39 Articles and the London Baptist 1689: Baptism

Baptism has already been mentioned in regards to overall worship context and how the 1689, being a sole clarifying statement of belief, had a far greater burden to explain in detail regarding Baptism much of which the Articles did not. This was for several reasons, including the Articles’ systemic context that included the other supporting structures of the Book of Common Prayer’s Order of Baptism, the early Church Fathers, and Tradition. Homilies could be added generally but in speaking specifically of Baptism there is no Homily of Baptism mentioned in the Articles. Having looked at the systemic context and form of Chapters 28 (Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and 29 (Of Baptism) of the 1689, the time has come to look at the next level, content.

There are several differences in the view taken of Baptism in the 1689 in contrast to the Articles. In the first portions, both explain Baptism as a joining to Him in the 1689 and to the Church in the Articles. With the Church being the body of Christ we could charitably grant some degree of similarity in this. The 1689 also states that Baptism is a sign of “remission of sin” and on this the Articles, through the “promises of forgiveness,” would agree.

The differences, though, are many and relate to the fundamental distinction between paedo- and credo-baptist theologies all. The 1689 explains that Baptism is an ordinance, which alone indicates an attitude that a lack of Divine Grace is inherent in the action, and a deliberate avoidance of the term Sacrament. Baptism in the 1689 is a sign only that signifies, but does not seal. This is the influence of the Anabaptists on the 1689, which makes Chapter 29 somewhat at odds with the more covenantal language of the rest of the Confession, as well as the Westminster from which most of the 1689 is taken. Even more so, it is at odds with the thoroughly covenantal language behind the Articles. This covenantal schizophrenia of the 1689 has further effect appearing in the language of what Baptism signifies.

Baptism for the 1689 signifies “unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection: of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”1 Given a cursory reading, this is possibly not too bad overall, until one remembers that there is no moderating influence on this statement. It is the sole clarifying statement of what is believed of Scriptural teaching on this issue for the Particular Baptists. In that case, one must consider the emphasis and flow of the statement as the sole clarifying document. Alone, the chapter on Baptism paints a picture that, as previously mentioned, is at odds with much of the rest of the Confession. The “ordinance”, albeit ordained by Christ, is centered on the man; it is “to the party baptized” centering on the individual. Next, we are forced to take in that context of the statement, “a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of being engrafted to him,” which we above charitably were willing to accept as a grafting of a man to the Church, the living body of Christ, and now find on closer examination that this passage might actually mean something else: a man united to Christ only, without acknowledging any corporate aspect of the Covenant. This would be well in line with the Confession’s rather weak doctrine of Church. “The remission of sins” here takes on a different meaning than the Articles because, as indicated before, Baptism in the 1689 is a sign only. Therefore, Original Sin is not remitted upon Baptism, but rather upon a previous profession of faith. The remaining phrases of the first section of Chapter 29 also bear the mark of a man centered view, “and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.” Man had given up, and although this statement is wholly true, for we as Christians do just that, it still places an emphasis on what we do, not what Christ has done. This is an opening, albeit unintentional, for an Armienian interpretation of this chapter.

Take this in contrast to Article XXVII, which states flatly that Baptism is not only a sign. Not only—which does not deny that it is a sign as the Baptists believe—but also more. Baptism, in the words of the Article, is also “a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth” to which the Baptists would agree and yet the Article continues with “whereby, as 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 sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.”2

The Sacrament belongs to Christ and in it He works. It is sign and seal. The word “grafted” in the Article is thoroughly covenantal language indicating not only in the individual as the Baptist would say but in a corporate sense, as well as an assurance of the work of Christ. Look at the language of the Article again. Who but Christ can graft us to His body, forgive our sin, adopt us, seal us, confirm our Faith and give us Grace? Can we do these things for ourselves? Surely not. None other but Christ can achieve what is accomplished at Baptism. The Article thus presents Baptism itself as the work of Christ, a truth further clarified by Article XXVI: Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments:

ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

The 1689 asserts that professed believers are the only proper candidates for Baptism. With this the Article disagrees, reasserting the retention of infant baptism in the Church. Here again is where the different views of the Covenant come into play. The Baptists in practice assert a more regulative worship view of the Covenant whereas the tradition stemming
from the Articles stresses a more holistic continuity. Where both call for a continuous covenant in a salvific sense (Grace), the Articles, when placed into practice, have resulted in a covenantal continuity in the sense of form as well. This appears in two specific areas: (1) the rationale for infant Baptism, and (2) regeneration in Baptism. For both we turn to Browne for explanation.

Regarding infant Baptism, without launching into a long defense of the practice but only dealing with it covenantally, we look through Browne to the Jews and how they dealt with Gentile converts, the pagan coming to the Lord. Browne states:

In addition to circumcision, thus given by God, it is well know that the Jews, in admitting proselytes from heathenism, ever added a form of washing, or baptism. They baptized all, men, women, and children, of any proselyted family; and then they esteemed them as new-born from their Gentile heathenism into the Church or family of Israel. The language which they used concerning such, was very remarkable. “If any one become a proselyte, he is like a child new-born.” “The gentile that is made a proselyte, and the servant that is made free, behold, he is like a child new-born; and all those relations which he had while either a gentile or a servant, they now cease from being so.” Nay! they even taught that men might legally marry those who had been their former relations; though, for edification and propriety, it was forbidden.

This well accounts for the way in which the Jews understood the baptism of John. They knew that baptism implied admission into a new covenant or faith; and when he baptized, they thought he did so because the age of Messiah was come, and that he himself must be either the Messiah, or else Elias, who was to prepare the way for Him. (See John i.19, 25.) Those, too, who were baptized of him, came confessing their sins, because in the baptism of proselytes it had been always the custom to examine into the spirit and motives of the converts, before they were admitted to the right of initiation.

Our Lord was ever pleased to adapt His teaching and ordinances to the habits and understanding of the people whom He taught. The Lord’s Prayer is a collection from familiar Jewish forms. The cup in the Lord’s Supper was taken from the wine-cups used, by ordinary custom, at the ancient Passover, one of which was called “the cup of blessing.” These were but human institutions; yet our gracious Saviour, stooping to man’s infirmities, sanctioned with His approval, and sanctified with His blessing, things which before had but earthly authority. There can be little, or no doubt, that it was so with baptism.3

So it is that the Articles take a more holistically covenantal view of the Sacrament of Baptism than does the 1689.

As the 1689 continues, it includes that the mode of Baptism is water and that the Baptism must occur “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” With this the Article, without specifying such, would agree as this is the orthodox method of Baptism instituted by our Lord. It is also the method utilized in the Book of Common Prayer. The 1689 demands immersion or dipping only as valid methods of Baptism. The Articles do not specify a method, but the rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer do allow in varying places for sprinkling, pouring, or dipping.

1 London Baptist Confession of 1689, Chapter 29.1.

2 Articles of Religion, Article XXVII: Of Baptism.

3 E. Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, p. 793.