Alternative Phrase for Infants

Recently, at Anglican Rose, I sketched a controversy held by Evangelicals in the Episcopal Church against the Oxford Movement prior to the Bp. George Cummins’ departure. According to Cummins, if Evangelicals had been relieved by suggested reforms at the Conventions of 1868/71, many low church-men would have stayed put. The proposed Relief consisted of three points (see link above)– two of which, interestingly, have since been met half-way (say, by changes in canon and/or rubrics). However, the third matter-of-relief had to do with the term ‘regenerate’ in the baptism of children. It’s this latter proposal I’d like to investigate. 

Fears of Papist encroachment in the baptismal rite have long surrounded the phrase, “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate….”. For Anglicans who know something of the Prayer Book’s history, the word ‘regenerate’ has been an old point of difference between low-and high churchmen. Low-church sentiment was often  anxious about positive relations to Dissent, wanting to calm suspicions of Romanist phraseology. In contrast, High Churchmen viewed ‘regenerate’ as an acceptable ecclesiastical term frequently used throughout the history of the church for that ‘new estate’ of baptism. Too often, such disagreements boiled down to jargon. The Rt. Rev. John Cosin explained the scriptural use of ‘baptismal regeneration’ before the Savoy Conference in 1661 when he wrote:

‘Receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration’. Most proper, for baptism is our spiritual regeneration (St John iii.) ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit’ etc.. And by this is received remission of sins, (Acts ii. 3), ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of sins’. So the Creed: ‘one baptism for the remission of sins’.

Upon the next exception, Cosin adds baptism indeed has benefit for children since babes cannot hinder the sacrament’s condition. Answering non-conformist objection, Cosin says,

‘We cannot in faith say that every child that is baptised is regenerate’, etc.. Seeing that God’s sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not ‘ponere obicem’, put any bar against them (which children cannot do); we may say in faith of every child, that is baptised, that it is regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material whether it be administered to children or no.

Latitudinarian Bishop William Nichols– in his commentary on the prayer book (ed. 1708)– gives us a historical overview of the dilemma whereupon the dilemma with language evidently took root during relatively recent Arminian-Calvinists debates. He says,

But this objection ‘regenerate’ is grounded upon a modern notion of the word regeneration which neither the ancient fathers of the church, nor the compilers of our liturgy, knew any thing of. Indeed, some writers of the last century ran into this newfangled phrase to denote ‘conversion’, or a returning from a lapsed state, after a notorious violation of the baptismal covenant, to an habitual state of holiness. But no ancient writer that I know of ever expressed this word by ‘regeneration’. Regeneration as often as it is used in the scripture books, signifies the baptismal regeneration.

Then, Nichols locates the disagreement at James I’s early reign:

In sermons and books written about the beginning of the late civil wars, regeneration for repentance or conversion became a very fashionable word: but sometimes oddly expressing it by regeneration work, etc. they made sport for vain people. However, by frequent use other word has come to obtain among grave and judicious writers, though the use of it was so very modern; insomuch that some divines, who had their education since the quinquarticular [aka. Calvinist-Arminian] controversy and were concerned in this review of the liturgy at the restoration, pretended to find fault with the common prayer book for using the world regeneration in the ancient sense which it had kept for sixteen hundred years in opposition to theirs which was hardly sixty years old.

Despite repeated clarifications by churchmen such as Cosin and Nichols, the complaint continued through the Restoration era, even into the 1689 proposed revision. According to the notes of Bp. John Williams, himself a Reviewer in 1689, they contemplated a change:

Even the 1689 Latitudinarians– though arguably more open-minded to the scruples of Dissent– were reluctant to alter the phrase. Upon the American Revolution, another opportunity to consider recommendations of the 1689 committee presented itself. The subsequent American 1785 BCP tended to solve the dilemma by omitting the entire Bidding prayer (that begins ‘Seeing now, dearly beloved, that this Child is regenerate’) while abbreviating the consequent Thanksgiving (‘We yield thee hearty thanks’). The Thanksgiving clause, “to regenerate this Infant by the Holy Spirit”, was replaced by “to receive this Infant as thine own Child by Baptism”. The switch appears to give explanation to baptismal regeneration:

Apparently, the 1785 version combined Dr. Tillotson’s skeptical advice, namely, omitting controverted parts while explaining the terminology where possible. But, the modification didn’t make the cut with further revisions of the American book due to the requirements of episcopal succession from England. In the end, the American baptismal office read the same as the English, using ‘regenerate’ in the ancient way.

However, the next American revision was wholly in the hands of Evangelicals who left the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1871. Although, Bp. George Cummins initially believed the first American book a sufficient correction to the influence of New Englanders in the 1789 BCP, it wasn’t long before he found the 1785 to have its own  short-comings. Whether right or wrong, this admission opened the door to an entirely ‘Evangelical’ rendition of the Prayer Book, giving us a glimpse what they felt most agreeable.

The result was the 1874 Reformed Episcopal Common Prayer Book which was very lenient with Dissenting views about infant baptism.  In keeping with the 1785 version, the Declaration at Baptism was omitted, but the Thanksgiving Prayer was substantially reworded, replacing ‘dedicate’ for ‘regenerate’. Interestingly, this alteration made the cautious skepticism of the 1689 Commission (noted above in  Williams diary) prophetic, especially where the church catechism was absent. Given the catechism began with those privileges received at baptism, as well as describing the sacrament itself as a ‘seal’, we have room to wonder? I personally believe this revision went too far, surrendering the case to anabaptism. Anyhow, there is not even a hint of hypothetical election or actual grace, thereby rendering the Thanksgiving:

Conclusion.  After considering the texts above, I believe the mid-19th century Evangelical party might have been pacified on the question of baptism if: 1) an option to omit the Declaration after Baptism was given; and, 2) the Thanksgiving Prayer was reworded in such a way that baptismal grace, or regeneration, was either replaced with clearer language or given more explanation. An example might be the Reverend John Wesley’s amendment in his Sunday Service for the English methodist people. Here, Wesley also wishes to clarify, using the term ‘admit’ rather than ‘regenerate’. In Wesley’s version for America, the exact wording of the 1785 Protestant Episcopal is found, suggesting Revolutionary Episcopalians took example of American methodists.

Of course, there are several places in the American book where this can be done with little disruption. For example, certain rubrics permit a minister, at his discretion, to omit particular prayers. So, we can see the Bidding having a rubric of this fashion. Similarly, optional prayers can be given for the Thanksgiving, at least, one that explains the meaning of baptismal grace. Modifying the Thanksgiving by inserting a marginal reading, thereby making the 1785 prayer an option. Here is an example of how such might read in the BCP:

Other terms could be used, keeping close to the language of the 1928 BCP such as swapping ‘child’ for ‘servant’, etc. (below), but in either case a marginal reading is employed to ease prejudice with the word ‘regenerate’:

My own opinion of such amendment is fairly low since the 1689 Commission largely bypassed the opportunity, skeptical of its benefits, instead concerning themselves with the sign of the cross and mode of water. Furthermore, retaining the older ecclesiastical language was a condition of English succession. Keeping with the same rationale, I’d prefer to see an option that permits omitting the sign of the cross at baptism, much like our 1892 version, “although the church know no worthy cause of scruple”.

A final concern regarding this particular of Evangelical relief, also keeping with the caution of the 1689 Commission, is how alteration might impact the remainder of the Prayer Book, especially important appendage parts like the church catechism. Anglican catechism begins with our baptismal or covenant vows– often at infancy and by the surety of proxy. Without such, we loose something of the Kingdom of God as a holy family. An example might be Mary Sumner who required all members of her Victorian Mothers’ Union to approve the Baptism of Children, thereby pledging, “Remember that your children are given up, body and soul, to Jesus Christ in Holy Baptism, and that your duty is to train them for His service”.

Nonetheless, most telling aspect is the alleged origin of the controversy, namely, it developing midst the calvinist-arminian debates. Tillotson’s observation of the language– even in his day (at the ascendancy of the Protestant Interest)– was scrupled by “all those who dispute against falling from grace” betrays something of the faction most opposed to baptismal regeneration. Looking at the respective revisions, it appears the main problem was accepting a man might be made clean by baptism though not saved.

So, herein lies the problem, namely, that a grace conferred, even our justification, isn’t necessarily the same as salvation upon the last day. Could different degrees of grace be communicated over a lifetime, rather than all grace being saving grace or conferred at a single instance? Must all grace be ‘converting grace’? There likely exists a distortion of Calvinism– otherwise fearful that grace be not always effectual– that says ‘yes’?

Regardless, Evangelicals at mid-century either wanted to replace the term ‘regenerate’ with new words like ‘dedicate’, or they sought to alter text to explain baptismal election. Certainly there is a mystery to the faith of infants “who place no bar”, and we might benefit from the foresight of John Wesley who avoided senseless disputations within the church, giving a more practical view of the matter, effectively rendering it moot:

…observe, that the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, so it does not always accompany baptism: They do not constantly go together. A man may possibly be ‘born of water’, and not yet be ‘born of Spirit’. There may sometimes be the outward sign, where there is not inward grace. I do not now speak with regard of infants: It is certain our Church supposes that all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time born again; and it is allowed that the whole Office for Baptism of Infants proceeds upon this supposition. Nor is it an objection of any weight against this, that we cannot comprehend how this work can be wrought in infants. For neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in a person of riper years. But whatever be the case with infants, it is sure all of riper years who are baptised are not at the same time born again. ‘The tree is known by its fruits:’ And hereby it appears too plain to be denied, that divers of those who were children of the devil before they were baptized continue the same after baptism: ‘for the works of their father they do’. They continue servants of sin, without any preference either to inward or outward holiness.

For the Rev’d Wesley, the efficacy of baptism was not entirely relevant nor necessary to question. More important was since the baptism of persons while children, they were now living like devils, therefore needful of repentance and new life.

The question is not, what you was made in baptism; (do not evade;) but, What are you now? Is the Spirit of adoption now in your heart? To your own heart let the appeal be made. I ask not, whether you was born of water and of the Spirit; but are you now the temple of the Holy Ghost  which dwelleth in you? I allow you was ‘circumcised with the circumcision of Christ;’ (as St. Paul emphatically terms baptism;) but does the Spirit of Christ and of glory now rest upon you? Else ‘your circumcision is become uncircumcision’.

I believe Wesley (himself a premier evangelist) took the better route respecting the doctrine of the Church, even her Liturgy.

Advertisement