its very nature it is a more academic work, though the style is as clear and flowing as ever. His treatment of baptism arises from Galatians 3:27, ‘For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.’ Once again Perkins tackles the outward and the inward straight away, perhaps occasioned by the reference to ‘putting on Christ’. He states: ‘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)’.17 But he says that baptism is not only a sign but a seal and takes the opportunity of discussing baptism under no fewer than seven headings.
First there is the name. The Pharisees had religious washings; God also had appointed certain washings in the Old Testament. In the New Testament baptism was a washing by water to seal the new covenant, but it was also used as a metaphor for any grievous cross, or the bestowing of extraordinary gifts. It was also used in connection with ministry in the Church. Then he says – almost in contrast to what he propounded earlier – that ‘the inward washing is conferred with the outward washing’.
Secondly, the matter of baptism. Should there be dipping or sprinkling? (The Prayer Book directed dipping as a norm.) He realizes that climates vary. What is appropriate in the north of Europe is not appropriate elsewhere, as he pointed out in A Golden Chain. Water is the sign, the thing signified is nothing less than Christ himself our mediator. Then, repeating what he had to say in A Golden Chain, he says that ‘the dipping of the body signifies mortification, or fellowship with Christ in his death: the staying under the water signifies the burial of sin; and the coming out of the water, the resurrection from sin, to newness of life (Romans 6:4).’18
Thirdly, the form of the sacrament. In Matthew 28:19, Christ makes his promise and seals his promise by baptism. We need, therefore, to become disciples and to ‘lay hold of the promises of God and the confirmation thereof by the sacraments’. We shall be seeing later how he disposes of the sacramental rite of confirmation but here he clearly places confirmation in the context of personal growth in the life of Christ.
Fourthly, the ends of baptism. It is a pledge in respect of our weakness, a sign of Christian profession before the world, a means of our first entrance into the visible Church, and a means of unity.19 The Puritans place great stress upon the outworking of Christian discipleship in daily life and this part of the discussion should not be underestimated. Perkins may not be confident about the objective character of baptism as a sacramental event but he is certainly clear about its need as a focus for Christ’s presence in the unfolding life of the forgiven Christian.
Fifthly, the efficacy of baptism. Perkins asks various questions. One, ‘Does baptism forgive all sins and the whole of the life of a man?’ Against tradition, which requires penance for certain sins, Perkins insists that ‘the covenant of grace is everlasting . . . therefore baptism is not to be tied to any time’. Two, ‘Does baptism abolish original sin?’ Against the Catholic view, which insists that it does, Perkins observes that ‘though actual guilt be taken away, yet potential guilt remaineth, namely as aptness in original sin, to make men guilty’.20 This comes near the modern view that original sin is a ‘bias to the bad’. Three, ‘How does baptism confer grace?’ It does so like a king’s letter that saves the life of a malefactor; or the outward washing is a token and pledge of the inward. ‘He that useth the sign aright, shall receive the thing signified.’ And he goes on: ‘it is not an instrument having the grace of God tied unto it, or shut up in it; but an instrument to which grace is present by assistance in the right use thereof . . . a moral and not a physical instrument.’ Here is the outward and the inward again doing creative battle in the sacramental sphere. Perkins’ heart seems to be on the side of faithful reception of the sacrament rather than what the sacrament does in itself. Hooker, as we shall see, insists that the sacraments are both moral and physical, in order to safeguard their centrality, and to prevent them becoming optional, or, worse still, visual aids. Four, ‘Does baptism imprint a character or mark in the soul?’ Again, it is almost as if Perkins wants to go further than he can: ‘Baptism is a means to see this mark in us; because it is the laver of regeneration.’21 For him it cannot therefore have an indelible character. Five, ‘Is it necessary to be baptized?’ In view of what he said in A Golden Chain, that sacraments are a prop to faith, the answer must surely be a mild ‘no’. It is ‘necessary in part’. ‘The want of baptism . . . does not condemn . . . The children of believing parents are born holy.’ And yet, in discussing John 3:5: ‘baptism makes men visible members of the Church; and regeneration by the spirit makes them true and lively members!’22
Sixthly, the circumstances of baptism. Only ministers should baptize, because ‘private teaching and ministerial teaching are distinctive in kind’. The intention is there to baptize and even if the minister is not a preacher, it is still a true baptism. The efficacy of the sacrament depends not on the will of man but on the will of God. As far as the persons being baptized are concerned, ‘men of years that join themselves to the true Church are to be baptized, yet before their baptism, they are to make confession of their faith, and to promise amendment of life.23 Further, ‘infants of believing parents are likewise to be baptised . . . and are in the covenant of grace. They are the children of God because in their conception and birth God begins to manifest his election. Infants do have faith, and parents have faith on their behalf, a position to which I rather incline.’ Baptism must only be administered once, in the public assembly of the congregation, and ‘the whole congregation is to make profit by the enarration of the institution of baptism.’
This leads him on to his seventh and final section, on the use of baptism. ‘Our baptism must put us in mind, that we are admitted and received into the family of God.’ At this point Perkins propounds a powerful baptismal spirituality. To contemplate one’s own baptism means looking at the life that is past, in examination and confession and deprecation, towards the life that is to come, in the purpose of not sinning, and in endeavour to perform a new obedience to Christ, and it is ‘a storehouse of all comfort in the time of our need’. Perhaps most powerfully of all he states, ‘if a man would be a student of divinity, let him learn and practise his baptism . . . The best commentary to a man’s own self is his own baptism.’24
He then relates the gift of being adopted sons of God to putting on the garment, putting on Christ, as in the verse which provoked this whole discussion (Gal. 3:27). We are made one with Christ by the gift of Christ to us, by Christ’s gift to himself of his giving of his ‘spirit’ to make us conformable to himself in holiness and newness of life. Putting on Christ makes us aware of the nakedness of creation and the nakedness of our hearts.25 To uncover our nakedness at the same time brings out our shame and our need to be clothed by Christ himself. But the trouble is, as he notes, many of us have worn this garment very loosely. And he ends, ‘though we be clothed with Christ in baptism, yet we must further desire to be clothed upon.’ In other words, there is more and more yet to know and experience in the Christian life.
Finally, we must take a brief look at Perkins’ Problem of the Forged Catholicism.26 This consists of a discussion of Roman Catholic beliefs and practices to which Perkins takes exception. He devotes a few pages to confirmation, which he simply identifies with the use of chrism. He shows an historical perspective which reads almost like a twentieth-century tract. He knows that oil was used in the ancient world in bathing and that is how it was introduced into the baptism rite. Oil was commonly used, Perkins knew, as an extra ceremony at baptism, but he did not regard it as a separate sacrament, as did Roman Catholics. He looks back to the Early Fathers who ‘did not hold their Chrism and imposition of hands to give grace by the work wrought’. The imposition of hands is no more than a prayer over the person and it was performed by the bishop because the bishop was the normal president of the liturgy. Finally, ‘of the form of confirmation we find nothing in scripture: and if we betake ourselves to tradition we shall find great ambiguity and variety hereof in the Fathers’. His Reformation priorities enabled him to see through Catholic practice, with the benefit of a better knowledge of antiquity.
