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) One of the greatest controversies among the early English Baptists was what to do with the old established churches who did not practice true baptism. John Spilsbury, one of the men in the answer, said this: "for that Church where Baptisme is the true ordinance of God in the administration of it, is by the rule of the Gospel a true Church” (Treatise Concerning Baptisme, 32). William Kiffin held a commitment to separate from those churches "as doe not dispense the Word and Sacraments purely" (Briefe Remonstrance, 5). Hanserd Knollys believed that only those who "would be baptized with water into the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Spirit; were admitted Members of the Church” (A Moderate Answer, 20). But everyone they evangelized with this message was already a member of the Church of England and had been baptized as an infant. In other words, there was serious consternation whether or not paedobaptist churches were true churches at all. This was one of the reasons why Tombes held them at arm's length - he was not ready to "dechurch" all of the other English churches. To make a long story short, when Benjamin Cox wrote that Baptist churches baptized anyone who was willing to be in communion with all or any of the Churches of Christ, he very well may have meant only Baptist churches. The interesting twist is that we know for certain that Henry Jessey meant more than just Baptist churches (see below). In any respect, these Baptists were not necessarily being ecumenical or gracious in this view. What Did These Leaders Believe about Baptism? While the early Baptists wrote a great deal about baptism, they mainly did so with respect to believers' baptism versus paedobaptism. They did not often spell out its connection with church membership. But, each one of the men in the answer wrote something that we can use to put together a bigger picture, and I;m going to stick only with those documents I'm pretty certain were written before this answer (somewhere in 1647-48). Let's do this alphabetically, so we start with Benjamin Cox. Beleevers baptized ought to agree and joyn together in a constant profession of the same doctrine of the Gospel, and in professed obedience thereunto, and also in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer, Acts 2. 42. And a company of baptized beleevers so agreeing and joining together, are a Church or Congregation of Christ, Acts 2. 47. (An Appendix, 9) It seems that in Cox's mind church membership was subsequent to and independent of baptism. Only believers baptized could be members of a Church of Christ, and the decision to be part of such a church was mutual. Other than Patient, we have less published by Cox on this matter than any other man in question, so we move on. Henry Jessey was a well-known proponent of the concept of open-communion, or that one who had been baptized as an infant in a Anglican ceremony did not have to be baptized again in order to join a Baptist church. (That is the dominant standard among British Baptists today.) John Bunyan's famous Differences in Judgment included an entire treatise by Jessey on the subject. Jessey's inclusion in this answer could mean one of two things: (1) the Baptists had not yet taken a clear or hard-line stance, or (2) Jessey had begun to change his mind. Considering that Storehouses of Provision was published in 1650, I'd say the former is far more likely with respect to clarity. They hadn't been able to explain to one another what they understood about the connection between church membership and baptism. Here's Jessey's major statement: Where [there] is matter and forme, there is a true Church; the Matter of a true Church, to be Saints visibly; the Forme, a gathering of these out from the world, and joining of them together to worship the Lord in truth, so far as they know, or shall know; and edifie themselves. Jessey made the proper observation that one did not have to be baptized in order to be saved. He also made the proper observation that Baptists did not re-baptize someone every time he or she moved church membership. What's strange (to me) is that his concerns are not at all incompatible with the answer he jointly signed with the other Baptist leaders. This statement seems to have a bigger concern with baptizing into church membership. Maybe there were Baptist leaders teaching it that way? Jessey was also saying that paedobaptist churches could be true churches, so their church members could legitimately share communion (which most often meant what we think of as church membership) with a Baptist church. That's a classic open-communion position, which makes me think that Jessey had a wider view of "all the Churches of Christ" than some other Baptist leaders. William Kiffin and Thomas Patient's church on Devonshire Square was well-known for being a closed-communion church before 1650, which indicates to me that he and Jessey were quite aware of their difference in opinion about baptism/membership when this answer was sent. I like to think that this demonstrates the love and respect that transcends disagreements possible in Baptist relationships. Or maybe that disagreement isn't as clear as I think it is. One way or another, here are some of their early statements on the matter. and that being thus baptized upon profession of Faith, they are then added to the Church, 2 Act. 41, and being added to the Church, wee conceive our selves bound to watch over one another, and in case of sinne, to deale faithfully one with another according to these Scriptures, Levit. 19. 17, 18. Matth. 18. 15. (Kiffin, A Briefe Remonstrance, 13) [When churches receive a member, they] receive that Church and Ministery, from which he had his supposed baptism, and must certainly own all those Churches which that ministery stood in fellowship with, that so baptized him; therefore it is a sad and serious matter, who it is that is admitted into fellowship in the true Church of Christ. (Patient, The Doctrine of Baptism [published 1654], 172-73) Both Kiffin and Patient took church membership extremely seriously. Patient believed that "the main end of Church fellowship and Ministerial power is to destroy sin" and Kiffin wrote the foreword to Thomas Goodwin's attack on divisions within and between congregational churches. This view takes on a stronger tone in the light of Kiffin's later (and much more famous) attack on John Bunyan's defense of open communion, A Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion. Consider these three statements:
Hanserd Knollys was a deep thinker who cared a great deal about churches and church members. Like Jessey, he was cautious about artificial barriers. He understood that baptism was an imperfect test; non-Christians could easily play the part. For him, the profession of salvation was a sufficient test of salvation, but church membership was of another type. The church, because it did not by such action bar someone from salvation, had the right and responsibility to set terms of membership. To be a Christian, one must repent and believe. To be a member of his church and share the Lord's Supper, one must further be baptized as a believer. Not only did this make proper social sense, it was also the only biblical option. And the condition which those Preachers both publikely and privately propounded to the people, unto whom they Preached, upon which they were to be admitted into the Church was Faith, Repentance, and Baptism; and none other. And whosoever (poor as well as rich, bond as well as free, servants as well as Masters) did make a profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and would be baptized with water into the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Spirit; were admitted Members of the Church. (A Moderate Answer, 19-20) Knollys took even more seriously than the other signers of the First London Confession their commitment to be the one church in London. While he wrote as much in 1645, his clearest statements to this end came much later. I know I said I would stick to words from the 1640s, but this passage is amazing, and it is completely in character with his earlier thoughts. The Gospel-Form of a particular Church of God consists (as we said) in the fitly framing, compacting and joining those sanctified Believers together into: ONE Fellowship, Society and Gospel Brotherhood in a solemn Day of Prayer, with Fasting, wherein some Able Minister of the Gospel, having by Preaching the Word unto them, shewed them their Respective Duties in a Church Relation, the Elders and Chief Brethren of some particular Churches of Saints being present, and assisting in the work of the Day (if they may be obtained) may in the Name and Authority of the LORD Jesus Christ (by virtue of this Commission given to him) constitute and make them a particular Visible Church of God; they giving up themselves professedly first to the LORD, and then one to another, mutually and solemnly with one accord engaging themselves to come together in ONE Congregation, and to Assemble themselves together in some one Place every first Day of the week, to worship God publickly in all his holy Ordinances, with their mutual professed Subjection unto the Laws of God’s House, and with a Professed Resolution to Continue in the Apostles Doctrine, and in Fellowship, and in Breaking of Bread, and Prayer, through the Help of God. All which being done, the same Minister ought to declare them to be a Church of Saints, and the Ministers and Brethren of other Churches being also present, ought to own and acknowledge them to be a Sister Church, by giving them the Right hand of Fellowship; and so to commend them by Prayer unto God, and to the Word of his Grace, who is able to build them up, and to give them an Inheritance among all them which are sanctified. His thought continues into the great consequence of this belief of unity, "That there be but ONE Church in one City; and that all the Congregations of Saints in that City (called Churches) bear but one Name, to wit, the Church of God in that City, as in the Apostles daies, Act. 15. 4. 22. 1 Cor. 1. 2." (The World that Now Is [published 1681], 48-50) Again, this should not be confused with some kind of benevolent ecumenism. Only believers baptized could be members of this true church, which means that every church with baptized infants was excluded. They could not be a part of this one church in one city. (Let the record show that Baptists found too many other things to disagree about to make this one church idea stay a reality. The first seven churches to sign the First London Confession had that goal, but once the Interregnum brought them freedom, their unity became more of a loose association.) John Spilsbury is the last of the men in question. He wrote three major treatises on the subject (one being a revision of another). His statements might sound familiar: This I thinke we all agree in, that matter and forme constitutes a Church, the matter is a company of Saints, or persons professing faith in the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ, and living accordingly, that is, in holiness of life. The forme is that by which these are united and knit up together in one fellowship, and orderly body, and that is the covenant of grace that lies between God and his people, by which God visibly becomes the God of such persons, and they his people above all other. That this is the forme of a Church, and not Baptisme, I prove thus; that by which God and a people become each others apart from all other people, that is the forme of them; but the covenant is that by which God owns a people for his, and they him for their God, therefore the covenant is the forme, Jer. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 10. Act. 2. 41. Gen. 17. 11. Luk. 1. 72. Act. 3. 25. (A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme, 41) This hearkens to an important debate about the nature of a church: what makes a church a church? What is it that turns a random group of believers into a Body of Christ? In their day, there were three primary choices: faith, covenant, and baptism. Surprisingly few Baptists believed that baptism actually made a church; covenant made a church and baptism was simply an element of that covenant. Spilsbury addressed that in a very challenging passage: But some will say, that the Word speaks of no church before Baptisme. For answer to this, I must distinguish in Baptisme between the truth in the doctrine of Baptisme, and the outward administration of the same. In the first sense Baptisme is one branch of the covenant, as a truth to be revealed, and by faith to be received, as an essentiall truth, together with other truths, for the constituting of the church, and no church according to the other of Christs new Testament, either without it, or before it. But for the last, namely, the outward administration of Baptisme, that ever follows the Saints joining in fellowship, by mutuall faith & agreement in the doctrine, wherein consists the stating of the Church in her conjoining in covenant, which ever goes before the administration of Baptisme, and gives power and authoritie for the same. So that in the first sense, the Church is not before Baptisme; but in the last sense, the church is before Baptisme. (A Treatise, 41) In other words, the doctrine of baptism (which *was* essential to the constitution of a church) was separate from the administration of baptism (which was a manifestation of that church's covenant). This allowed Spilsbury to say at the same time,
In his second edition of the Treatise published in 1652, he added the important clarification, Again, adding to Churches after baptism is in respect of particular Churches, unto which persons may be recommended, but not of the Universal Church and body of Christ, into which they are baptized, 1 Cor. 12.12,13. Rom 6.3, 42. (69) Now this sounds a lot like the answer sent to John Tombes.
And that brings us to one last entry on the subject. What does all of this mean?
1 Comment
|
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
|