# Anglican views on Baptism



## AV1611 (Jun 24, 2007)

What are your thoughts on these positions?

In 1844 Wilks claimed that Evangelical views could be divided into four types. 

First of all there were *those who, following the Augustinian footsteps of Archbishop Ussher, affirmed that all who are regenerated are regenerated in or at baptism*. Baptism was thus seen as the ‘instrument’ of regeneration, as taught in Article XXVII (‘.... as by an instrument, they that receive baptism are grafted into the Church’). To quote Wilks: ‘They would not consider that an unbaptized adult though [seemingly] in a state of repentance, faith and holiness was regenerate if the sacrament had not yet been administered to him; and they would consider that an adult who had been baptized in infancy, but had lived an ungodly life, without any indication of renewal of heart, if he was at length led to repentance and faith was not then regenerated; but, that he had been regenerated in baptism, though until now the seed sown did not give signs of vegetation’. Regeneration is here understood in terms of the implantation by the Holy Spirit of the principle of new life in the soul. This approach, a modification of that found in the Lutheran formularies, connects regeneration with both divine election and with baptism so that all who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God are regenerated in baptism, being born ‘of water and of the Spirit’. It was taken for granted that the children of Christians who were brought to baptism were of the elect and would be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord so that the seed of heavenly life would blossom into full Christian commitment.

Secondly, there were *those who, influenced by Henry Budd, and including Edward Bickersteth and Hugh McNeile, also closely connected baptism with both regeneration and eternal electíon*. They claimed that on the analogy of the baptism of adult believers regeneration (again understood as the implantation of eternal life and incorporation into the mystical Body of Christ) occurred prior to baptism in response to the prayer of God’s people (the prayer beginning ‘Almighty, everliving God ... ) in order that baptism could be a full sign of an inward spiritual change and a seal of God’s gracious promises towards the child. Again it is presumed that a baptised child, brought up in a Christian home and the visible Church, will come personally to profess the faith which is already his.

Thirdly, there were *those who understood regeneration as being synonymous with conversion and as being impossible without being accompanied by repentance towards God, saving faith in Jesus Christ and the visible fruit of the Spirit in the life*. Biddulph, Wilson and M’Ilvaine, with perhaps the majority of Evangelicals held one or other form of this approach. They could not allow that divine life implanted in infancy at baptism could take ten, fifteen or twenty years to manifest itself in a conversion experience. For them regeneration had to be a visible change of character and attitude. The baptism of infants was approached through a simple covenant theology; the promises of salvation were declared and a sign and seal of them given because of the belief in the faithfulness of God to honour his covenant-promise which is ‘to you and to your children’ (Acts 2.39). Thus baptism involved no immediate, inward change but the confirmation of God’s covenant promise that he would, when the child reached an age of discretion, work salvation in the life. This covenant approach was possible for both Calvinists and Arminians, for Biddulph as well as for Heurtley; it popularised the familiar idea of ‘charitable supposition’ in Evangelical vocabulary. That is, it was charitably supposed that the parents and sponsors of the child who made the profession of faith were truly Christians and that their child was therefore an heir of the promises of God in the Gospel. It perhaps needs to be added that a covenant theology was also behind the first two views described above, but in their case the grace of the covenant was immediately given, not held over until later years.

Fourthly, there were *those who made a distinction between ecclesiastical (or sacramental) and spiritual regeneration*. Henry Ryder, the first Evangelical bishop, felt obliged to do this and wrote of ecclesiastical regeneration:

I would ... wish generally to restrict the term to the baptismal privileges and considering them as comprehending, not only external admission into the visible church – not only a covenanted title to the pardon and peace of the Gospel but even a degree of spiritual aid vouchsafed and ready to offer itself to our acceptance or rejection, at the dawn of reason.​
http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/History/evantheo3.htm


----------

