THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
While seventeenth-century Baptists argued their case chiefly from a partial, New Testament view of the
evidence, they were naturally confirmed in their antipaedobaptism by the abuses of the Reformed. But the Westminster Assembly was no less concerned to root these out, while taking care not to throw out the covenant baby with the superstitious font-water. However, while the Assembly clearly rejected the Prayer Book's language of baptismal regeneration the Directory states that 'the inward grace of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered' a highly questionable statement is made: '...all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized'. Now does federal or covenant holiness necessarily imply actual grace? Is it not a red rag to a
Baptist bull to say 'they are Christians'? Surely the statement is neither true nor necessary. One notes that this unfortunate expression of the Directory finds no parallel in Calvin's form of administering baptism.38 Observing the circumcision analogy, even the Apostle Paul denied that someone was a (true) Jew in the sight of God without evidence of the circumcision of the heart (see Rom. 2: 28, 29). As surely as the prophets preached the necessity of heart circumcision to those circumcised in the flesh, so preachers must urge the necessity of the new birth upon the baptized children of believers. They are not to be told they are Christians without a credible, personal profession of faith. Let it also be said that the danger of nominalism no more invalidates the lawfulness of infant baptism than a similar state of affairs in the Old Testament invalidated divinely-commanded circumcision. Neither should Baptists give the impression that paedobaptists are the only ones plagued by hypocritical nominals. Both schools, in the absence of godly discipline, may be confronted by the same problem in church life. Indeed, are there not unregenerate members of Baptist churches? Comparing the current Rome-ward drift of the ecumenical Baptist Union with the traditionally faithful paedobaptist Free Church of Scotland suggests that Baptist ultra-Puritanism is no sure guarantee of doctrinal and ecclesiological purity. Is it not significant that if one drew up a list of faithful preachers and theologians from the last 450 years, Baptists would be a decided minority? While we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of dividing over baptism, these points must be made in the interests of truth. Equally it should be said that Presbyterians have not opposed believer's baptism as Baptists have opposed infant baptism. In a missionary context such as the period of the Acts of the Apostles Presbyterians would expect to baptize believers but not without their children. While the evidence is not entirely conclusive, the covenant view makes better sense of NT household baptisms than the individualist Baptist view does. The Directory's failure to provide for a missionary context reflects the general lack of missionary awareness during the Puritan
period. Interestingly, the 1662 BCP added a service of baptism for those of 'Riper Years' to meet the need caused by the neglect of the sacrament during the Commonwealth and by the beginnings of missionary work in the colonies.39
The divines were clearly opposed to an undisciplined, indiscriminate administration of infant baptism of the kind Anglicanism had encouraged. In other words, the sacrament made no sense unless at least one parent was a true believer; and in stressing the responsibility of the father, the Directory abolishes the idea of godparents. Furthermore, infant baptism is not to be 'administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed'.
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
PART 6
The Sacrament of Baptism
This brings us to the administration of the sacraments. Every member of the Westminster Assembly was committed to the Reformed doctrine of covenant baptism. Like all the sixteenth century Reformers, they did not consider that infant baptism was an unscriptural relic of Roman Catholicism. Unlike the BCP, but in harmony with the continental Reformed churches, the Directory places infant baptism in a covenant context when it declares:
That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before ...
Time forbids an in-depth discussion of the subject of baptism. Suffice it to say that the Westminster divines believed they had a strong biblical case for rejecting the Baptist position. The present lecturer, after man years of years of thought, is now inclined to think that the Waldensians, the Reformers, the Huguenots, the Pilgrim Fathers, the Puritans, and the Covenanters had it right after all!
This brings us to the administration of the sacraments. Every member of the Westminster Assembly was committed to the Reformed doctrine of covenant baptism. Like all the sixteenth century Reformers, they did not consider that infant baptism was an unscriptural relic of Roman Catholicism. Unlike the BCP, but in harmony with the continental Reformed churches, the Directory places infant baptism in a covenant context when it declares:
That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before ...
Time forbids an in-depth discussion of the subject of baptism. Suffice it to say that the Westminster divines believed they had a strong biblical case for rejecting the Baptist position. The present lecturer, after man years of years of thought, is now inclined to think that the Waldensians, the Reformers, the Huguenots, the Pilgrim Fathers, the Puritans, and the Covenanters had it right after all!
While seventeenth-century Baptists argued their case chiefly from a partial, New Testament view of the
evidence, they were naturally confirmed in their antipaedobaptism by the abuses of the Reformed. But the Westminster Assembly was no less concerned to root these out, while taking care not to throw out the covenant baby with the superstitious font-water. However, while the Assembly clearly rejected the Prayer Book's language of baptismal regeneration the Directory states that 'the inward grace of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered' a highly questionable statement is made: '...all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized'. Now does federal or covenant holiness necessarily imply actual grace? Is it not a red rag to a
Baptist bull to say 'they are Christians'? Surely the statement is neither true nor necessary. One notes that this unfortunate expression of the Directory finds no parallel in Calvin's form of administering baptism.38 Observing the circumcision analogy, even the Apostle Paul denied that someone was a (true) Jew in the sight of God without evidence of the circumcision of the heart (see Rom. 2: 28, 29). As surely as the prophets preached the necessity of heart circumcision to those circumcised in the flesh, so preachers must urge the necessity of the new birth upon the baptized children of believers. They are not to be told they are Christians without a credible, personal profession of faith. Let it also be said that the danger of nominalism no more invalidates the lawfulness of infant baptism than a similar state of affairs in the Old Testament invalidated divinely-commanded circumcision. Neither should Baptists give the impression that paedobaptists are the only ones plagued by hypocritical nominals. Both schools, in the absence of godly discipline, may be confronted by the same problem in church life. Indeed, are there not unregenerate members of Baptist churches? Comparing the current Rome-ward drift of the ecumenical Baptist Union with the traditionally faithful paedobaptist Free Church of Scotland suggests that Baptist ultra-Puritanism is no sure guarantee of doctrinal and ecclesiological purity. Is it not significant that if one drew up a list of faithful preachers and theologians from the last 450 years, Baptists would be a decided minority? While we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of dividing over baptism, these points must be made in the interests of truth. Equally it should be said that Presbyterians have not opposed believer's baptism as Baptists have opposed infant baptism. In a missionary context such as the period of the Acts of the Apostles Presbyterians would expect to baptize believers but not without their children. While the evidence is not entirely conclusive, the covenant view makes better sense of NT household baptisms than the individualist Baptist view does. The Directory's failure to provide for a missionary context reflects the general lack of missionary awareness during the Puritan
period. Interestingly, the 1662 BCP added a service of baptism for those of 'Riper Years' to meet the need caused by the neglect of the sacrament during the Commonwealth and by the beginnings of missionary work in the colonies.39
The divines were clearly opposed to an undisciplined, indiscriminate administration of infant baptism of the kind Anglicanism had encouraged. In other words, the sacrament made no sense unless at least one parent was a true believer; and in stressing the responsibility of the father, the Directory abolishes the idea of godparents. Furthermore, infant baptism is not to be 'administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed'.
This raises the question of the mode of baptism. While the Prayer Book allows for 'dipping', and no absolute prejudice against immersion was entertained by Calvin40 and the other reformers, the Directory ruled in favour of 'pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremony'. The etymology of baptizo surely justifies this position. The 'baptism of the Spirit' was an 'outpouring' (Acts 1: 5; 2: 17) rather than an 'immersion'; Israel's 'baptism unto Moses' simply meant an identification of the people with their leader, when they were neither immersed nor sprinkled. Their baptism was entirely dry, for not a drop of water fell on them! (1 Cor. 10: 2); as for the alleged immersionism of Romans 6, the notion of a watery grave is more applicable to God's enemies than his friends if the flood and the drowning of the Egyptians are anything to go by. As one may be perfectly clean after a bath or a shower,' so ceremonial washing is adequately signified by sprinkling (see Numbers 8: 7). Indeed, the quantity of water is quite irrelevant. Even the Apostle Peter seems to warn against attaching too much importance to the sign of baptism (1 Pet. 3: 21), a danger which faces Roman Catholics and Baptists alike. The essential thing which must always unite Bible-believing Christians especially at the Lord's Table is the reality of regeneration and a living, obedient faith in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment