Is the Baptism of Laity considered Valid?

[Northern Crofter]

Speaking as the pastor of a PCA church... our denomination is broad enough that no one can speak authoritatively about what "the PCA" permits. Judging by recent controversies, I'd wager one could get away with almost anything as long as they phrased it right, nuanced it correctly, and then dotted their procedural "i's"- and crossed their bureaucratic "t's"... But that aside, here's my take, and I trust, the take of many:

1. I enthusiastically support and affirm the "who may baptize" provisions of WCF 27.4 and 28.2.

2. The ordinances of Christ - including the Sacraments - belong to the church, not to private Christians. A baptism performed by a private Christian is as valid as a driver's license drawn up and issued by my child. Appeals by some to the so-called "priesthood of all believers" as their justification for asserting they have the authority to do whatever and whenever and that there is no distinction between the officers and laity... only reveal that they are ignorant of the Scriptures. As I explain in the first session of my new members class *all* Peter is doing in 1 Peter 2:9 is unpacking the implication of their adoption, that the same calling and status first offered in (Ex 19:5-6) and then asserted in (Deut 7:6, Deut 14:2, etc) applies to them as well. Korah was the first evangelical - read Num 16 to find out what became of his assertion that ALL of them being priests meant no distinctions or hierarchy or privilege. (scoff) Just as the "priests needed priests" and thus only some could perform the publicly appointed ceremonies and rituals THEN... nothing has changed: only public officials (servants/ministers) carry that authority now.

3. I share the position (I believe it is still the "majority report" within our denomination) that RCC baptisms are no baptisms. I declare - as I have for all the years of my ministry - that all who say that the mere utterance of the so-called "Trinitarian Formula" is the sole true requirement for a baptism to be valid have, despite all their protestations, functionally reduced our precious Godhead to a mere incantation. The Church of Rome is no church, her gospel is no gospel, her ministers are no ministers, her head is antichrist. Yet some assert that 1 of her 7 sacraments remains valid? Absurd and preposterous. Anyway, I utterly and completely and thoroughly (can I be more emphatic?) maintain that the insistence that the invocation of the Trinitarian formula by any human who happens to utter it while getting someone wet, is all that's necessary for a legitimate/real baptism is untrue and false. Regardless of who says otherwise. Furthermore,if all that is necessary is to say the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit" then even Mormon baptisms are valid (for they use that formula!).

So... in my church, as has already happened: if someone comes to us with the father presumptuously having taken upon himself the prerogative to engage in the priestly ministry of the Gospel by administering the sacraments... well, we fix that.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Peace out!

And...

"BAPTISM, as it is not unnecessarily to be delayed, so it is not to be administered in any case by any private person, but by a minister of Christ, called to be the steward of the mysteries of God." (WDPW "OF BAPTISM")

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan...." (WCF 25.5)

 

[jwithnell]

This is common in most P&R denominations in the US. But it is a fairly modern innovation. Such a congregational vow is absent in the original Directory for the Public Worship of God and I have not found the practice pre-Civil War (but I'm sure if there is evidence someone can provide it). I do not believe the practice is common outside the US.

Thank you for this - I can see how the first 2 parts are derived from the DPW: "[The minister] is to exhort the parent, "To consider the great mercy of God to him and his child; to bring up the child in the knowledge of the grounds of the Christian religion, and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and to let him know the danger of God’s wrath to himself and child, if he be negligent: requiring his solemn promise for the performance of his duty.”

I still wonder when the questioning/promising of the congregation came into being. I wonder if you have access to previous versions of the RPCI Book of Order to see when that occurred? The Book of Discipline adopted in 1788 by the non-RP/ARP Presbyterians in America still has the minster exhorting the parents, so it must have been brought into the American line in the 19th century or later.

The current OPC DPW does not have a congregational "vow" - the exhortation to the congregation is under a section called "The Covenant Commitment of the Congregation" and does not call for a formal response from the congregation as the RP churches do, but it does mention parental vows several times: "Only parents who are communicant members of the Church may be permitted to take parental vows. If the session shall judge it appropriate, a parent who is not a communicant member may stand with the spouse during the baptism. In such a circumstance, it shall be the duty of the minister to inform the congregation of the situation, including that the one parent is not a member of this congregation and is not taking the vows." (B.1.a.)

It's reasonable to see the OPC as not bringing a congregational vow while maintaining the importance of rearing a child within a specific, local covenant community. We are always instructed to care for the child and to support the parents in this solomn task.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It's reasonable to see the OPC as not bringing a congregational vow while maintaining the importance of rearing a child within a specific, local covenant community. We are always instructed to care for the child and to support the parents in this solomn task.

Agreed. My question is why do some P&R fellowships require a congregational vow, when did this innovation begin, and what was the reasoning for doing so?

I withdraw my earlier suggestion (in #48 above) that congregational vows at baptisms is common in most P&R denominations in the US but not common outside the US - it seems to be the other way around! The OPC and PCA do not require it (the PCA BCO [56-5] has an "optional" question that can be put to the congregation but is not posed as a promise or vow) so maybe it is a unique emergence amongst those more in the Scottish Free Church, Seceder, and/or Covenanter tradition? It is present in the DPW's of the:

• RPCNA: "The pastor should ask the congregation to rise and respond to the following question: Do you, the members of this congregation, receive this person into your fellowship and promise to pray for him/her, and to help and encourage him/her in the Christian life?"
• RPCI: (from #55 above) "The following question shall be addressed to the members of the congregation, who shall indicate their assent by raising the right hand:- Do you promise to pray for this covenant child and to seek by example and precept to encourage him/her to walk in the ways of the Lord.?"
• FCoS: (not from a DPW - see #51 above) "While only ordained ministers can baptise, as part of the baptismal vows the entire congregation promises to help parents raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
• ARP: "...it is fitting that members of the congregation promise to surround the child with concern and love in Christ.... The congregation shall be asked to give affirmative response to the following or equivalent question: (a) Do you the members of this congregation undertake with these parents the covenant responsibility for the Christian nurture of this child?"

Either way, it nevertheless appears to be a fairly modern innovation - I have dug off and on all afternoon and cannot find any reference to this practice before 1850.

 

[JP Wallace]

Andrew

While it may be a modern innovation, or may not, it obviously merits a good deal of further investigation, that does not mean a) that it is an unbiblical unwarranted practice, nor b) that it contravenes the regulative principle of worship. SInce we have no direct revelation on many things in connection with the elements of worship we have a fair bit of freedom in how to go about them e.g. I'm sure there is a variety of practices amongst us in how the Lord's Supper is administered.

That said I do think failing to involve the congregation leaves us somewhat weakended potentially in our understanding and appreciation of the meaning and significance of baptism. In believers baptism settings, the concentration at baptism is less on the church, less, not absent, and more on the profession and experience of the individual. In covenant baptism there is almost equal weight - the child or convert is being baptized into the congregation as a member of the covenant community - de facto then the congregation has a responsibility to the child and therefore solemnizing that with promises/vows seems to me to be almost necessary - lest there be a misunderstanding of the corporate nature of the sacrament.

Assuming your research is correct and this practice became at least more prevalent from the 1850s might that be because of the growth of congregationalism and a more personalization of faith via the revivals etc. and that this practice was introduced to counteract that individualism and highlight the corporate nature. Pure speculation at this point, but might it not be as you suggested earlier, somerthing introduced by congregationalism but actually a reaction against it?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

What is interesting is RCC teaches that in extraordinary circumstances anyone can perform a valid baptism including laymen. Are those baptisms recognized by Presbyterians?

This was addressed in a Scottish historical citation by Rich but little has been made of it in this thread. It seems quite pertinent to the question to me, however.

The reason that the RCC accepts, and indeed, encourages, what it terms "emergency baptisms" (when the infant's life is in mortal peril) is because of its doctrine that there is no possibility of salvation without baptism. To be sure, under Benedict XVI, the RCC "did away" with the limbus infantum, so this changes things in this regard; historically, however, Rome believed that no unbaptized infant who died could ever go to heaven but would go to limbo. So Rome permitted and encouraged "emergency" baptisms on the part of midwives and others to save children from that fate.

We do not believe this and is part of the reason we say in WCF 28.5 that we do not believe "that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without [baptism]." Because we believe that God saves his own, whether they had occasion to be baptized or not, we do not encourage such emergency baptisms. What Rich cited from his Scottish source, and other like sources, would indicate that, though Scottish Presbyterians recognized RCC baptism, they did not recognize the "emergency baptisms" of lay persons, regarding that as a different matter from the baptism in the RCC by an ordained priest of some rank or another.

All this is to say, supporting Rich, that we've not regarded emergency lay baptism (utterly misguided) in the same way that we've regarded "regular" RCC baptism (still misguided, and thus irregular, but not invalid).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Northern Crofter]

The reason that the RCC accepts, and indeed, encourages, what it terms "emergency baptisms" (when the infant's life is in mortal peril) is because of its doctrine that there is no possibility of salvation without baptism.

This is why the original Westminster DPW states "Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing....that outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had.”

 

[Northern Crofter]

Assuming your research is correct and this practice became at least more prevalent from the 1850s might that be because of the growth of congregationalism and a more personalization of faith via the revivals etc. and that this practice was introduced to counteract that individualism and highlight the corporate nature. Pure speculation at this point, but might it not be as you suggested earlier, somerthing introduced by congregationalism but actually a reaction against it?

Thank you - that is a very good point. I appreciate your pastoral responses on this issue.

In covenant baptism - the child or convert is being baptized into the congregation as a member of the covenant community - de facto then the congregation has a responsibility to the child and therefore solemnizing that with promises/vows seems to me to be almost necessary - lest there be a misunderstanding of the corporate nature of the sacrament.

I agree with the first part - and I believe the exhortation aimed at the congregation (and the parents) in the original DPW conveys this - but the final part seems unnecessary to me if the congregation is being regularly taught the first part. Too often the only time we hear of the corporate responsibility to help shepherd and disciple children within the congregation is at baptisms. We shouldn't be trying to make up for a lack of teaching by adding to the simplicity of the sacraments.

I see the addition of human vows/promises during a baptism as drawing away from the central vow/promise of God towards the one being baptized - that singular act of baptism is what was "instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ... That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel...That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers." (DPW 1645)

The act of baptism is the promise and the reception into the Church. Adding a corporate response makes it seem like the congregation is somehow joining in the baptism ("there is almost equal weight" as you put it) when it is really a time for them, as the DPW exhorts, "To look back to their baptism; to repent of their sins against their covenant with God; to stir up their faith; to improve and make right use of their baptism, and of the covenant sealed thereby betwixt God and their souls.”

I appreciate the pragmatic nature of the additional (parental and congregational) vows, but they seem to open up this sacrament to further (and perhaps in this case, valid) criticism from credo-baptists that such paedo-baptist practices goes beyond the Biblical warrant.

 

[JP Wallace]

Andrew,

Humbly I would suggest to you that you need to do a bit more reading of the meaning and significance of baptism as I think you seem to have a rather barebones understanding of its significance. I hope that's not received by you as condescending, but I think when you write, "when it is really a time for them" shows a certain simplicity that does not reflect our theology.

That's not to ignore some of the other good points you have raised in this discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

By the way, if anyone wants to know the history of the PCA BCO on this, Wayne Sparkman maintains an entire section of the PCA History website that tracks the changes to the BCO over the years:

BCO

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This was addressed in a Scottish historical citation by Rich but little has been made of it in this thread. It seems quite pertinent to the question to me, however.

The reason that the RCC accepts, and indeed, encourages, what it terms "emergency baptisms" (when the infant's life is in mortal peril) is because of its doctrine that there is no possibility of salvation without baptism. To be sure, under Benedict XVI, the RCC "did away" with the limbus infantum, so this changes things in this regard; historically, however, Rome believed that no unbaptized infant who died could ever go to heaven but would go to limbo. So Rome permitted and encouraged "emergency" baptisms on the part of midwives and others to save children from that fate.

We do not believe this and is part of the reason we say in WCF 28.5 that we do not believe "that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without [baptism]." Because we believe that God saves his own, whether they had occasion to be baptized or not, we do not encourage such emergency baptisms. What Rich cited from his Scottish source, and other like sources, would indicate that, though Scottish Presbyterians recognized RCC baptism, they did not recognize the "emergency baptisms" of lay persons, regarding that as a different matter from the baptism in the RCC by an ordained priest of some rank or another.

All this is to say, supporting Rich, that we've not regarded emergency lay baptism (utterly misguided) in the same way that we've regarded "regular" RCC baptism (still misguided, and thus irregular, but not invalid).

Peace,
Alan

I was smoking a cigar and talking to a couple of Eldrs about this conversation yesterday.

One of the things that seems to be the undercurrent of this conversation is the seeming shock that a lay baptism would not be deemed valid. It's even doubted that most PCA Churches would really care one way or another.

It's not as if a Presbyterian is questioning whether someone is saved. After all, as you point out, we don't believe in baptismal regeneration. We wouldn't even doubt that someone is a friend of the faith. I was thinking, the other day, that even though Apollos was doing great things, he was still baptized into the Christian Church.

It's important, in our understanding, that someone has the authority to admit someone into the visible Church. We used to understand this. Though it is easy to get "ordained" and conduct a wedding, it used to be recognized that someone had to be an agent of the State to marry someone. Likewise, if a person simply shows up at the border and has a document signed by "Joe" that states he is a U.S. Citizen then he'll be turned away.

Baptism is, among other things, a sign of admission into the visible Church. We don't think that Ministers have sacerdotal powers, but they have been ordained and we believe they do serve, under the authority of a Session, to administer the means of grace. While we may view others in the Church catholic as performing their work in an unlawful manner, we do recognize that if someone is a minister in part of the Church catholic to have the authority to admit into the visible Church. We just don't see laypersons as possessing any such authority. They can go through the motions, but it is equivalent (in our eyes) to having a piece of paper, signed by your Dad, that states you're now a citizen of a country.

Why wouldn't a Session explain this to a person when they join a Church? Would we just leave them ignorant of authority over the Sacraments and their validity? It's not a harsh rule to punish someone who did something in ignorance but a loving conviction that we desire someone to be baptized in a valid manner in accord with the command of our Lord.

 

[iainduguid]

Thank you - that is a very good point. I appreciate your pastoral responses on this issue.

I agree with the first part - and I believe the exhortation aimed at the congregation (and the parents) in the original DPW conveys this - but the final part seems unnecessary to me if the congregation is being regularly taught the first part. Too often the only time we hear of the corporate responsibility to help shepherd and disciple children within the congregation is at baptisms. We shouldn't be trying to make up for a lack of teaching by adding to the simplicity of the sacraments.

I see the addition of human vows/promises during a baptism as drawing away from the central vow/promise of God towards the one being baptized - that singular act of baptism is what was "instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ... That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel...That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers." (DPW 1645)

The act of baptism is the promise and the reception into the Church. Adding a corporate response makes it seem like the congregation is somehow joining in the baptism ("there is almost equal weight" as you put it) when it is really a time for them, as the DPW exhorts, "To look back to their baptism; to repent of their sins against their covenant with God; to stir up their faith; to improve and make right use of their baptism, and of the covenant sealed thereby betwixt God and their souls.”

I appreciate the pragmatic nature of the additional (parental and congregational) vows, but they seem to open up this sacrament to further (and perhaps in this case, valid) criticism from credo-baptists that such paedo-baptist practices goes beyond the Biblical warrant.

Hi there Andrew,
Thanks for an edifying discussion. You've added a new dimension here by potentially broadening out the discussion from merely the vows required of the congregation to include the vows made by the parents as well, which are also not mentioned by the DPW but are prominent in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (for both parents and godparents). In the DPW, the only question the parents answer is the name of the child, and they are admonished in a way that assumes they are Christians, whereas in the BCP demands them to affirm the child has not already been baptized, as well as renouncing the devil and all his works and other such commitments. The BCP also suggests that all that is needed is for the family to notify the curate the day before, or possibly even on the morning of the baptism.

This suggests a couple of things to me:
1) the DPW assumes a properly disciplined congregation, in which everyone likely to present a child has already professed faith publicly and therefore there is no need for them to re-commit themselves to vows they have already made. On the other hand, the BCP anticipates the possibility of anyone living in the parish showing up on a Sunday morning just to get their child "done" and builds in vows as necessary fencing. If so, it's perhaps ironic to see Anglicans fencing the sacrament more strenuously than Presbyterians!
Perhaps the same expectation is true with the congregation: the DPW assumes that they are all aware of their proper role (making godparents unnecessary), and so all that is needed is a suitable admonishment and reminder. We should note however, that the current OPC formula includes public vows for parents, even though there is "only" a charge for the congregation. So if all vows in a baptismal service are off-limits, then I'm not sure anyone measures up to your standards of interpreting the DPW.

2) the differences between the BCP and the DPW on this topic suggest a possible entrance route of these vows into Presbyterianism in the 19th century (if that is when they arose) from Anglicanism rather than congregationalism. There were a number of "liturgical renewal" movements in Scotland during this period (both in the Church of Scotland and the Free Church), and it's easy to see how they might have remodeled the baptismal liturgy slightly in the direction of the BCP, with appropriate theological changes to fit the omission of godparents. Those could then easily have hopped the Atlantic and influenced American Presbyterianism during the same time period. This seems to me a more likely source than congregationalism, which was not hugely influential during this period, as I understand it. Though I'm not a church historian, so I could be completely wrong.

 

[Northern Crofter]

the BCP demands them to affirm the child has not already been baptized

That is interesting given this thread!

not mentioned by the DPW but are prominent in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer

the DPW assumes a properly disciplined congregation, in which everyone likely to present a child has already professed faith publicly

I think it has to be notes that that the DPW works in concert with the "The Form of Presbyterian Church Government according to the Westminster Standards" - the former gives scripts and outlines, the latter gives procedures. I'm not sure the DPW assumes that everyone likely to present a child has already professed faith publicly - there is still in the FPCG the power and duty of a session "To inquire into the knowledge and spiritual estate of the several members of the congregation.

it's perhaps ironic to see Anglicans fencing the sacrament more strenuously than Presbyterians!

Indeed! But is that not what the DPW is doing when it states "Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing... [then follows a long list of topics] ...In these or the like instructions, the minister is to use his own liberty and godly wisdom, as the ignorance or errors in the doctrine of baptism, and the edification of the people, shall require."? This "fencing of the font" could be as strenuous as needed.

I'm not sure anyone measures up to your standards of interpreting the DPW.

I'm not saying these are my standards - I'm just pointing out there are no vows/promises in the original DPW standards and curious when they came about. Your point #2 above is a very good line to explore for a possible explanation and I appreciate the guidance.

 

[ProtestantReformer]

Thank you for your replies. I’m truly learning & considering all that has been shared. Humbled by the wisdom.

 

[Phil D.]

I am only posting this so as to provide some historical clarification, not to further the discussion or debate here. In my previous quotation of Dr. Clark, Calvin was cited as being among those not in favor of redoing lay baptisms. However, in a letter to an “unknown church [ecclesiae incertae],” dated Nov. 13, 1561, Calvin substantially qualified his position.

We therefore judge baptism that is administered by a private person [privato homine] to be adulterated [adulterinum], and this recklessness [temeritas] ought not be tolerated in a properly comprised Church. But because this happened among you at the beginning of the Reformation, before the right order of the Church was restored and things were still in confusion, this error [errori] is not only to be pardoned, but any baptism [qualiscunque baptismus] is to be admitted, so long as what was once done wrongly is not made a precedent or example for the future. For when there is confusion in the Church, God pardons many things that are not to be admitted in a well-ordered Church.​

​

Previously, the true Religion was doubtless infected with the many flaws and corruptions that had crept into Circumcision, yet we do not read that it was repeated when the people were recalled to pure worship. It is therefore neither necessary or expedient to worriedly inquire into every circumstance, which would only give rise to innumerable doubts [scrupulos]. Therefore, what God pardoned under the Papacy let us also bury. But now that the Church has again been instructed in the true use of baptism, what is repugnant to Christ's institution should be deemed of no account [pro nihilo ducendum esset], and those who have been defiled by a profane sprinkling [pollutus fuerit profana aspersione] should be baptized anew [ac de integro baptizandus].​

​

[Institutio Christianae Religionis, Johanne Calvino authore, (Genevae: Franciscus Perrinus, 1568), Pt. 2, p.334—Johannis Calvini Epistolae et Responsa.]​

Whoever that letter may have been addressed to, it seems the German Reformed theologian Johann Heinrich Alting (1583–1644) must have been familiar with it, as he very similarly wrote:

Baptism administered by a private man [privatim à viro] during the dissipation of the church, and which was done according to the institution of Christ, is not to be repeated—but if it was administered by a woman it is to be accounted for nothing. There are two parts to this assertion: The first concerns the Baptism of those now living [de Baptismo vivorum]. We do not say that such is lawful or proper [licitum aut legitimum], for they are guilty of trifling, as we have shown—but it is not to be repeated, provided the following double condition or limitation is met: 1. If it was administered according to the institution of Christ, by sprinkling the infant with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 2. If it happened in the diffusion of the Church, such as is now seen here and there in the Palatinate. Indeed, when the Church is in such a state God forgives many things, which would in no way be right to admit in a well-ordered Church.​

​

Previously, when religion was debased by the people of Israel, there is no doubt that circumcision was entangled in many vices and corruptions. However, we do not read that it was repeated when the people were recalled to pure worship. Likewise, in the previous century the Baptism of the Papists was disgraced and vitiated by many superstitions, and yet it was not repeated by the Reformed Churches when they separated from the communion of the Papacy.​

​

[Henrici Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensia, (Amstelodami, Joannem Janssonium, 1646), Pt. 2, p.326—Problemata Theologica tam Theorica, quam Practica, Pars I, XVI]​

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am only posting this so as to provide some historical clarification, not to further the discussion or debate here. In my previous quotation of Dr. Clark, Calvin was cited as being among those not in favor of redoing lay baptisms. However, in a letter to an “unknown church [ecclesiae incertae],” dated Nov. 13, 1561, Calvin substantially qualified his position.

We therefore judge baptism that is administered by a private person [privato homine] to be adulterated [adulterinum], and this recklessness [temeritas] ought not be tolerated in a properly comprised Church. But because this happened among you at the beginning of the Reformation, before the right order of the Church was restored and things were still in confusion, this error [errori] is not only to be pardoned, but any baptism [qualiscunque baptismus] is to be admitted, so long as what was once done wrongly is not made a precedent or example for the future. For when there is confusion in the Church, God pardons many things that are not to be admitted in a well-ordered Church.​

​

Previously, the true Religion was doubtless infected with the many flaws and corruptions that had crept into Circumcision, yet we do not read that it was repeated when the people were recalled to pure worship. It is therefore neither necessary or expedient to worriedly inquire into every circumstance, which would only give rise to innumerable doubts [scrupulos]. Therefore, what God pardoned under the Papacy let us also bury. But now that the Church has again been instructed in the true use of baptism, what is repugnant to Christ's institution should be deemed of no account [pro nihilo ducendum esset], and those who have been defiled by a profane sprinkling [pollutus fuerit profana aspersione] should be baptized anew [ac de integro baptizandus].​

​

[Institutio Christianae Religionis, Johanne Calvino authore, (Genevae: Franciscus Perrinus, 1568), Pt. 2, p.334—Johannis Calvini Epistolae et Responsa.]​

Whoever that letter may have been addressed to, it seems the German Reformed theologian Johann Heinrich Alting (1583–1644) must have been familiar with it, as he very similarly wrote:

Baptism administered by a private man [privatim à viro] during the dissipation of the church, and which was done according to the institution of Christ, is not to be repeated—but if it was administered by a woman it is to be accounted for nothing. There are two parts to this assertion: The first concerns the Baptism of those now living [de Baptismo vivorum]. We do not say that such is lawful or proper [licitum aut legitimum], for they are guilty of trifling, as we have shown—but it is not to be repeated, provided the following double condition or limitation is met: 1. If it was administered according to the institution of Christ, by sprinkling the infant with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 2. If it happened in the diffusion of the Church, such as is now seen here and there in the Palatinate. Indeed, when the Church is in such a state God forgives many things, which would in no way be right to admit in a well-ordered Church.​

​

Previously, when religion was debased by the people of Israel, there is no doubt that circumcision was entangled in many vices and corruptions. However, we do not read that it was repeated when the people were recalled to pure worship. Likewise, in the previous century the Baptism of the Papists was disgraced and vitiated by many superstitions, and yet it was not repeated by the Reformed Churches when they separated from the communion of the Papacy.​

​

[Henrici Alting, Scriptorum Theologicorum Heidelbergensia, (Amstelodami, Joannem Janssonium, 1646), Pt. 2, p.326—Problemata Theologica tam Theorica, quam Practica, Pars I, XVI]​

Which makes both quotes agree with the historic conviction of the Presbyterian Church.

... because this happened among you at the beginning of the Reformation, before the right order of the Church was restored...​

If it happened in the diffusion of the Church​

I wonder how one would argue about the "formula" being accurate but the fact that the Baptism of a woman would be "...accounted for nothing...."