“If doctrine and the law had been on the side of the Petitioners, the Court might well have felt nevertheless that its discretion should not be exercised in such a way as to endorse needless waste of water”
The association between the Chancellor Ockleton’s comment on a potential “needless waste of water” and his refusal on an application for a 940-litre “portable immersion baptistery” have been widely mis-reported in the press and social media. Actually, he stated (at [32]) that “the waste of water was ‘not relevant to the legality of the present proposals, (and presumably trigger Duffield considerations) but one to which the proposal…draws immediate attention'” [32].
The concise summary of the judgment produced by the Ecclesiastical Law Association is reproduced below.
In Re St. Mary Radcliffe-on-Trent [2026] ECC S&N 1, the Petitioners sought authority to purchase (and store) a portable font for baptism by immersion in addition to the existing “traditional font”; it was said that this would “meet a need because of the desire of adult converts to be baptised in this way”. Their Statement of Significance asserted that this did not raise any questions about lasting visual impact, or harm to the significance of the building. Ockelton Ch. challenged this by highlighting the final sentence in the parish’s Statement which asserted: “There is no intention to detract from the significance of the font” [2]. He said:
“[3] The matter does not rest there, however, because the Petition is motivated by an intention to use the facility for some baptisms; it is not suggested that the parish would want to acquire it except to use it. The statement of need says this:
‘The need is to provide adult immersion baptism for a small but increasing number of people coming to faith following Alpha, or who have not been baptised as infants. Request for immersion baptism have been universal and necessitated borrowing the portable baptisteries from other churches.’
[4] As will already be apparent, the church has a font. In these circumstances, questions arise as to whether it is permissible to use this portable immersion baptistery in the way the parish intends (and, indeed, whether it is permissible to use such a thing borrowed from elsewhere).
If it is not, Faculty permission for its acquisition (and introduction into the building) should no doubt be refused…It is a question sounding principally in the theological and liturgical understanding of the rite of baptism, rather than the visual or other impact on the character of the building. Nevertheless, it is a question of law, because the fittings and usages of an Anglican church must by law promote, and not counteract, the doctrines and teaching of the church.
In returning the Petition to the parish through the Registrar, he commented:
“[5] The use of this facility…will require considerably more justification, and I am therefore returning this Petition for that to be uploaded. No doubt both the DAC and the incumbent are aware of the House of Bishops’ Guidance on Fonts (1992) and its restatement of the principle that there should be only one font in a church, together with the reasons for not introducing confusion between the forms of administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, in case it be thought that there is some difference in effect, contrary to the credal statement of faith in ‘One Baptism’.
I have read the Statement of Need in the present case and it appears to amount merely to a preference by some candidates, and indeed not to be aware at all of the points made in the Guidance, and the need to educate the laity…’
[6]. …The Petition must be determined on the basis of the materials before the Court; but in the absence of proper analysis by the Petitioners a substantial amount of further research has been required (see for comparison paragraph 20 below)…
Although the Canons of the Church of England have no specific reference to the question of baptism by immersion, their consideration of Baptism and Fonts is given in Canon B 21 Of Holy Baptism, and Canon F 1 of the Font. In the absence of express legal provision the starting point must be the biblical sources and the teaching of the church; theses were reviewed in [8] to [15] (and reproduced here). From these he concluded [emphasis added]:
“[16] It follows that the necessity for baptism by immersion, asserted to exist at Radcliffe-on-Trent, has no theological basis. In the Anglican church there is never any need for baptism to take place by immersion, if provisions exist for baptism in some other lawful way. …If there is a pastoral need, it may lie in teaching that there is no difference in the effects of the various modes of baptism. Nor does it help to say, as the parish does in this context, that ‘the pastoral preference of baptismal candidates cannot be understated’. I think ‘overstated’ is intended; but the doctrine and practice of the Church is not determined by those about to join it”.
[17] There is, however, no doubt that baptism by immersion, if it takes place in church, is lawful (see, for example, RDH Bursell, Liturgy, Order and the Law (1966) p 149). Baptism by immersion is clearly part of the tradition of the church and is allowed by the formularies and the liturgy of the Church of England. The question then is whether it is desirable, or even lawful, to provide a choice for candidates. If on a true understanding of the teachings and practice of the church they cannot be seen as having the need they claim, is it right for the parish to offer them a choice as to the means to be adopted for their baptism? Should the parish be able to respond in this way to what it describes as the ‘universal’ request by adult candidates for baptism by immersion?
The Chancellor subsequently reviewed “the recent and authoritative advice, specific to the Church of England”, in the form of the House of Bishops’ Guidance on Fonts, supra. The Guidance is structured as a series of answers to questions from Chancellors, [18] to [22], which are reproduced here[1].
There were “two reservations…worth expressing”: the Guidance is not absolutely clear about the way in which the doctrine of ‘one baptism’ is to be promoted; and any confusion arising from the use of different methods of baptism dispelled, where there is ‘a large, single font in which baptism can be administered in the three ways indicated’[23] and “it does not seem to be quite right that ‘our Church has never before permitted more than one permanent font in a church’ [24]. These reservations were considered at [25] and [26].
Noting that there were no recent judgments of consistory courts on the issue raised by this Petition, Ockleton Ch. noted Re St Michael le Belfrey, York [2023] ECC Yor 2, and Re St Thomas the Martyr Newcastle upon Tyne [2021] ECC New 1, both of which concerned the installation of a font for baptism by immersion was merely a part of a complete re-ordering; these are considered at [28] to [30].
The Chancellor noted that the Guidance was given in the context of a rising wish for baptism by immersion for adult candidates, and the answer is that there should not be a second font in a church to enable such ceremonies to take place. The proper response to that wish is education of the candidates by the bishops and clergy, because of the risk of confusion if there is any appearance of one form of baptism being in some way better than another or even significantly different. It is not right that the sacramental process of the acquisition of Grace by baptism, ‘a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness’ become akin to the consumer choices available in worldly life [31].
The Chancellor ruled as follows.
(1) The doctrine and practice of the Church from ancient times and today is that aspersion or affusion is effective for baptism; immersion is therefore never needed where the one of the other modes is available. If there is a need, it may be for clearer teaching. The doctrine and practice of the Church is not determined by those about to join it.
(2) For that reason, and in accordance with the Guidance of the House of Bishops, there should not be a second means of baptism in a church, as that might encourage thoughts of a variety of effect of baptism. The receipt of grace is not a subject of consumer choice as to its means.
(3) In any event, the use of up to 940 litres of water for a baptism, rather than an insignificant amount, is unjustified waste not conforming to Christian duties of stewardship of resources.
Faculty refused.
Comment
[1] Whilst Ockleton Ch. stated “No apology is needed for extensive quotation” of these sections, for the purpose of this post, these have been summarized separately, v supra.