Authors of confusion: what 'The case for Baptist Anglicans' gets (badly) wrong about Article 6
If there is a single sentence which summarises the recent Mere Orthodoxy article 'The Case for Baptist Anglicans', this is it. Article 6 of the 39 is invoked and, magically, Anglicans are not required to affirm "paedobaptism exclusivism". (The article addresses an ACNA context but clearly has wider relevance, not least because similar arguments are routinely heard in CofI and CofE evangelical circles.) And so, we are informed, you can be a credobaptist and and Anglican:
Since paedobaptism exclusivism should not be required and credobaptism is consistent with Anglicanism, we can have both and live together peacefully in dual-practice harmony. Note well that the argument is not that most Anglicans are dual-baptist, nor that the writers of the BCP or 39 Articles were dual-baptists. Indeed not! Instead, it is that the propositions and principles written in the text of the documents do not rule out dual-practice baptism and indeed, via Article 6, actually support it.
Where does one begin?
It's not about Article 6
Let's start with this misuse of Article 6. 'The Case for Baptist Anglicans' rightly states:
Article 6 demands there be a high bar to require the acceptance of a doctrine as an article of the faith.
Indeed it does. And what is meant by "an article of the faith" is clearly set forth in Article 6:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation
Scripture alone determines for the Church what is "necessary to salvation ... required of any man ... requisite or necessary to salvation". The high bar regards our salvation - not the ordering of the Church's life and ministry.
This being so, no, Anglicans do not at all require that belief in and the practice of infant Baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptists can indeed go to heaven.
The historic Anglican belief in and practice of infant Baptism is not, as Hooker declared, based on an "express literal mention" of the practice in holy Scripture (LEP I.14.2). As he admits, "there is no commandment in the Gospel of Christ, which sayeth, 'Baptize infants'" (Preface 8.7). Rather, the practice is "deduced ... out of Scripture" (I.14.2). The "rules of natural equity" - not a divine commandment - mean that the Church rightly understood the Dominical teaching on the general necessity of Baptism for salvation to apply to infants:
Now the law of Christ which ... maketh baptism necessary must be construed and understood according to rules of natural equity ... Baptism therefore even in the meaning of the Law of Christ belongeth unto infants capable thereof from the very instant of their birth (V.60.5 & 7).
Burnet, in his An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, therefore rightly emphasises the moderation of Article 27's claim regarding infant Baptism:
The last Head in this Article relates to the Baptism of Infants, which is spoken of with that moderation, that appears very eminently through the whole Articles of our Church, on this Head. It is only said to be most agreeable with the Institution of Christ, and that therefore it is to be in any ways retained in the Church.
The moderation of this claim for infant Baptism does not, however, mean in any way that it can be lightly set aside. That the practice is "most agreeable with the institution of Christ" is a clear warning not to abandon it for a practice 'less agreeable with the institution of Christ'.
'Presbyterian Anglicans'? 'Quaker Anglicans'?
What is more - and no less significant - is the declaration that the practice of infant Baptism is "retained" in the reformed Church of England. The retention of this practice means that it continues as it had in pre-Reformation Latin Christendom, in a similar fashion to the commitment regarding episcopal orders:
And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in the Church of England; No man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration or Ordination.
A so-called 'dual-practice' approach, in which infant Baptism can be set aside in favour of credobaptism in some Anglican congregations, has all the theological coherence and integrity of a proposal that Anglican congregations can legitimately practice presbyteral ordination because, in light of Article 6, episcopal ordination cannot be proved from the Scriptures to be necessary to salvation.
Similarly, provision for adult Baptism - whether in 1662 or contemporary editions of the Book of Common Prayer - does not support a 'dual-practice' approach. As the 1662 Preface quite clearly indicates, such provision addresses contexts in which infant Baptism has not been available. 'The Case for Baptist Anglicans', by contrast, suggests that such liturgical provision is itself a 'dual-practice' approach. This is akin to saying that 1662's teaching on those contexts where the Sacrament of Holy Communion is not available to a sick person - "he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth" - justifies a 'dual-practice' approach in which 'Quaker Anglican' congregations can forgo administration and reception of the Sacrament.
'Baptist Anglican', therefore, is as incoherent and meaningless as 'Presbyterian Anglican' and 'Quaker Anglican'. The moderation of Article 27's claim for infant Baptism is not a weak claim, to be lightly set aside. Rather, it is a wise claim, rooted in - as Hooker noted - a recognition of the truth that "Baptising of infants ... continued ever since the very Apostles' own times" (Preface 8.7). And - as noted at the outset of this post - this recognition points us to a crucial aspect of this debate entirely overlooked by the 'The Case for Baptist Anglicans': the claim for infant Baptism is not based on Article 6 because this is not a matter "necessary to salvation".
'Offendeth against the common order of the Church'
It is, rather, about the Church's rightful authority. It is, another words, about Articles 20 and 34:
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith ...
Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church ... and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
The normative nature of infant Baptism has been set forth in successive editions of the Book of Common Prayer, in the Canons regulating the life and ministry of Anglican churches, and in Anglican pastoral practice and experience over centuries. To invoke a private reading of Scripture against this is not an outworking of Article 6, for what is necessary to salvation is not at issue here. What is at issue is "the common order of the Church", which is not to be overthrown or refused on the basis of a private reading of Scripture - particularly by those who at ordination vowed to "minster the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as this Church hath received". In the words of Hooker:
Ecclesiastical laws have place, so that, unless we will be authors of confusion in the Church, our private discretion, which otherwise might guide us on a contrary way, must here submit itself to be that way guided, which the public judgement of the Church hath though it better (I.16.7).
Article 6, in other words, safeguards the way of salvation: it is not to be a means to introduce disorder in the Church's life. Nor is it to be a means of casting doubt on the efficacy of infant Baptism, which must inevitably be the result of a 'dual-practice' approach. To be a credobaptist is, necessarily, to deny that the practice of infant Baptism is "most agreeable with the institution of Christ". 'The Case for Baptist Anglicans' attempts to suggest otherwise:
this would mean that each minister and parishioner be allowed to decide for himself which practice he can participate in, but without belittling or estranging his brother or sister. A credobaptist minister might not be able to baptize an infant himself, but he would not belittle his parishioner. Instead, he’d find a priest to do the work in his place, rejoicing in the gift of a new child.
Could such a "credobaptist ('Anglican') minister" sincerely affirm the baptism of those in the congregation who received the Sacrament as infants? Could such a minister sincerely affirm that this baptism was "most agreeable with the institution of Christ"? If (and I do not see how this can be) the answer is yes, why not administer Baptism to the infant? Why require another priest or deacon to administer the Sacrament to the infant? And, of course, when administering Baptism to an infant, yes, we do rejoice in the gift of a new child - but that is not all we do when administering Baptism to an infant:
Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church ...
To regard the Sacrament of Baptism administered to an infant as "rejoicing in the gift of a new child" is most certainly to belittle the child, the family, and each parishioner who received this Sacrament as an infant. This is to offend against the common order of the Church.
Dubious company
Article 6 safeguards the way of salvation ... which means it is not something to be played with in order to advance desperately silly notions of Anglicanism. Anglican history points to the dangers involved when Article 6 is toyed with in such a manner, placing 'The Case for Baptist Anglicans' is in rather (in)famous company. Samuel Clarke, the 18th century Anglican divine, used Article 6 to justify his non-Trinitarian understanding. In The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712), Clarke described Article 6 as setting forth "the whole Foundation of the Protestant and of the Christian Religion" and on that basis declared that "the whole Tenor of Scripture" was contrary to Trinitarian teaching. He then went on to state that "the most difficult Passages in the Liturgy, concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, can be understood agreeably to the Doctrine of Scripture" - that is, in a non-Trinitarian sense, entirely incompatible with the Liturgy's explicit theological commitments.
'The Case for Baptist Anglicans' is addressing a matter quite different to Trinitarian doctrine. It does, however, share Samuel Clarke's reading of Article 6, mis-using this Article to justify the rejection of the teaching and good order of Articles and Prayer Book.
Any future article entitled 'The Case for Unitarian Anglicans' will owe much to 'The Case for Baptist Anglicans' for resuscitating Samuel Clarke's use of Article 6.
Comments
Post a Comment