We've been looking at a fascinating letter published by John Tombes in answer to a question about baptism. Once Tombes had begun questioning the validity of infant baptism, Westminster and its polemicists blacklisted him and pumped him with the "swarme of sectaries" and in particular the Baptists. Tombes, for his part, took the time to learn the Baptist position, published where he agreed and disagreed, and asked Baptist leaders to clarify some of their wording. The most basic question, and the one that caused the greatest contention with the established church, was the "who" and "why" of baptism. This was the answer Tombes received: That which we require and without which we will not baptize any is a persons manifestation of himself to be a believer in Jesus Christ, and to desire baptisme according to the revealed will of Christ, and in obedience thereunto, we do not baptize any into this or that particular congregation: but only into that one body in general spoken of 1 Cor. 12. 13. As touching joining in communion, we in this case require no more, then a manifest readinesse to hold communion with all the Churches of Christ in the things of Christ, and accordingly to shew a real willingnesse to have communion with any particular Church of Christ according as the hand of God shall give opportunity, and true seasonablenesse of and for the same. Thus we judge and practise accordingly. Benjamen Cox. There are two issues in particular that need to be understood. Early Baptists did not baptize into church membership. But they weren't in complete agreement about this. This matter caused confusion among the early Baptists and still causes confusion today. A lot of Baptist church members today believe that baptism is the act of becoming a church member, in other words that people are baptized "into" church membership. Some Baptist church constitutions actually have it worded this way. (By the way, if you are not a Baptist, you might not have experience with Baptist church autonomy. We believe that Baptist churches have the right to determine this for themselves. I'm just saying the historic position leans a different direction.) I think the confusion is as much cultural as anything (pre- and post-Baptist communities), and that makes it doubly difficult to sort through the disagreements. James Pendleton, in his once very influential Baptist Church Manual, said of candidates for church membership, they are by vote of the church recognized, as candidates for baptism, with the understanding that when baptized they will be entitled to all the rights and privileges of membership. This has been interpreted to mean that baptism is the act of joining the church. But that's not what he said. What he said actually lines up quite well with the beliefs of the early English Baptists. In the next section, we'll look at some specific statements made by the leaders in question, then we'll come full circle and tie everything together at the end. But first, one more point of clarification. "All the Churches of Christ" might not mean what you think it means. Note the definition of a church in the First London Confession: a company of visible Saints, called & separated from the world, by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joyned to the Lord, and each other, by mutuall agreement, in the practical injoyment of the Ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King. (Article XXXIII)
1 Comment
So, yeah, this is pretty obscure. There are really only two reasons for making a blog post like this. 1) It helps me compile my thoughts for use in a larger article or book some day. 2) Some seminary student may stumble across this and be able to use it as a starting point for a paper. That's about it. I'm not making any audacious claims; I'm just presenting some data that changes the way we look at a few of the early English Particular Baptist relationships. If anything, I might be integrating Henry Jessey more closely with the PB crowd (in full disclosure, I really like Henry Jessey; two of my favorite people from this era are Jessey and Tombes, and they aren't even considered "true" Baptists).
Reminder of what we have so far: John Tombes was pummeled by Westminster for asking them to debate infant baptism, and he turned to the early Baptists for advice. He received a written response signed by Benjamin Cox, Henry Jessey, and Hanserd Knollys with a postscript by Knollys confirming that a different congregation which included William Kiffin, Thomas Patient, and John Spilsbury also agreed with their position. We'll talk about the position itself in the next post (and its implications are fascinating); right now we're just concerned with the relationships. The best I can do with the date of their response is to limit it to either 1647 or 1648. Tombes connected with the who's who of early English Particular Baptists. In 1644, as the political winds were changing in England, a group of churches sharing convictions about believers' baptism and a Calvinistic soteriology decided to release a confession of faith as a way of demonstrating their reasonability (and to separate themselves from other baptistic groups that may have been a bit rowdier). They revised that confession in 1646 in response to some questions, particularly by Westminster divines. They re-re-released their confession in 1651 after further political developments, but we're mainly worried about the 1644 and 1646 versions. Here are the representatives that signed the confessions: |
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|