Boultbee on Article XXVII: Of Baptism

In comparing the Latin with the English we may observe these equivalents : — (1) As by an instrument : Latin, tanquam per instrumentum. Some have given the legal meaning of title-deed to the word instrument, but the metaphor used re- quires that of a grafling-tool. (2) * They that receive baptism rightly ’ : Latin recte^ not *rite,’ for ritual defect (if not touch- ing the essence of the Sacrament) does not invalidate it. Lay and other irr^ular baptisms are admitted to be valid.

Q

Omitting one or two verbal changes, the present Article is distinguished from the 28th of 1552 by containing a stronger statement on the subject of Infant Baptism. For in King Edward’s Article it was simply asserted that * the custom of the Church to christen young children is to be commended, and in any wise to be retained in the Church.’

In the wording of this Article our Reformers seem to have borrowed little or nothing from other sources.^

The Roman Doctrine of Baptism.

The Roman doctrine as to the spiritual result of the Sacra- ment of Baptism has already received some elucidation xmder Article IX. on Original Sin. For the most distinct, and perhaps the most authoritative, doctrinal statements we may further refer to the * Catechism of the Council of Trent.’ The ordin- ary administration of this Sacrament has been loaded by the Roman Church with many ceremonies ; but it holds the sim- plest possible form to be valid, and encourages * aU from among the laity, whether men or women,’ and * even Jews, infidels, and heretics,’ in case of necessity, to baptize. This laxity seems to arise of necessity from the extreme view held as to the im- portance of this Sacrament. The faithful are to be taught * that * unless they be regenerated unto God through the grace of Baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, they are born to eternal misery and perdition.’ Further, ’ No other means of salvation remains for infant children except Baptisra.’ This will explain the otherwise unintelligible anxiety of zeal- ous Roman missionaries to baptize (even surreptitiously) the infant children of heathen parents, where there is no prospect of an opportunity of imparting subsequent Christian instruc- tion.5

Hardwick, * Histoiy of Arts/ p. 393. * Part II. chap. ii.

• Question xxiii. * Question xxx. * Question xxxiii.

• To this must also be referred a most revolting chapter of Dens, * Theologia Moralis et Dogmatica,’ a work much used, and of high authority in training the Roman priesthood ; * Tractatus de Baptismo,* 23, 24, 25 ; ‘An infantes baptizentur in utero matemo;’ De scctione Csesarea ; * * De fcetu abortivo.

l^OMAN DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM. 227

The degree of suffering to be endured by infants dying unbaptized is much disputed, but * parents may be consoled by the assurance that it is not certain that tihey endure the penalty of fire, but that it is certain that their penalty .will be the lightest of all; 1

The chief effects of Baptism are defined ^ thus : * Sin is re- mitted and pardoned, whether originally contracted from our first parents or actually committed by ourselves, however great its enormity ’ — * The remaining concupiscence or innate pror disposition to sin does not really possess the nature of sin ’ — * Why a state of uncorrupt nature is not straightway restored by Baptism ’ is said to be ’ because we are not to be more hon- oured than Christ, our Head, who did not lay aside the fragility of human nature,’ and because what we have to struggle with gives us * the germs and materials of virtue, firom which we may afterwards obtain more abundant fi:uit of glory and more ample rewards.’ For the further results of Baptism it is as- serted that * the sotd is replenished with divine grace. But grace is (as the Council of Trent has decreed imder pain of anathema) not only that whereby sin is remitted, but is, also, a divine quality inherent in the soul, and, as it were, a certain splendour and light, that efface all the stains of our souls, and render the souls themselves brighter and more beautiful. To this is added a most noble train of all virtues, which are di- vinely infused into the soul with grace.’ The question why the baptized, nevertheless, are so slow to practise piety is an- swered firom the consideration of * the severe conflict of the flesh against the spirit.’ But it is finally ’ confessed that all do not participate in an equal degree of its heavenly graces and fruits.’

The Doctrine op the English Chukch on Article XXVII.

It is a difficult task to attempt to lay before the student a succinct and clear, and at the same sufiiciently accurate and satisfactory, account of English theology on the subjeot of

[…]

q2

Baptism. And this must be so, if Dean Goodes account of the matter be (as it undoubtedly is) correct. He thus writes in his learned work on * The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the effects of Baptism in the case of infants : ’ The mat- ter is often spoken of as if the Church of England must of necessity have laid down, and had in fact laid down, a certain definite, precise view upon this subject, and peremptorily en- joined it upon all her ministers for their acceptance and belief, … It appears to me, after long and anxious consideration, that all which our Church has done upon this question is to lay down certain limits on both sides, within which the views of her ministers are to be confined.’ Those limits he thus traces. In the early days of the Eeformation on the Continent, crude and imperfect views on the Sacraments arose in some quarters out of the revulsion from the gross materialism of the Romif dogma. Such views have been generally identified (perhaps not altogether justly) with the name of Zwingle, and are con- veniently, at least, and commonly known as Zwinglidn, Ac- cording to them the Sacraments were regarded as mere signs without any special promise of grace. But the leading divines of the various sections of the Reformed Churches unanimously rejected this imperfect teaching, and came to a practical agree- ment, thus far at least, that the Sacraments are not empty figures or mere signs, but that God through them efficaciously works that which they represent. [See this copiously illus- trated fi:om the foreign Eeformed Confessions, and the works of Luther, BuUinger, Calvin, &c., by Dean Goode on Infant Baptism, chap, iii.] This leads us to the limit imposed by the Church of England on the one hand, that the Sacraments in general, and (as in this article) Baptism in particular, are * not only badges and tokens,’ but rather effectual signs of grace by which God doth work invisibly in us.’ * Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference.’ As this limitation fironts and excludes what may be briefly called Zwinglian opinions, so the other faces in the opposite direc- tion, and excludes the Boman doctrine of grace given ex opere operato, and contained as if it were (so to speak) a certain

’ Chap. i.

matter deposited in the matter of tHe Sacrament and conveyed along with it. We have already seen (p. 217) how this Roman view of the Sacrament stands contrasted with English theology. These, then, are the limits which our Church has laid down in the Articles as those within which the opinions of her ministers are to be confii^ed. How &r the formularies admit of all the variations of doctrine which lie between those limits is another and very difficult question.

But having thus stated the extremes within which, according to our Articles, variation is not forbidden, it will be needful ta attempt to lay before the student some classification which may, with sufficient accuracy, group together the leading shades of doctrine which have prevailed within the borders of the English Church.

The differences in question have been based mainly on ex- pressions in the Catechism and the Baptismal service. The< following may be taken as the most marked of those expres- sions : —

• Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven.’

‘A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature bom in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.’

• Seeing now that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Chmrch, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits.’

• We yield Thee hearty thanks, most mercifid Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and ta incorporate him into Thy holy Church.*

The opinions resulting from a consideration of these passa- ges, together with the Articles and Scriptural and other sources of theological system, may be first broadly classified into these two: —

A. Those which imderstand the above expressions as liter- ally and absolutely fulfilled in every case of Baptism, Ob- viously these will differ according to the scope and compre-

hensiveness of meaning given to the words Regeneration^ Adoption^ Child of God, &c.

B. Those which understand the expressions in question to be used not absolutely but conditionally : as conveying not a known certainly, resulting from known and ascertained spiritual conditions, but hypothetically in the language of &ith, which assumes the implied conditions to be present, and thereupon pronounces the fulfilment of the Gospel covenant of grace to the person baptized. In this view, however, that fulfilment (at least in its complete and absolute sense) still remains a contingency depending on spiritual conditions, the presence or absence of which will hereafter become manifest in the life.

The class A may be broken into these three principal sections : —

A 1. Those who more or less closely approximate to the Tridentine view of the Sacrament containing grace and giving it ex opere operato, the soul being absolutely and invariably restored to primeval purity in Baptism.* Opinions of this class seem to have altogether exceeded the limits of compre- hensiveness allowed by the Church of England and described above.

A 2. Those who hold the class of doctrine to be included in our second section usually belong to those who are generally and popularly known as moderate High Churchmen. These generally hold that, in the case of an infant, its inability to oppose any barrier of unbelief and impenitence to the entrance of grace assures us that the covenanted grace has been cer- tainly conferred in Baptism. For they allege that unbelief and impenitence alone can bar the flow of covenant grace. Accordingly an impenitent adult is able to resist (the technical mediaeval phrase is ponere ohicem) the reception of grace ; but an unconscious infant cannot do so, and in such an one Bap- tism fulfils its entire purpose.

Divines of a purely English school must, by virtue of their national character, have a respect for facts, which they are not permitted to override altogether by any theory. Hence in

» See Art. IX. p. 79.

claiming the spiritual regeneration of all infants in Baptism in a sense which shall reach the moral nature within, this class of divines conceives that * a seed ’ of goodness is invariably im- planted at Baptism which may or may not afterwards become developed and bear fruit. Or the doctrine may be otherwise stated as the bringing of the soul into direct and covenanted connexion with the Holy Spirit, whose help is thenceforth positively assured. The grace of the Spirit will plead with the soul as the reason opens, and wiU ultimately sanctify it, if *• that grace be not stifled, disregarded, or abused.’

A 3. Another school of divines reconciles the observed facts as to the moral condition of the mass of the baptized with the literal interpretation of our fonnularies by excluding the moral element from the definition of the word regeneration^ which is explained solely in an ecclesiastical sense. In Baptism, say they, the child is admitted to all the privileges of the Church, and is brought into a covenant relation to God. It is claimed that such a change of condition is so great and signal as to deserve the name of regeneration, and even of spintual • regeneration, inasmuch as it is the admission to great spiritual privileges. Some would take this as one of many senses in which regeneration may be used. Others would limit the theological use of the word to this sense, and apply the words conversion, renovation, and the like, to the moral and spiritual transformation of the soul.

It will be readily understood that different writers on this subject have used varied language, and have not always sharply defined their opinions. Still it is believed that the above forms a fairly approximate classification of English opinion. It need scarcely be added that A 2 and A 3, with their legitimate variations, are universally held to be fairly within the limits allowed by the English Church.

B. We come next to the classes of interpreters who under- stand the disputed expressions in the Catechism and baptismal services, not as the assertion of an ascertained and imiversal fact, but as the language of faith and charity, which presumes the presence of the grace signified by the Sacrament until the contrary shall have been manifested by the life of the person

232 ARTICLE XXVn.

baptized. These understand the word regeneration in its full gpiritual signification, reaching the moral nature within. Their view at least has the merit of reconciling fully the observed facts in the conduct of the baptized with the doc- trinal theory of the effect of Baptism.

It is urged by the supporters of this view of the subject that both in the Articles and in the Catechism the Sacraments are dealt with in their ideal completeness. All that is requisite to their efficacy is presumed to be present, both as respects the administration and the spiritual qualities of the recipient.* The two Sacraments are treated alike in this respect. The Catechism definitely requires repentance and faith for the complete result of either Sacrament. It assumes with respect to infants that these graces will in due time be manifested. In this event, and not till then, the Sacrament will be spiritually complete. Strictly speaking, our Church has not defined the result of Infant Baptism, but has been content with statements which assume the right reception as well as the right administration, and with a general declaration that infants ought to be baptized. Thus in the eye of the Church the Sacrament is assumed to be complete in all its parts. But the divine part therein can only be spoken of hypothetically and conditionally. Whether the spiritual regeneration as- sumed has really taken place or not can be known to man only fi:om the after fruits. It is further urged that this is the model on which all our services are composed. Each grace contemplated in the several acts of worship — repentance, faith, love, humility — is assumed to be present in the language put into the mouths of the worshippers. The language of doubt and hesitation is nowhere admitted, not even into a service of such almost miscellaneous use as that for the burial of the dead. All bears the same glow of &ith and hope. But, it is urged, this language of faith ought not to be paraphrased in the case of Baptism, any more than in the other services, into theological assertions of the invariable presence of the graces thus assumed.

» See Art. XXV.

^ I

It will now be necessary to elucidate by examples these schools of doctrine. It is not deemed necessary or advisable to notice further the class A 1. Tridentine and scholastic theology is broadly contrasted with that of the EngL’sh Church, and has been sufficiently set forth in the words of Trent. We turn to class A 2. It is often very difficult to find a passage containing lanpuage sufficiently definite to identify the class of doctrine of any given divine to our absolute satis&ction. But it appears that Hammond and Thorndike belong to this present class, and (though not without hesita- tion) Bishop Bethell’s work on Eegeneration, which has had much authority within the last fifty years, must be assigned to it also. He speaks of Waterland with approval, but seems, in the author’s opinion, to go beyond him. Certainly he lacks the admirable power of making himself distinctly understood which characterized that great divine. Bishop Bethell, with Waterland and others, distinguishes between Eegeneration and Eenovation, when he defines regeneration as conveying the * spirit of grace, which is designed to be a principle of spiritual life,’ but ‘is merely a potential principle.’ And when he speaks of * the infused virtue of the Holy Ghost,’ though * dormant and inactive,’ he seems to fall within the class now under consideration.

Proceeding to class A 3, we shall have the great advantage of the lucid statement of Dr. Waterland in his Eegeneration Stated and Explained^ of which we proceed to give some account : —

• Eegeneration is but another word for the new birth of a Christian. • . • This is a spiritual change wrought upon any person, by the Holy Spirit, in the use of Baptism, whereby he is translated from his natural state in Adam to a spiritual state in Christ. This change, translation, or adoption, carries in it many Christian blessings and privileges, but all reducible to two, viz., remission of sins (absolute or con- ditional), and a covenant claim for the time being to eternal happiness… . Eegeneration complete stands in two things which are, as it were, its two integral parts — ^the grant made over to the person, and the reception of that grant. The grant.

once made, continues always the same, but the reception may vary, because it depends upon the condition of the recipient.

’ Renovation, I understand, is a renewal of heart and mind. Indeed, regeneration is itself a kind of renewal ; but then it is of the spiritual state, considered at large ; whereas reno- vation seems to mean a more particular kind of renewal; namely, of the inward frame or disposition of the man … Renovation may be, and should be, with respect to adults, be- fore, and in, and after Baptism.’

• The distinction which I have hitherto insisted upon be- tween regeneration and renovation has been carefully kept up by the Lutheran divines generally. And it is what our Church appears to have gone upon in her offices of Baptism, as likewise in the Catechism.’

Waterland afterwards takes the cases of adults and infants. With regard to the former there can be no salutary regene- ration without renovation accompanying it, or until in after years renovation is wrought in the soul. With regard to in&nts, he says that, being in a state of innocence and inca- pacity, they need no repentance and cannot have feith ; ’ that

• they are consecrated in solemn form to God : pardon, mercy, and other covenant privileges, are made over to them ; and the Holy Spirit translates them out of their state of nature (to which a curse belongs) to a state of grace, favour, and blessing ; this is their regeneration.’

According to these very clear statements and definitions it is manifest that this able divine did not consider that any real moral and spiritual change was wrought in the soul, of necessity, in Baptism. All that change he separates from regeneration under the name renovation. Accordingly he proceeds to say that

• the renewing also of the heart may come gradually on with their first dawnings of reason in such measures as they shall yet be capable of… . . In this case, it is to be noted that regeneration precedes, and renovation can only follow after : though infants may perhaps be foimd capable of receiving some seeds of internal grace sooner than is commonly imagined.’ This last definite expression of doctrine as to the case of

in&nta leaves no hesitation as to the correctness of the classi- fication here made.

The class B will be sufBciently illustrated by the sketch of the celebrated Gorham case which will follow. The work of Dean Goode on ‘Infant Baptism ‘is a powerful and learned treatise advocating this mode of interpretation.

It is probable that the great majority of those usually known as the Evangelical party in the Church of England hold opinions falling under this head. But not a few of them, in- cluding men of considerable learning, belong to the class A 3. It will, however, be admitted that individual writers, while holding these general principles of interpretation, arrange the details with some considerable variety. For a general view of the whole question there is no more masterly summary than the * Eeview of the Baptismal Controversy,’ by Dr. Mozley, the Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford.

From a consideration of the several statements so far made, it will be manifest that one who desires to estimate accurately the opinions of others on this subject, or to state distinctly his own, must carefully define two things — first, in what sense the word regeneration is used and asserted in respect of Bap- tism ; secondly, whether such regeneration is held to be abso- lutely and invariably attached to Baptism or not. Failing this, it is apparent that such a gross absurdity might result, and in fauct has resulted, in ignorant or careless minds, as the con- fusing of an extreme Tridentine divine with a moderate English Churchman of the class A 3; for each of them teaches invariable baptismal regeneration, but each means a widely different thing.

With regard to the word Regeneration Dr. Mozley (chap, iv.) writes thus : * Two definitions of regeneration may be said to divide theological opinion ; according to one of which it is a state of pardon and of actual goodness, according to the other a state of pardon, and a new capacity only for goodness, or an assisting grace.’ The extreme phase of the former of these is the scholastic and Tridentine view of an infusion of all virtues into the soul of the baptized.^ This would be absolutely re-

1 See page 227.

236 ARTICLE xxvn.

pudiated by those divines -who may be called moderate Ad- glicans. Waterland, for example, speaking of the regeneration of in&nts, says that he does not believe that a moral change takes place in them, and ^ for this plain reason, because I am persuaded that the thing is impossible, morality and immo- rality being alike incompatible with their state of being/ Bishop Bethell also (chap, viii.) says that ’ in the case of infants the spirit of grace, which is designed to be a principle of spi- ritual life, is merely a potential principle The infused

virtue of the Holy Ghost is, to speak in the mildest terms, dormant and inactive when religious instruction and moral discipline are neglected.’ And he proceeds in strong language to reject, in the name of our Church, the * scholastic specula- tions ’ on the implantation of all virtues.

It will appear, therefore, upon the whole, setting aside the influence of Roman theology, that those in our Church who distinguish the word regenerate from its kindred expressions — renewed, converted, horn of God, &c. — which involve an actual change of moral and spiritual character and affections, main- tain an universal baptismal regeneration. Those who take the word regenerate as a comprehensive word, involving the change just noticed, maintain that it can only be asserted in , baptism bypothetically and in the language of faith and hope.

The internal controversies of the Church of England of late years have turned so much on the baptismal question that a few notes on this subject may be added. Dr. Mozley -writes : * The baptismal controversy was the controversy of the first half of this century. It produced treatises from a succession of writers — Archbishop Lawrence, Bishop Mant, Mr. Bid- dulph, Mr. Faber, Bishop Bethell, Dr. Pusey, Dr. Goode, Archdeacon Wilberforce, and others. It came to a head in the Gorham trial, and has since dropped.’ If this be so, a slight sketch of the points in debate, and the bearing of the decision in the Gorham case, will be useful to illustrate what may be legally held in the Church of England on this sub- ject. In 1847, whilst that controversy was at its height*, the Rev. G. C. Gorham was presented to the living of Brampford Speke, in Devonshire. Dr. Philpotts, then Bishop of Exeter,

jifler a prolonged personal examination, refused to institute Mr. Gorham to the living, on the ground of unsound doctrine on the subject of Baptism. An action was brought against the Bishop, in the Court of Arches, to rebut this charge and pro- cure institution to the living. Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, then judge of that court, pronounced against Mr. Gorham in an elaborate judgment, declaring the doctrine of the Church of England to be that infants are imdoubtedly, and without any exception, regenerated in Baptism.

The agitation produced by this decision was intense. Neither of the two contending parties probably represented the general body of the English clergy. Bishop Philpotts declared in one of his charges that on the subject of Baptism we are agreed with Eome. How far this is from being the case anyone comparing the Tridentine statements with the language of such an acknowledged English divine as Water- land would see in a moment. On the other hand, Mr. Gor- ham made statements with regard to Baptism with which many, who might agree with him generally, would refuse to symbolize. But it was felt that the issue was raised between an absolute unconditional interpretation of the baptismal ser- vice and that hypothetical charitable construction of its lan- guage which had been held ever since the Eeformation by many great divines. The judgment had rejected the latter altogether, and cast it out from any place in the Church of ^England.

From the sentence of the Court of Arches an appeal was made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coimcil, consist- ing of five eminent judges, the two Archbishops, and the Bishop of London. The two Archbishops and four judges concurred in reversing the decision of the inferior court. The Bishop of London and one judge refused to concur.

In the judgment delivered by Lord Langdale, in the name of the Judicial Committee, the following five propositions were selected from the statements of Mr. Gorham, as containing the doctrines whidi had been condenmed : —

1. That Baptism is a sacrament generally necessary to sal- vation ; but that the grace of regeneration does not so neces-

sarily accompany the act of Baptism that regeneration invariably takes place in Baptism.

2. That the grace may be granted before, in, or after Baptism.

3. That Baptism is an effectual sign of grace by which God works invisibly in us, but only in such as worthily re- ceive it ; in them alone it has a wholesome effect ; and that without reference to the qualification of the recipient it is not in itself an effectual sign of grace.

4. That infants baptized, and dying before actual sin, are certainly saved.

5. But that in no case is regeneration in Baptism imcon- ditional.

The judgment passed in review the baptismal and other offices of our Church, together with the Articles. It came to the conclusion that * the services abound with expressions which must be construed in a charitable and qualified sense, and cannot with any appearance of reason be taken as proo& of doctrine.’ It further declared that * there are other points of doctrine respecting the Sacrament of Baptism which are capable of being honestly understood in different senses.’ It proceeded to fortify this position by showing that opinions, in the main not distinguishable from ]\Ir. Gorham’s, had been held from the first by eminent prelates and divines, without censure or reproach. Among these, Bishop Jewel, Hooker, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Carlton, and Bishop Prideaux, were cited.

On these grounds Mr. Gorham was acquitted of the charge of holding false doctrine, and he was ultimately instituted to the disputed benefice.

It will be seen, therefore, that, as the law stands, the hypo- thetical interpretation of the expressions in the baptismal ser- vice is equally legal with the more absolute and invariable interpretation. It must not, however, be inferred that there are no limits to the license allowed by our Church on this matter. It was intended by our Eeformers to exclude equally Koman excess on the one hand and Zwinglian defect on the other. Thither ought the student of divinity to allow himself

to suppose it a matter of indifference which opinion he should espouse within tlie legal limits of the Church of England. But rather he should seek “with all prayer and diligence to know what opinion most, nearly harmonises with the whole body of revealed truth.

The foregoing observations will make it almost superfluous to say that it is difficult to allege passages from divines of established reputation which may be accepted as typical representations of the doctrine of the Church of England on the effects of Infant Baptism. It is conceived that there is no such difficulty with r^ard to the main doctrines of the faith, or with regard to the other Sacrament. One chief reason for this difficulty will be found in the age of the ordinary re- cipient of Baptism. An infant seems to be outside of our usual means for estimating spiritual results. Were the sub- ject Adult Baptism there would be less scope for difference. There would be a variety of opinion about the exact nature of the grace conveyed in this rite, and as to how far it was conveyed in and with the Sacrament, or how far the Sacrament was a sign and seal of grace abeady received ; but all would agree that without faith and repentance in the adult recipient the spiritual grace was not given. Any general discussion of English theology, much more of patristic theology, on the doc- trine of Baptism, is far too large for this work. The student must be referred to treatises expressly dealing with the sub- ject, some of which have been mentioned above. One name, however, is so prominent as that of a recognised English di- vine, and has been so frequently and generally used in this work, that we cannot omit consideration of his statements. Hooker has devoted eight chapters (58-65) of the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical Polity to the discussion of the nature, effects, and ritual of Baptism. What are usually considered the most important passages, as bearing upon this Article, are the following : —

1. • If outward Baptism were a cause in itself possessed of that power, either natural or supernatural, without the present operation whereof no such effect could possibly grow; it must then follow that, seeing effects do never prevent [i.e., precede’^

240 ARTICLE XXVn.

the necessary causes out of whicH they Bpring, no man could ever receive grace before Baptism ; which being apparently both known and also confessed to be otherwise in many par- ticulars, although in the rest we make not Baptism a cause of grace ; yet the grace which is given them with their Baptism doth so fer forth depend on the very outward Sacrament, that God will have it embraced, not only as a sign or token of what we receive, but also as an instrument or mean whereby we receive grace. Because Baptism is a Sacrament which God hath instituted in His Church, to the end that they which receive the same might thereby be incorporated into Christ ; and so through His most precious merit obtain, as well that saving grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness, as also that infused divine virtue of the Holy Ghost which giveth to the powers of the soul their first disposition towards future newness of life.’ *

2. ’ Predestination bringeth not to life without the grace of external vocation, wherein our Baptism is implied. For as we are not naturally men without birth, so neither are we Christian men in the eye of the Church of God but by new birth ; nor, according to the manifest ordinary course of divine dispensation new-born, but by that Baptism which both de- clareth and maketh us Christians. In which respect, we justly hold it to be the door of our actual entrance into God’s house, the first apparent beginning of life, a seal, perhaps, to the grace of election before received ; but to our sanctification here a step that hath not any before it.’*

3. • The law of Christ, which in these considerations maketh Baptism necessary, must be construed and understood accord- ing to rules of natural equity And (because equity

so teacheth) it is on all parts gladly confessed that there may be in divers cases life by virtue of inward Baptism, even where

outward is not found Touching infants which die

unbaptized, since they neither have this Sacrament itself, nor any sense or conceit thereof, the judgment of many hath gone hard against them. But yet, seeing grace is not absolutely tied tmto Sacraments ; and besides, such is the lenity of God that

B. V. c Ix. • Ibid.

anto things altogether impossible He bindeth no man; but where we cannot do what is enjoined us, accepteth our will to do instead of the deed itself; again, forasmuch as there is in their Christian parents, and in the Church of God, a presumed desire that the Sacrament of Baptism might be given them, yea, a purpose also that it shall be given : remorse of equity hath moved divers of the school divines in these considerations ingenuously to grant that God, all-merciftd to such as are not able in themselves to desire Baptism, imputeth the secret desire that others have in their behalf, and accepteth the same as theirs, rather than casteth away their souls for that which no man is able to help.’*

4. • How should we practise iteration of Baptism, and yet teach that we are by Baptism born anew ; that by Baptism we are admitted tmto the heavenly society of saints ; that those things be really and effectually done by Baptism which are no more possibly to be often done than a man can naturally be often bom ? . • . , As Christ hath therefore died and risen from the dead but once, so that Sacrament which both extin- guisheth in Him our former sin and beginneth in us a new condition of life is by one only actual administration for ever available ; according to that in the Nicene Creed, I believe one Baptism for remission of sins.’
5. • The fruit of Baptism dependeth only upon the cove- nant which God hath made ; that God by covenant requireth in the elder sort faith and Baptism ; in children the Sacrament of Baptism alone, whereunto He hath also given them right by special privilege of birth within the bosom of the Holy Church; that infants, therefore, which have received Baptism complete, as touching the mystical perfection thereof, are by virtue of his own covenant and promise cleansed from all sin; forasmuch as all other laws, concerning that which in Baptism is either moral or ecclesiastical, do bind the Church which giveth Bap- tism, and not the infant which receiveth it of the Church,’^

6. *The whole Church is a multitude of believers, all honoured with that title ; even hypocrites for their profession’^

B. V. c. 60. « B. V. c. 62. » Ibid.

R

242 ARTICLE XXVn.

sake, as well as saints because of their inward sincere persua- sion, and ” in&nts as being in the first degree of their ghostly motion towards the actual habit of faith.” The first sort are faithful in the eye of the world ; the second faithful in the sight of God ; the last in the ready direct way to become both, if all things after be suitable to these their present beginnings/^

7. • Were St. Augustine now living, there are which would tell him, for his better instruction, that to say of a child it is elect, and to say it doth bdieve, are all one ; for which cause, since no man is able precisely to affirm the one of any infant in particular, it followeth that, precisely and absolutely, we ought not to say the other. Which precise and abso- lute terms are needless in this case. We speak of in&nts as the rule of charity alloweth both to speak and think. They that can take to themselves, in ordinary talk, a charitable kind of liberty to name men of their own sort God’s dear children (notvriithstanding the large reign of hypocrisy), should not, methinks, be so strict and rigorous against the Church for presuming as it doth of a Christian innocent. For when we know how Christ in general hath said that ” of such is the king- dom of heaven ; ” which kingdom is the inheritance of God*a elect ; and do withal behold how His providence hath called them to the first beginnings of eternal life, and presented them at the well-spring of new birth, wherein original sin is purged; besides which sin, there is no hindrance of their salvation known to us, as themselves will grant; hard it were that, having so many fair inducements whereupon to ground, we should not be thought to utter (at the least) a truth as probable and allowable, in terming any such particular infant an elect babe, as in presuming the like of others whose safety never- theless we are not absolutely able to warrant.’^
8. • Baptism implieth a covenant or league between God and man : wherein as God doth bestow presently remission of sins and the Holy Ghost, binding Himself also to add (in pro- cess of time) what grace soever shall be further necessary for the attainment of everlasting life; so every baptized soul,

» B. V. c. 04. 2 Ibid.

receiving the same grace at the hands of God, tieth likewise itself for ever to the observation of His law/*

These appear to be all the principal passages in this work distinctly setting forth Hooker’s doctrine of Baptism. It is of great importance, and it requires great care and theologi- cal accuracy to assign to these statements the place which Hooker intended. The closing words of quotation 1 and the greater part of 2 have often been torn from their place in Hooker’s theological system, and exhibited as a proof that this great divine held the doctrine of universal spiritual regeneration in Baptism with an almost Tridentine interpreta- tion of infused habits of virtue. Those who know what Hooker’s doctrines really were must conclude that either there was some great inconsistency not to be attributed to so deep a thinker and so cautious and systematic a divine, or else that the bearing of his teaching on Baptism has been iu many quarters misapprehended. We refer especially to his Dis- courses on Justification, and on the Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect. The student may notice particularly the twenty- sixth section of the former, from which the following brief extract may s^ve as a specimen :—

9. • If, therefore, he which once hath the Son may cease to have the Son, though it b& but for a moment, he ceaseth for that moment to have life. But the life of them which have the Son of God is everlasting in the world to come. But because as Christ being raised from the dead died no more, death hath no more power over Him, so justified man, being aUied to God in Jesus Christ our Lord, doth as necessarily from that time forward always live, as Christ, by whom he hath life, liveth always.’

Many striking passages to the same effect may be alleged. See paiticularly^ one which sets forth the commimibn between Christ and the Church, founding the doctrine on the eternal purpose of God for the salvation of his true mystical Church. In short Hooker, together with the Elizabethan divines (with scarcely an exception), held what would now he called Calvinistic opinions, and was favoured by Archbishop Whit-

r2

gift, the chief author of the Lambeth Articles. It is not meant that he advocated the more harsh and severe parts of Calvinism, or that he approved of the unqualified reprobation asserted in the Lambeth Articles. We must, therefore, read Hooker^s account of the effects of Baptism together with such statements as the following : — ^

10. • We participate Christ, partly by imputation, as when those thiDgs which He did and suffered for us are imputed xmto us for righteousness ; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth and afterwards more fully both our souls and bodies made like unto His in glory. The first thing of His so infused into our hearts in this life is the Spirit of Christ ; whereupon, because the rest, of what kind soever, do all both necessarily depend and infallibly also ensue ; therefore the Apostles term it some time the seed of God, some time the pledge of our heavenly inheritance, some time the handsel or earnest of that which is to come.’
11. • So that all His foreknown elect are predestinated, called, justified, and advanced unto glory, according to that determination and purpose which He hath of them : neither is it possible that any other should be glorified, or can be justified, and called, or were predestinated, beside them, which in that manner are foreknown… It followeth : — 1. that God hath predestinated certain men, not all men. 2. That the cause moving Him hereunto was not the foresight of any virtue in us at all. 3. That to Him the number of His elect is definitely known. 4. That it cannot be but their sins must condemn them to whom the purpose of His saving mercy doth not extend. 5. That to God’s foreknown elect final continuance of grace is given. 6. That inward grace whereby to be saved is deservedly not given unto all men. 7. That no man cometh unto Christ whom God by the inward grace of His Spirit draweth not. 8. And that it is not in any man’s own mere ability, freedom, or power, to be saved ; no man’s salvation being possible without grace. Howbeit God is no favourer of sloth, and therefore there can be no such absolute

» Ecc. Pol. B. V. c. 66.

decree touching man’s salvation as on our part includeth no necessity of care and travail, but shall certainly take effect whether we ourselves do wake or sleep*’ *

On a review of the above statements we gather that Hooker maintained the foUowing doctrines :—

1. The election to life of a predestined number.^

2. That these, and these only, are called and justified.’

3. That the justified man doth thenceforward always live as necessarily as Christ liveth.^

4. That when the soul participates Christ, the first thing of His infused into the heart is the Spirit of Christ, whereupon the rest, of what hind soever^ necessarily depend and infallibly enme,^

5. Those who are thus justified, and have participated Christ, and have His spirit infused into their heart, * do not sin in anything any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace, clean cut them off* from Christ Jesus; because the seed of God abideth in them, and doth shield them from receiving any irremediable wound.’ *

To these statements we must now add with regard to Baptism : —

6. That through Baptism the soul is * incorporated into Christ,’ and so receives the * saving grace of imputation ’ and the infused virtue of the Holy Ghost.^

7. That Baptism is ^ the door of our actual entrance into God’s house, the first apparent beginning of life, a seal perhaps to the grace of election, but to our sanctification here a step that hath not any before it.’*

8. That the case of unbaptized infants may nevertheless be excepted on principles of equity.^

9. That Baptism extinguishes our former sins in Christ, and begins in us a new condition of life.*®

• Quotation 11. • Sermon on Perpetuity of Faith, Ti.

’ Quotation 11. ’ Quotation 1. ’ Quotation 3.

• Quotation 9. ■ Quotation 2. •• Quotation 4. » Quotation 10.

10. That in&nts in Baptism are cleansed from all sin&^

11. That infiuits are in the first degree of their ghosdj motion towards the actual habit of £iith.’

12. That no one is able precisely to affirm of any in&nt that it is elect But that we speak of in&nts as the rule of charity allows. It is as probable and allowable to term a particular in^t an elect babe as to presume the like of •adults, as some have done.^

This last paragraph contains in truth the key to the whole difficulty, and we may now arrange the foregoing conclusions in a consistent order, thus :—

It is known to God alone who are indeed His elect. Ho has not permitted us to judge. Hence we may, by the rule of charity, presume that any particular infant is one of the elect, and speak of it accordingly. If it he one of the elect (and not otherwise), it is in Baptism made a participant of Christ and receives the first fruits of the Spirit, fi:om which all needfiil graces, and ultimately the glorified state, will in due time * infallibly ensue ; ’ and it will be preserved from final apostasy as long as it lives by the eternal life of Christ, its Head.

Such, it is believed, was the real system of Hooker. He distinguishes carefully* between the Church visible and the mystical Church, teaching us that * the everlasting promises of love, mercy, and blessedness belong to the mystical Church,’ but the duties belong to the visible Church.

In his language about the Sacraments it will be found, on a careful consideration, that this distinction is always tacitly assumed : the Church visible owes the duty of careful administration, the members of the Church mystical (and these alone) receive, and * infallibly ’ receive, all the grace which Sacraments are meant to convey. But he does not, while treating of the Sacraments perpetually throw in this chilling distinction. On the other hand, with a glow of charity he contemplates the partakers as indeed members of Christ, he views the Sacraments in their spiritual and re-

’ Quotation 5. ^ Quotation 7.

• Quotation 6. * Eec. Pol. B. III. 1.

ciprocal completeness, and he claims the full grace which they were meant to betoken and to convey.

Hence we conclude that Hooker really belongs to the class of those who interpret the expressions in the baptismal services as th6 language of charitable presumption.

If this seem strange to any, it can only be from lack of acquaintance with the language of Hooker’s contemporaries, or from approaching his writings with preconceived ideas derived from other schools of theology.

The historical fact is very material to notice that, among all the controversies raised by the earlier Puritans about the baptismal service, none was ever raised about the doctrine of Begeneration as taught in it It will be observed that Hooker contests with his opponents the answers of the sponsors, the use of the cross, the validity of lay baptism &c., but that he is not called upon to defend the expressions around which modem controversy has been waged. It was not until other ideas on the Sacraments had become prominent in the Church of England in the time of Charles, that Baptismal Regeneration was generally taught apart from election. Then the language of the service was soon called in question, and the controversy, so commenced, has continued to our day.

Indeed, Calvin himself used language with respect to Bap- tism quite as strong as that of Hooker.^

• Q. Do you attribute nothing more to the water than that it is a figure of ablution ?

^ A. 1 understand it to be a figure, but still so that the reality is annexed to it : for God does not disappoint us when He promises us His gifls. Accordingly it is certain that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in Baptism and received by us.

• Q. Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately ?

• A, Many, precluding its entrance by their depravity, make it void to themselves. Hence the benefit extends to believers only, and yet the Sacrament loses nothing of its nature.

• Q. If repentance and faith are requisite to the legiti- mate use of Baptism, how comes it that we baptize infimts ?

’ CiiU’chism of the Church of Geneva,

\

248 ARtlCLfi xxvn.

‘J. It is not necessary that iaith and repentaoce should always precede Baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient then if, afler infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their Baptism.’

It is thought that these references and observations may suffice to introduce the student to the theological treatment of the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism. The accumulation of literature on this subject bearing upon its Patristic, Scholastic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican treatment is enormous. It is important that all who are teachers of reli- gion should tmderstand clearly the general bearings of the different aspects of the questions raised. But it may be doubted whether much more than this may not frequently prove rather prejudicial than helpful to him who is called upon to minister and to teach among ordinary congregations. For theological subtleties of doctrine and precise theological definition are either distasteful or unintelligible, and are at least seldom edifying or instructive, to most of our people.

Infant Baptism.

The chief controversial work on this subject is Dr. Wall’s learned History of Infant Baptism, published at the beginning of the last century. He received the thanks of the Lower House of Convocation. Later editions contain replies to various opponents, some of whom praise him for his candour and feimess. It contains a careful examination of the Patristic statements on the subject, and a discussion of the Scriptural argument. He also wrote a more popular and compendious abridgment, tmder the title of a Conference between two men that had doubts about Infant Baptism, This has been repeatedly reprinted by the Christian Knowledge Society. On the subject of Infant Baptism the language of our Church is studiously moderate. It is customary to dis- cuss the scanty statements of the earliest fathers bearing upon it. But our Article seems to pass this by, simply saying that it is most agreeable with the institution of Christ. There

« >•

INFANT BAPnaM. 249

IS, doubtless, a reference here to the well-known passage alleged in the Gospel in the baptismal service, ’ Of such is the kingdom of heaven,^ Kthe kingdom of heaven be taken in our Lord’s usual meaning, as His visible Church or kingdom among men, and if baptism be the acknowledged rite of ordinary covenant admission into that Church or kingdom, it would seem at once to follow that the baptism of young children is most agreeable with the institution of Christ. It may also be shown to be * most agreeable ’ with the words of institution which include * every creature.^

Dr. Hey, writing on this Article, gives this summary of precedents deducible from the Scriptures on this question : — *0n the one hand, they mention no instance of Infant Baptism; on the other hand, they afford no instance of Baptism being delayed. Some families are spoken of collec- tively as being baptized ; but the children are not mentioned particularly.’

To this must be added the support afforded by the analogies of circumcision. It is unlikely that Christianity should have introduced a restrictive change in respect of admitting children without a special announcement of it. And this the more because the Church for some years was chiefly composed of converted Jews.

ARTICLE XXVm,

Notes

• B. V. c. 64. « Ecc. Pol. B. V. c. 66.
• • Fragments of an Answer to a Letter of certain English Protes- tants.* , Keble’s Hooker, App. to B. V. No. 1, p. 761.