The Mystery of Baptism in the Anglican Tradition. Kenneth Stevenson

      The inward and outward meet in the sacrament, but the element of human response is not denied at all. The work of Christ imputes righteousness to the faithful believer, but there is also an infused righteousness which enables human beings to stand before God as redeemed, and therefore able to worship and serve him.¹⁵ Hooker’s understanding of grace is more traditional than the more severe view of the Puritans. It is all of a piece with participating in the life of God.

      Hooker does not believe that infants who die unbaptized are damned, because ‘grace is not absolutely tied unto the sacraments’.¹⁶ On the other hand, he is against the Church ‘through her superfluous scrupulosity’ placing ‘lets and impediments of less regard’ in the way of those who want to be baptized; ‘baptism therefore even in the meaning of the law of Christ belongeth unto infants capable thereof from the very instant of the birth’.¹⁷

      Chapter 61 concerns set times and places for baptism. Hooker finds no New Testament evidence for either but he knows that in the Patristic period Easter and Pentecost were often set aside for this. He does find evidence for private baptism, and in so doing clearly has in mind those who are prepared to turn people away from baptism in order to assert the public character of the celebration. Hooker’s tone at this point is less than sublime: ‘Oh Sir, you that would spurn thus at such as in case of so dreadful an extremity should lie prostrate before your feet, you that would turn away your face from them at the hour of their most need . . .’¹⁸ Many Puritans would not approve of what would be called emergency baptism.

      Chapter 62 tackles the thorny issue of baptism by women, midwives. This leads on logically from private baptism, particularly in an age that knew high infant mortality. Many of the Puritans regarded baptism by a midwife as no sacrament at all but an ordinary washing, which meant that the infant should be baptized again. Hooker, to the contrary, finds ancient evidence for such baptisms, and he goes on to assert that ‘they that iterate baptism are driven under some pretence or other to make the former baptism void’.¹⁹ This enables Hooker to emphasize yet again the objective nature of baptism: ‘baptism is an action in part moral, and in part ecclesiastical, and in part mystical; moral, as being a duty which men perform towards God; ecclesiastical, in that it belongeth to God’s church as a public duty; finally mystical, if we respect what God thereby intend to work.’²⁰ Hooker’s overall approach to theology is apparent here. Baptism is moral: it is about lifestyle. Baptism is ecclesiastical: it takes the form of a church liturgy. Baptism is mystical: it brings us into the life of God himself. These three aspects are not separate: they are inextricably bound together, as nature becomes the sacramental vehicle of God’s grace in the lives of Christ’s disciples.

      This discussion leads him to distinguish between those who are old enough to answer for themselves, and infants. Here he uses for the first time the covenant language which Perkins used more fundamentally, and which we shall meet later on in the writings of Baxter, Taylor, Patrick and Thorndike. ‘The fruit of baptism dependeth only upon the covenant which God hath made; that God by covenant requireth in the elder sort faith in baptism, in children the sacrament of baptism alone . . . 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 . . .’²¹ He sums this up in a glorious nugget: ‘the grace of baptism cometh by donation of God alone.’²²

      Chapter 63 deals with a corollary of infant baptism, the profession of Christian faith by godparents. Here, Hooker is firmly traditional. ‘The first thing required of him that standeth for admission into Christ’s family is belief. Which belief consisteth not so much in knowledge as in acknowledgement of all things that heavenly wisdom revealeth; the affection of faith is above her reach, her love to Godward above the comprehension of God.’²³ He expresses the nature of this profession by quoting the sixth-century writer Isidore of Seville, who spells out in covenant terms the renunciation of evil and profession of Christian faith. ‘Two covenants there are which Christian men do make in baptism, the one concerning relinquishment of Satan, the other touching obedience to the faith of God.’ (Covenant imagery was known among the Fathers, and was not just a biblical motif that lay dormant until the Reformation.) And he goes on to say, ‘neither do I think it a matter easy for any man to prove, that ever baptism did use to be administered without interrogatories of these two kinds.’²⁴

      Chapter 64 concerns the use of godparents themselves. Many Puritans probably ignored this ingredient in the baptism service altogether, and asked the parents to make the profession of faith on behalf of their own child. But as if to secure common ground, Hooker states at the outset, ‘they with whom we contend are no enemies to the baptism of infants’.²⁵ Once again he uses covenant language. As we have already seen, Hooker knew that it was used by Isidore of Seville. But he would also have been fully aware of its popularity among the new Puritans. We may conclude that this was part of his intention, to try to get them on his side.

      . . . baptism implieth a covenant or league between God and man, wherein as God and man, wherein as God doth bestow presently remission of sins and the Holy Ghost, binding all to himself to add in process of time what grace soever shall be further necessary for the attainment of everlasting life . . .

      and:

      The law of Christ requiring therefore faith and newness of life in all men by virtue of the covenant which they make in baptism, is it toyish that the church in baptism exacteth at every man’s hands an express profession of faith and an irrevocable promise of obedience by way of solemn stipulation?

      and:

      That infants may contract and covenant with God, the law is plain.²⁶

      (‘Toyish’ was used in the First Admonition to Parliament