Below I wrote on
and pointed out that Ursinus’ views on how people are converted by the word preached are views which he specifically limited to the case of adults, whereas infants are saved by a faith given in a different manner.
But Ursinus is the author of the Heidelberg Catechism. What does Heidelberg have to do with Westminster Abbey?
Why much in every way.
According to Drs. Scott Clark’s and Joel Beeke’s essay, “Ursinus, Oxford, and the Westminster Divines,” in the second volume of The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembl, edited by Lig Duncan, Ursinus was enormously influential in England and thus iss likely to have had a great influence on Westminster. They say:
Ursinus played a significant role in mediating Calvinism to Oxford. His connection with English Calvinism…lies first of all in the Heidelberg Catechism itself and secondarily in his lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism…. The Catechism was widely used in England and, in January 1579, Oxford University required that it “should be used for the extirpation of every heresy and the preparation of the youth in true piety.” It was the only catechism printed by the University.’ (pp. 9f.). Henry Parry’s 1587 translation of Ursinus’s lectures on the Catechism was the standard textbook in Oxford in the early seventeenth century (p. 12).
With that in mind, you might want to reread my post and ask yourself how likely it is that the Westminster Divines thought that what they said about the cognitive nature of faith and the need of the preached word to convert unbelievers was meant to apply to infants of believing parents being baptized and raised in the Faith.
Very interesting. I love how Southern Presbyterians have selective amnesia on: (1) how much influence the earlier Reformed theologians/confessions had and (2) the interaction (approving) that was occuring between the continent and the Westminster Assembly.
You would think the Westminster Standards were written in Charleston, SC by men wearing gray uniforms according to some.
Hey hey now, don’t forget what region of the country spawned your beloved hyper-covenantalism.
PS- There is nothing wrong with gray uniforms and/or exquisite beards.
Steven,
The Civil War is still very relevant to me…but the Meiji Restoration changed all that!
G’day Mark,
With regard to your comment/question on the status of Infants at the time of the writing of the WCF. Be sure to check out works by the English and Scottish Presbyterians here. Francis Roberts wrote a huge work on Federal Covenantalism, and in it he says that the children of believers are only externally called Christian. Samuel Rutherford in some of his works says the same.
On the other hand, Thomas Manton said that a seed of regeneration was inplanted in the infant and grows as the child matures.
Cornelius Burgess, not a Presbyterian, took the view that in baptism, the Spirit normally and naturally regenerates the infant. To my knowledge, Burgess’ position was not well received by the hardline folk like Rutherford.
I think all sides could theoretically acknowledge the statements in the WCF and yet all differ on exact meaning and implication.
Take care,
David
“I think all sides could theoretically acknowledge the statements in the WCF and yet all differ on exact meaning and implication.”
Yes. That is the point. How good it is for brothers to dwell together in unity.
You can add others to the mix: Stephen Marshall, Anthony Tuckney, Daniel Featley, Thomas Blake, etc.
None of them held to precisely the same position, though they all held that ordinarily the Spirit is already at work in elect covenant infants in same manner and that baptism has a role in that.