because they are holy.
All Protestants Agree?
The tenth and final argument made to try to establish infant sprinkling is that it is practiced consistently in Protestant denominations and therefore ought to be accepted by every religious group as valid.
All members of the reformed Protestant Churches in Christendome ought to conform their judgements to the harmony of the Protestant confessions set forth by the consent of all orthodox Churches, and firmly grounded upon deductions at least from holy Scripture, if not evident in texts (55-56).
The conclusion is that the Anabaptists (and any other religious group) should therefore give up their teaching (which Featly calls a heresy), or they should quit calling themselves “Protestants.” That would be no problem for members of the Lord’s church; we call ourselves Christians—not Protestants.
Such a threat has no meaning for us; we will lose no sleep over not being included in a manmade classification that is not Biblical in the first place. We are not Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant. The gospel, when preached as it was in the New Testament era, produced Christians—nothing more and nothing less. But Featly includes several quotes in a vain effort to establish “Protestant” unity.
He cites the Helvetian confession, which offered a very sharp viewpoint: “We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that children newly born ought to be baptized…” So tied to their practice of infant sprinkling are they that they cannot tolerate a different perspective. They assume that what they grew up believing is right and that anything that challenges it is wrong. Should we expect better of them? Yes! The reason they should be more open-minded is that they grew up learning false Catholic teachings, from which they departed, based on what the Bible taught. So why are they suddenly so close-minded on this subject? But notice the contradiction again found in two paragraphs back to back.
First, infants of Christian parents are not to be kept from baptisme, because they are born in sin, and belong to the people of God.
…for, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, of such is the kingdome of God : why therefore should not the seal of the Covenant be given to them ? (56).
Again, Featly does not see the contradiction. Infants, according to him, are born in sin and need “baptism,” but of such is the kingdom of God. Therefore, babies are sinful and holy at the same time and must be sprinkled for both reasons.
Featly next quotes from the Bohemian confession, which mentions allowing children to come to Jesus. The French confession puts it this way:
Although baptisme be a sacrament of faith and repentance, yet in as much as children are reckoned with their parents in the Church of God, we affirm, that infants that are born to holy parents ought to be baptized by Christ’s authority (56).
Once again, nobody seems to be concerned about children born to atheists, Muslims, or Buddhists. If they die, they must be condemned to eternal fire because of “original” sin. Apparently, salvation depends on whom one knows. If one is lucky to be born to Protestant parents (how about Catholic parents?), then salvation is guaranteed; if not, tough luck.
Three more confessions only repeat some of these same erroneous beliefs. As added “proof” that the Anabaptists are wrong in this view, Featly touts with pride the fact those who teach that children do not need baptism have been persecuted unto death. The following words are his as he concludes his arguments.
…those Christian states accounted it no light error upon which they laid so heavie a load of punishment; in some places the broachers of this heresie, and practisers of rebaptizing have been punished with beheading, in some with drowning, and in some with burning. There is a law against this sect in the Code of Justinian, written with bloud [sic] rather than ink,
If any man be convicted to re-baptize any of the ministers of the Catholic sect, let him who hath committed this heinous crime, together with him whom he hath seduced to be re-baptized, suffer the stroak of death.
At Vienna the Anabaptists are tyed together with ropes, and one draweth the other into the river to be drowned… (57).
One familiar with today’s world events is shocked enough to read of Americans being beheaded by Muslim terrorists; how incongruous is it to read that some practiced this barbarous execution in the name of Protestant Christianity. It just shows how little the “clergy” and others knew of the Word of God to do such a horrific thing—and brag about it. Where did Jesus command His followers to execute those who failed to follow “orthodox” doctrine? The worst punishment ever commanded to someone who had departed from the faith was the withdrawal of fellowship. Did none of these “Christians” notice that killing those who disagreed with certain views was not authorized in the Scriptures?
They even made what they were doing sound almost Biblical. They considered that a person who taught others that infants did not need to be sprinkled and that those of age needed to be immersed had pulled them into error. So they had such individuals pull into the water anyone who had followed that teaching that they might both drown. They thought it was appropriate that, since “they drowned men spiritually by re-baptizing,” thus profaning the “holy sacrament,” for them to also be “drowned corporally” (57). Featly shows not one iota of remorse or regret for the way they treated the Anabaptists, which certainly calls into question his and others’ concept of Christian love.
This tenth argument does not prove the Anabaptists wrong; it only shows the intolerance and lack of compassion they had toward someone opposed to their beliefs. After observing the ten arguments that are supposed to prove that infant sprinkling ought to be practiced, all we know is that very few Scriptures were used—and then not properly (as in the three verses that were supposed to prove the apostles “baptized” infants).
Featly tried to make logical arguments, but he did not take the time to prove from the Scriptures his assertions. He relied on the fact that, since infant sprinkling had been done for centuries, the practice was therefore valid. He did not establish the claim from the Bible, and one source admitted that no one knew the beginning of it. Baptism remains only for those who first have faith.