Membership Has Its Privileges
Nov 9, 2016
If you were to travel back in time and ask the members of the Westminster Assembly for some helpful resources on the subject of infant baptism they would probably have directed you to the recent publications of one of their own, Stephen Marshall. Marshall’s lecture on this topic was published in 1644, and then his book defending his lecture from John Tombes’ critique came off the presses in 1646. In the first publication Marshall presented two arguments in favor of infant baptism, both of which I have found to be quite common within the Reformed tradition. The first argument is that infants of believing parents (i.e. covenant children) should be baptized because they are “within the Covenant of Grace.” This point is fairly straightforward and is probably the one most people know the best. The other argument, however, is not as simple and I think is easily misunderstood; and so, I want to look at it more closely in this article.
Marshall argued that covenant children ought to be baptized because they partake of the spiritual realities signified and sealed by baptism. This is an argument from the greater to the lesser. Since they possess the reality (the greater) then they ought to receive the sign (the lesser). This is exactly how the apostle Peter reasoned in order to show that Cornelius should be baptized (Acts 10:44-48; 11:15-17) as Marshall himself pointed out. Here is the argument in Marshall’s own words:
To whom the inward grace of Baptism doth belong, to them belongs the outward sign, they ought to have the signe, who have the thing signifyed; the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to them who have the heavenly part:but the Infants of beleevers, even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme, of the heavenly and spirituall part, as well as grown men:therefore they may, and ought to receive the outward sign of Baptism.
At this point it would be easy to think that Marshall is saying that the ground for infant baptism is their regeneration. This would be different from baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration would say that we baptize infants so that they will be regenerated; whereas this argument seems to be saying that we baptize them because they are already regenerated. However, since not all baptized infants are saved and regeneration cannot be lost (at least according to Reformed teaching), it might seem safer and more consistent to conclude that this argument is only advocating a presumptive regeneration. Thus, Marshall is only saying that we baptize infants because we presume that they are regenerated. The problem with this interpretation is that that is not what Marshall said. He didn’t use the word “presume” or even suggest it. His words were much stronger: infants are made partakers of the inward grace.
So how then are we to understand this argument? The point is not that all covenant infants receive the inward grace of baptism before they are baptized but that they are capable of receiving it and that some in fact do receive it. One of the arguments against infant baptism was that infants were incapable of the spiritual blessings signified by baptism. Thus, they shouldn’t receive the sign because they don’t possess the reality. Following his Reformed predecessors, Marshall argued the opposite. Infants are just as capable as adults of partaking of the inward grace signified by baptism. Indeed, if they weren’t then we “must deny that any Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ.” The point then is not that all covenant infants are regenerated but that their covenant membership is not in vain. Covenant membership entails participation in covenant benefits. That is as true for infants as it is for adults. Covenant infants are members of the covenant of grace (the first argument), even as their parents are; and they do, as infants, partake of the covenant’s saving benefits (the second argument), even as their parents do. Membership, indeed, has its privileges. Hence, since they partake of the reality, they ought to partake of the sign.
Once again, this is not an argument for infant baptism on the basis of regeneration or presumptive regeneration. In addressing objections to his argument, Marshall noted that “fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in administering of Sacraments, either to Infants or grown men, but a known rule of the word.” The apostles baptized adults, such as Simon Magus and Ananias, “not because they conjectured that the parties were inwardly sanctified but because they made that profession of faith and holinesse of which they were sure.” We simply cannot know for sure if the infant or adult baptizand is regenerated or not. We may have more confidence in the case of an adult by the simple fact that we are able to see some (fallible) evidence of conversion. But we still can’t know for sure, and the basis or ground for baptism, according to Marshall, is not what we cannot know for sure but what we can know for sure. What we know for sure is “the will of Christ” as to who should be “received into the communion of the Church” and thus “made partakers of the seale of their entrance.” The will or command of Christ is thus the ground for infant baptism, as it is for adult baptism; and it is this:
That growne men who were strangers from the Covenant of God, Unbelievers, Pagans, Heathens, should upon their being instructed, and upon profession of their faith and promise to walke according to the rule of the Covenant; bee received and added to the Church, and made partakers of the seale of their entrance, and their Infants to come in with them.
The second argument for infant baptism then is that infants partake of the inward reality and therefore they should receive the sign. This of course is true of adults. If adults didn’t or were unable to possess the grace signified by baptism, then they shouldn’t be baptized. But we don’t normally dispute this point because adults are required to profess faith and a profession of faith is evidence of regeneration. Infants are incapable of showing the fruit of regeneration but we must not conclude from this that they are incapable of regeneration and thus incapable of possessing the realities signified and sealed by baptism. Infants of believers are covenant members and they partake of covenant blessings, including regeneration. They, therefore, ought to be baptized.
