# Cuthbert Sidenham: anti-paedobaptism as a worse error than uninspired hymns



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 3, 2021)

I have treated on these two subjects, because I know they are the tempting errours of these Times, and have the fairest glosses set on them, and have too much influence to disturb the Peace and Order of Churches:

The first [anti-paedobaptism] especially, which eats out men’s affections, and creeps at the heart like a gangrene insensibly; an opinion which hath been always ominous, and of a wonderful strange influence, accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errors, since the first Embryo of it was brought forth; whether by a judgment of God, or from its natural and secret connexion with other principles of darkness, I will not determine; only God hath shewed some black characters on it in every Nation where it hath prevailed; though we cannot but say, many Saints are innocently under the power of it.

For the second [error, uninspired hymns], I hope when men’s hearts come in Tune, their voices will likewise: The former denies more Fundamental Principles, as the Covenant in its extent, and subjects; the freeness of Grace; the riches of its workings in the New Testament; and contracts the Gospel; leaving more Grace visible in the Legal and Old Testament dispensation, then in the New.

For the reference, see Cuthbert Sidenham: anti-paedobaptism as a worse error than uninspired hymns.

N.B. I have been worshipping with credo-baptist, exclusive psalm-singers quite a bit recently, as they are one of the few places open. Still, the above extract is interesting for understanding how grave an error anti-paedobaptism was considered to be.


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Mar 3, 2021)

I would submit both are the result of autonomous man centered worship.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 3, 2021)

No doubt it has historically been taken seriously. But I'm trying to figure out if this is an opening to a debate or discussion.

I'll admit that upon hearing I am considered to have a gangrenous heart and may be among some of the black characters, I find it hard for me to join in with irenity.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 4, 2021)

My very dear brother,

In spite of our doctrinal differences, I am ordinarily, very much gratified by your posts on this board. I often derive great benefit even from those posts which are written from a paedobaptist perspective. This post, however, is something I would hope your knowledge of Baptist brethren, like myself on this board, to be too far beneath our character to repeat. I would sincerely, and respectfully ask you to withdraw this post.


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 4, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I would sincerely, and respectfully ask you to withdraw this post.


As offensive (and I presume against the rules of the board) as it is for someone to offer the extract from Cuthbert Sidenham as an opinion they hold to, surely it is acceptable to post this as an example of a historic position, which I believe based on the nota bene to be the motivation for the post?

To remove it because it is bringing to light a historic position in the church is surely just the so-called Cancel Culture?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 4, 2021)

pmachapman said:


> To remove it because it is bringing to light a historic position in the church is surely just the so-called Cancel Culture?


"Cancel culture" doesn't ask you anything. It just cancels you. My post was offered as a request from one brother in Christ to another. Please, don't devolve this board into the likes of facebook and twitter.


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 4, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Please, don't devolve this board into the likes of facebook and twitter.


I apologise, I did not mean to. Perhaps I chose the wrong term regarding "cancel culture" (something I am getting conflicting definitions of from Christians online). Given the current climate of making "hate speech" illegal (and given the modern definition of hate speech, you can have that extract defined as such), I guess I believe that hostile opinions can be aired in an public setting if not done in a combative or belligerent way.

If you don't believe me that the original post can be labelled as hate speech, someone once left a scathing review of my Creeds and Confessions Android app labelling it blasphemous for including the LBCF. Google labelled his comment hate speech and removed the review.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 4, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> My very dear brother,
> 
> In spite of our doctrinal differences, I am ordinarily, very much gratified by your posts on this board. I often derive great benefit even from those posts which are written from a paedobaptist perspective. This post, however, is something I would hope your knowledge of Baptist brethren, like myself on this board, to be too far beneath our character to repeat. I would sincerely, and respectfully ask you to withdraw this post.



It is a disinterested quotation. I sometimes post things with which I do not fully agree. You should not take offence at facts concerning an old divine's opinions on anti-paedobaptism any more than I should take offence at someone posting John Gill's thoughts on paedobaptism, which were not too flattering. We need to know these things if only so that we know why we disagree with them. If you re-read it, you will note that the author is not making a judgment about anyone's spiritual state. He says that "many Saints are innocently under the power of it [anti-paedobaptism]." This comment implies that Sidenham thought that many true believers had embraced the error in question. His earlier remarks ought to be read in light of that qualification.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 4, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> No doubt it has historically been taken seriously. But I'm trying to figure out if this is an opening to a debate or discussion.
> 
> I'll admit that upon hearing I am considered to have a gangrenous heart and may be among some of the black characters, I find it hard for me to join in with irenity.



I probably ought to have posted it in the paedobaptist only sub-forum, which I momentarily forgot existed. What I find interesting in the above extract is not so much his view of Baptists as such, but his opinion that anti-paedobaptism is a more serious error than uninspired hymns. This point raises a practical dilemma for Reformed people who are EP. Because EP is an issue that presents itself to the average church member on a weekly basis, one could see why an EPer might go to an EP Baptist church before going to a non-EP Reformed church. However, if Cuthbert Sidenham is correct then such an approach indicates that people have gotten their priorities the wrong way around.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2021)

Daniel’s _nota bene_ is the most important part of this post. He was clearly not posting it as something he believes, but rather to give light to a historical situation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Mar 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have treated on these two subjects, because I know they are the tempting errours of these Times, and have the fairest glosses set on them, and have too much influence to disturb the Peace and Order of Churches:
> 
> The first [anti-paedobaptism] especially, which eats out men’s affections, and creeps at the heart like a gangrene insensibly; an opinion which hath been always ominous, and of a wonderful strange influence, accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errors, since the first Embryo of it was brought forth; whether by a judgment of God, or from its natural and secret connexion with other principles of darkness, I will not determine; only God hath shewed some black characters on it in every Nation where it hath prevailed; though we cannot but say, many Saints are innocently under the power of it.
> 
> ...



I actually like the quote and think the historical context is one that should never be forgotten. Rather than find it offensive I think it is a good reminder that the work of reforming the Church wasn't over in the 17th century and it isn't over now.

Thanks for posting this Daniel. Do you happen to have any links to John Tombes' response to Sidenham's views on baptism? I'm interested in reading his critique.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Mar 4, 2021)

I would suggest to my Baptist brethren that you set aside your feelings on the quote. You know very well what the Presbyterian / Paedobaptist view of anti-paedobaptism is.

I mean, it's right here in the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"...* it be a great sin* to contemn or neglect this ordinance ... " WCF 28.5

You may be surprised to hear that in their view, we Baptists "contemn or neglect" this ordinance with respect to our children.

And I as a Baptist feel equally about the misuse of Baptism for unfit subjects, like infants, but we all get along (I think) because our common ground is firmer than our differences.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> What I find interesting in the above extract is not so much his view of Baptists as such, but his opinion that anti-paedobaptism is a more serious error than uninspired hymns.


Thanks for clarifying.

To be clear, this forum invites discussion on the broader issue of baptism. The topic fits here or in paedo forum depending on whom you'd like to have engaging.

I think we all can handle the fact that we can find some real zinger quotes in our history of differences and agreements. My confusion was what kind of discussion would follow:

These were the thoughts that came to my mind: 

Is it about:

1. The lead quote and its conclusory warnings?
2. The appropriateness of name-calling in rhetoric in modern times?
3. Which should I avoid more: baptists or hymns-singers?

(I've put my own semi-biased gloss on the above).

All worthy topics, and, to be sure, potentially explosive.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Mar 4, 2021)

Daniel,

I think the quote is of importance from a historical perspective. Perhaps in the future it may be helpful to write some kind of explanation as to the _purpose_ of sharing the quote, especially when the tone is less than irenic. I recall you sharing things before that you disagreed with to one extent or another, yet you posted it _with an explanation/disclaimer_ (as I recall, one was about the sincere offer). It is certainly fair to say that many from both baptism persuasions believe the "other side" to be in sin. It is also fair to say that both persuasions should employ grace to the other side both in word _and tone_. 

That my  anyway.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 4, 2021)

Both those works have been around and are updated and available at Puritan Publications since 2016:

A Gospel-Ordinance Concerning the Singing of Scripture Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs by Cuthbert Sydenham (1622–1654)
A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism – by Cuthbert Sydenham (1622–1654)

Just FYI.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 4, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You should not take offence at facts concerning an old divine's opinions on anti-paedobaptism any more than I should take offence at someone posting John Gill's thoughts on paedobaptism, which were not too flattering.


I don't take offense to arguments for infant baptism or against my own view. I do take offense to this man's statements on the grounds that they do not advance an argument, but only give vent to his apparent hatred and bigotry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 4, 2021)

B.L. said:


> Thanks for posting this Daniel. Do you happen to have any links to John Tombes' response to Sidenham's views on baptism? I'm interested in reading his critique.



EEBO is your best port of call if you need such sources. Here is one of John Tombes' responses to several other paedobaptists: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A94731.0001.001?view=toc

If you scroll down this link, you will find several works by Tombes dealing with baptism and replying to various defences of infant baptism. On the first inspection, I do not see anything directly addressing Cuthbert Sidenham's arguments. Maybe they are dealt with in some of the books in that link, though given the nature of titles in those days, which usually told you exactly what the book was about, I am surprised not to see Sidenham's name in any of them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 4, 2021)

I remember perhaps ten years ago when I was a Baptist, I found the work of a renowned pedobaptist, against credobaptism. I won’t mention the name. The cover art was a heart split in two by a crack, parents with noses haughtily turned up on one side, a child in tears on the other. The apparent message seemed to be clear: Baptists parents are snooty and don’t love their children.

It was a real turnoff to me. Obviously my position on baptism has changed, but it takes a lot to get over such things. What Baptist would want to read the work after such a gross mischaracterization?

Perhaps for historical value we might bring these things up, but there is a reaction to come up with them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

