The Genevan Delegation at the Synod of Dordt on the Baptism of Slave Children

Translated from Early Sessions of the Synod of Dordt (V&R, 2018), pgs. 139-40.

[Author: Jean Diodati. The other Genevan Delegate, Theodore Tronchin, was sick at the time and could not attend the sessions on this topic.]

I, JEAN DIODATI, BELIEVE THIS ABOUT THE BAPTIZING OF PAGAN INFANTS

There is no caution against baptizing older individuals who are well-instructed, in control of their own will and actions, and capable of professing the Christian religion. Only two things should be observed:

1.      That they should not respond merely formulaically, but from their own understanding and judgment. Therefore, more time should be given to them for instruction, rather than exposing the holy sacrament to profanation. The same reasoning seems to apply here as the Apostle so strictly demands in the taking of the Holy Supper.

2.      That the baptized should enjoy the right of liberty equal to all other Christians, and they should be protected as much as possible from the danger of apostasy, by prohibiting all future sale and alienation. And masters should use them as hired workers, entirely in the manner of other Christians.

As for infants, with respect to those who think otherwise, I judge that they should in no way be admitted to holy baptism before the years of judgment and suitable instruction, nor can the sacrament be administered to them based on faith. I consider the reasons brought forward by the Swiss brethren to be of the utmost importance, and I do not repeat them. One argument seems to cause some difficulty: the example of Abraham in Genesis 17. But that passage does not seem entirely clear to me. For it is not at all likely that Abraham bought eight-day-old slaves, therefore by “bought on the eighth day” I understand those born of servants recently purchased, as distinct from those born at home who had long been inhabiting the house itself, and from parents long since counted as part of the family. It is not reasonable to believe that these recently purchased parents were compelled by the master’s power to undergo circumcision unwillingly or ignorant of the covenant. Rather, they first became Abraham’s children according to the Spirit through instruction and their own faith, and afterwards received the seal of righteousness. Thus, it happened that afterwards they begot holy infants, made sons of Abraham according to the flesh, at least legally in terms of popular blessing and common calling. And to such infants, born of proselyte fathers, the sacrament of circumcision could safely be administered based on the very foundations of the covenant and its innermost essence. This opinion is confirmed by the fact that there were always foreign servants and alien cults among the Hebrew people, over which the Lord grants in Leviticus 25:43–45 a harsher dominion than over Hebrews, even over family and children. It is clear enough that the Hebrews had many uncircumcised infants of unconverted servants, and that the command to Abraham did not include such. Since it was also permitted to sell them, and in Exodus 21 they could be killed with impunity, provided they did not die immediately under the blow.