Baptism as taught in the Bible and the Prayer Book

by Edward Hoare

CHARGE OF NATURE.

“What is the inward and spiritual grace?

“A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; for, being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.”—Catechism.

“O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child may be so buried that the new man may be raised up in him.”

“Grant that all carnal affections may die in him, and that all things belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in him.”—Baptismal Service.

There is nowhere In the Prayer Book, any more than in the Bible, the smallest allusion to the idea of a certain spiritual seed being implanted at Baptism, which may or may not grow in after life. Both agree in looking for the highest gifts, and the highest gifts alone. We do not pray that the child may be put merely into a new position, which he may use or not, as it may happen, but that he “may be born again, and be made an heir of everlasting salvation.” We look for a permanent, lasting, saving change; viz., adoption into God’s family, regeneration by the Holy Ghost.

And as for the idea that the Church looks for baptismal justification without a change of heart as its necessary and invariable accompaniment, we would only ask the advocates of such a theory to explain, if they can, the language of the Catechism, which says that “the inward and spiritual grace is a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.” Never, surely, does the Church of England teach that there can be such a death and such a life without an inward and sanctifying change by the Holy Ghost.

II. As to the gift itself, therefore, there is complete agreement. The great subject of discussion, however, is the connexion. By some it is thought invariable, at least in the case of infants; i.e., it is maintained that every baptized infant is there and then, ipso facto, regenerate. Our present object is to shew that such a theory is at variance with the teaching of the Church, for that the inward gift, though assumed upon profession, is explicitly taught to be separable from the outward sign.

1. The spiritual gift is assumed to have been received whenever the outward sacrament has been administered. The whole of our services are constructed upon this principle. We are all baptized upon a profession of our faith, and all meet in the house of God in the character of baptized believers; the Church, therefore, as a public body, is bound to assume our profession real. This it does in all its services; so that there is not a single prayer throughout the Liturgy which is not drawn up on the principle of assumption. Upon this principle persons are supposed at their burial to have been believers, as they are assumed in their confessions to be repentant, and at their baptism to be regenerate. Indeed it may be laid down as a general rule that whenever there is anything personal in the bearing of a passage, the person affected is always assumed to be in fact what he is in profession.

This principle of assumption appears as plainly in the Catechism as the Liturgy. There is a great distinction to be observed between the language of the Articles and the Catechism. The Articles teach truth abstractedly—the Catechism in its personal application to the individual who employs the words. In the Catechism, therefore, grace is always assumed. The child is assumed to be a true believer and to be living in the constant habit of thankful prayer, as for example in the words, “I heartily thank our heavenly Father, that He hath called me to this state of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: And I pray unto God to give me His grace that I may continue in the same unto my life’s end.”

Upon the same principle he is assumed in the second answer to have been made in baptism “a member of Christ,” &c. The fourth answer is manifestly drawn up on the principle of assumption; it declares what ought to be, and assumes that it is, the child’s character. The second answer must, in common consistency, mean the same; and it would be just as reasonable to maintain that the Church teaches the invariable prayerfulness of every child who repeats the Catechism, as the invariable regeneration of even child received into its fold by baptism.

Now this principle of assumption is exactly that which we discover in the addresses of the Apostle. Thus far, therefore, there is agreement between the Bible and the Prayer Book.

2. As a matter of doctrine, the Prayer Book teaches, like the Bible, that the spiritual gift is not invariably given in connexion with the outward sign.

Upon such a subject our chief reference should obviously be to the Articles. They correspond to the doctrinal teaching of the Scriptures, the Liturgy to the devotional and hortatory addresses. In the Articles alone there is no personal application, and, therefore, they alone are free from the principle of assumption. As we have before remarked, they deal with abstract truth; and contain a scheme of theology carefully drawn up for the security of the Church. To them, therefore, we are bound in common sense to refer for all dogmatical assertions as to the doctrinal principles of our Church.

Now it is quite impossible for any language to be simpler and clearer than that of the Articles.

Of both sacraments it is said, Art. 25, “In such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect and operation; for they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.” And of Baptism, Art. 27, “It is a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.”

The doctrine of these passages exactly corresponds with that of Scripture. They deny in the plainest possible language the invariability of the connexion; they define the two sacraments by the same conditions; they make not the most distant allusion to any sacramental peculiarity in baptism; but assert of both with the most positive distinctness, that in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect and operation.

Nor is there any exception in the case of infants. Our Reformers in framing the Articles adhered most resolutely to their Bibles, and when the word of God was silent they were silent also. There is no exception respecting infants in the Scriptures; there is none therefore in the Articles. They state as much as, and no more than, the word of God itself instructs them. Nay more, it is plain, both from the Catechism and the Baptismal Service, that no such distinction is recognized. The Catechism does not set aside the necessity of faith and repentance in the case of infancy, but supposes it satisfied by the promise of the sureties. So, also, in the Baptismal Service, the same questions are asked as are asked of adults. There is not the least distinction in respect of infancy; nor the least hint at invariable moral qualification, setting aside the necessity of a positive declaration of the Christian faith. Of course there are difficulties connected with the baptism of unconscious children, but these have nothing to do with our present subject. All that we are now concerned with is the fact that our Church makes no distinction in their favour, but that in every instant she requires a certain confession, and thereby in every instance denies the invariability of the connexion between the inward gift and the outward sign. [29]

Again, therefore, we find complete and exact agreement between the Prayer Book and the Bible. In all personal passages the connexion is assumed. In doctrinal statements moral conditions are required, and the invariability of the connexion is denied.

This distinction is the simple key to the two passages in the Baptismal Service which have occasioned so much discussion. “Seeing, now, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate.” “We yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into Thy holy Church.”

If the preceding argument be correct, the question with reference to these passages is obviously reduced to this: Are they the language of strong faith assuming the gift given when the outward act had been duly performed? Or, are they a dogmatical statement of the doctrine that every baptized infant is by that act regenerate by the Holy Ghost?

It can scarcely be denied that the prayer is drawn up in the spirit of assumption; we may confine the question, therefore, to the declaration. Now, if there be any truth in the rule that where there is anything personal in a passage, the person affected is always assumed to be in fact what he is in profession, it must apply to these words which are pre-eminently personal in their character. Earnest prayer has just been offered; the Church has done her utmost to arouse the spirit of repenting faith; a declaration of faith and repentance has just been made; and the sole object of the sentence is to move the congregation to united thanksgiving and prayer. Assumption, therefore, is absolutely necessary to the construction of the service; thanksgiving would be impossible without it; and if, in such circumstances, the Church did not assume the gift, she must be compelled to stop the mouth of God’s faithful children, when they would pour forth the gratitude of a hopeful and overflowing heart.

This view of the passage is confirmed by the similar assumption in the corresponding prayer after the reception of the other sacrament “Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank Thee, for that Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ,” &c. Here are two assumptions—1st, That all the communicants have received the sacrament duly; and 2nd, That they have all been fed with the spiritual grace of which it is a sign. But no one with the Articles before him can suppose that the Church intended to teach that every communicant invariably feeds on the most precious body and blood of Christ.

At the same time it may be proved, with the certainty of mathematical demonstration, that these words are not the language of assertion. It cannot be believed, with the 25th and 27th Articles before us, that our Church asserts the invariability of regeneration in all adults who are baptized. No language could be more decisive or distinct than theirs. “In such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect and operation.” But on turning to the Service of Baptism for Adults, we find the very same words used as are employed for infants, “Now that this person is regenerate.” It must be obvious to any man, that if these words are to be understood as a positive doctrinal assertion of invariable regeneration in adults, they are in flat contradiction to the Articles. If they are intended to assert the doctrine that every baptized adult is regenerate, they are in exact and direct opposition to the passages quoted above, which teach most carefully that every baptized adult is not regenerate. If this be the real meaning of our Service, the Prayer Book, in this matter, flatly contradicts itself. If, on the other hand, the passage in the Baptismal Service be the language of assumption, all is harmonious. In its statement of doctrine, the Church gives the caution; in its application to the individual, it confidently and unreservedly assumes the gift. In the case of adults, therefore, the language must be that of assumption, not assertion. But there is an exact identity between the words used for infants and adults. In this respect there is not a shade of difference between the two offices. “Now that this child is regenerate,” says the one; “Now that this person is regenerate,” says the other. Is it consistent, is it logical, is it common sense, to say that one thing is meant in one passage, and another thing in another? That one thing is meant on the 81st page, and a totally different thing by the same words on the 84th page of the same book? That one is assertion, while the other is admitted to be assumption? Common sense demands that in the same book, the same words should mean the same thing. The two passages must therefore be either both assumption or both assertion. Assertion is impossible in the one, and, therefore, assumption is logically necessary in both.

There is, therefore, throughout the Prayer Book a beautiful agreement with the Bible. They both, in hortatory passages, assume regeneration where faith has been professed, and the sacrament administered. They both in doctrinal statements teach distinctly that baptized persons are not all regenerate. The Churchman needs no more than this agreement for the satisfaction of his conscience. There may be one or two expressions which he may wish could be so modified as to make clear at a glance the Church’s meaning without the necessity of comparing them with the Articles. But still, on the great Protestant principle of the sovereign supremacy of the Bible it is enough for him that the Liturgy is scriptural, and that the Word of God has supplied the model for its construction. It is scriptural in its silence, in its assumptions, in its assertions. It says nothing where the Bible gives no guide, and therefore makes no distinction between adults and infants; it assumes where the Bible assumes, and therefore speaks of all baptized persons as regenerate; and with the Bible as its authority, it asserts, in language the most unequivocal and explicit, that baptized persons are not invariably regenerate, for that the gifts of divine grace are not invariably connected with either of the sacraments which God has appointed in His Church.

J. FLETCHER, PRINTER, NORWICH.

ADVERTISEMENT.

BY REV. E. HOARE.

CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD. Price 6d. Second Edition.

THE COMMUNION AND COMMUNICANT. Price 3s. a doz. Third Edition.

INSPIRATION, ITS NATURE AND EXTENT. Price 6d.

THE JESUITS. Price 6d. Second Edition.

BY MRS. E. HOARE.

THE CHRISTIAN MOTHER: or Notes for Mothers’ Meetings.

LONDON: HATCHARD & CO., 187, PICCADILLY, W.
MRS. HASTING, Pew Office, Tunbridge Wells.