# Stephen Marshall's defense of padeobaptism



## kamunk73 (Jan 20, 2014)

"Secondly, God seales to them presently, their name is put into the _deed_, and when they come to years of discretion to be _adulti_, then in their own persons they stand obliged to the performance of it; in the meantime _Jesus Christ_, who is the surety of the Covenant, and the surety of all the Covenanters, is pleased to be their surety,(the margin cites Hebrews 7:22) we know when several parties stand obliged in the same bond, they may seal at several times and yet be in force afterward together; or even a child sealing in infancy, may _agonize_ and _recognize_ that sealing, when they come to years of discretion; if then they will renounce it, as done when they understood not, they may free themselves if they please, if they find the former act an inconvenience or burden to them: so is it here, God of his infinite mercy is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such, and accepts of such a seal on their parts, as they are able to give in their infant age, expecting a further ratification on their part, when they come to riper years, in the mean time affording them them the favor and privilege of being in Covenant with him and being reckoned unto his kingdom and family, rather then of devils; if when they are grown men they refuse to stand to this covenant there is no hurt done on God's part, let them serve another God and take their lot for time to come."

From 'A Sermon on the Baptizing of Infants. preached in the Abbey Church at Westminster at the morning Lecture, appointed by the Honorable House of Commons. By Stephen Marshall, page 49


As I have been reading some Stephen Marshall several questions have been bouncing around in my head concerning this quote. Historically this sermon was disputed by John Tombes, to which Marshall wrote a long critique of Mr. Tombes, defending his own views presented in the sermon.

1. Is this an appropriate use and understanding of Hebrew 7:22. If Christ is the surety of a better covenant, a surety for these infants as Marshall states, are we inclined to understand Christ's relationship to these infants as detailed in Hebrews 7:23-28. That as surety he is the everliving priest who intercedes and lays down a sacrifice for the people. 

2.A. Since Marshall was a composer of the Westminster Confession and statements like this seem to make the claim that the children are in the covenant by grace and can leave it by works are we inclined to allow some alternative views of Baptism find a home under the WCF or 2.B. How much weight are we to give to writings of the divines in understanding the broadness of the umbrella of the confession


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 20, 2014)

kamunk73 said:


> 1. Is this an appropriate use and understanding of Hebrew 7:22. If Christ is the surety of a better covenant, a surety for these infants as Marshall states, are we inclined to understand Christ's relationship to these infants as detailed in Hebrews 7:23-28. That as surety he is the everliving priest who intercedes and lays down a sacrifice for the people.
> 
> 2.A. Since Marshall was a composer of the Westminster Confession and statements like this seem to make the claim that the children are in the covenant by grace and can leave it by works are we inclined to allow some alternative views of Baptism find a home under the WCF or 2.B. How much weight are we to give to writings of the divines in understanding the broadness of the umbrella of the confession



1. Yes, in the same way that all members of the visible Church are considered, visibly, to have an interest in Christ as their Mediator - that is, with the understanding that some of them, both adults and infants, may actually have no part in Christ as their Mediator, invisibly.

2. The claim is that children are visibly in the covenant of grace (as Esau, for example, was) and can - like adult believers - leave the Church and prove themselves to have no part in the Church invisible.


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2014)

Good questions. The Marshall/Tombes interaction is very useful for investigating some deeper issues which do not tend to be raised today, as well as having historico-theoiogical interest for confessional interpretation.

1. Marshall's statement needs to be placed within the contours of his own thought which included the invisible-visible and elect-profession distinction. The invisible church made up of all the elect are saved by Christ under the covenant of grace, including elect infants. The visible church made up of professing believers and their children are given the judgment of charity according to their profession. Infants are brought up in the profession of the faith on the understanding that they will themselves personally come to profess faith. God is pleased by this means to bring His elect to faith. Hence the Catechism teaches them to look upon Christ as "our" prophet, priest, and king. Should they fall away they will be similar to adult professing believers who have fallen away and regarded as only externally and formally joined to Christ, not inwardly and really united to Him.

2. Marshall's view is typical of reformed divines of the period and reflects the theology of the Standards.

A slight clarification on the wording of the question -- there is no indication that faith and works operate differently with regard to coming into and continuing in the covenant. Salvation is a revelation of grace. There is an external offer of salvation which requires faith to receive it. This grace, as revealed and offered, is received in vain if it is not received with true, saving faith. Works are the evidence and fruit of faith. There is no requirement of works as a condition of remaining in covenant; they are the manifestation of a genuine and lively faith.


----------

