Sometimes I do my historical research explicitly for the purpose of answering a dispute. Other times it just falls right out of the sky on top of me. Here’s a little ditty in the latest Westminster Theological Journal called “The Sin of Neglecting Baptism” by Northern Irish Presbyterian Jonathan Moore:
The infant is not to be considered in danger of damnation or its parents guilty providing that the parents “do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had.” If baptism is available to the infant but the parents withhold the child for whatever reason and thereby “contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ,” then this does render that infant “in danger of damnation” and “the parents guilty.” (pg. 70)
Moore’s entire article is an investigation of the first clause within WCF 28.5 “Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”
Using the minutes of the Assembly and other documents, Moore concludes that the bad guys in view are the Baptists. Thus he is saying that Baptist parents are putting their infants in danger of damnation and bringing themselves under that guilt.