I’m looking for a book dealing with baptism that is written from a classically- Anglican perspective. Can anyone recommend?
For a classical Anglican perspective, I suggest starting with the 1662 Rite of Baptism, and the Catechism, then consulting the relevant sections of E.A. Litton’s Introduction to Dogmatic Theology.
Although not written by an Anglican, (actually by a Calvinist), The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, ISBN 0 227 6785 9, is a first class seminal work on the validity of the baptism of infants. Most of which would be accepted by any Anglican Theologian as being soundly biblically based reasoning. .
Here's a fairly new book by one of my Lutheran friends that answers a lot of questions about baptism: Questions on Baptism (Ask the Pastor): Sullivan, Rev. Joshua W: 9798590135547: Amazon.com: Books
The following is not a book per se, but in case you haven't seen it... John Jewel's Treatise on the Sacraments
Yes. I shall quote from the opening lines of the 1662 Rite of Baptism (referenced above): Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin: and that our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost: I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this Child that thing which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same. I suggest reading the whole Rite, along with the Catechism. The Homilies mention the importance of baptism here and there, but because neither infant baptism nor baptismal regeneration were points of controversy between the Lutherans and the Reformed (nor, indeed, between Rome and the Reformers), they did not receive as much attention in the earliest stratum of documents from the English Reformation as topics such as the Eucharist did. This early consensus is summed up nicely in Article 27: Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. I hasten to add that the medieval assumptions inherent in any 16th cent. understanding of the sacraments must be demythologized, but the core assertions that baptism is (1) necessary for entry into the Church (without distinction between a 'visible' and 'invisible' Church) and union with Christ, and (2) that the administration of baptism to infants is normative (i.e., was intended by Jesus' teaching), remain as true for Anglican practice today as they did five hundred years ago.
That is, I think, the traditional teaching of the Anglican Church, and I also think @Invictus has done a pretty good job of laying it out. I would like to add the observation that people can be a part of the Anglican Church while not fully accepting every traditional teaching of that Church. ( @Invictus , @Tiffy , and I are all examples of this... although the former individuals disagree with different teachings than the ones I disagree with.) Personally, I have a problem with the teaching on infant baptism, and you might like to read a previous discussion on infant baptism that we had in this thread. As I wrote there, no matter what denomination one looks at, being a part of that denomination will involve some compromises with Bible truth for the simple reason that no denomination is perfect (they all spring from the efforts of imperfect people). I have no interest in resurrecting the discussion here.