The Particular Baptist movement of the seventeenth century was rooted in and driven by theology – in particular, the regulative principle of worship. As consistent Puritan exegetes, these oft–suffering shepherds sought to order their worship and witness by the express command of the Scriptures. Their ecclesiological convictions were demonstrated in careful pastoral practice, especially in symbolics and catechesis.
Meet Hercules Collins
Hercules Collins (ca. 1647–1702) was a prominent English Particular Baptist minister. Behind Benjamin Keach (1640–1704), he was the second most prolific Calvinistic credobaptist writer. His corpus ranges in focus from credobaptism to casuistry, from training pastors to life under God’s providential decree. Collins is perhaps best known as the man who in 1680 edited the continental Reformed tradition’s venerable Heidelberg Catechism (hereafter HC) of 1563 to reflect Baptist convictions. As his first published work, An Orthodox Catechism (hereafter OC) reflects a young pastor’s zeal for sound doctrine and his earnest desire that regenerate souls be well–established on the firm foundation of Scripture. Consistent with his confessional commitments – he signed the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith(hereafter 2LC) in 1689 – he also repeatedly anchors his arguments for credobaptistic faith and practice in the Puritan regulative principle of worship (hereafter RPW).
Though providentially hindered from university training as a nonconformist, his writing demonstrates articulate, experiential faithfulness: concerned practically, but displaying an admirable scope of thought and grasp of theology. Hercules’s work at times may lack some of the polish and precision of his university–trained contemporaries (as Crosby noted, he “had not a learned education”), but it runs along the same paths, exhibiting nearly identical pastoral and doctrinal instincts as theirs. His twenty–five years at Wapping were marked by careful attention to the whole counsel of God, especially in ecclesiology and sacramentology, for the sake of right doxology. For Hercules, it was always a point of “Thus saith the Lord.”
Collins’s Confessional–Catechetical Context
Similar to his predecessors John Spilsbury (1593–ca. 1668) and John Norcott (d. 1676), Hercules dealt in both symbolics and apologetics–oriented, pastorally–minded theological exposition. Norcott was known for his 1672 work Baptisme Discover’d Plainly & Faithfully According to the Word of God, a capable and frequently–reprinted exposition of credobaptism. Spilsbury, toward the end of his 1643 Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Svbject of Baptisme, produced a ten–point statement of doctrine. Its publication constitutes the first known Particular Baptist confession of faith and likely influenced Spilsbury’s significant role in drafting the First London Baptist Confession (1644/1646). In producing An Orthodox Catechism (hereafter OC) Hercules issued one of the first full–pedigreed Particular Baptist catechisms.
The HC was a document birthed out of the sixteenth–century German Reformation. Generally enjoying a hearty reception by the Reformed for its guilt–grace–gratitude structure, its appeal (though not universal) was wide and its influence strong, particularly for the Puritans. The beloved Westminster Shorter Catechism (hereafter WSC) of 1646/47, that most Puritan of all symbols, was modeled in part after the HC’s organizing principles, such that echoes of its warm, pastoral tone may be observed in WSC at several points. In editing the HC into the OC, Hercules established something of a catechetical precedent for the English Particular Baptists: some thirteen years later, the better–known 1693/95 Baptist Catechism was issued as an edited baptistic version of the WSC.
Dependence, Development, and Diversity in Reformed Symbols
A broad theological center marked the Reformed family tree. Calvinistic confessional and catechetical standards frequently overlapped in shared content and conviction, reflecting the Puritan instinct of “hav[ing] no itch to clogg Religion with new words.” Viewed some 400 years later, it is only natural to realize that certain points of diversity or debate – though vigorously (sometimes violently) asserted, defended, and suffered for at the time – possessed more commonality than was perhaps realized in their day. To that end, their consistent reaching across denominational lines to retain and redeploy faithful verbiage, as well as their conscientious citation and appropriation of each other’s arguments, demonstrates a high level of exegetical, if not always relational, harmony amongst these post–Reformation theologues.
These practices also helped form and further their own distinctives in that tumultuous, treacherous Early Modern era. Offhand, one recalls the infralapsarian versus supralapsarian question; the distinctive positions staked out on marriage in the Savoy–2LC stream versus the Westminster Confession (hereafter WCF); the OC’s strengthened position on the Christian Sabbath as compared to HC’s; the definitive polity and ecclesiological differences between the Presbyterian, the Congregationalist, and the Baptist; or the original WCF’s establishment principle (23.3) versus the Savoy–2LC (and later western Westminsterian) deletion of that language. These points of robust disagreement must be engaged on their own terms in order to grasp theological commonalities properly in studying historical theology faithfully. For our purposes, these few instances will suffice – perhaps most obvious of which were their respective formulations of covenant theology, leading to Christian baptism.
Approaching Collins’s Covenantal Credobaptism
It is useful to trace the basic covenantal argument of the Westminster Standards and the HC in order to understand Hercules’s own distinctive credobaptist formulations in the OC. WSC’s covenant theology is straightforward, affirming classical pedobaptist formulations within the one–covenant, two–administration schema, echoing that of the Westminster Confession of Faith 7.5–6 (hereafter WCF). So too for the HC (see HC #69–74), though not presenting quite so precise a formulation as that of WSC.
While the HC preceded Westminster historically by some eighty years, since Collins uses the HC as his base text, we shall engage it second.
The Westminster Standards
WSC asks the following questions relevant to our consideration:
94. What is baptism?
95. To whom is baptism to be administered?
In expanded form, WLC similarly asks:
33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
165. What is baptism?
166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ?
WSC concisely affirms a covenant of life, also called the covenant of works (foedus operum; cp. WLC #20–22 and #30) made with man, upon the condition of perfect obedience (WSC #12). It was made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, such that all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression (WSC #16). God did not leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery, but entered into a covenant of grace (foedus gratiae), to bring his elect into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer (WSC #20; WLC #31) through the person and work of Jesus.
WCF 7.5 describes this covenant as singular, yet “differently administered in the time of the law, and of the gospel” (commonly expressed as one covenant, two administrations). So too WCF 7.6: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations” (cf. WLC #33–35).
Note here a fundamental hermeneutical distinction between Westminsterian and 2LC covenant theology made plain – namely, administration versus revelation – and their divergent ecclesiological and sacramental outworkings quickly become evident. WSC #95 asserts that “the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized” (cf. WLC #166 and #177). Westminster defines baptism in WSC #94, WLC #165, and WCF 28.1.
The Heidelberg Catechism
The HC identifies baptism as a sacrament in #68, but does not define it.
68. How many sacraments did Christ institute in the NT?
69. How does holy baptism remind and assure you that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross
benefits you personally?
71. Where does Christ promise that we are washed with his blood and Spirit as surely as we are
washed with the water of baptism?
72. Does this outward washing with water itself wash away sins?
73. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism the water of rebirth and the washing away of sins?
74. Should infants also be baptized?
HC presents Adamic federal headship in the fall and disobedience of our first parents in paradise (HC #7). The result is that man is altogether lost and corrupt, in need of the holy gospel first revealed to Adam and Eve in the covenant of grace (HC #19). HC’s formulation is more pastoral than Westminster, but the shared covenantal framework is plain.
The sacraments, particularly baptism, come into view in the HC #68–74. While HC #69 speaks of baptism’s function in comforting the believer, #71–73 focus on baptism as a means of presenting Christ’s promise to wash believers of their sins, assuring them of his efficacious work in them by his Spirit. HC #69–73 are virtually identical with Collins’s OC. HC #74 (modified in OC as #70) asserts that infants and adults alike are “included in God’s covenant and people.” HC #74 anchors infant baptism by maintaining they “no less than adults” will receive “deliverance from sin” by virtue of the promises of the covenant. It holds baptism as a mark “distinguishing” them from the unbelievers’ children, and avers it as replacing circumcision. While Westminster employs different verbiage, it presents an identical hermeneutical view: one covenant under two administrations, with its sacramental continuity functioning by the replacement of circumcision with baptism. The two “sign[s] of the covenant,” however, are operationally nearly interchangeable in both their respective subjects and efficacy.
Hercules Collins’s Baptistic Revisions in An Orthodox Catechism
Hercules greatly admired the HC, a reality demonstrated in his utilizing it as the basis of his first published work, An Orthodox Catechism. He edited it for his church, a young pastor’s labor of love attempting to meet a pressing need in the congregation (his introduction to the OC respectfully notes that catechesis had largely been set aside). In the work, Collins aims to help establish them in the truth, particularly as it concerns baptism and the nature of a believing church. He would maintain this distinctive focus on a confessor’s baptism in at least 6 more of his 12 extant works. Of importance here: Collins saw credobaptism, not pedobaptism, as the only proper biblical application of the Reformed regulative principle. His sacramental and ecclesiological concern was ultimately doxological in nature.
OC #1–64 are very close in form, theological method, and biblical reasoning to their HC counterparts; while he regularly modifies the Scripture proofs, the doctrine is retained in toto and remains that of the HC. OC #65 begins Hercules’s treatment of the sacraments. Rooted in the RPW, Collins inserts six of his own questions introducing credobaptism between HC questions #68–69; these are OC questions #68–73:
- What is Baptism?
- Who are the proper Subjects of this Ordinance?
- Are no Infants to be baptized?
- Doth the Scripture any where expressly forbid the Baptizing of Infants?
- May not the Infant Seed of Believers under the Gospel be baptized as well as the Infant Seed of Abraham under the Law was circumcised?
- Seeing the Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace with their Parents, as some Say, why may not they be baptized under the Gospel, as well as Abraham’s Infant Seed was circumcised under the Law?
The language used in the answers to OC #68–73 is largely of Collins’s own composition, though #69 is drawn almost directly from 2LC 29.2. It presents a noteworthy contrast with the HC: Heidelberg features no question formally defining baptism, though its answer to #69 includes a basic description. The WCF defines baptism in 28.1; some of its language is retained in 2LC 29, thereby shaping Collins’s verbiage in the OC. Collins follows 2LC 29.1–2 closely in composing his OC #68–69 and works portions of 2LC 29.3–4 (contra WCF 28.2–3) into his answers as well. OC #70–73 then function in clarifying and distinguishing his affirmations and denials of lawful sacramental practice under the RPW.
Defining Baptism’s Substance and Subjects
Throughout his treatment of baptism (OC #68–73), Hercules repeatedly and demonstrably anchors his arguments in the RPW. What is the result? Didactically, theologically, and pastorally, the OC presents a more satisfying treatment of the doctrine than does the HC.
He begins his exposition of baptism (OC #68) defining it as immersion of a believer in the triune name of God by “such who are duly qualified by Christ.” OC #69 addresses baptism’s “proper subjects” – professors who have repented, believed, and obey Jesus. Collins handles a clarifying question (OC #70) by reasoning from the regulative principle – no infants should be baptized, because Scripture lacks any positive command for it: “we have neither Precept nor Example for that Practice in all the Book of God.”
Addressing objections follows (OC #71–73). Scripture’s silence does not constitute Scripture’s smile; just because the Bible nowhere “expressly forbid[s] the Baptizing of Infants” (OC #71) does not mean it approves it. Again, he appeals to the regulative principle: “It is sufficient that the Divine Oracle commands the baptizing of Believers, unless we will make ourselves wiser than what is written.” Aaron’s sons had no prohibition of strange fire, but had a positive command of “tak[ing] Fire from the Altar,” and their proud innovation rightly “incurred God’s Wrath.” OC #72 anticipates an interlocutor shifting his objection to the continuity of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, as seen in their respective signs: if “Yes” to OT infant circumcision, why “No” to NT infant baptism? His reply is concise, appealing once more to the RPW: “Abraham had a Command then from God to circumcise his Infant Seed, but Believers have no command to baptize their Infants Seed under the Gospel.”
A Five-fold Apologetical Exposition of Confessor’s Baptism
OC #73 is the longest question in Collins’s catechism, presenting as a concise exercise in pastoral apologetics and theological exposition. The question begins with the hypothetical objector’s assumption that “the Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace with their parents,” and asks concerning their baptism: if so, then “why may not they be baptized under the Gospel, as well as Abraham’s Infant–Seed was circumcised under the Law?” Hercules answers in five basic movements.
First, meeting the question’s assumption prima facie: if the infants of believing parents are members of the covenant as “absolutely considered” – meaning, if by virtue of their having been born into a believing family, it should be presumed that they will come to faith, because the covenant of grace is unconditional and unbreakable – then apostasy is actually impossible. In such a consideration, none will or can be lost; all infants of believers are necessarily elect and infallibly will be regenerated.
Second, meeting the question’s hermeneutic: if infant membership in the covenant is meant “conditionally, on consideration that when they come to years of Maturity” they believe,
then:
- What “real Spiritual priviledg [sic.]” do these infants of believing parents gain, versus infants of unbelievers who also eventually trust Christ?
- Would the covenant seal not also be the right of children of unbelievers as much as children of unbelievers? Would it not “belong as much” to them as well?
- What about when children of unbelievers trust God, but children of believers do not? It happens often and is painful to both the parents and the pastor. Further implicit in Collins’s framing of this point: it begs the question of the covenant’s nature and efficacy.
Third, Collins raises a hypothetical case: what if one assumes that all the children of Christians are members of the covenant of grace “absolutely”? The church still lacks the express command to baptize them, just as Lot had no express command to circumcise his family – only Abraham received that command and sign for his family. Applying Abraham’s command to circumcise his infant males as though it constituted a NT command for baptizing all infants of Christians would result in a command to bring those infants to the Lord’s Table as well.
Fourth, he turns his attention to the question’s root – the Abrahamic Covenant. Collins notes it has “two parts”: spiritual, and temporal or physical. Spiritually considered, it involved God’s promise to be Abraham’s God, and to “all his Spiritual–Seed in a peculiar manner…which believed as Abraham the Father of the Faithful did.” The promise stood irrespective of their circumcision, and was received by faith alone. Temporally, it assured Israel of God’s good intent toward them: Abraham’s offspring would “enjoy the Land of Canaan, and have plenty of outward blessings…[God] sealed this Promise by Circumcision.” They would be distinguished by this rite as “being God’s People from all the Nations of the Gentiles,” though the Gentiles were not yet members of the believing “Seed of Abraham.” At that time, “then Circumcision, that distinguishing Mark, ceased”; now God’s children have believing, circumcised hearts.
Fifth, Collins concludes summarizing and underscoring his arguments by a close application of the RPW. Whatever “pretense” one employs to defend pedobaptism – asserting infants as the “Seed of Believers,” assuming their membership in an external administration of the covenant of grace, or arguing “that the Infant–Seed of Abraham a Believer” received circumcision – “all this,” he emphasized, “avails nothing.” It still lacks biblical warrant because it lacks express biblical command. Circumcision was limited to a single family, such that “all Others, though Believers, were Excluded.” The rite was strictly limited to the eighth day, and “what ever Pretence might be made, it was not to be Done before or after.” Finally, circumcision was limited to males; thus if baptism fulfills circumcision’s type, “none but the Males must be Baptized, because none but the Males were Circumcised.”
Conclusion
The issue in theology, worship, sacraments, and all of life is always what God requires in Scripture: “it depends purely upon the will of the Lawgiver” as to “season[s], persons, and terms” of baptismal administration. Hercules Collins revised the Heidelberg Catechism because Scripture’s regulating of ecclesiology and sacramentology – issuing in doxology – required it. Christ’s positive and explicit commandment in Scripture always holds the authority, informing the conscience and directing the one who would draw near. Christian worshipers must “hearken” to him in his word.
