BAPTISM DURING AND AFTER THE REFORMATION At its fifth session (June 1546) the Council of Trent drew up a decree on Original Sin which defined the doctrine of the Roman Church on the grace of Baptism. The decree steers a mid dle course between the Thomist (or Augustinian) and the Scotist doctrines of the nature of man and the consequences of the Fall. The sin of Adam passes to all his descendants and can only be re moved by the merit of Jesus Christ which is conferred in the Church, by the sacrament of Baptism. By regeneration in Bap tism original sin and actual sins already committed are remitted, but there remains in the regenerate concupiscence, the "f omes" (tinder) of sin. This concupiscence, though it comes from sin and leads to sin, yet is not itself sin. At its seventh session (March the Council promulgated 14 anathemas designed to rule out the new teachings on Baptism which had arisen through the Reformation.
The teachings of the Reformers on Baptism represent varying modifications of the traditional doctrine under the influence of the cardinal principle—" Justification by Faith." Luther and Zwingli.—In his sacramental teaching Luther closely associates the Sacrament with the Word. There can be no sacrament apart from an express divine promise to which faith may respond. It is not easy to accommodate this fundamental conception of the nature of a Sacrament to the practice of infant Baptism. To that practice Luther consistently adhered, but his justification of the practice differed at different periods of his life. In 1518 he still held that the infant is regenerated and saved through the merit of the faith of its sponsors; in 1520 (De Captiv. Babyl. Eccl.) he abandons this view and holds that in Baptism infants themselves believe. If God can turn the heart of the wicked, much more can he turn the heart of a child. After 1528 without abandoning the view that infants themselves believe, Luther tends to base his defence upon the scriptural texts Matt. xxviii., 19; Mk. x., 14. The doctrine of original sin inevitably influenced his thought : since all men are born in sin, it was necessary that they should as infants be brought into the relation of grace. Luther seems not to depart from the scholastic doctrine that Baptism confers indelible "character," but he differs from Roman doctrine in ascribing to Baptism unlimited forgiveness of sin. Post-bap tismal sin does not require the special grace of a fresh sacrament— penance ; rather, in Luther's view, does penance throw the penitent back upon the all-sufficient grace of God of which he was assured in his Baptism.
Zwingli's doctrine of Baptism is more radical than Luther's. The outward washing is a token of the grace which the believer already possesses—if an adult, in virtue of previous hearing of the word, if an infant, in virtue of God's promise that the children of Chris tian parents are as much members of the Christian Church, as Jewish children were members of the Jewish Church. "It is an ex ternal thing when men are baptized—a sign and ceremony of the true reality (rei) . . . ceremonies are outer signs which testify to others that he who receives them has bound himself to a new life, and that he will confess Christ till death" (De ver. et fall. rel. Werke III., p. 773).
Calvin and Hooker.—Calvin lays more stress than Zwingli upon the value of the rite to him who receives it, as being a con firmation of God's promise. Baptism is the seal upon election, and the solemn sign by which those who already belong to Christ's Body are received into the Church (cf. Instit. IV. 15, 22). It was in keeping with this view of Baptism that Calvin rejected the literal interpretation of Joh. iii., 5 "Except a man be born of water and the spirit. . . ." It was to be explained on the analogy of Matt. iii., I I "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Regeneration was not more contingent upon literal water than it was upon literal fire. Baptism of infants in extremis he regarded as a superstition. Baptism should not be administered by others than ministers, nor elsewhere than in the Church.
The Calvinistic doctrine of Election stands in the background of Hooker's Baptismal teaching, but it is not allowed to dictate the interpretation of Joh. iii., 5 or the practice of the Church : the ex pressed promise of God attaches to Baptism by water : infants should therefore be baptized—if necessary by laymen or even women.
Infant Baptism.—The great Reformers shared the main poli tical presuppositions of the Middle Age. To them Church and State were aspects of one society, and the ecclesiastical outcome of the Reformation was the rise of independent national Churches. A Church conceived as virtually co-extensive with Society is un likely to reject the principle of infant Baptism. But the sectarian idea of the Church as the society of the Saints independent of, if not hostile to, the order of secular society was a not unnatural sequel of the doctrine of Justification by Faith only ; and not unnaturally it took the form of a rejection of infant Baptism. Zwingli himself at the beginning of his career as a Reformer had felt doubts about the baptism of infants, but the extravagances of the Anabaptists at Zurich confirmed him in accepting the prin ciple of infant Baptism. The excesses of the reign of the Saints at Munster discredited the Anabaptists, but their position with re gard to the Baptism of believers only was inherited by the Men nonites and by other Baptist Churches.
A further influence which no doubt strengthened the Reformers in their adherence to the practice of infant Baptism was the doc trine of Original Sin. If infants were born in sin it would seem desirable and right that they should receive the sacrament of regeneration. It is worthy of notice that the sectaries of the 16th century were less consistently Augustinian than the great Re formers in their doctrine of sin and that the General Baptists of the 17th century were avowedly Arminian.
"The Children of Light" (the Quakers) carry the doctrines of the Sectaries a stage further. All external authority and all out ward rite, is, in principle, set aside. "The testimony of the spirit is that alone by which the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be only revealed." Adam's posterity is fallen, and, apart from God's Grace, deprived of the sensation of this inward testi mony. "Nevertheless this seed [of the serpent] is not imputed to infants, until by transgression they actually join themselves there with." "Baptism is a pure and spiritual thing, to wit the Baptism of the spirit and fire . . . of which the Baptism of John was a figure, which was commanded for a time, and not to continue for ever; as to the Baptism of infants it is a meer humane tradition, for which neither Precept nor Practice is to be found in all the Scripture." (Barclay Apology, Theses Theol. i., iv., xii.) Modern Reinterpretations.—The rise of rationalism further disintegrated belief in original Sin and weakened the sense of de pendence upon divine grace. Baptism tended to be regarded as an outward rite signifying the adherence of the individual to the Church, rather than as a means of Grace or a seal of regeneration.
In the revival of Church consciousness in the 19th century Bap tism takes on a deeper meaning. Original sin is asserted afresh, but it is re-interpreted as a social rather than a biological in heritance. Baptism is the act of the Church incorporating a new member into its own life. Schleiermacher's criticisms of Zwingli and Quakers give forcible expression to this view of Baptism. If the act of Baptism be considered in itself, Zwingli's theory of the Sacrament may be allowed to be true. But it is not the whole truth. It errs in ignoring the dependence of Baptism upon the activity of the Spirit in the Church. Similarly the Quaker rejection of water-Baptism has a certain justification in that it rests upon the desire to exalt the idea of regeneration at the ex pense of the ceremony as such. But it errs, in that it fails to do justice to the relation between the influences of the society and "the inner development of the individual towards regeneration." Infant Baptism, Schleiermacher holds, is incomplete Baptism: the confession of faith at Confirmation after full instruction should be regarded as the final act which completes the Baptism. (Der Christliche Glaube, end ed. §§ 136-138.) So too, to Ritschl, Baptism is primarily an act of the Church. The Church by Baptism associates the individual with that revela tion of God on which its own existence depends. Washing with water symbolises purification of the spiritual life and this purifi cation is effected by adoption into "the circle of reconciliation." The rite then is not the mere confession of the individual but the act of the society, and this carries with it the justification of infant Baptism (Unterricht in der Christlichen Religion, 3rd ed. Bonn 1886 § 89).
Anglican Internal Controversy.—Baptismal doctrine be came the subject of an important internal controversy in the Church of England in the second quarter of the nineteenth cen tury. Baptismal doctrine had not been prominent in the theological controversies of the 16th and 17th centuries in England. The Bap tismal formularies of the Church of England had been drawn up under Lutheran rather than Calvinistic influences, and they use language which implies that an infant is regenerated in Baptism. The Anglican service however had been continuously used by many who held the Calvinistic doctrine of election, and their right to use it had not been disputed, albeit their doctrine re quired a "conditional" interpretation of the language concerning regeneration. Not all who were baptized were regenerate. Regen eration was conditional on repentance and faith, and these were bestowed not by Baptism, but by "prevenient grace." The Evan gelical party in the Church of England was largely Calvinistic. Though accepting the general necessity of Baptism, it associated regeneration with conversion rather than with Baptism. Pusey's Tracts for the Times Nos. 67, 68, 69 re-asserted the Catholic (and Lutheran) view that regeneration is bestowed upon all who are baptized. Gorham represented the Evangelical position and the question at issue was whether the Catholic interpretation of the formularies was alone to be admitted. The Gorham Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upheld Gorham's interpretation as legitimate (185o). The leaders of the High Church party protested against the Judgment, and it was the occasion of the secession of Manning, the future Cardinal Arch bishop of Westminster, to the Church of Rome. J. B. Mozley, himself a High Church Theologian, produced a weighty treatise upon the controversy, in which he maintained that the Gorham Judgment did but confirm the liberty which Calvinistic theology had continuously enjoyed in the Church of England.