Thomas Vincent on Baptism

The Public Square
1

I happened to be skimming through Thomas Vincent’s The Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture today. I am admittedly not familiar with Vincent at all, and am not well-read on such commentaries.

Concerning baptism, question 94, he writes:

Q. 10. What are the benefits of the covenant of grace, which by
baptism we are made partakers of?
A. The benefits of the covenant of grace, which by baptism we are
made partakers of, are–

  1. Admission into the visible Church. “Go, teach all nations,
    baptizing them,” etc. --Matthew 28:19.
  2. Remission of sins by Christ’s blood. “Be baptized every one of you
    in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” --Acts 2:38.
  3. Regeneration and sanctification by Christ’s Spirit. “According to
    his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing
    of the Holy Ghost.” --Titus 3:5.
  4. Adoption, together with our union unto Christ. “For ye are all the
    children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: for as many of you as have
    been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” --Galatians 3:26,27.
  5. Resurrection to everlasting life. “If the dead rise not at all, why are
    they then baptized for the dead?” --1Corinthians 15:29. “We are
    buried with him by baptism into death,” etc. “If we have been planted
    together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
    of his resurrection.” --Romans 6:4,6

I am trying to understand if Vincent’s view here is representative of what y’all understand to be Reformed orthodoxy.

I certainly “Amen” his list as being accurate in terms of what benefits are conferred upon those who are made to be partakers of the covenant of grace. However, it seems to me that he goes too far–even for a paedobaptist–to assert that baptism itself makes us to be partakers of each of these benefits. My understanding of the Reformed position of paedobaptism (mind you, I speak as a credobaptist on the outside looking in) has been that item #1 on Vincent’s list would be conferred to those who are baptized as a matter of fact, but that #2-5 are conferred upon those who are, in fact, joined to Christ by personal faith.

Is Vincent going beyond Reformed orthodoxy here, or does he represent it faithfully and I am just not understanding his meaning?

As I would try to give the benefit of the doubt, I wonder if he is referring to baptism in its full efficacious sense, as conveyed in WCF 28.6, which makes a distinction between the act of baptism–which can be administered to anyone–and the grace of baptism, which is conferred, in the final analysis, only to those whom “grace belongeth unto,” namely, the elect.

As it stands, his language gives strong sacramentalist vibes to me.

Thanks.

2

Hi Jason,

No, Vincent is not a sacramentalist. A few questions before in the Shorter Catechism is Q 91 How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? Under this question Vincent says:

Q. 3. In whom doth the Spirit by the sacraments work effectually unto salvation?
A. The Spirit by the sacraments doth not work effectually unto the salvation of all that receive them, but of all that by faith receive them.

Faith is always required to receive what is signified and sealed in the sacraments. Although, as you pointed out, there is at least one benefit that all who receive baptism receive regardless of faith: admission into the visible church.

Also, the Scriptures cited by Vincent above are perfect examples of how Scripture will often interchange the sign for the thing signified. The sacraments are mysteries in that there is a mystical connection between the sign and the thing signified. This is because the purpose and beauty of the sacraments is to bolster the faith of God’s people. The baptized can and should look to their baptism as a reminder that they belong to Christ and that their sins are truly washed away (see WLC 167, improving our baptism).

As for infant baptism, all of the above is consistent with it. The children of the Church receive baptism with the hope that God will (or already has) given them faith. And, unless you’re a paedocommunionist, these children will have to confess their faith one day in order to receive the Lord’s Supper. Until that day comes they are to be nurtured in the soil of the faith with its promises and warnings (God wants your heart circumcised, i.e. faith).

Blessings to you,

3 Likes
3

Got it. I’m tracking. Thanks!

2 Likes
4

He doesn’t say that, nor is that Protestant, which is to say Biblical. Because of the nature of the sacraments, frequently they are used as a placeholder for the grace they bestow. See what I did there?

This is why, so often, you find reformed men saying things like, Baptism now saves us," then following up with “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

God intended sacraments to be dangerous, both in the doing of them and the telling of them. What we must not do is undercut that danger, thinking we’re helping Him. (Like Arminians undercut the danger of His sovereign election thinking they’re helping him.)

Sacraments are not just for memory’s sake. They confer grace, but not by the thing or action itself. Faith is always the center of the efficacy, and hence the difficulty of you men who are credobaptist coming to grips with the historic practice of infant baptism. “What faith does a baby have or exercise?” you are right to ask.

But let’s leave that for another time. Love and affection,

2 Likes
5

Read this this morning from Ronald S Wallace on Gen 27:27-33, Isaac’s blessing Jacob:

Rebekah (she must have been eavesdropping!) felt at that moment that God had crowned her plan with success and had answered her prayers. Jacob may not have appreciated fully what had taken place, but at least he thought he had it all fixed up at last! So it began—the healing of this family–charismatically, like a New Testament experience of being ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’.
Is God acting wrongly here? We deliberately repeat what we have already said: Any fair examination of the minds and attitude of these three people before God must lead to the conclusion that what each first needed was not blessing but correction—a re-orientation of life, moral uplift, more concern for people other than themselves. And yet God ignored their immediate needs and began by pouring out his blessing on them–which made them feel good and safe.
Can our interpretation of the incident be wrong? Does it not seem to contradict what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s holiness? For it seems to bring him down with great and free blessing into the heart of human disobedience and insincerity. It seems to make his grace cheap. It can suggest that even the Holy Supper of our Lord can come in power to ‘unworthy’ people without their already showing signs of repentance.
Though we have to admit the force of such objections we still believe our interpretation of this incident to be the only one possible. Therefore we have to acknowledge, and even be glad, that sometimes, before God brings people under strict discipline and changes them in any radical way, he first makes them certain of his favour in such an exciting manner. Of course Isaac will soon be trembling, Rebekah will soon be counting the cost of what she has done, Jacob will soon find himself submitting to the heavy hand laid on him. But for the moment it is real joy.
To find any other incident quite like this in the Bible we have to turn to the New Testament to meet Jesus eating and drinking with publicans and sinners. Can we not justifiably see Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob there? We doubt if many of those people around Jesus were committed to follow him. Yet some of them had experienced a moment or two of great emotion as they heard him speaking to them about God and themselves. It was no doubt later, as they followed him, that they came to the place of trembling and to the beginning of a painful process of recovery.
Some of us tend to react too quickly and unfavourably against those who seek today to give room in the Church to such enthusiastic and exciting new beginnings–against, for example, the evangelist who seeks signs of God’s renewing in ‘conversions’ and other definitely felt experiences of joy. We tend to be especially critical when we see no immediate moral points appearing, and no attempt even in the preaching to awaken social conscience as the soul is awakened.
Is not a story like this in the Bible to save us from becoming too dogmatic about the order God should take in doing his work? Can we not trust him if he cares to deal with people today in the same very dangerous way? In the history of the Church, for many who later became steady and hardworking Christians in their day, the new life began simply as with Wesley—with ‘a heart strangely warmed’!
Let us be prepared to allow God his full freedom to come into the midst, when and how he wills. I remember a group of students during the racial tension in the southern United States, who sincerely felt that there could be no grace of God working in those Churches which at that time supported segregation and refused to admit blacks to their communion. Some time before they discussed the matter with me, I had celebrated the Lord’s Supper in an exclusive little church at the heart of one of these white communities. When I suggested to the group that that was a valid sacrament, and that Christ had been present really to give himself even to those racists who still had some faith in him, I met no support–only the suspicion that I too was tainted with racism. – Isaac & Jacob Genesis 24-36

(Wallace was a Scottish theologian who taught in Columbia, SC during the 20th cent.)

4 Likes
6

Reminds me of Edward’s grandfather Stoddard.

2 Likes
7

Just read Vos on the sacraments the other day. Helpful in further explaining the position.

1 Like