Samuel Ward on Infant Baptism
from a letter to James Ussher
Introduction: Samuel Ward lived from 1577 to 1639. Ward, a moderate Puritan himself, was a student of the Puritan William Perkins and always remained favorable towards Puritanism, even when Puritanism was not a popular position and despite Ward's remaining a staunch royalist.Ward taught at Cambridge University, where he was at first a student of Christ's College, then a Fellow of Emanuel, and afterwards Master of Sidney Sussex College. He served as part of the English Calvinist delegation to the Synod of Dort along with George Carleton, John Davenant, and Joseph Hall. When the Westminster Assembly was convened in 1643, Ward was called as a delegate to represent Cambridge University, but died before he was able to attend.
Ward concurred with Calvinist figures such as Davenant, Richard Hooker, and John Forbes, that baptism remits original sin in all baptized infants, while nonetheless maintaining Dort's doctrine of perseverance, since, for these figures, the soteric experiences of infants were not taken as univocal with those of adult converts.
While there is quite a bit of material available from Ward on baptism (the largest portion of it in Latin), the excerpt below is from a letter by Ward to James Ussher, Bishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland dated May 25, 1630. Ussher had written Ward earlier saying, "You have done me a great pleasure in communicating unto me my lord of Salisbury [Davenant] and your own determination touching the efficacy of baptism in infants; for it is an obscure point, and such as I desire to be taught in by such as you are, rather than deliver my own opinion thereof."
The following letter, in its entirety, can be found as "Letter CLXX" in The Whole Work of Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D. Lord Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, ed. by C.R. Erlington (Dublin 1864), volume 15, pages 502-508.
Bishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland (May 25, 1630):
As touching those papers which I sent, touching the efficacy of baptism in infants; I do acknowledge it a point in which the Scriptures are sparing. The occasion of my determination, was (as I think I signified in my former letters) for that the question was given with a purpose to impugn the doctrine of perseverance, as they conceived, by an undeniable argument. I was very loath the question should be brought upon the commencement stage, and therefore signified to the then vice-chancellor, that it would entrench upon the question of perseverance, which is one of those questions, I said, his Majesty would not have discussed, which he signifieth by his declaration. Yet he replied the affirmative part of the question was the authorized doctrine of our Church, as appeared in the rubric, of deferring confirmation.1
And the answerer was importunate to have that question; and so accordingly it was overruled by the major part of the doctors. I had heretofore thought upon the point somewhat. And my lord of Sarum,2 and myself, at Dort, had speech of it, when we signified in our judgment, that the case of infants was not appertaining to the question of perseverance. I considered also, that howsoever the Scripture sparingly speak of the effect of baptism in infants, yet there are general grounds, from the nature of the sacraments, which may serve to inform and direct our judgments herein. Again, I considered the perpetual tradition of the Church is no way to be slighted, where it doth not cross Scripture, but is consonant to general grounds contained in them.
My lord of Derry is a worthy man, and whom I do much reverence;3 yet I would wish his lordship to be well advised. I doubt not but the doctrine of perseverance may sufficiently be cleared, though we grant that all infants baptized be freed from original guilt. The speech in Lombard, alleged as out of Augustine, "Sacramenta in solis electis efficiunt quod figurant," is no where to be found in St. Augustine. And if it were, yet it is to be understood as Lombard doth gloss it, otherwise Augustine should contradict himself, as is evident by the testimonies he there produceth out of Austin;4 and many more which might be brought for remission of original sin in all baptized infants, out of him. I know most of our divines do make the principal end and effect of all the sacraments to be obsignation, and all sacraments to be merely obsignatory signs; and consequently the ablution of infants from original sin, is only conditional and expectative, of which they have no benefit, till they believe and repent; I cannot easily assent hereunto.
For so,
[1] Infants baptized, dying in infancy, have no benefit by baptism. And all non-elect infants have no benefit at all, so that to both of these they are nuda et inefficia signa.
[2] What necessity of baptizing infants, if it produce no effect till years of discretion?
[3] Though our divines5 do most-what run upon obsignation, yet often they do expressly hold, that sacraments do offer and exhibit the grace which they signify, before they assure and confirm. For God doth offer and exhibit grace promised in the sacrament; then we exercise our faith in relying upon God, promising, offering, and exhibiting on his part; and so according to the tenure of the covenant, receive the grace promised and then sacraments in the second place do assure us of the grace received. And thus much is signified in the definition of a sacrament in our short catechism,6 as I conceive, when it is said, "It is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof."
So that first it is a means whereby God doth offer and exhibit on his part the grace it signifieth; which we receiving by faith, it then also becometh a pledge, to assure us of the receipt thereof. So the eucharist doth first offer and exhibit, "augmentum gratiae, auctiorem et perfectionem communionem cum Christi corpore et sanguine, et participationem in beneficiis inde fluentibus;" and then it is a pledge to assure us thereof. And so Ursinus truly saith,"Baptismus et coena Domini sunt sacramenta--quia sum opus Dei, qui aliquid in iis nobis dat, et se dare testatur;" and he hath many speeches to this purpose. So Calvin. So that instrumental conveyance of the grace signified, to the due receiver, is as true an effect or end of a sacrament, when it is duly administered, as obsignation, and is pre-existing in order of nature to obsignation: for obsignation must be of that, quod prius datur et exhibetur, as Mr. Beza often saith. Mr. Hooker, in mine opinion, doth truly explicate the nature of sacraments. Nay, it may seem, that obsignation is not so essential as exhibitio rei signatae, for the latter may be without the former, as in the baptism of infants, where no preparation, ex parte suscipientis, but only capacity and non-resistance is sufficient, ad rem signatam recpiendam. All this I submit to your lordship's judgment, and will not be contentious, if any can bring that which is more demonstrative out of Scriptures. Mr. Hooker saith as we say, touching the efficacy of baptism in infants, and yet holdeth the doctrine de preseverantia fidelium, as well as we do.
Notes:
1. The rubric Ward refers to states: "...no man shall think that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their Confirmation; he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's word, that children being baptised, have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved" (from the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, rite for Confirmation.
2. John Davenant (1576-1641) was the Lady Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, later Master of Queen's College, and for the last 20 years of his life, Bishop of Salisbury. Davenant was a Calvinistic Anglican and is typically categorized as a "Puritan" given his views on worship and the church, despite his acceptance of episcopacy.
Davenant was a very influential member of the English delegation to the Synod of Dort--sometimes call "pillar of the Synod"--and was well-known for his refutations of Arminianism. But he also served as a moderating force at the Synod, pulling the Synod back from affirming anything that had no fairly direct Scriptural warrant and thus keeping the Synod away from Gomarus' near hyper-Calvinism.
3. The "lord of Derry" referred to here was George Downham (or Downame), Bishop of (London)Derry 1617-1634, a high church Calvinist. Downham had held the rectorship of Great Mundon prior to when James I granted it to Samuel Ward after the succession of Downham to the Bishopric of Derry (Ward was succeeded at Great Mundon by John Lightfoot). Bishop Ussher had informed Ward in an earlier letter that Downham had completed a book on perseverance in which he handled the question of the efficacy of infant baptism differently from Ward, presumably limiting its effect in infants to elect infants, appealing to Augustine.
4. "Austin" here is simply an anglicization of "Augustine" just as "Denis" is of "Dionysius."
5. Given the context and recipient, by "our divines" here, Ward is presumably referring primarily to other English theologians and, in particular, other Puritan Reformed theologians.
6. The "short catechism" to which Ward refers is the Confirmation catechism which may be found at the beginning of the "Order for Confirmation" in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer.