# Old School Presbyterians vs PCI on Romish baptism



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 16, 2014)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
OF THE 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND
[…]
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE, AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH 
FOREIGN CHURCHES​
Dr KILLEN, as Convener, read the following as the report of this Committee, and also subjoined letter from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, addressed to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland:-[…]

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND​
REV. AND DEAR BRETHREN, - […] The man of sin is determined to supercede us in the vast and beautiful inheritance of this our Western valley. He is sending from Europe myriads of men, darkened and enslaved to him; millions of money, managed by his wily priests to the best account which the wisdom of this world can dictate, in order to possess the land and control the destinies of this great Republic. Gorgeous temples are built; political power is courted; innumerable bands of virginity are formed; abounding and insidious efforts to seduce the children of Protestants into their schools are detected; and even the effrontery of demanding from the State an expulsion of the Bible from common schools, and a part of the public revenue to support their own education, has come on us to alarm and arouse our apathy.

At this meeting of the Assembly, held in Cincinnati, one of the strong centres of Popery in the United States, we have determined, with almost perfect unanimity, that ‘Baptism in the Church of Rome is not valid’, thus cutting loose the last embarrassment which entangled our arms in the conflict with Antichrist, and taking what we think at more important position in the advancing stage of this great controversy. Doubtless, your sympathies with our opposition to Romanism are greatly enlivened by the recent munificence of your Government to the College of Maynooth. It is but another development of essential ambition in this ‘mystery’ to blend herself with the arm of secular power, ‘to reign over kings,’ ‘to corrupt the earth with her fornication,’ and ‘deceive all nations with her sorceries.’ […]

May the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who hath loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work.

JOHN M. KREBS, Moderator
WILLIAM M. ENGLES, Stated Clerk.​Cincinnati, Ohio, May 27th, 1845. 

I herewith transmit eight copies of the printed minutes of the General Assembly, for the year 1845; on page sixteen of which may be found the action on slavery referred to in the foregoing letter.
WILLIAM M. ENGLES, S.C.​
The minutes were not in Court. […]


Mr [William] CROTTY [of Birr, and an ex-Roman Catholic priest] wished to advert to that part of the letter in which the American Church had declared baptism by the Roman Catholic Church to be invalid. He hoped the Assembly would not commit themselves by countenancing such a proceeding. If they did so the consequences would be, that they would deny their ministerial functions altogether, and unchristianise the whole Church. If the statement were true, Luther and Knox were never baptised. He protested against the position the had taken, and he thought the Assembly should intimate in their address that they did not concur with the proceeding.

Dr [Robert] STEWART [Broughshane] said it was a most important question that they had decided, and he agreed with the views entertained by Mr Crotty. The Jewish Church was exceedingly corrupt when Christ was on earth; and although the Scribes and Pharisees sat in it, yet He approved of the ordinances administered therein. He (Dr Stewart) would hesitate before he came to the decision to which the American Church had come; and the question was, should they take any notice of it at all. If they printed the letter it would appear that they had given their approval to it. (Cries of “No, no.”)

Mr [H. W.] MOLYNEAUX [First Larne] said, if they were understood to affirm the sentiments of every letter they published, they would have long since placed themselves in a very awkward situation.

The MODERATOR asked if it would not be better to submit the matter to a Committee for consideration. They were at present unprepared to come to a decision on so important a finding.

Mr [William] NIBLOCK [Second Donegal] said the Assembly had long since acknowledged the ordination of a Roman Catholic priest to be valid, and why not baptism?

The voice of the Court was in favour of leaving the matter to a Committee.

Banner of Ulster, 10 July 1846


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 16, 2014)

PCI messed that up didn't they...


----------



## Warren (Dec 16, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Dr [Robert] STEWART [Broughshane] said ... The Jewish Church was exceedingly corrupt when Christ was on earth; and although the Scribes and Pharisees sat in it, yet He approved of the ordinances administered therein.


I've never considered that. Christ can see their hearts, in the apostate church. He knows whether someone's father is satan or God. Speaking again of the synagogue, he knew if their outward circumcision wasn't genuine _at heart_, but this was no reason to throw out their circumcision. They were cursed for believing in the sign, but not believing in he who gave it. As circumcision was the type preceding water baptism, circumcision should tell us how to interpret baptism, and what it tells us is baptism can only be administered once. At that point, what God does with that individual, whether to bless or to curse, is his judgment not ours. Am I right?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 16, 2014)

I don't want to be controversial here. I am grateful that God looks at us with much Mercy. As a Reformed Baptist I defended my stance vigorously. We have had threads about the Covenant and how God looks upon them who have not been baptized and how God looks upon those who have invalid baptisms. 

By the 1800's we know the Catholic Church to have been Apostate. Of course we also have to defend against Baptismal Regeneration. If Baptism depends on a perfect understanding then I imagine many of our forefather's actions have been invalid. Even their own. I am grateful for the Mercy and Grace God grants to his Elect and seed. 

I have taken the stance that Roman Baptism is invalid for years as I sit upon the shoulders of our Southern Presbyterian Heritage. But I have to admit that God was merciful to me as a Reformed Baptist also. I am grateful that nothing but the blood of Jesus atones and that nothing but His grace is sufficient. I praise the Father for such love. Thanks be to the Spirit for bringing us life to come to Christ and love Him who the Father has exalted.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 16, 2014)

I want to also make known that a Father's sin does pass unto the child. Most who have been Baptized in the Roman Church remain as their Father's do not repent. Baptism can be idolatry also. I agree with Thornwell and the stance from the PCUS above. I believe that an RC Baptism should be invalid as much as a Mormon or any other Non-Christian Cultures baptism should be. But God is merciful, gracious, and loves his children.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I want to also make known that a Father's sin does pass unto the child. Most who have been Baptized in the Roman Church remain as their Father's do not repent. Baptism can be idolatry also. I agree with Thornwell and the stance from the PCUS above. I believe that an RC Baptism should be invalid as much as a Mormon or any other Non-Christian Cultures baptism should be. But God is merciful, gracious, and loves his children.



Is baptism ever dependent upon the person baptizing?


----------



## Warren (Dec 17, 2014)

However, and you are my elder Mr. Snyder, even after the Council of Trent, once the Romans had anathematized the Protestants, the Reformers didn't add Roman baptism to the five illegitimate sacraments, and neither did the Covenanters of the Solemn League and Nat'l Covenant of Scotland in the Second Reformation, after years more of persecution and Roman heresy.

I believe the Romans are baptised into Jesus Christ, to their own judgment (or salvation, should God really change one), just as the mixed multitude with Israel were baptised unto Moses. (Although Israel did again have to pass through the water of Jordan...)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 17, 2014)

Scott Bushey said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I want to also make known that a Father's sin does pass unto the child. Most who have been Baptized in the Roman Church remain as their Father's do not repent. Baptism can be idolatry also. I agree with Thornwell and the stance from the PCUS above. I believe that an RC Baptism should be invalid as much as a Mormon or any other Non-Christian Cultures baptism should be. But God is merciful, gracious, and loves his children.
> ...



No. But that doesn't mean that Baptism is always valid either does it Scott?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



Well, yea, the sign and thing signified are not one and the same.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 17, 2014)

"The PCA's Peru Mission wrote a powerful report in 2004 on the question of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. Its anthology of pre and post-Trent (that is, Council of Trent) authorities included Calvin, Beza, Perkins, Turretin, Rutherford, Baxter, Hodge and the Westminster Assembly, all of whom agree that RC baptism was valid. Turretin and Baxter in particular to me were helpful distinguishing how it is that baptism by certain heretics (Roman Catholics, for example) is still valid, while baptism by other heretics (Arians, Mormons, etc.). It was not until the 1840s that the Reformed Church thought otherwise."

R. Andrew Myers


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2014)

The confusion on this issue appears, to my mind at least, to arise out of a failure to recognize that baptism is a sacrament of Christ - and it remains Christ's sacrament, even if its meaning is distorted by men and misappropriated for corrupt ends. Rome has corrupted the ordinance of Christ, but that does not mean that it is no longer Christ's ordinance. Hence, Romish baptism is irregular, but valid.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2014)

Scott Bushey said:


> Turretin and Baxter in particular to me were helpful distinguishing how it is that baptism by certain heretics (Roman Catholics, for example) is still valid, while baptism by other heretics (Arians, Mormons, etc.). It was not until the 1840s that the Reformed Church thought otherwise.



Scott, I know this is Andrew's comment, but do you happen to know where Richard Baxter deals with this subject. Is it in _A Christian Directory_, perhaps?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 17, 2014)

This is going on with the rising tide of RC immigration then? 


Scott Bushey said:


> "It was not until the 1840s that the Reformed Church thought otherwise."


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 17, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The confusion on this issue appears, to my mind at least, to arise out of a failure to recognize that baptism is a sacrament of Christ - and it remains Christ's sacrament, even if its meaning is distorted by men and misappropriated for corrupt ends. Rome has corrupted the ordinance of Christ, but that does not mean that it is no longer Christ's ordinance. Hence, Romish baptism is irregular, but valid.



I don't think the dissenters would disagree with that, but rather they would contend that it is Christ's sacrament given to the church. Part of the older case (e.g. Turretin) for the validity of Romish baptism, in addition to using the correct formula, was that "There are still remains of the church in the papacy (Rev. 18:4) and God has not yet wholly left that church. Now baptism is proper to the church and is administered for him, although by very corrupt ministers." (IET 19.Q18.XIV). In other words, even for them it was not only a matter of the form of the rite and it being ultimately of Christ but also the ministration of it. Turretin also writes "The sacrament is the property of the church, which is administered in her name and in her faith". Most Reformed dissenters to the validity of Romish baptism, therefore, are not so disputing with the older theologians on what constitutes the ground and nature of a valid baptism, but over specific assumptions regarding the nature of the Roman church. 

Turretin, of course, was a post-Tridentine Reformed theologian which does complicate the dissenter's position which is usually based on seeing a difference in the character of the Roman church in the magisterial Reformers' day and the Tridentine church, but I do wonder whether those who make the validity of baptism depend solely on the formula and mode of administration are missing an important churchly aspect of it.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 17, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> God has not yet wholly left that church



You sure of this for today???? I understand for Turretin, but today can you say this? Their beliefs are that any who believe in justification by faith alone are to be accursed. They deny the Gospel, how can they be of the visible Church when it is not preached? They don't have the marks of the Church.




Scott Bushey said:


> PCA's Peru Mission wrote



Not the best group to support. This is the same group who his very close ties to FV (Jeff Myers, etc). 

Also that quote you quoted refers to the person of the minister ('heretics'). The Standards are clear that it depend not on the person of the minister. A better question might be are priests 'lawfully ordained'. And of course is the papacy part of the visible church.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 17, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > God has not yet wholly left that church
> ...



Turretin was post-Trent, as I mentioned. They already had, institutionally, declared that those who believed in the Reformed doctrines of grace to be anathema and had been acting accordingly for over a century by the time Turretin wrote the above. He explicitly denied that Rome has the marks of the church, and yet he wasn't so quick to be absolute in his pronouncements. To quote him again (from 18.Q14.III): 



> "The church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view (_schesei_): either as it is Christian with regard to the profession of Christianity and gospel truth which it retains; or papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths and contrary to the word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it.... In this sense we confess that it can still improperly be called a Christian church in a threefold respect. First, with respect o the people of God or the elect still remaining in it, who are ordered to come out of her, even at the time of the destruction of Babylon (Rev 18:4). (2) With respect o the external form or certain ruins of a scattered church, in which its traces are seen ot this day, both with respect to the word of God and the preaching of it (which, although corrupted, still remains in her); and with respect to the administration of the sacraments and especially of baptism, which is still preserved entire in her as to substance. (3) With respect to Christian and evangelical truths concerning the one and triune God, Christ the God-man (_theanthropo_) Mediator, his incarnation, death and resurrection and other heads of doctrine by which she is distinguished from assemblies of pagans and infidels."



He of course denies that she can be "simply and properly called a true church", but he makes important and relevant distinctions there. He wrote this, however, even seeing great purges and persecutions of Protestants by the Roman Catholics. If anything, the Roman church was even more corrupt and less friendly to evangelical truth in those days than today.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This is going on with the rising tide of RC immigration then?



Yes, alongside the growth of Nativism, Manifest Destiny, and so on. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. went to war with Mexico, a country dominated by Rome.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 17, 2014)

Chris, I was taking Turretin's quote and asking about TODAY, not Turretin...can you really say today that Papacy is part of the visible church when they don't have the marks of the church.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 17, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Chris, I was taking Turretin's quote and asking about TODAY, not Turretin...can you really say today that Papacy is part of the visible church when they don't have the marks of the church.



Yes, I gathered that was what you meant. Perhaps I was not clear as I should have been--apologies!-- but what I was trying to get across is that I don't see how you can draw a sharp distinction between the Roman church of today and that of Turretin's day. Anything you could say about Rome and the marks of the church today you could say then. If anything they are _more_ tolerant of evangelical truth today than they were in his day (though I wouldn't press that too far).


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 17, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > This is going on with the rising tide of RC immigration then?
> ...



It should be noted that anti-Catholic sentiment was hardly at a low water mark among Irish Protestants at the time either, with suppression of the Orangemen and eventually all of the issues surrounding Home Rule. It's interesting that the PCI seemed to resist the temptation to allow such things to color their perception of the issue.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2014)

TheOldCourse said:


> It should be noted that anti-Catholic sentiment was hardly at a low water mark among Irish Protestants at the time either, with suppression of the Orangemen and eventually all of the issues surrounding Home Rule. It's interesting that the PCI seemed to resist the temptation to allow such things to color their perception of the issue.



Yes, though they had been a minority among Irish RCs for a long time (while being the majority in East Ulster); the Americans operated in somewhat different circumstances.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 17, 2014)

Scott Bushey said:


> Turretin and Baxter in particular to me were helpful distinguishing how it is that baptism by certain heretics (Roman Catholics, for example) is still valid, while baptism by other heretics (Arians, Mormons, etc.).



while baptism by other heretics (Arians, Mormons, etc.) Scott, am I missing part of the quote. That seems to be an incomplete sentence. While baptism by other heretics.... What?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 18, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > Turretin and Baxter in particular to me were helpful distinguishing how it is that baptism by certain heretics (Roman Catholics, for example) is still valid, while baptism by other heretics (Arians, Mormons, etc.).
> ...



Randy,
That was a quote from Andrew Myers. I believe he left off, 'by other heretics' were not.


----------

