Baptismal Integrity Resource Pages

Baptism - an inward or outward rite?

The teachings of William Perkins (1558-1602), with grateful thanks to the Rt Rev'd Dr Kenneth Stevenson, Bishop of Portsmouth.

(Summarised by the editor from chapter 3 of "The Mystery of Baptism in the Anglican Tradition", Kenneth Stevenson, Canterbury Press 1998.)

William Perkins, a popular communicator in his own time, is little known nowadays. Born in Warwickshire, he went to Cambridge in 1577 where he associated with the Puritans (the most strongly Protestant part of the English Church), and soon became Lecturer at Great St Andrew’s: this was essentially a senior curacy with particular preaching responsibility, and was a parochial (not episcopal) appointment. He may not have been very happy with the Prayer Book, and perhaps remained a lecturer so that he could avoid having to declare his attitude to some aspects of Anglicanism as it was. As a Puritan he was moderate, and wanted to stay within the Church of England in order to change it from within - like many since!

His A Golden Chain (1590) went through nine editions in 30 years and was translated into Dutch and German. “Theology is the science of living blessedly forever” he proclaims at the start of what might be called a ‘systematic theology’ in the style of Berkhoff.

In chapters 31-34 he discusses the ‘covenant of grace’, the sacraments, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. The covenant’s purpose is “to manifest that righteousness in Christ whereby the whole law is fully satisfied and salvation attained”, and is “the conduit pipe of the Holy Ghost” (a significant image in a land developing clean water supplies). A sacrament is “that whereby Christ and his saving graces are by external rite signified, exhibited and sealed to the Christian man”, and then comes his crunch: “the covenant of grace is absolutely necessary to salvation ... but a sacrament is not absolutely necessary, but only as it is a prop and stay to lean upon.” So the inward part of baptism is essential, but the outward only desirable.

The outward baptism consists of five parts: the wetting, continuing in water, and arising; and the candidate giving himself to washing and receiving it. The inward baptism consists of corresponding graces: the remission of sins, mortification of them and sanctification; and the candidate’s self-consecration and receiving the washing of the Spirit. Baptism is “a sacrament by which such as are within the covenant are washed with water” - so the distinction between the covenant and the sacrament might be expressed by saying that the sacrament is to be given to those (already) within the covenant, as a seal of what they inwardly receive.

Yet he also wants to hold these two aspects, outward and inward, together. “The party baptized doth receive the internal washing which is by the blood of Christ ...”, he states, and then backtracks: “... or at least it is offered unto him.” The solution to the charge of division is an exhortation: “See thou never rest until such time as thou have a feeling of that renewed power signified in baptism: the power of Christ’s death mortifying sin and virtue of his resurrection in the renovation of the spirit.”

In Perkins’ Commentary on Galatians the question of baptism arises from Gal 3:27, and he plunges straight into the inward/ outward distinction (which Paul’s “put on” image invites). “The outward baptism without the inward is not the mark of God’s child, but the mark of the ‘fool that makes a vow and afterwards breaks it’ (Eccles 5:3).” But then he says baptism is not only a sign but a seal.

So is baptism efficacious? Perkins tackles various questions in his commentary, including “Does baptism forgive all sins and the whole of the life of a man?” Yes, it does: against penance, he asserts “The covenant of grace is everlasting ... therefore baptism is not to be tied to any time.”

“Does it abolish original sin?” Against the Catholics (who said “yes”), he says “though actual guilt be taken away, yet potential guilt remaineth ... as aptness in original sin” (i.e. we still incline to evil).

“How does baptism confer grace?” It does so by the outward washing being a pledge of the inward: “He that useth the sign aright shall receive the thing signified” (i.e. faithful reception confers grace).

“Is it necessary to be baptized?” In view of all the above, the inevitable answer is “It is necessary in part.” “The want of baptism ... doth not condemn ... the children of believing parents are born holy.” The same distinction comes in his discussion of John 3:5 - “Baptism makes men visible members of the church, and regeneration by the spirit makes them true and lively members.”

One wonders if Perkins would be a member of Baptismal Integrity today? His preferred baptism rite is in public and stripped down to bare essentials: no blessing water, no signing with the cross, probably no godparents, no confirmation by the bishop, admission to communion on the basis of growing faith. Strong on the need of faithful reception ... but therefore weak on the objective character of the sacrament which becomes little more than a visual aid. Perkins would hold the inward and outward parts of baptism together, but perhaps is not entirely convincing about how to do this?