Bicknell on Article XXVII: Of Baptism

The main body of the Article dates from 1553. In 1563 the language on Infant Baptism was strengthened. The earlier Article had only said that the custom was to be ‘commended’ and ‘retained in the

Church.’

It is aimed at (i) the inadequate view of Baptism taken by Zwingli and the Anabaptists ; (ii) the denial of Infant Baptism,

§ 1. Christian Baptism has a long history behind it.

(a) The use of ceremonial washings as preparatory to approach- ing God in prayer and worship is a common feature of many ancient religions. It was a natural symbol for that puri- fication, however inadequately conceived, which the worshipper desired before coming into the presence of God. It corresponded to a universal human instinct. We find such use of water among the Jews. It is commanded in the Old Testament (e.g. Lev. 8°, 149, etc.). Further, by the time of our Lord the custom had arisen for proselytes to the Jewish faith to be not only circum- cized but baptized. Proselytes so baptized were said by their entrance into Judaism to be ‘born again.’ A ‘new creature’ (kay xtiow), the phrase applied by St. Paul in 2 Cor. 5!” to the Christian, as being in Christ by baptism, was a current Jewish term for a proselyte. The plunge beneath the water in baptism represented a death to the old life and the rising from the water a birth to the new life within the sphere of God’s Covenant. The baptism of John can only be understood in the light of such contemporary Jewish custom. It differed from the ordinary ceremonial washings of the Jews because it was not repeated. It was preparatory for the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. In effect John treated the Jews as on a level with Gentiles : they needed to become, as it were, proselytes, in order to enter the Kingdom. Mere descent from Abraham was not enough. God required personal penitence, and such penitence must express itself in public submission to John’s baptism (Mt. 3, ete.). But John’s baptism was only preparatory. It was only a ‘ water-baptism unto repentance.’ Those who received it were at best placed in the closest relation to God that was possible under the Old Covenant. John himself looked forward to the coming of One who would ‘baptize with Holy Spirit and fire’ (314). Such baptism would bestow not only forgiveness for the past but new power for the future. Those who received it would enter into the Messianic Kingdom and all its blessings. We read, too, of baptism as practised by our Lord’s disciples during His life on earth (Jn. 4%?). This baptism would seem to be on a level with John’s. It cannot have been full Christian baptism. Such was only possible after the Ascension, when Christ was glorified and the Spirit was given (cp. Jn. 79°). At its highest it was a mark of discipleship, not a means of membership of Christ.

(b) This practice of baptism, already familiar to the Jews and easily intelligible to the heathen, Jesus Christ took and made to be the visible mark of acceptance of Himself as Saviour and of membership in the Christian society. This is definitely asserted in Mt. 281°, ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ But the belief that Christian baptism originated in the direct command of Christ does not depend on a single text. From first to last the New Testament knows of no other means of entrance into the Church. A Christian and a baptized person are synonymous terms. The universal prac- tice of baptism in all churches, Jewish and Gentile alike, starting from the days of Pentecost (Acts 238) without any hint of question- ing or debate, can only be explained by the fact that it was instituted by Christ Himself. Many writers have held that the language of Acts shows that baptism was at first administered in the name of Jesus only (Acts 238 ‘ in the name of Jesus Messiah,’ 816 “into the name of the Lord Jesus,’ 1048, etc., cp. also Gal. 32”, Rom. 6). This is possible. There were some who held the name of Jesus Christ by itself to be sufficient, even as late as the fourth century. It was defended on the principle that baptism in the name of One Person of the Trinity implied baptism in the name of all. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the phrases of the Acts and Epistles are not intended to represent the actual formula used, but rather to distinguish Christian baptism from Jewish baptism or John’s baptism. St. Paul, for instance, speaks of being ‘baptized into Moses’ (1 Cor. 107), with an implied contrast to being ‘ baptized into Christ,’ but this does not mean that the formula ‘ into Moses’ was ever used.*

It is noticeable that the Didache both speaks of baptism ‘into the name of Christ’ and also gives the Trinitarian formula, showing that the two are not in any way inconsistent or mutually

*The ‘name’ in popular usage means much more than the ‘title.’ The name of a god or person was supposed to be, as it were, a real expression of himself. In any case, when our Lord spoke of baptism ‘in the name’ of the Trinity, He was not primarily giving a form of words to be used. He was expressing the nature of the life bestowed. Men were to be immersed into the full life of the Godhead, as He had revealed it. The Greek word Bamrifew

‘ig not such an exclusively technical word as our ‘baptize.’ It means ‘immerse’ in a general sense, and this wider meaning is never quite lost sight of in the New Testament.

exclusive. Attempts have also been made to show that the original text of Mt. 281° ran simply ‘ Baptizing them in the name of the Lord,’ and was expanded later to correspond with ecclesias- tical custom.* It is admitted that not one of our present MSS. contain any hint of this alternative reading, but it is argued that Eusebius of Caesarea several times quotes the verse in its shorter form. He had access to many good and early MSS. in the great library of Caesarea, and it is reasonable to suppose that ‘he quotes it on their authority. On the other hand, he quotes the verse in full when he needs it, and it is equally reasonable to suppose that he abbreviated it for his own convenience. We are not greatly concerned to deny that baptism in the name of Christ may have once been common, but it certainly cannot be proved, and opponents of orthodoxy have no right to assume it astrue. The language of 2 Cor. 131% shows that St. Paul expected all Corinthian Christians to be familiar with the type of teaching that is summed up in the Baptismal formula and is strong evidence of its primitiveness. t

§2. What meaning is given to Baptism in Scripture ? Primarily it signified the public acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord or Messiah and entrance into the new Israel. To-day this meaning is seen most clearly in heathen countries, but it must never be lost sight of. As the Article says, ‘ Baptism 1s not only a sign of profession and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not Christian’ (a non Christianis).t That, indeed, was the only meaning that the Zwinglians and Anabaptists would allow to baptism. It was quite true as far as it went, but inadequate, as the Article goes

Cp. also Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, esp. pp. 45-46. There is a Jewish phrase, ‘a proselyte to (or in) the name of heaven,’ 7.e. one who is baptized for God’s sake and for no personal motive. In the Talmud there is another phrase, ‘baptism in (or to) the name of freedom,’ applied to slaves, who, on rising to the rank of freemen, were rebaptized. ‘A fine con- trast and complement of baptism in the name of freedom is the proselyte’s baptism in the name of heaven, or in its Gospel form—baptism in the name of Christ.’

t Cp. the Baptismal office : ‘ Baptism doth represent unto us our profession : which is to follow the example of our Saviour Christ and to be made like unto Hin, ete.’

on to point out. Scripture makes it clear that baptism is not only a sign of profession but a means of grace.

(a) We turn first to the teaching of our Lord as given in Jn. 3©8, The question may be raised how far we have here a literal record of His teaching. But in any case when the passage was written Christian baptism had long been established and even if the words are an interpretation of Christ’s teaching rather than a record of it, the Church approved them as a true interpretation. Nico- demus apparently regarded himself as fit to enter the Messianic Kingdom just as he was. He had refused to submit to John’s baptism as a preparation. He needed to be taught that a man must be ‘born again’ (or from above) before he can even see the Kingdom of God (v. 3). He must be born ‘ of water and Spirit’ before he can enter the Kingdom (v. 5). In other words, the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and can only be shared by those who by receiving new life possess the capacity for sharing it. The reference to baptism is unmistakable. Nico- demus stands in the same relation to the new Israel as a Gentile to the old Israel. He must become a ‘new creature.’ But whereas Jewish baptism and even John’s baptism was only with water, the baptism that admits into the Kingdom of God is ‘of water and Spirit’ (e& vdaros Kal wvevwaros—the pre- position not being repeated binds the two words into a single phrase). This baptism not only symbolizes cleansing and new life, but bestows them. The water is at once the symbol and the channel of the Spirit. Some have seen an allusion to Gen. 1%. The new man rises from the water of baptism at the creative touch of the Spirit of God, even as the world sprang to life as He moved on the face of the waters at the first creation. The root idea is perfectly clear. At our first birth we receive the initial capacity for life in this present world: at our new birth the initial capacity for life in the Kingdom of God.

This same thought underlies the whole of the New Testament teaching on Baptism. St. Paul speaks of it as ‘the bath of regeneration ’ (Tit. 35). More often he expresses the same idea in a slightly different form. By baptism we are incorporated into the body of Christ and become His members (1 Cor. 12%, Gal. 327). By our natural birth we are ‘in Adam,’ 7.e. we inherit a common human: nature shared by our fellowmen: by our new birth in baptism we become in Christ (1 Cor. 15”).

Christ is the new Adam, the source of a new and regenerate humanity. Henceforward the Christian is to live and do all things in Christ (Eph. 1°, 2, etc.). As members of Christ His life is within us (1 Cor. 6%). It is the same relation to Himself as that which our Lord describes in the allegory of the vine (Jn. 15! ff.). His life is to circulate in us, as the sap of the vine in the branches. Further, St. Paul develops this thought so as to bring out that the birth to the new life must involve a death to the old. In virtue of our union with Christ we share His death and burial, that we may rise with Him to newness of life .(Ro. 611, Col. 212. _ Note the aorists in each case, referring to the single definite event of baptism). The symbolism of immersion admirably set forth this truth. The plunge beneath the water represented the death and burial of the old man, the rising from the water the birth to new life in union with the Risen Lord. Henceforth the baptized is to reckon himself ‘dead to sin but alive unto God in Christ Jesus’ (Ro. 61°ff., Col. 313). Having been made a member of Christ, he is called to live as such (1 Cor. 64, Eph. 57°, etc.). In 1 Pet. 32%?! stress is laid on present salvation begun here and now through baptism. The Church is the ark in which safety may be found.

(b) The blessings of baptism mentioned in the Article are not a number of detached blessings, but flow from the union with Christ thus gained. Baptism is ‘a sign of regeneration or new birth.’ “Sign ’ is clearly used in the sense defined in the previous Article as ‘effectual sign.’ That is, baptism not only symbolizes new birth but conveys it, since by it we are made members of Christ.*

Again by baptism ‘ as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.’ This simply expresses the same truth from another standpomt.. The Church is Christ’s body. The metaphor of grafting comes from Ro. 1117; the Gentiles are like a wild olive grafted into the ancient stock of the true olive so as to be enriched by its life, the true olive being the Israel of God. The promises of the forgiveness of sin… by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed. It is as being in Christ that we are forgiven. We have entered into the new life and the stains of the old life have been washed away. In the

• Cp. the opening of the Catechism, ‘My baptism: wherein I was made a member of Christ, etc.’

New Testament baptism is always ‘ unto the remission of sins,’ ae. not only an expression of repentance, but a visible sign and seal of God’s forgiveness. On the day of Pentecost St. Peter bids the multitude ‘ Repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus the Messiah, unto remission of your sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ’ (Acts 23738), Ananias called on St. Paul to ‘be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord’ (Acts 2216, cp. also 1 Cor. 644, Hph. 5%), As Article [IX puts it, ‘ There is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized’ (renatis et credentibus), not because God has favourites and arbitrarily passes over in one man what He condemns in another, but because those who repent and are baptized have faced their sin in penitence and done their best to remedy it by coming to Christ to receive from Him that new life which alone can restore them to spiritual health. Their sins are forgiven them as being ‘ in Christ.’ The actual cleansing of the body with the water is the ‘ sign and seal ’ of the inward purification and acceptance by God. A document is sealed when the donor who has promised a gift ‘ actually makes the thing promised over to the receiver and thereby assures the possession of it to him.’ *

The promises … of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost,f are wisibly signed and sealed. Again, it is as being members of Christ that we share His sonship. It is through Him we ‘receive the adoption of sons ’ (Gal. 4*°). Soin Ro. 81? St. Paul writes: ‘Ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear’; but ye received (¢Aa Gere, aorist) the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ ’ (cp. also Gal. 3°27). The objection may be raised ‘are not all men children of God ? They do not need to be made so by bap- tism.’ This objection confuses potential with actual sonship. God made men to be His children, but sin has come in between God and men. All men have by creation a capacity for sonship, but sin has blinded their eyes and warped their affections. By

• Dr. Gibson, placing a comma before and after ‘ by the Holy Ghost,’ connects the words with both the forgiveness and the adoption. This was the punctua- tion of the earliest English editions. No question of doctrine is concerned.

~

ourselves we cannot be all that God meant us to be. Can we say that a child is in any real sense a son to his father if he has never seen or known him or if he from the first has been alienated from him? Only Jesus Christ has ever lived on earth a human life as a true Son of God, and by baptism He imparts to us the power of His own human sonship. Only He can fully restore our capacity for filial love and obedience and take away the sin that has destroyed sonship.*

Faith is confirmed: and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God. The exact meaning of this sentence is most obscure. The best interpretation seems to be that throughout this paragraph the Article has in view only adult baptism. Infant baptism is not dealt with till the second paragraph. In that case the ‘ faith ’ that is confirmed is the faith of the baptized. It is strengthened by exercising itself in the sacramental act. So, too, the grace increased is that of the baptized, and it is increased in answer to the prayers either of himself or preferably of the Church. The new life bestowed in baptism is God’s gift m response to the prayers of the Church.f

(c) If, then, baptism conveys all these blessings, how is it that many baptized persons are living openly in sin? Our prisons, for instance, are full of baptized criminals. These facts, it is often urged, disprove any doctrine of baptismal regen- eration. Such an objection misunderstands both the nature of grace and the true meaning of ‘ regeneration.’ As we saw, God’s grace will do nothing for us without our own co-operation. Bap- tism places us in a new relation to God: we, on our part, must

• So, too, it is as members of Christ that we share His election and are among ‘the elect people of God’ (Ro. 161%, Eph. 14, etc.) and are inheritors of His

Kingdom (e.g. Rev. 51°). Op. the Catechism, ‘I was made a member of Christ, the child of God and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven.’

• If the first section has in mind infant as well as adult baptism, the simplest interpretation would be to interpret the words as denoting an increased blessing won for the baptized by the prayers of the bystanders. Dr. Gibson explains it in the light of the prayer in the Baptismal office, in which the minister in the name of all those present thanks God for their call to the knowledge of His grace and faith in Him, and then proceeds, ‘Increase this knowledge and confirm this faith in us evermore.’ On this view the words describe what takes place in the baptized subsequent to their own baptism, when they are reminded of their own baptism by witnessing another’s. In any case the Latin ‘vi divinae invocationis ’ hardly corresponds to the English ‘by virtue of prayer unto God,’ and might be translated ‘in virtue of the invocation of God,’ i.e. of the name of the Trinity.

respond to this and use it. Baptism brings within our reach new possibilities for holiness: we must realize them by the use of our wills. As baptized we have not only new claims upon God, but also new duties and responsibilities towards Him. As members of Christ, we are in touch with new forces for good, but they will only make us holy in so far as we work with them. The failure of many baptized persons does not show that baptism is valueless : it only shows that they have not responded to and used the benefits of baptism.*

Again, much confusion has arisen because the word ‘ regenera- tion’ has been used in different senses. The Prayer-Book means by it simply incorporated into Christ. All baptized persons are ‘regenerate’ in this sense. On the other hand, Nonconformists identify ‘regeneration’ with ‘ conversion.’ They mean by regeneration that spiritual renewal which membership of Christ results in, when it is rightly accepted and used. It includes the conversion or turning of the will to God and the personal acceptance of Christ. In this sense a baptized person who has made no effort to live up to his privileges is not ‘ regener- ate.’ If we use Prayer-Book language we say that regeneration needs to be supplemented by conversion. The actual renewal of the soul requires both the gift of the grace of God in baptism and also the personal surrender of the will to that grace. A man should be both regenerate and converted. Regeneration is the work of God: it is accomplished in a moment: by it new powers are placed in our grasp. Conversion is our work in conjunction with God: it calls for effort and self-surrender. It may be either rapid or slow. In the Bible we have instances of both kinds. We may be able to point to a definite moment of conversion or not. Many Christians pass through more than one conversion. The important thing is that there shall be a thorough self-surrender to the divine will. Conversion may precede regeneration or follow it. In the case of children who are baptized as infants, it must necessarily follow it. In the case of adults from whom faith and repentance are required, it

• We may compare the gifts of baptism to a store of money lying at the bank. A man may possess such and yet be naked and starving because he has not claimed and used his money. His plight does not prove tne non-existence of the money. So by faith and obedience we have to claim and use our baptismal grace.

A72 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

must have begun before baptism. But conversion is not a substitute for regeneration. It is a call to seek baptism, not to do without it (cp. the case of St. Paul, Acts 919, Cornelius and his friends, 1047, the disciples at Ephesus, 19°). One of the proofs of conversion is the willingness to obey the command of our Lord by submitting to baptism and to confess Him by joining openly the Christian society of which baptism is the visible entrance. Whatever blessings God may bestow outside, by baptism we enter within the circle of God’s covenanted mercies. No conversion, however complete, can of itself guarantee full and abiding union with Christ. The normal means of that union, where it can be had, is baptism, followed by a life lived in the fellowship of the Church.* Cp. Du Bose, Soteriology of N.T. p. 367 fi.

Darwell Stone, Holy Baptism. The articles ‘ Baptism’ in H.D.B. and H.R. EH.

It is only fair to mention another view of baptism held by many of the reformers known as the ‘ obsignatory’ view. This view has its origin in Calvinism. Since God’s grace is irresistible and given only to the elect, it follows that sacraments cannot in any real sense be ‘ means of grace.’ Rather they are pledges or seals of blessings already belonging to the recipient as a child of grace. They assure him of the reality of the divime blessing. On this view baptism does not make us children of God, it only assures us that we are such or can be such when we fulfil the necessary conditions of faith and repentance, just as the coronation does not give the king his sovereignty, but is the seal of an already possessed sovereignty. This view is still held even by many who have abandoned the Calvinism that originally suggested it. It can hardly be reconciled with the language of the Articles about sacraments as ‘ effectual signs of grace.’ It renders almost meaningless much of the baptismal service, e.g. the words in which after the baptism of the infant

• A difficulty is often felt about the words of 1 Jn. 3° and 518, ‘ Whosoever is born of God sinneth not’ or ‘doth not commit sin.’ The difficulty is equally great whether ‘ born of God’ means ‘ baptized ’ or ‘ converted.’ No one could hold that a converted man never sins. The only answer lies in drawing attention to the present tense (d4uaprdvec) which refers to a habit of sin. St. John is as- suming that the Christian is responding to the position given him as son of

God (cp. Ro. 84). In so far as he does this and realizes the new life, ne does not commit sin.

we thank God ‘that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with pee holy Spirit,’ and of the Catechism, which declares that we were ‘made’ members of Christ by baptism. In the case of adults it reduces baptism to little more than an aid to faith. In the case of infants it is hard to see on this view that baptism has any value at all. It might just as well be deferred to a later age, when its meaning would be understood by the recipient.

§3. Wecan now turn to the question of infant baptism, always remembering that the Scripture language about baptism is coloured by the prevalent practice of adult baptism. So too much of the language both of our Prayer-Book and our Article, which is based on Scripture, is applicable in its full sense only to adults. As applied to infants it requires a certain accommodation to new conditions.

(a) Historically there seems no reason to doubt that the practice of infant baptism dates from apostolic times. It is in the fullest accord with contemporary ideas on religion. ‘The idea that a parent should enter a religion or covenant relation with God as an individual merely, 7.e. by himself as distinct from his immediate family would never occur to the ancients, least of all to a Jew.’* Every Jewish boy was circumcised when he was eight days old and thus brought within the covenant. In the case of proselytes to Judaism, the children were baptized and, if males, circumcised. The practice was defended on the ground that ‘one may act for another to his advantage though not to his disadvantage apart from his knowledge and consent.’ We do not, indeed, find any positive mention of infant baptism in the New Testament, but we do not find the slightest hint of any age limit. Looked at in the light not of modern thought but the thought and custom of the first century, silence on the point is most readily explamed by the supposition that infants were baptized. We have record of the baptism of whole households (Acts 16% ff., 1 Cor. 136). St. Peter can bid men repent and be baptized, ‘for to you is the promise and to your children’ (Acts 2°). So, too, St. Paul sends a message to children based on their membership in Christ’s body (Col. 32°, Eph 61, n.b. ‘in the Lord ’). Infant baptism was certainly practised in the early Church.

AT4 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES

The first known objector to it is Tertullian. His objection is based on the ground that infants may fall into sin later, and, since baptism cannot be repeated, such sin may fail to obtain forgiveness : hence it is wiser to delay. These words are evidence for the existence of the practice, and he does not oppose it on doctrinal grounds. Down to a much later date baptism was frequently postponed till the approach of death from a conviction of the unforgiveableness of post-baptismal sin, and a desire to have a good time in the present world. But such a practice did not express the mind of the Church. On the other hand, the conditions of apostolic Church life were those of the mission field. And in the mission field then as to-day, adult baptism is the rule and infant baptism the exception. Children are only baptized where both parents are Christian or where some very definite guarantee is given that the child both can and shall be brought up as a Christian. Further, in times of persecution parents might be afraid to have their children baptized.

(6) We cannot doubt that the Church was rightly guided and that ‘ The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.’ The new covenant cannot be narrower than the old: the New Israel cannot put barriers where the Old Israel put none. It is often objected that infants cannot have faith and repentance. That is indeed obvious. ‘Faith and repentance’ are necessary conditions, when they can be had. But spiritual life is the free gift of God, and where there is no active disbelief or impenitence to oppose a bar to God’s mercy, it does not need faith for its reception. We need not be consulted about our second birth any more than about our first. Children, when they come into the world, enter upon an inheritance tainted by sin. They should equally possess from the first that union with Christ which is the antidote to sin. After all few of us would refuse to pray to God to bless a child. We read of our Lord blessing children who were so small that He could take them up in His arms, and therefore were. presumably incapable of faith (Mk. 10°15). Our Lord always required faith for the reception of His blessings, where faith could rightly be expected, but in this case He expressly invited little children to come to Him. We cannot possibly tell what precise effect either His blessing or our prayers have

on the infant life, but we cannot suppose that they have no effect. So, too, we may not be able to define the inward effect of bringing children to Christ in baptism: the infant cannot recount the story of its spiritual experience. All we can say is that we believe that they receive from Him the best that they are capable of receiving.

Further, infant baptism embodies a profound spiritual prin- ciple. Religion starts not with what we do for God but with what God does for us.* We do not have to climb up to God first, to earn His goodwill by so much repentance or faith or so many good works. God’s love and His free gifts come first, and we are bidden to live up to them. Privilege comes before responsibility. The reverse view seems at first sight to be common-sense, but in practice it has always led to hard and gloomy views of God. We can never be sure that our faith or works have come up to His standard. The true view is an appeal to our trust and gratitude. Above all, it gives us a sure ground of approach to God. As baptized Christians we are God’s children, even though we may be His bad children, and we can always fall back on the sonship that He bestowed upon us. The Prodigal Son had not earned his position as son. He had received it, and used it unworthily. But in the hour of distress he could fall back upon it as a ground of appeal. Though a bad son, he could still cry ‘Father.’ So, when children are baptized their baptism always remains as a ground of appeal. We do not bid them be good and say that then, if we judge them good enough, they will be baptized. Rather we say they are Christians and therefore must live as Christians. Nothing could be more Scriptural.

Lastly, many objections to infant baptism depend for their force on a falsely isolated view of the sacrament. As we have seen, the grace given in baptism does not transform us without our own effort. It needs to be claimed and used. Accordingly, the child must be taught that he is a member of Christ and all

and our home come to us unearned and we have to live worthy of them. We do not have first to deserve them.

{ Op. the distinction between dys and dows. All Christians are dou, i.e. set apart for God that they may become dav, i.e. actually holy.

that such membership involves. If he never learns his position as a child of God and makes no effort to avail himself of the powers placed within his reach, that does not show that mfant baptism is of no value: it shows rather that the divine gift is being left unused.* Further, life of all kinds can only be realized by development, and that development needs the right environ- ment. By baptism infants not only receive the power of a new life, but are placed in the Church in which this new life is to be progressively developed. Our natural human life depends for its growth upon fellowship. A child after birth needs to be fed and clothed if it is to be strong and healthy. Later on it needs education and instruction. So the baptized infant requires food and nursing for its soul if it is to grow up spiritually sound. The Christian child is to come to self-consciousness within the Church. He is to be taught all that his life means and the grand possibilities that it contains. Hence the need of god- parents, who in the name of the Church promise to train the child. Accordingly, teaching on baptismal regeneration must never be separated from the thought of the Church as God’s family in which the new life is to be realized. The gift of God in baptism implies as its background His gifts to the Church as a whole. It is very doubtful whether it is right to baptize infants indiscriminately as is too often done to-day, when there is no real security that they will be brought up as the Prayer Book directs. God-parents are too often selected not for spiritual but for worldly reasons. As a result, baptism comes to be regarded either as a mere form or else as having a vague magic efficacy. The failure to mark any difference in later life between the baptized and the unbaptized is put down not to the failure of man’s co-operation but to the absence of divine efficiency. Much as we deplore the refusal of the Baptists to administer baptism to infants, at least their position witnesses to the fact that Bap-

• We may compare the case of the insincere adult who is baptized, without real faith and penitence, e.g. Simon Magus (Acts 8!8 ff.). When his insincerity is disclosed he is bidden to repent and amend his life: but there is no sug- gestion of rebaptism. We might have supposed that his unbelief and sin would have hindered the reception of the gifts. Rather the blessings of baptism have been given once for all and they await the will that will use them. He is to obtain remission of sins in virtue of his relation to Christ founded in baptism, not by a new baptism.

t Cp. the address to god-parents at the close of the Baptismal service.

tism means a great deal. That is a truth that the Church of England needs to restore to its due prominence.*

§ 4. What is the relation of Baptism to Confirmation ?: In apostolic times it would seem that Baptism included a laying-on of hands (Acts 198, cp. Heb. 62) and possibly an anointing with oil (2 Cor. 17*72, 1 Jn, 220and 27) The language about anointing may be purely metaphorical, but washing and anointing commonly went together. We find no explicit mention, however, of any- thing but baptizing with water in Acts 888 and 918, In Acts 81217 we find baptism distinctly separated from the laying on of hands and the gift of the Spirit connected with the latter. Philip clearly possessed only authority to baptize. The Apostles came to lay on hands. Beyond all doubt in the custom of the early Church Baptism, unction, and the laying on of hands formed a single sacrament, like the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Origen, for instance, can write, ‘ Through the laying on of hands the Holy Spirit was given in Baptism.’ In the West the laying on of hands was restricted to bishops, and owing to the difficulty of obtaining a bishop became separated from Baptism. The title ‘Confirmation ’ is late and purely Western. In the Greek Church the laying on of hands has dropped out. Infants are baptized and anointed with oil that has been specially blessed by the bishop for the purpose. That is, Baptism and Confirmation are still one. In the West, Unction has been dropped by ourselves and the laying on of hands by the Roman Church. It is usually held that the ‘matter’ of Confirmation is prayer for the gift of the Spirit. It is doubtful whether either unction or the laying on of hands can claim any higher authority than that of the custom of the Church. Many hold that the universal use of the laying on of hands by the Apostles from the first points back to a definite command of Christ, but that the command has not been preserved. In Heb. 6? the ‘laying on of hands’ is included among the ‘first principles of Christ.’ Very possibly this implies that He Himself taught it. The argu- ments are strong but not absolutely conclusive.

• The importance of Baptism is also obscured by the custom, in defiance of all Prayer-Book rules, of administering it in a hole-and-corner fashion instead of in the presence of the congregation. The whole idea of admission to Christian fellowship is lost. We have substituted ‘ Private Baptism ’ in Church for Public Baptism.

When we ask what is the relation of the gift bestowed in Baptism to that bestowed in Confirmation,* no very definite answer can be given. Scripture sheds no light on the point, since the two are viewed as parts of a single sacrament. Nor again can we get light from the early Fathers for the same reason. All would agree that the grace of Confirmation is in some sense the gift of the Holy Spirit to strengthen, but further definition is precarious. t

*It is important to remember that the essence of confirmation is ‘I am confirmed,’ not ‘I confirm.’ The renewal of the baptismal vows that in our present service precedes the confirmation is a late addition, dating only from the last revision of the Prayer-Book. The play upon words between ‘ratifying and confirming’ and being ‘confirmed ’ has been a source of great confusion, and is simply due to an unhappy fondness for such assonances prevalent in the sixteenth century. As has been well said, ‘the ratifying of vows is no more confirmation than the making of them is baptism.’

• Two main views are held :

(a) Dr. Mason argues that in Confirmation God the Holy Spirit comes for the first time to dwell in us. In Baptism He, as it were, acts from outside, cleansing us and making us members of Christ. (See Relation of Confirma- tion to Baptism.)

(6) The more usual view is that the Holy Spirit is given to us in Baptism and comes with fuller gifts in Confirmation. (See Darwell Stone, Holy Baptism, ce. v.; Bright, Morality in Doctrine, pp. 91-92). The language of the Prayer- Book is ambiguous. In the Baptismal Service we pray ‘Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be born again.’ In Confirmation the Bishop prays that the confirmed ‘may daily increase in the Holy Spirit.’

For Confirmation see :

Chase. Confirmation in the Apostolic Age. Hall. Confirmation.

The letter of Scripture supports the first view, e.g. Acts 8181? and 198. But it is most difficult to see how we can be members of Christ by Baptism, unless He dwells in us through the indwelling Spirit. Nor can we attach very much meaning to local metaphors such as ‘from outside’ or ‘inside ’ when we are dealing with spiritual facts. Again, as we saw, Scripture does not deal with the question. The separation of the two parts of a single sacrament is unscriptural, and the best solution is to see that it ceases to exist at the earliest opportunity.

Notes

• On the one side see H.R.E. ii. 380 a. On the other side Chase, J.Th.S. 1905, p. 481 ff.
• Sadler, Church Doctrine, Bible Truth, p. 120.
• H.R. E. ii. p. 379 + It is implied, e.g. by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.
• Cp. the opening of the Church Catechism, which begins with what God has done for us and then goes on to point out what we are to do for Him. See A. W. Robinson, Church Catechism Explained, p. 13 ff. So, too, our citizenship