Library

Why Do We Baptize Infants?

Understanding a Historic Anglican Practice

Many Christians who visit our church come from backgrounds where baptism is reserved for those old enough to make a personal profession of faith. Because of this, one of the most common questions we receive is:

“Why do Anglicans baptize infants?”

It is an important question, and one sincere Christians have discussed for centuries. What follows is not intended to win an argument, but to explain why the historic Anglican Church baptizes the children of Christian households and why we believe this practice is faithful to Scripture.

What Do Anglicans Believe About Baptism?

Anglicans believe that Holy Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of faith. The Church’s historic teaching is summarized in four Formularies: The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Books of Homilies, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal. Together these standards express how Anglicans understand the teaching of Scripture. The Articles summarize the faith, the Homilies explain it, the Prayer Book embodies it in worship, and the Ordinal applies it to ordained ministry.

In Article XXVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles baptism is described as:

a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church.

In the Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments, Part I (Second Book of Homilies) it is explained:

And as for Baptism, it is a Sacrament whereby God worketh invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. Baptism is our regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church… And although they have of God an invisible operation in them, and do not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him: yet in such only as worthily receive them. For the unworthy receiver receiveth not the grace of God offered in the Sacraments, but, as St. Paul saith, eateth and drinketh his own damnation. And therefore in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect and operation.

Baptism is therefore much more than a public testimony by us. It is a God-given sign and seal through which God truly offers and conveys the blessings of his covenant. Yet Anglicans reject the notion that the mere administration of baptism automatically regenerates or saves (as it is claimed in Roman Catholicism). Notice the Homily’s emphasis on receiving baptism “rightly” and “worthily.” The sacrament does not benefit by the outward act alone, but has its “wholesome effect and operation” only in those who truly receive the grace offered in it. In the case of baptized children, the promises signified in baptism must be embraced by repentance and living faith as they mature.

The Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer making the point even clearer by asking:

What is required of persons to be baptized?

And answers:

Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.

Saving faith in Christ remains absolutely necessary for every person, whether baptized as an infant or as an adult.

Why Baptize Children?

The answer begins with the way God has always dealt with his people throughout Scripture. When God established his covenant with Abraham, he did not deal with Abraham merely as an isolated individual. He included Abraham’s children within the covenant community. God said:

I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Genesis 17:7)

The same pattern appears throughout the Bible:

Noah and his household.
Abraham and his children.
Israel and their children.
David and his descendants.

God ordinarily works through families as well as individuals. This does not mean that every child is automatically saved. The children of Israel still needed personal faith and obedience. Yet they belonged to God’s covenant people and received the covenant sign. The Anglican Church believes this same principle continues under the New Covenant.

What About the New Testament?

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.

But he immediately added:

For the promise is unto you, and to your children. (Acts 2:39)

The New Testament never announces that the children of believers are now excluded from God’s covenant community. Instead, St. Paul teaches that the children of Christian households are “holy” or set apart to God (1 Corinthians 7:14). Just as children occupied a special place among God’s people under the Old Covenant, so the Church has understood them to occupy a special place within Christ’s visible Church today.

Baptism and Circumcision

The Church has long understood baptism to be the New Covenant counterpart of circumcision. The Apostle Paul connects the two when he writes:

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands… buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God” (Colossians 2:11–12).

Under the Old Covenant, circumcision marked a person as belonging to God’s covenant people, but it did not guarantee personal faith or salvation. Many circumcised Israelites proved unbelieving and rebellious, including King Saul, King Ahab, and most of the generation that perished in the wilderness. Even Judas Iscariot belonged outwardly to God’s covenant people and to Christ’s visible company of disciples while remaining both circumcised and unconverted. In the same way, baptism marks a person as belonging to Christ’s visible Church, but its saving benefits must be received by repentance and faith.

In the New Testament, baptism serves as the covenant sign of inclusion within God’s people. This is why Christians throughout much of church history have baptized not only adult converts but also the children of believers. The question is not whether children belong among God’s people. The question is whether the sign of belonging should be withheld from them until later in life.

Historic Anglicanism answers that it should not.

Does Infant Baptism Mean a Child Is Already Saved?

No.

In his Practical Exposition of the General Epistles (1840), Archbishop of Canterbury John Bird Sumner (1780–1862) explained that Noah “ was not saved by water, but by the ark” and likewise “

the Christian is not saved by baptism, but by the true ark, Christ Jesus, into which he enters by the ordinance of baptism

.” He then notes that Peter immediately guards against the common error of attributing saving power to the outward rite itself: “

Baptism, he says, doth save us. But let none suppose I mean the outward rite… not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God

.” Sumner illustrates this from Simon Magus: “

baptism would have washed away no sin… because no real faith, no hearty repentance, led him to be baptized

.” He then applies the same principle to infant baptism, stating that this is “

the meaning of those promises which when infants are baptized are given for them by their sureties: and which, when they come to age, they take upon themselves

.”

The Book of Common Prayer assumes this same principle. Every baptized child must later embrace Christ personally. That is why sponsors promise that the child will be taught:

The Apostles’ Creed.
The Lord’s Prayer.
The Ten Commandments.
The Christian faith and way of life.

The Catechism teaches that faith and repentance are required of every Christian. When an infant is baptized, these promises are made on the child’s behalf until he or she is old enough to embrace them personally and publicly in Confirmation. The goal is not merely that a child be baptized, but that the child grows up to trust, love, and follow Jesus Christ.

What Does Infant Baptism Signify?

For an adult convert, baptism follows a profession of faith.

For an infant, baptism points forward to the faith we pray God will bring to maturity.

The child is received into the visible Church, marked as belonging to Christ’s covenant people, and placed under the teaching, prayers, and care of Christ’s Church. The sign comes first. The child is then called throughout life to embrace personally the reality signified. This is again similar to the children of Israel, who received circumcision in infancy and were later called to love and trust the Lord with all their hearts.

Why Does the Prayer Book Encourage Infant Baptism?

The 1662 Baptismal Office gives two principal reasons.

First, because Christ welcomes little children. The minister reminds the congregation of our Lord’s words: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

Second, because God’s promises are for believers and their households. The Prayer Book therefore treats children of Christian families not as outsiders who must first earn a place among God’s people, but as those who should be brought to Christ from their earliest days. The children of believers enjoy the great privilege of being taught God’s Word, His Law, and His Gospel from childhood, a blessing that many children of unbelievers do not receive.

What, then, should we make of the Prayer Book’s statement that a baptized child is “regenerate”?

Historically, Anglicans have understood this as liturgical language expressing in faith and charity what the Church has prayed for and what God promises in baptism. It is not a claim to possess infallible knowledge of a child’s spiritual state or final salvation. As Archbishop of Canterbury John Bird Sumner noted, Simon Magus was baptized yet remained unconverted because “no real faith, no hearty repentance, led him to be baptized.” The Prayer Book must therefore be read alongside its Catechism and Baptismal Office, and interpreted in light of the Thirty-nine Articles. Taken together, they assume that every baptized child must later embrace Christ through personal faith and repentance.

Frequently Asked Question

“Where Is Infant Baptism Found in the Bible?”

The New Testament does not record an explicit command saying, “Baptize infants,” any more than it records a command excluding them and have only adult or “credo-baptism.” Anglicans therefore look at the broader pattern of Scripture. Throughout the Bible, God ordinarily gathers his people through households as well as individuals. Under the Old Covenant, children received the covenant sign of circumcision. In the New Testament, Peter declares that “the promise is unto you, and to your children” (Acts 2:39), and whole households are baptized together. In the Ancient Near East “whole households” consisted of entire extended multi-generational families (young and old alike) unlike the modern conception of family as being the nuclear immediate family. While these passages do not prove infant baptism by themselves, Anglicans believe they fit naturally with the biblical pattern of including believers’ children within God’s covenant community.

The historical witness of the Church also deserves consideration. From the apostolic age until the Reformation, infants were baptized as members of Christian households. While there were occasional discussions about the timing of baptism, the Church universally recognized the baptism of infants as lawful and proper, and it was not considered questionable at all. Given how many doctrines and practices were vigorously debated in the early Church, it is noteworthy that infant baptism was not among them, even among those who had been alive to sit under the teaching of the Apostles.

The fact that infant baptism remained largely unquestioned throughout the first 1,500 years of Christian history, and was not widely challenged until the Radical Reformation of the sixteenth century, raises a legitimate question: Why? Even today, the vast majority of Christians worldwide—including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many Reformed churches—continue to baptize infants as it was practiced since the beginning of the church.

While the authority for Christian doctrine must ultimately be found in Scripture, Anglicans believe this remarkable continuity of belief and practice confirms that infant baptism accords with the historic faith of the Church.

“Why Not Wait Until a Child Can Decide for Himself?”

Anglicans certainly believe that every person must personally trust in Christ. The question is whether children should be excluded from the covenant sign until that day arrives. We do not wait until a child can understand everything before bringing him to church, teaching him to pray, or reading him the Scriptures. In the same way, we do not believe children should be excluded from baptism. Rather, we baptize them and then teach them diligently, praying that they will grow into the faith signified by their baptism and personally embrace Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Why Do Anglicans Have Confirmation, and What Is Its Connection to Baptism?

Infant baptism is not intended to replace a personal profession of faith.

Rather, it looks forward to the day when a baptized child will personally embrace the promises of the gospel for himself or herself.

For this reason, the Church has always joined baptism with Christian instruction. Baptized children are taught the Scriptures, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. They are taught to repent of their sins and trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

Confirmation is the occasion when a baptized child publicly takes hold of the promises signified in baptism. No longer speaking through parents or sponsors, he or she personally repents, professes faith in Christ, and publicly confesses him before the Church and the world (Matthew 10:32–33; Luke 12:8–9).

Confirmation does not add something missing to baptism. Rather, it is the mature and personal response of faith to the covenant promises that were held out in baptism and taught through years of Christian instruction.

In this way, baptism points forward to Confirmation, and Confirmation looks back to baptism, as the baptized child publicly embraces by faith the promises once made on his or her behalf.

The Gorham Judgment (1850)

The Prayer Book’s words “this child is regenerate” were tested in the most important Anglican legal case on baptism. In 1847 George Cornelius Gorham, an evangelical clergyman, was presented to the parish of Brampford Speke in Devon. Henry Phillpotts, the High Church Bishop of Exeter, examined him at length and refused to institute him. Gorham held that regeneration does not invariably accompany the act of baptism, but is given to those who receive the sacrament worthily. Phillpotts regarded this as a denial of baptismal regeneration.

The Court of Arches upheld the bishop in 1849. On appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reversed that decision in March 1850. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who sat with the court, agreed with the judgment; the Archbishop of Canterbury was John Bird Sumner, quoted above. The court found that opinions like Gorham’s “have been propounded and maintained, without censure or reproach, by many eminent and illustrious prelates and divines who have adorned the Church from the time when the Articles were first established.”

The judgment settled that the Formularies do not require Anglicans to believe that every baptized infant is automatically regenerated by the outward act. The reading of the Prayer Book set out on this page, which interprets its baptismal language in the light of the Articles and the Catechism, was confirmed as a lawful and historic Anglican position. The decision provoked a storm: Phillpotts threatened to excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and several prominent High Churchmen, including Henry Edward Manning, left the Church of England for Rome.

Sources: Lee Gatiss, “The Anglican Doctrine of Baptism”, Foundations 63 (Autumn 2012); “Gorham Case,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 5 (online text).