# Cunningham's View of Baptism/History



## The Original Secession (Dec 11, 2020)

William Cunningham the 19th Century Free Church father argued that Baptism as an ordinance is best understood when thinking of an adult being Baptized and not an infant(below are a list of quotes on the subject):


" Baptism ,as well as the Lord's Supper , is ... presented to us in the New Testament ; and it is from the case of adult participation that we ought to form our general views and impressions of the meaning and design of these ordinances . It tends to greatly introduce obscurity and confusion into our whole conceptions upon the subject of baptism , that we see it ordinarily administered to infants , and very seldom to adults . This leads us insensibly to form very defective and erroneous conceptions of its design and effect." _Historical Theology_ Vol. 2., Pg 125.


"We ought to remember , that we ought to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of baptism from the baptism of adults." _Historical Theology_ Vol 2. Pg. 126


"The general tenor of Scripture language upon the subject of baptism applies primarily and directly to the baptism of adults , and proceeds upon the assumption , that the profession implied in the reception of baptism by adults , - the profession , that is , that they had already been led to believe in Christ , and to receive Him as their Saviour and their Master , -- was sincere , or corresponded with the real state of their minds and hearts . It is necessary , therefore , to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of the objects and effects of baptism ... from the baptism of adults and not infants."_ Historical Theology _Vol 2. Pg 144.

In his work _Reformers and Theology of the Reformation _Cunningham seemingly argued that the Reformed tradition and Confessions had Adult Baptism in mind and not infant when fleshing out the doctrine of Baptism(Quotes below):

"This principle of construction is a perfectly fair and natural one. It has always been a fundamental principle in the theology of Protestants, that the sacraments were instituted and intended for believers, and produce their appropriate beneficial effects, only through the faith which must have previously existed, and which is expressed and exercised in the act of partaking in them. This being a fundamental and recognised principle in the Protestant theology of the sacraments, it was quite natural that it should be assumed and taken into account in giving a general description of their objects and effects. And the application of this principle of interpretation to the wdiole deliverances of the Westminster divines upon the subject of the sacraments, in the Confession of Faith and in the Larger Catechism as well as in the Shorter, introduces clearness and consistency into them all, whereas the disregard of it involves them in confusion, and inconsistency." _Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation., _Pg. 244.

"In looking more closely at the doctrines of Protestant churches upon this subject, it is necessary to remember, not only that, as we have already ex plained, they usually assume, in their general statements, that the persons partaking in the sacraments are duly prepared, or possessed of the necessary preliminary qualifications, but also that, when statements are made which are intended to apply equally to baptism and the Lord’s Supper ; or, when the general object and design of baptism are set forth in the abstract, they have in their view, and take into their account, only adult baptism, the baptism of those who, after they have come to years of understanding, ask and obtain admission into the visible church by being baptized." _Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation., _Pg. 245.


"Adult baptism, then, exhibits the original and fundamental idea of the ordinance, as it is usually brought before us, and as it is directly and formally spoken about in the New Testament. And when baptism is contemplated in this light, there is no more difficulty in forming a distinct and definite conception regarding it than regarding the Lord’s Supper. Of adult baptism, we can say, just as we do of the Lord’s Supper, that it is in every instance, according to the general doctrine of Protestants, either the sign and seal of a faith and a regeneration previously existing, already effected by God’s grace,'—or else that the reception of it was a hypocritical profession of a state of mind and feeling which has no existence." _Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation., _Pg. 246.


Alright my question is, where does he get his view that the Protestant churches believed when thinking of the Sacraments they were primarily thinking of adults? Can anyone give me someone else(aside from Bannerman or a Baptist) that holds to similar views? Can a Puritan, Scholastic, or Reformer be shown that clearly articulates similar views to that of Cunningham? Has anyone else thought that the Westminster Standards when speaking of Baptism are using adults as the "type" or "embodiment of the ordinance"? In sum is there a historical precedent for Cunningham's view?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> Alright my question is, where does he get his view that the Protestant churches believed when thinking of the Sacraments they were primarily thinking of adults? Can anyone give me someone else(aside from Bannerman or a Baptist) that holds to similar views?



It's a fairly explosive question and it raises questions like, "Was Cunningham secretly embarrassed by Calvin's sign and seal language?" That might not be charitable, but it's hard to read Calvin on baptism (and the Supper) and come to the conclusions that Cunningham does.

Cunningham might also be responding to the Oxford Movement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Original Secession (Dec 11, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's a fairly explosive question and it raises questions like, "Was Cunningham secretly embarrassed by Calvin's sign and seal language?" That might not be charitable, but it's hard to read Calvin on baptism (and the Supper) and come to the conclusions that Cunningham does.
> 
> Cunningham might also be responding to the Oxford Movement.


While I suppose Cunningham could entertain some views which I am not sure that I agree with, I do feel a need to be careful. Cunningham was more intelligent than I. He also did some great work, and in relation to Baptism I want to know why he believed what he believed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> While I suppose Cunningham could entertain some views which I am not sure that I agree with, I do feel a need to be careful. Cunningham was more intelligent than I. He also did some great work, and in relation to Baptism I want to know why he believed what he believed.



19th century Presbyterianism was at best indifferent and at times hostile to Calvin's sacramentology (I think Dabney called it nonsense).

To answer your question, some have suggested it had something to do with Common sense realism. Since I hold to a mild form of CSR, and I hold to Calvin's, not Cunningham's view, I don't think that is true.


----------



## Douglas Somerset (Dec 11, 2020)

I am not sure that this goes very far towards answering the question, but I would think of the things symbolised by baptism (union with Christ, separation from the world, inward washing and renewing) as most commonly seen in adults or teenagers and rather seldom in younger children. Is this roughly what Cunningham is saying? And is he not then reacting to formalism in the "Moderate" Church of Scotland and sacramentalism in the Church of England?

It is a seal of the Covenant, and hence administered to infants, but it symbolises things which generally appear only later on in life.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## The Original Secession (Dec 11, 2020)

Douglas Somerset said:


> I am not sure that this goes very far towards answering the question, but I would think of the things symbolised by baptism (union with Christ, separation from the world, inward washing and renewing) as most commonly seen in adults or teenagers and rather seldom in younger children. Is this roughly what Cunningham is saying? And is he not then reacting to formalism in the "Moderate" Church of Scotland and sacramentalism in the Church of England?
> 
> It is a seal of the Covenant, and hence administered to infants, but it symbolises things which generally appear only later on in life.


Dr. Somerset, 

I am not really sure what he is saying I suppose. Did anyone else ever argue in favor of his view about Protestant history? By the way I agree throughly with your assessment about adults and teenagers and seldom younger children.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> I am not really sure what he is saying I suppose. Did anyone else ever argue in favor of his view about Protestant history? By the way I agree throughly with your assessment about adults and teenagers and seldom younger children.



My understanding is that most of conservative 19th century Presbyterianism held to this view. They wanted to react against Schaff and Nevin on one hand and the Oxford Movement on the other.


----------



## The Original Secession (Dec 11, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My understanding is that most of conservative 19th century Presbyterianism held to this view. They wanted to react against Schaff and Nevin on one hand and the Oxford Movement on the other.



Maybe in the states they did, but Cunningham(though he visited America) was a Scot. I also would love to tease out the affect of Mercesburg(spelling?) on American Reformed Theology.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2020)

The Original Secession said:


> Maybe in the states they did, but Cunningham(though he visited America) was a Scot. I also would love to tease out the affect of Mercesburg(spelling?) on American Reformed Theology.



I don't see any practical difference between Cunning, Dabney, and Thornwell on this point.


----------

