|
|
An
Historical Survey and Biblical Investigation
of the
Various Practices of the Particular Baptists
Concerning
Who Should Take The Lord's Supper;
Considered in Three Major Concepts:
1. The In-Church Lord's Supper
2. The Open-Church Lord's Supper
3. The Inner-Church Lord's Supper
___________________________
Prepared by
A Follower of the Lamb, If His Heart Does Not Deceive Him
R. E. Pound II
___________________________
Published by
Those Who Have A Reason To Hope They Are
A Flock of Sheep or A Baptized Church of Jesus Christ Known As:
The Old Faith Baptist Church
Rt. 1, Box 517
Magazine, Arkansas, 72943
Ph. 501-963-6221
Ó
No part of this work may be copied or reproduced without
prior written consent from the publishers.
1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background of this Work
J. R. Graves
I. The Lord's Supper as Practiced by the Baptists
The In-Church Supper
The Open-Church Supper
The Inner-Church Supper
An Improper View of I Cor. 12:13
The Original Associational Concept Vs. The Inner-Church Concept
The Twin Disorders of the Inner-Church Concept
Testimony of Hercules Collins
Church Communion is More than the Lord's Supper
II. The Era Of Departure, 1670-1700
Innovations
A New Standard for Church Union
Protestantized Church Concepts
Inner-Churchism
The New Departure
The First Inner-Communion Document in Baptist History
III. Inner-Communion Traced Historically
Silence of the Old Confessions
IV. Outreach of the London Churches
Into Wales
Into Somerset
Into the Midlands
Into Ireland
Into Abingdon
Into Scotland
Into America
V. The First Mention of Church Communion and/or Communion the Saints
The Backgrounds of the First and Second London Confessions
The Jessey-Bunyan Influence
The Keach Influence
The First Mention
VI. The Sad Influence of Pedobaptist Nationalism
Influences of Pedobaptist Nationalism
Inner-Communion is a More Serious Problem
VII. The Issue Stated
Christ's Faithfulness In Leaving a Finished Will
VIII. The Independent Republic of Jesus Christ
Question: Was Jesus Wise Enough to Build Exactly What He Wanted, To Carry Out His Written Will, His Way?
Are The Written Scriptures Sufficient?
Is the Gospel Church Sufficient?
The Gospel Church Is
New Covenant Ministers
IX. Extra-Church Organizations and Extra-Church Ministers
The Problem Identified
The Work and Example of Jesus Christ
Christ Did Build
The Churches Keep In Contact With Each Other
In The New Testament What Did Churches Join
X. Regulations Governing the Lord's Supper
Did Paul Observe the Lord's Supper with the Corinthians?
Did Paul Observe the Lord's Supper at Troas?
XI. The Time Proven Results of Inner-Communion
XII. Closed Communion is a Problem Solved
Jesus Christ is a Church Only God-Man
How To Solve a Problem
Appendix I Baptist Statements About Church Communion
Appendix II Baptist Statements About the Ministry
Appendix III Evil Fruits of Inner-Communion
Appendix IV Testimony from The Baptist Encyclopedia
Appendix V The In-Church Regulations of the Lord's Supper
The Bibliography
Background of This Work
This work came into being when Mr. Bill Lee, of the Baptist Standard Bearer of Paris, AR., asked me to write an introduction to J. R. Graves' Inner-Communion. My studies carried me into a much larger investigation. So, upon completion of my investigation I presented it to Mr. Lee to use or not to use as he saw fit, with my intention also of its publication in this form.
Thank You:
Brother John and Sister Lisa O'Brien for reading this work and offering needful helps and corrections;
A Debtor to
Mercy
R E. POUND II
DR. J. R. GRAVES
Dr. J. R. Graves, 1820-1893, was the most dominate Baptist writer, preacher, editor and debater defending the Biblical and historic Baptist position on the constituted order of the gospel system of Jesus Christ since Hansard Knollys of the 1600s. Before and during the war of Northern Aggression, Dr. Graves was the most loved and valued minister among the New School Baptists of the South, and perhaps among all ministers in the entire United States. People would come for miles and even across states to hear Dr. Graves preach for hours in one sermon. Even more, people would secure his services to defend the Baptist cause and come from all around and stay up to three weeks to listen to Dr. Graves unfold the great truths which God's people loved so dearly.
After the War, Dr. Graves was the leader and role model among the New School Baptists of the entire South and Southwest. His value was not fully appreciated in the North or East because of the already changed theology and ecclesiology of those regions. As a person values the constituted order of the kingdom of Jesus Christ under the Gospel Covenant, even so, will he love and appreciate the life, sufferings, position and works of Dr. J. R. Graves.
Several times during his active years, Dr. Graves called for the Baptists to destroy all the human innovations that arose in the late 1790s and the early 1800s. He didn't view these new inventions, which had been developed to educate young ministers and reach lost souls, as the instituted order of Jesus Christ. In addition, he called for the exclusion of all Pedobaptist ministers who were among the Baptists as Baptist pastors and holding other offices in Baptist establishments while at the same time pastoring Pedobaptist churches and taking money from both. This was a repeat of what the Baptists of the 1600s faced during those revolutionary times when so many fake Jews and fake converted Jesuit priests were spies and introduces of false ways into the old Particular Baptist churches in England and Wales. He called for Baptists to come back from the NEW INNOVATIONS such as receiving Pedobaptist immersions as valid baptisms, and of exchanging pulpits with Pedobaptists as if they were valid ministers of Jesus Christ. These new innovations were not practiced among the Baptists, except for a few rare occurrences, before the new inventions and changed views of theology and ecclesiology in the early 1800s.
This era of innovation is covered very well by Dr. David Benedict in his book, Fifty Years Among the Baptists, 1800-1850. The young J. R. Graves was, in many cases, superior and more mature than most of the older ministers of his days who had helped bring these new human inventions and innovations of Baptist faith and order into the Baptists. Then, as well as now, J. R. Graves could not be tolerated by some because he sought to challenge and correct the new innovations which some of the older Baptist ministers were making popular. Dr. J. R. Graves was an Old School voice from the New School Baptists, calling the Baptists back to the old landmarks of loyalty to Jesus Christ and His divine institution, rather than removing them.
BAPTIST TESTIMONY
Under the editorship of Dr. William Cathcart, the American Baptists concluded a wonderful and successful attempt to present a general collection of Baptist history, faith and order as held in the English-speaking world. More space is given about J. R. Graves in this remarkable work than to any other person then living or dead.
Testimony of Joseph E. Brown, then Governor of Georgia:
There is no man who has done more than any fifty men now living to enable the Baptists of America to know their own history and their own principles, and to make the world know them, and that man is the brother on my right...bowing to the editor of the Tennessee Baptist, Dr. Graves...
The Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 468.
Testimony of Dr. B. H. Carroll, founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas:
"Mrs. Hailey, your father was a great preacher and, at one time, the greatest Baptist evangelist known."
Hailey's Life of Graves, p. 64.
Testimony of Dr. J. P. Boyce, founder of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky., when speaking of a sermon preached at the Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville, Ky., stated:
"Oh, it was grand, I enjoyed and approved of it all. I wish he was not so extreme on some minor points."
Ibid., p. 59.
Observe the quality of these men who spoke so highly of J. R. Graves. One was a governor; the other two were the founders of the largest and most respected Baptist Seminaries in the world. The first was from the most complete and profound work of its nature published, up to that time, by the Baptists anywhere.
I.
THE LORD'S SUPPER
AS PRACTICED BY THE BAPTISTS
Baptists practice the Lord's Supper three ways. The first and oldest is a Closed-Church Supper, the second and next to the oldest is an Open-Church Supper, and the third and youngest practice is an Inner-Church Supper.
The In-Church Supper
When the Baptists came out of hiding in the 1640-1641 era, they were Closed-Membership people. Therefore, they practiced a Closed-Lord's Supper.
All their early writings show this.
All the testimonies of the Pedobaptists show this.
This is shown by the controversy about Open-Membership and an Open-Supper, when it arose, in 1645, and the added statements to the 1646 edition of the First London Confession of Faith.
The 1644 edition of the First London Confession states the Closed-Church Membership Supper. Everyone who held to a Closed-Church Membership also held to a Closed-Church Supper or an In-Church Lord's Supper. After the Jessey baptism and the development of his Open-Membership Church, the section on a Closed-Church Membership was enlarged so as to leave no doubts as to the place of the Lord's Supper. It was to follow baptism and church communion or church fellowship. Never among the Particular Baptists of England, Wales or early America, is the Open-Church Membership and its twin disorder, an Open-Church Lord's Supper, displayed, practiced, attacked or defended.
We can conclude that the constant practice of the Particular Baptists of history, except for a few disorderly men who were never recognized, nor their churches included as true and orderly churches, has been Closed-Church Membership and an In-Church Lord's Supper.
The Open-Church Supper
The Open-Church Supper originated in the 1500s, in Poland, by a converted Jew who came into the general Baptists in Poland. He was antitrinitarian. The Polish order of Open-Church Supper had no influence on other Baptists at that time. See Orchard’s History of Open Communion. As we know it today the Open-Church Supper came into being from certain men in England and Wales in the 1640s. In 1645 Mr. Hansard Knollys baptized Mr. Henry Jessey of London, England. Mr. Jessey had been pastoring an old Separatist-Pedobaptist church in London. As a result of his changed views of baptism, many of his church members also wanted Baptist baptism. Some didn't. Rather than creating a division in the membership, the minister and church created a new order, open-church membership. The mode and subject of baptism did concern Mr. Henry Jessey but not all of his church members. In addition to Mr. Jessey, Mr. John Tombes came under this influence and was baptized. Tombes never broke cleanly with the established religion and wanted to reform it by bringing into the Parish Churches true baptism and a true order in the ministry. He failed. He was driven out of the establishment and wrote many works to justify believer's baptism. Tombes ministered to churches on the Open-Church Membership plan and therefore practiced an Open-Church Supper. From the Jessey influence came also the famous John Bunyan who added little to the disorder already practiced by Jessey and Tombes. Unlike the earlier Polish disorder, the Jessey influence was carried into Wales by an "evangelist" named Vavasor Powell. None of these men were received among the Baptist churches of that time nor were their open-membership churches received into the newly formed Baptist confederations of churches known as associations. They were highly regarded men who worked with the Baptists and others in civil actions and other matters not involving church union nor church recognition. Their influence was limited to a very few.
Mr. William Kiffen was then the standard of the Baptist movement. Among his many works left for us is his Church Communion. He shows that the Open-Church Membership disorder and its innovation, Open-Lord's Supper, was developed in his lifetime and maintained by only a few. Not even the Pedobaptists with all their strange notions of Romanism, practiced this new disorder. The influence of Mr. Kiffen maintained the regular order of the Particular Baptists as they expanded throughout the English speaking world.
The General Baptists of the 1600s, even with all their wild notions and low-grade theology, didn't practice Open-Church Membership and an Open-Lord's Supper. In fact, three General Baptists wrote against this practice in general, and Jessey and Bunyan in particular. They were Henry Hagger, Thomas Grantham and John Denne, the son of Henry Denne. The Particular Baptist writers who wrote against the practice were William Allen, Thomas Paul, Henry D'Anvers, John Child and William Kiffen. In addition to these men, all the other writers who wrote works on baptism, the church and the New Testament system in general, wrote in favor of Closed-Church Membership and a Closed Lord's Supper. The Closed-Church Membership and a Closed-Lord's Supper were the standard and orderly practices.
The Inner-Church Lord's Supper.
The Open-Church Membership and Open-Lord's Supper concept was developed by an improper understanding of the nature of the church, invisible rather than visible, and a false understanding of I Corinthians 12:13. Before the 1640s I Corinthians 12:13 was always viewed as water baptism into either the General Church or the Particular Church. Most of the early generation of Particular Baptists, such as John Spillsbury and William Kiffen, held to a General, Visible Gospel Church, into which people were baptized by water and out of which particular churches were constituted after baptism. The later generation of Particular Baptists, those following Benjamin Keach, held that I Cor. 12:13 was water baptism into the particular, gospel church.
William Dell, a close friend of Henry Jessey, also received Particular Baptist baptism in the mid-1640s. Like John Tombes, Dell didn't want to break with the established Church of England. He never became a Baptist. He was ejected when Episcopacy was re-established Dell helped lay the foundation for what later evolved into the Quaker movement. The Dellies claimed that I Corinthians 12:13 was Holy Spirit baptism into the invisible, universal church rather than water baptism into the visible church, and placed themselves above all visible ordinances in general and baptism in particular. The Baptists wrote many works against them and their sister group, the Seekers. President Henry Lawrance wrote his Vindication of The Scriptures and the Ordinances against William Dell. Daniel King also mentions Dell's work often in his Stumbling Blocks.
An Improper View of I Corinthians 12:13
This improper view of the nature of the church and I Corinthians 12:13 gave birth to the Seekers who soon died out and the Quakers who have lasted. In addition, many General Baptist writers, in due time, would develop foggy ideas about the relationship between the churches to one another. In the 1670-1689 era many came over to the Particular Baptists. This was an era of severe trials and persecutions. Some Particular and General Baptist ministers were imprisoned together. Often these General Baptists gave much closer attention to the doctrines of grace and the eternal predestination of God and became Particular Baptists. The seeds of inner-church activities also came with these former General Baptists because many had come into the General Baptists from the Arminian Pedobaptists. They retained some form of their NATIONAL CHURCH DIVIDED INTO A PERISH concept along with the idea of conformation or laying on of hands.
The Original Associational Concept vs. The Inner-Church Concept
Remember, there is a difference between the INNER-CHURCH CONCEPT and the Associational concept. The original Associational concept was a simple confederation with no inner-church ministers or inner-church ordinances. The association, in its original purpose, maintained church recognition, cooperation, and help. It had no inner-church activities. We must recognize the difference between inner-church ministers, ordinances and activities and church recognition, cooperation and help.
The Twin Disorders of the Inner-Church Concept
The Inner-Church concept produced two sister disorders, inner-church ministers, or PASTORAL POLYGAMY, i.e., one pastor who pastors several churches, and an inner-church Lord's Supper. During the 1600s, pastoral polygamy was unheard of because the Baptists held to the Biblical concept of one church with many gifts or ministers. These ministers were chosen OUT FROM THEMSELVES as the Scriptures teach. If no suitable minister could be found in the membership, then the ideal prospect would go and join the seeking church. He was first received as a member then he would be "chosen out from themselves" as a pastor.
Testimony and Circumstances of Hercules Collins:
H. Collins was the third pastor of the Particular Baptist church John Spillsbury gathered in 1633. In his, Some Reasons for Separation from the Communion of the Church of England, London: 1682, Collins makes these comments:
Whether the Scriptures will authorize any minister, Pastor, Elder or Bishop, to take the care and charge of any more than one Church or Congregation at a time, and whether all the seven Churches in Asia, had not a particular Angel and Pastor, and whether we read not in the Acts the 20. That there was Elders in the Church of Ephesus. So James 5. Send for the Elders of the Church and whether these Scriptures Canons be not against your 41 Arts. . .
page 15.
Then one difference between the Baptists and the Anglican Church of England was, the Baptists were one church-many ministers, and the Nationalists were one minister-many perishes or churches.
This unfortunate event in Collins' life will serve to reinforce these conclusions. During the early 1680s, Elder Collins, and others, was in prison for preaching the gospel without a state license. When the time came for the church to observe the Lord's Supper, problems arose as to who would administer the Supper. The church selected one of its tried and proven young gifts, an unordained minister, to administer the Supper. There was no consideration given in any way to secure an outside minister. Upon Collins' release he and the church had a very long discussion about this. They concluded never to do this again or make it an issue. See London's Oldest Baptist Church.
The closest to an inner-church Lord's Supper came when the Hexham church became disorganized in the terrible times from 1660-1677. After this church was re-gathered by ministers from a near by church, to celebrate their reorganization and new life the ministers administered it to the church, but did not take the Lord's Supper. The ministers did this as a sign of full fellowship with a true and orderly church of Christ. A messenger from Hansard Knollys' church in London, Thomas Tilliam, helped gather this church earlier. See the Records of the Church of Christ at Hexham. Upon the constitution of the Old Faith Baptist Church, Bro. Robert Lackey delivered the Lord's Supper to us. He did not partake of it with us. Neither did others who were present and not members.
Observe two facts about H. Collins' work we cited:
1) Pastoral polygamy was one just reason the Baptists separated from the National Church of England;
2) "Communion" didn't mean separation only from only the Lord's Supper
in the Church of England, BUT SEPARATION FROM ITS BEING and MEMBERSHIP, WHICH INCLUDED THE LORD'S SUPPER but was not limited to the Lord's Supper.
Communion More Than The Lord's Supper
Among the Baptists then, communion was not limited to the Lord's Supper. It meant church standing and membership which included the Lord's Supper.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER!
As the Baptists entered into the 1700s, most of the older and tried men of God were gone. Younger generations came and removed many of the old landmarks introducing new orders and practices. At first the older ministers and saints resisted these innovations. As the older brethren died out, the newer brethren tried UPGRADING THE BAPTISTS by RAISING THEM UP OUT OF THE DUNGHILL (so it was thought) of social rejection into a new position of social recognition and standing. Apostates always copy the popular natural religion to do this.
II.
THE ERA OF DEPARTURE 1670-1700
Singing from David's Psalms was introduced and invoked a very strong battle. The Pedobaptists wanted everyone to sing from David's Psalms. Knollys and others claimed it was all right for a gifted saint to write spiritual songs. Another idea came from the Nationalists through a new General Baptist, Francis Cornwell, and his close friend Christopher Blackwood. Blackwood became a Particular Baptist. Still later, Thomas Tillam worked hard to bring CONFORMATION into the Particular Baptists. This was known as laying hands on baptized believers before church communion, meaning church membership in general, and the Lord's Supper in particular. After Blackwood returned to England from Ireland, the Baptists found out about this and other strange ideas and isolated him. Knollys' church in London excluded Tillam upon preaching and teaching this new practice. There may have been other things also involved. Through the influence of the new, rising star in London, Benjamin Keach, these two articles were later included in the Second London Confession when it was re-issued in 1689. This marked the end of one era and the introduction of another one. Still yet, a third and even worse practice was coming to a head. For the first time the old landmark, the ordinance of hearing, was disregarded and members of the Particular Baptist churches could go and hear a pedobaptist minister if it didn't involve missing their own church services. This was a new practice and a clear disregard for the older Baptist practice.
Innovations
1. Using the Songs from the Old Covenant in New Covenant Worship
2. Laying Hands on Baptized Believers to Give Them The Holy Spirit
3. Hearing the Pedobaptist Ministers
4. Extra-church organizations based on Territories, the Perish-Church Concept.
Jane Turner, wife of Captain John Turner, explained the Ordinance of Hearing in her Choice Experiences. The Turners were members of John Spillsbury's church. Spillsbury wrote one of the introductions to this outstanding work. The Particular Baptist Records, 1650-1660, covers well the Ordinance of Hearing.
So, in addition to a new type of singing, and the laying of hands on the newly baptized, by 1689 the Particular Baptists were permitted to go and hear the Pedobaptist ministers. The Particular Baptist writers even started to call them brethren. Before this, they were rightly considered as ministers of ANTICHRIST. Then, another Pedobaptist Nationalist practice came in among the Baptists, the organization of extra-church organizations based on territories. These additions included other additions which, at first, seemed wise and good.
A New Standard For Church Union
Territorial organizations, built upon the old associational lines evolved into receiving churches on the basis of holding to theology and territory rather than theology and church order. This new theological test seemed to have only three points, unconditional election, total depravity and eternal security. The nature of the associations changed as well. No longer were they loose confederations for help, they became EXECUTIVE bodies.
Church and Associational Relationship Changed
The relationship between the church and the association changed. The church was now being viewed as universal and invisible, the Protestant Church Concept. The particular church is only an extension of the more important invisible church. The old Dellite-Quaker concept was blended with Pedobaptist Nationalism. The old Particular Baptist churches were becoming unofficial PARISH units. This was in theory at first, as is the case with all departures. However, they were called Particular or Gospel churches and still operated under the old congregational order except for one major thing INNER-CHURCHISM!
PROTESTANTIZED CHURCH CONCEPTS
Note the following two statements:
A stage is marked in the history of this doctrine (church) by the development which Zwingli gave of it, in which for the FIRST TIME THE TWO RELATIONS OF THE IDEA ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED AND EXPRESSED. He also sets out from the material principle of the Reformation; Christ is the Rock on which the Church, that is, the company of believers, is built. From the he obtained the idea of a community of men all bound together by one faith and one spirit; let anyone place all his trust in God through Christ, and he is in the church, that is, in the community of all pious Christians. In his Antibolum ( A. D. 1524) he distinguishes first of all the Church in the sense which includes all who have professed Christ, and are found in the outward community of Christians although they do not belong to true believers and secondly, the church as it is described in Ephesians 5., which is without spot, in as much as only those are understood to compose it who believe in Redemption through Christ; they alone are the Church of Christ in the true sense. The community of the sanctified through Christ is the Church which cannot error, for it is founded on the Word of God.
Dr. Augustus
Neander, The History of Christian Dogmas;
1858; Vol. 2, pps. 686, 687.
Later Protestant theologians developed more fully the differences between ecclesia visibilis and ecclesia invisibilis (in addition to which the other distinction between ecclesia militans and ecclesia triumphan continued to be made). The ecclesia visibilis is either universalis (i. e. dispersed through the world) or particularis (i. e. some Church which has adopted a particular form). The particular Churches are either opposed to, or stand on friendly terms with, each other (1).
Dr. Hagenback, The History of Christian Doctrines;
1881; Vol 3, p. 135.
The Protestant concepts and statements defining ecclesiology became introduced and grew into a more acceptable form of expression than the old terms and definitions of ecclesiology.
INNER-CHURCHISM
As inner-churchism grew, the ministers started holding offices in more than one church. This happened faster in America than in England due to the wilderness condition of the nation, the scattered condition of the churches, and the scarcity of ministers. Soon, ministers started administering the Lord's Supper in more than one church. Members from the other churches served by their pastor would follow him about and take the Supper with those other churches.
When the association met, the churches usually gave way to it or dismissed their services and everybody went to the Associational or union meeting. These union meetings were not interdenominational. They were made up of all the churches and members meeting at one place for several days for religious services. There were interdenominational union services but most Baptists were not involved. At these union services, the hosting church would have its ministers administer the Lord's Supper and invite all other ministers of like faith and order to assist them. The members of like faith and order were invited to partake of the Lord's Supper.
The New Departure
This is an apparent and far reaching departure from the early practices of both the Continental Anabaptists and the early Particular Baptists in England and Wales. Remember, defining churches by territories rather than faith, order, worship and works, became the standard of the newer Baptists. This is in full imitation of Pedobaptist Nationalism. Because the Particular Baptists were in England, they were not the same as their brethren in Germany, Holland, France or Italy. Why? National boundaries. The Anglican Church in England is different from the Presbyterian Church in Switzerland. Therefore, it blew the minds of the Protestants to think for a moment that oneness of type overrode nationalism and its definitive territories. Now here comes the apostate Baptists claiming oneness by associations or conventions. If one is not in the so and so association he is of a different faith and order. Forever gone is the Biblical concept of oneness by the Unity of the Holy Spirit in the gospel faith, order, worship and works of Jesus Christ. The apostate Baptists imitated the Pedobaptist Nationalists in almost every detail. They succeeded in raising the Baptists out of the social dunghill right up to Satan's throne.
The First Inner Communion Document in Baptist History
It is important to note that during the mid-1700s, the Baptists in America attached the first formal document to a major Baptist confession of faith. This was Griffith's Discipline. It taught that church communion included an inner church Lord's Supper. The Philadelphia Baptist Association's records inform us that in 1758 Benjamin Griffith, upon the appointment of the Association, wrote "our first discipline; and then, a brief account of the first seventeen churches in our connection, which he entered in the Association Book, together with their most material transactions to the year 1758." A.D. Gillette, Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association; Philadelphia: 1851, p. 456.
At a later place I will show the original position as to what church communion meant and contrast it with the new ideas as found in Griffith's Discipline.
III.
INNER COMMUNION TRACED HISTORICALLY
Due to the nature of historical inquiry, it is impossible to be exact. However, some arguments may be put forth in a clear and objective manner. Please remember the clear distinctions we have made between COMMUNION and THE LORD'S SUPPER. In an effort to try to prove from history that Baptists have favored open communion, certain writers have chosen to ignore this distinction. The distinction is justified as you will see later when the Lord's Supper is contrasted with Church Communion. While we may not be exact in history, starting with God's Word as our foundation, we can trace existing and known documents and establish several important guidelines.
Silence of The Old Confessions
There are no sections on church communion or communion of the saints among the earliest Baptist confessions. At this time we are able to read all the known Baptist confessions of the 1640-1700 era. The major Baptist confessions may all be traced back to the Particular Baptists of London from 1633-1700. The Particular Baptists of England and Wales did not originate then but their churches, which had been scattered because of persecution, were re-established from 1633-1641. They were re-established by ministers who were ALREADY known, tried, appointed and in office as Baptist ministers from the churches already existing. They were scattered due to persecution, or other causes. Some fled persecution into London when their former churches were scattered. These facts are presented in Knolly's Answer to Dr. Bastwick and Jane Turner's Experiences. Baptist ministers, after settling in London, gathered several churches as they were able. They were imprisoned or slain, (as is the case of Sam Eaton in 1636-1638), up to 1641. Then the Civil Wars of England gave them an opportunity to reach out and establish new churches.
The London Confessions of 1644, 1646, 1651 and 1652 had no separate section dealing with the Lord's Supper. These were Closed-Membership churches and all events were In-Church actions. The 1644 edition hardly mentions the Lord's Supper. The Jessey events caused the 1646 edition to make certain there were no misunderstandings as to the place of baptism before the Lord's Supper:
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith or that are made disciples; who, upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's Supper.
IV.
Outreach Of the London Churches
In many instances the Particular Baptists, both laymen and ministers, became high ranking ministers in the "New Model Army" under Oliver Cromwell. As the Cromwelliam forces spread into Northern England and Ireland so did these ministers and other Anabaptists. They preached, baptized and gathered many lasting churches. In addition, civilian ministers also formed other lasting churches. Douglas' History of the Baptists in Northern England offers much information upon this era of expansion.
Into Wales
The Welsh churches were re-established in the late 1640s by John Miles and Thomas Proud. They were sent out from the Glasshouse church in London. Five churches were involved in the Particular Baptist work in Wales by 1652. These included new churches which joined with the historic old church at Olchon which dated back into the Dark Ages. In 1656 these churches re-issued the London Confession, 1652 edition, which included an additional work, Heart-Bleedings for Professor's Abominations as a part of the confession. Together, these two documents formed the Welsh Baptists' Confession of Faith.
Into Somerset
Thomas Collier, the Sabellian, went from London into the Western areas of England and helped gather a number of churches. They wrote their own Confession in 1656. His Sabellian views did not make their way into these important documents but may be found in personal writings. Soon he was forced out of these churches. The Somerset Confession contained 46 articles. In the introduction they claimed theological unity with the First London Confession of Faith. Their practice was the same. Collier had been a co-worker with William Kiffen, Thomas Patient and Hansard Knollys in London. Even when Collier changed his theology, sometime after 1660, he never changed his ecclesiology. The pre-1660 Collier works are valuable because they reflect the established ecclesiological views of the Particular Baptists on most points. The Somerset Confession is a valuable educational document. The Confession does not contain Collier's Sabellian views.
Into The Midlands
Daniel King helped gather the Midlands Association in 1654-1655 by the efforts of working in close connection with John Spillsbury's church at Wapping and the Glasshouse church in London. There are 16 articles of faith and order in this Confession. The First London Confession of Faith served as a model for this confession. There is no separate article dealing with the Lord's Supper. This is a standard sample of both the Somerset and Midland Confessions:
That persons so baptized ought, by free consent, to walk together, as God shall give opportunity in distinct churches, or assemblies of Zion, continuing in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers as fellowmen caring for one another, according to the will of God. ALL THESE ORDINANCES OF CHRIST ARE ENJOINED IN HIS CHURCH, BEING TO BE OBSERVED TILL HIS SECOND COMING, which we all ought diligently to wait for. (Emp. Mine).
Article 15
From this article you can see the ordinances are IN-CHURCH ordinances rather than OPEN-CHURCH or INNER-CHURCH ordinances.
Into Ireland
The Irish Association dated back into the early 1650s. Some churches were gathered by 1653. It was also a daughter movement from the London Churches. Thomas Patient, co-worker with William Kiffen, helped gather some churches by 1653. This association also adopted the First London Confession of Faith.
Into Abington
Several ministers from London helped gather the Abington Association in the early 1650s with at least one minister from the old Church of the Hop Garden, as it was afterwards called, then pastored by the famous John Pendarvis. This church and its pastor, were in close connection with the Petty France Church in London, gathered in 1641 by Thomas Kilcop. This Association, too, adopted the First London Confession of Faith.
On December 17, 1652 they issued a very large and well written work explaining Church Communion. In addition to their Confession of Faith, it was a teaching document. This is the joint work of several ministers who took extra care to be very exact in explaining what CHURCH COMMUNION, not the LORD'S SUPPER, is all about:
1st. That particular Churches of Christ ought to hold a firm communion with each other in point of advice in doubtful matters and controversies, Acts 15:1,6,24; 16:4f. Which Scriptures, compared together, show that the church at Jerusalem held communion with the church of Antioch affording help to them as they could.
2ly. In giving and receiving the case of want and poverty, I Cor. 16:3.
3ly. In consulting and consenting to the caring on of the work of God as choosing messengers, ect., 2 Cor. 8:19. And, in all things else, wherein particular members of one and the same particular church stand bound to hold communion each with other for which conclusions we render these Scripture reasons: . . .
In those days, church communion was not the Lord's Supper but church recognition and help, as churches to churches, in matters outlined in the Word of God.
The Early Associations Were Only Loose Confederations with
No Central Government, No Central Ministers and No
Central Guidelines in addition to the Word of God.
In this second oldest mention of CHURCH COMMUNION there is no inner-church ministry or Lord's Supper. This second oldest mention of church communion answers to our contention by showing that in the 1600s church communion was church to church acts and not inner-church actions involving the ministry or the ordinances.
Into Scotland
The Scottish Baptist work was gathered mostly by Edward Hickhorngill. The church at Hexham appointed him as a messenger to Scotland on the 20th of December, 1652. On March 10th, 1653, these Particular Baptists issued the First London Confession, 1646 edition, from Leith. In addition to the church at Leith, another church gathered at Edinburgh. The Edinburgh work issued King's Way to Zion in its final and enlarged form in 1656.
Into America
Dr. John Clark helped gather the first lasting Particular Baptist Church in America with the help of some members from John Spilsbery's church in Wapping. This was in 1638. Clark's church was at Newport, RI. He and his co-pastor, Obidah Holmes, left personal confessions of faith. Isaac Backus preserved abridged and incomplete copies of these in his History of New England and the Baptists. These early confessions speak nothing of the saints' communion or church communion and little of the Lord's Supper.
While these different Confessions are silent as to separate articles on the Lord's Supper and church communion concepts, the men who issued these Confessions were not. Here are some of the examples:
1. Edward Drapes, Gospel-Glory Proclaimed before the Sons of Men, In the Visible and Invisible Worship of God...; London: 1649
2. Daniel King, A Way to Zion Sought Out and Found for Believers to Walk In...; Edinburgh, 1656.
3. Thomas Collier, A General Epistle; London: 1651.
4. William Allen, Some Baptismal Abuses Briefly Discovered, . . . Discovering the disorder and irregularity that is in mix Communion of persons baptized, with such as are unbaptized in Church fellowship; London: 1653.
Edward Drapes ministered to the Particular Baptist Church meeting in the Glasshouse in London. This is the same church which sent John Miles and Thomas Proud to Wales. His work is an explanation and defense of the First London Confession, 1646 edition. He and John Vernon signed Heart Bleedings which became part of the official Confession of the Welsh Particular Baptists.
Returning to London, John Spillsbury's A Treatise on the Lawful Subject of Baptism, first issued in 1643 and then later in a corrected and enlarged edition, in 1652. Spillsbury left his personal confession of faith in this work. His last or 10th article explains his concept of "A Holy and Blessed Communion of Saints." This is how saints become one in a GOSPEL CHURCH IN ITS VISIBLE CONSTITUTED ORDER UNDER THE GOSPEL (Emp. Mine) not simply or only by taking the Lord's Supper. While there was some doubt as to Spillsbury's position on an open-membership church in the 1643 edition, some Pedobaptists mistook his references to the General Church as meaning the Particular Gospel Church, there is no doubt as to his meaning in the 1652 edition. John Spillsbury, the founder of the first and oldest lasting Particular Baptist Church in London, and co-author with William Kiffen of the First London Confession of Faith, 1644-1652, held to a CLOSED MEMBERSHIP GOSPEL CHURCH! The same is true of all the other regular Particular Baptist churches.
V.
The First Mention of
Church Communion
and/or Communion of Saints
The London Confessions of 1644-1652 are commonly known as the First London Confession. The General Assembly of Particular Baptists, when meeting in 1677, issued the General Confession of 1677 which was reissued in 1689 and at least one more time in the late 1600s. This Confession was adopted by the Philadelphia Association in America about 1743. It came from the Westminster Assembly Confession issued in 1644. William Collins of the Petty France Church in London reworked this Presbyterian Confession. According to Robert Baillie, the Brownist Confession of 1596 was patterned after the old Anabaptist faith and order, as stated in his Anabaptism, the True Foundation of Brownism, London; 1647. The backgrounds of these Baptist Confessions were quite different.
The Backgrounds of the First and Second London Confessions of Faith
The First London Confession of Faith come from the old Anabaptists to the Particular Baptists in London. The Second London Confession of Faith came from the Presbyterians by means of William Collins and those who helped him. Both of these Confessions should be known, studied and compared with their differences noted and understood. But, the Confessions are as different on some points as they are in backgrounds.
The First London Confession reflects Jesus Christ properly as the alone Prophet, Priest and King of His people and His gospel church. It holds forth the independent, republic concept of the gospel church. The Second London Confession fails to hold forth Jesus Christ as fully as the alone Prophet, Priest and King of His people and His church. It reflects the Presbyterian ideas of Church Communion by an external union or organization with each church being only a reflection or representative of the whole. In addition, there are many real and factual differences which the trained theologian can detect. The problem has been, until lately, securing a true and faithful copy of the First London Confession to study and compare. The First London Confession is purely Baptistic and Christ-centered.
The Scottish Kirk sent Robert Ballie, a Scottish Presbyterian, to the Westminster Assembly as their official representative to undermine the Baptists, their works, and Confessions. He made false charges after false charges against the First London Confessions of 1644 and 1646. He also accused the Particular Baptists of being Arminians and antitrinitarians. In addition, they were se-baptists and self-baptizers, because, when they went into the deep water to dip as administrators, they dipped most of their own bodies as well. Because the newer generation of Particular Baptists were tired of such false charges and also to promote unity and peace among the dissenters, they simply adopted the Westminster Confession in 1677.
The Second London Confession represented an effort to include all Baptists with any Calvinistic ideas. The English Royalists reestablished the Stuarts in 1660. This also disenfranchised the Presbyterians and reestablished the Anglicans. Many General Baptists became persecuted and were placed into prisons with the Particular Baptists. Some of the General Baptists became Particular Baptists.
The Second London Confession had an umbrella that the newer Particular Baptists could all move under. It included the Particular Baptists, some General Baptists and some Open membership Baptists. William Collins, the main writer of the Second London Confession, had been a General Baptists, in the Historical Journal of the Baptist Union is correct. He ministered at the low grace church founded by Thomas Kilcop, known as the Petty France Church. Kilcop taught extreme low grace and extreme and hyper dispensational views. In time Kilcop was rejected by the London churches as his published works came into conflict with Spilsbery's and Richardson's works. William Kiffen sided with Richardson and wrote a wonderful introduction to Richardson's Justification by Christ Alone. This union or general effort only helped downgrade the older Particular Baptist Churches.
In the Second London Confession article 27 is The Communion of Saints, article 29 Of Baptism, and article 30 is The Lord's Supper. There is a great differences between John Spilsbery's definition of the Communion of Saints and the Westminster Confession's Communion of Saints. In his definition, the saints are in communion together as a true and proper gospel church constituted according to the faith and order of Jesus Christ. In the Second London Confession a type of general communion of the saints with Jesus Christ is maintained. This came from the umbrella effect and the Westminster Assembly's influence. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are still church ordinances, either administered to or by the church in the Second London Confession. Communion with Christ is distinguished from the Lord's Supper. Church communion gives a right to the Lord's Supper following baptism which inlets one into the church. There are eight sections on the Lord's Supper, four more on baptism and two on the baptism and the Lord's Supper combined in the church with two on the Communion of the Saints. There is still not a word about an INNER-CHURCH ministry or an INNER-CHURCH Lord's Supper. But, even more important, among the earlier writers, when the subject of Church Communion is presented it was never INNER-CHURCH in any practice.
The Jessey-Bunyan Influence
John Bunyan began spreading the open-church membership and open-Lord's Supper ideas Henry Jessey introduced earlier. The 1677 Confession sought to speak for all types of Calvinistic Baptists. The older generation of Particular Baptists were being replaced by the newer generation of Calvinized Baptists who were sprinkled with a strong dose of Anglicanism for good measure. They even included the open membership brethren, though only in a very limited way. The appendix shows their differing views.
The Keach Influence
In London a young and rising light would shine strongly for a number of years among the Calvinistic Baptists. He came from the General Baptists and brought many of their concepts with him, including his low-grace views. He attached himself very strongly to the Second London Confession. He even added laying on of hands and singing of Psalms to it in 1689. The laying on of hands was an admitted copy of the Pedobaptist practice of confirmation. See Keach's defence of this against Henry D'Anvers. The singing of David's Psalms resembled the prayer books of the Nationalist churches. The old churches were built on preaching, not singing of David's Psalms. In addition, he urged the Baptists to regard the Pedobaptists as brethren, not parts of Babylon and of Antichrist, as they had been regarded by the old brethren who issued the First London Confession. The older brethren had influenced Baptist faith and order until they were either killed, grew too old, were dispersed, or died. The 1670s saw Baptists in prisons all over the United Kingdom. This lasted up to 1689. New ministers and members came among the Particular Baptists. Some were able to abide under the general confession of 1677 but could not have stood the stronger First London Confession. The older Particular Baptists had a unity with the Continental Anabaptists. The newer generation of Calvinized Baptists would disavow that union. In time, the Calvinized Baptists would so downgrade themselves as to disclaim all union with the older Continental Anabaptists. They were correct in that. The Keach, and post-Keach Baptists, were not in union with the old Continental Anabaptists. They were in union with the Beast's ministers of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox and Henry the Eighth.
The First Mention
The first mention of either Church Communion or the Communion of Saints is found in the general confession of 1677. It came from the Pedobaptist Nationalists. Remember, Church communion, according to Spilsbery and his associates, meant COMMUNION WITH CHRIST AND HIS SAINTS IN A TOTAL CHURCH WAY. The Calvinized Baptists, led by Collins and Keach, maintained a general type of Communion with Christ outside of the gospel church. We must be careful to distinguish between:
1. Mystical Union with Christ and all the baptized saints, which is the General Church of Spilsbery, Kiffen, Thomas Paul and Henry D'Anvers and the others, which is determined by the unity of gospel faith, order, worship and works. The first generation of Particular Baptist writers maintained this true and Biblical union .
2. Mystical Union of all believers excluding gospel faith, order, worship and works. This is the Protestant concept of the universal, invisible church. This position is supposed to be the justification for the true spiritual oneness of all the redeemed. The New Testament gives us the true union in Ephesains 4:1-6. It is not an invisible but a visible union.
3. The First London Confession holds to the former, the Second London Confession holds to the latter.
VI
The Sad Influence of Pedobaptist Nationalism.
The United Kingdom had two types of Pedobaptists. The Pedobaptist Separatists were not united with the established government nor Church of England, either Episcopal or Presbyterian. The Pedobaptist Nationalists were Episcopal and later Presbyterian. The Presbyterians were the state church of England from about 1641 to 1660. Otherwise, the Episcopal Church has been the state church of England since the time of Henry the 8th, except for a brief period under his Catholic daughter Bloody Mary. The Presbyterian Nationalists influenced the Particular Baptists more than the Anglicans did. The Presbyterians and the former General Baptists helped downgrade the Particular Baptists and bring them into a form of low grace Calvinism.
Influences of Pedobaptist Nationalists
Here is a brief summary of the main influences of the Pedobaptist Nationalists among the Baptists following 1689:
1. For the first time in their history, the Particular Baptists moved away from the ordinance of hearing. They could go and hear the Pedobaptists without being excluded, if they did so by not missing their own services.
2. They recognized Pedobaptists ministers as brethren, if they held to sound theology, disregarding the old test of both sound theology and gospel order. They still yet didn't exchange pulpits. That would come in the mid-1700s. Remember, in Europe the Protestants, especially the Calvinists, were still murdering the Anabaptists. This was still happening in Switzerland, Germany and some other Continental states. In would remain so in New England up to near the Revolutionary War. Study Patrick Henry's great defence of two Anabaptist ministers at the Culpepper County Courthouse in Virginia. The Pedobaptists were still murdering the old Anabaptists when the new generation of Calvinized baptists were embracing them in England and Wales as brethren.
3. Baptists were being pressed to unite in some form of UNION based on theology rather than both theology and gospel order. This view of oneness by UNION rather than kind held with it a belief that doctrinal compromise in the area of gospel order could be tolerated in order to win over those who were differing brethren, but who held to the same theology. Paul said we were all to walk by the same rule. But Paul was too narrow for the newer generation of Calvinized Baptists.
4. There was a move DOWN from high grace to low grace views and compromise practices.
5. The Law of Moses became the rule of life for saints rather than the gospel system of Jesus Christ. The new Baptists issued many catechisms teaching a legal morality.
6. They started using the Pedobaptists as examples and standards by which to be measured.
These laid the foundation for some form of territorial church with branches or perish outlets as in the Old Testament church and the Pedobaptist Nationalists' churches. The Baptists would not have national churches. They would model their changing associations to be more like the National Church.
7. The Association would become an executive body with associational ministers. The basis of union would become the organized association rather than the visible, orderly body of Christ, the gospel church. More nationalism would appear in the form of ASSOCIATIONAL INNER-CHURCHISM!
Inner Communion is A More Serious Problem
Inner communion is a sign of a more serious problem. When a member of one church goes and takes the Lord's Supper with another church, this is not the first step downhill into Pedobaptist Nationalism ending in Baptist churches becoming NATURAL, rather then SPIRITUAL. Inner communion is an evil fruit of an already spreading corruption. This may seem simple and innocent at first. It may seem like a true way to show our love and unity with each other. The truth is, inner communion is rebellion against the glorious Savior and Christian's role model, Jesus Christ. It is just as much a violation of the gospel order of Jesus Christ as receiving members into the church who are unbaptized and will just as surely destroy the church.
Inner-communion is built on some type of general fellowship which uses in-church ministers and ordinances. Inner-communion takes these in church ministers and ordinances and uses them beyond the established lines of in church order. Inner-communion goes beyond gospel church order. Christ brings His people only to gospel church order with in church ministers and ordinances.
VII.
THE ISSUE STATED
What is the Visible Kingdom of Jesus Christ or Church of Jesus Christ and how does He rule as King, Prophet and Priest over His House or Kingdom?
Christ's kingdom or church is in the hands of His people, under gospel faith and order, as a sacred and holy trust. Christ left a living estate with a WRITTEN WILL AND MINISTERS IN AN EXECUTIVE BODY to administer and govern His written will. His made His will in two parts:
1. What He did and taught others to do under His direction, Common Law;
2. What He said and inspired others to say and write under His direction, Statutory Law.
Right now the question to settle is.. what do YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THE WRITTEN WILL OF JESUS CHRIST, the New Testament?
Christ's Faithfulness in Leaving a Finished Will
Is the Written Will of Christ, or the New Testament, a true, perfect, complete and inspired rule to govern Christ's kingdom or house in all matters? Does the New Testament contain all that saints need to worship and serve God through Christ by the Holy Spirit or do we need something else? If so, what? Imitate Pedobaptist Nationalism?
Does the New Testament give us a COMPLETE rule to walk by and govern us in all our ways of worship, service and work for Jesus Christ? Perhaps you should take time to look carefully at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. Also note the statements found in Colossians 2:23; Matthew 15: 9, 6; John 5:39; Isaiah 8:20; Gal. 1:8, 9; Acts 3:22, 23 and Revelation 22:18-20. Here is the 1644 Confession's statement found in article 8 as God's Word the Only Rule of Faith and Obedience in His Worship:
The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is not men's laws or unwritten traditions, but only the word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures, in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice, which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.
Would it surprise you to know that the Pedobaptists didn't believe this statement? They don't today. This was one of the articles debated by John Spilsbery and Thomas Bakewell, Presbyterian. But, then, most Baptists don't either.
As you consider this question, you should direct your attention toward Jesus Christ. Have you noticed that He lived in such a way that not even one small part of the Old Testament Scriptures would be broken or unfulfilled? Why should any saint do less with His New Testament?
VIII
The Independent Republic of Jesus Christ
The church of Jesus Christ is an independent republic of saints under the gospel faith, order, worship, works and rule of Jesus Christ. This involves baptism and many other New Testament ordinances. As such, these saints have a main distinguishing characteristic-they are alive. They walk according to the gospel faith, order, worship and works or rule of Jesus Christ. Gospel faith, order, worship and works form the rule of Jesus Christ. Christ rules by the power of the Holy Spirit who enables the gospel church to be a complete and orderly house of Jesus Christ.
Question:
Was Jesus Christ wise enough to build exactly what He wanted,
to carry out His written will, His way?
The issue involves the wisdom and faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Concerning His wisdom, didn't He know how to set up His estate so it would be governed properly in His absence? Is Christ's executive body, His gospel church, now sufficient to carry out what He commissioned in Matthew 28:18-20? Concerning His faithfulness, didn't He fulfill what His Father wanted Him to fulfill? Didn't this involve building a House, Hebrews 4? If Christ was not wise enough nor faithful enough to do this work properly, then unto whom should we go? To the Pope, to Calvin or Luther? Should we look to ourselves? Perhaps King Henry the Eighth can help us? Or, perhaps we should look to Cotton and Increase Mather and their model in Puritan New England? If we forsake the proper foundation, how far should we go? Isn't Jesus the only true and sure foundation?
The issue may be clearly seen by noting what is sufficient in the visible work of Jesus Christ.
Are the Written Scriptures or Word of God Sufficient?
Is the Gospel Church Sufficient?
As the ONLY and SOLE executive of Christ's sacred trust and last commission on earth, commissioned by Jesus Christ through His apostles, the gospel church is the only organization that Christ established.
The Gospel Church Is
The only organization the Holy Spirit has empowered;
The only organization the Apostles established;
The only organization Christ worked in or with;
The only organization the Holy Spirit worked in or with;
The only organization the Apostles worked in or with.
I would say that the gospel church is indeed sufficient to do Jesus Christ's work, His way.
The sufficient, established, empowered gospel church is the only organization Jesus Christ left and promised to maintain, by an unbroken succession, until He returns. Because He has all Kingship in heaven and on earth, He is able to maintain and preserve His gospel institution and ordinances.
Not only has Christ promised to maintain His church by means of His exalted Kingship, but also, it is the only organization He walks with spiritually and mystically on earth.
Jesus Christ ordained gospel ministers in His gospel church. They are the only ministers recognized by Jesus Christ. The complete listing of these ministers is found in Ephesians 4:7-16 and I Corinthians 12:27-30. Should any saint violate this sufficiency and completion of the church with its ministers and ordinances established under the Gospel Covenant by Jesus Christ Himself? These ministers are the able ministers of the New Covenant. What other type do we need?
New Covenant Ministers
All the ministers established by Jesus Christ are in-church ministers. They are two kinds:
First the church has its pastors and teachers laboring in the area of its constitution and meeting place.
Secondly, Christ's church sends some its ministers as messengers, evangelists or missionaries into the world.
These standing or fixed ministers in the church and the at large ministers of the church to the world are all in-church ministers. They are called by different names in the Scriptures to show their different functions and relationships. The same is true with all the different names of God. There are not as many Gods as there are names. The different names show forth the different attributes of the Holy Trinity. This is richly and properly set forth in Collier's Body of Divinity and the Abington Association report on Church Ministers. Dr. John Clark also showed this distinction in his Personal Confession of Faith.
The gospel church is the only religious organization in the perfect, complete and all sufficient rule of Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures. The in-church ministers are the only regular, lasting and ordinary religious ministers of Jesus Christ found in His perfect, complete and all-sufficient rule of faith and order. In Christ's last will and testament, the gospel churches are all independent republics with properly commissioned gifts. These churches, with their ministers, all walked according to the same common faith, Jude 1-3, with the same rules of order, Gal. 6:16, Col. 2:6, and Phil. 3:16. They were one in the sense of TYPE, KIND, and ORDER. They were not one in the sense of being in some universal, visible or universal, invisible extra-church organization or body. True, in a mystical way, they did make up but one Mt. Sion or Body of Christ, but not in a real or actual way. They all had the same kind of individual ordinances and ministers and recognized them as orderly and lawful. They didn't share them as many wives would share one husband under polygamy.
Before leaving this section note carefully these questions:
1. Did Christ leave a perfect, complete and all- sufficient will to be executed by His house?
2. Did He establish ministers by which His house would execute His will?
3. Are these ministers inner-church, extra-church or in-church ministers?
Remember
The ONLY New Covenant ministers and ordinances are In-Church. If there are others, who do they belong to? Do they belong to Moses, the Pope, Henry 8th, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, the Mathers or John Wesley? The extra New Covenant ministers all are bound together in a link-chain succession back to one head, Satan.
IX.
EXTRA-CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS
AND
EXTRA-CHURCH MINISTERS
Ordination fixes a man to a particular church or congregation; and does not make him an universal pastor, which he must be, if there was no boundary to his office. And therefore, 5. Such who take upon them to act in such a manner may be truly called, busybodies in other men's matters, I Pet. iv. 15. the word here translated, busy-body is allotrioiposkopos, a bishop, in another parish or diocese, which were originally the same, or a pastor in a church which is not his own; and truly describes such a person we are speaking of, who meddles with a business he has nothing to do with. 6. As well may a deacon of one church officiate as such in another, as a pastor of one church officiate in another, for they are both alike chosen by, and ordained to particular churches, and not to others.
John Gill, Body of Divinity, p. 875.
Dr. Gill maintained that in certain cases, where members move to a new area and a new church for a short time, they should be received and admitted to the Supper. This is not the question. We don't deny temporary members of a church for a short time. The question is, should ministers administer ordinances beyond their membership?
The Problem Identified
The problem is associationalism or conventionism. A Baptist convention is an extra-church organization into which a Baptist church or any individual may buy. A Baptist association is an extra-church organization that two or more churches form for churches to join. The question is not, should churches know each other and work together? By all means, under gospel rule and order, they should! But, churches, ministers and saints should stop for a moment and ask the following questions:
Should churches go beyond what Christ established and should they establish extra-church organizations? To say Yes means Jesus was not a total and complete Teacher of God's ways.
Should churches establish extra-church organizations to do what Christ commanded His churches to do? To say yes means He failed to fulfill His Father's expectations.
Should churches establish extra-church organizations to do what Christ didn't COMMAND HIS CHURCHES TO DO? Yes, only if Jesus and His organization are failures.
Should these extra-church organizations attach Christ's name to themselves and what they are doing and what they have established? Yes, to take away their reproach as Satan's ministers.
Should the extra-church ministers of extra-church organizations be recognized as the called and sent ministers and ministers of Jesus Christ? Yes, but only as wolves in sheep's clothing who are already in the church.
In addition, churches, ministers and saints might well ponder why any churches would want to be doing any type of work under the name of Christ that a church should not do or cannot do? What business does any saint have in doing any work in Christ's name that He didn't command or commission? It must be for much vain-glory or to become equal to or superior to a failed Jesus.
At the early stages of Baptist outreach Baptists have always tried to find one another and work together. They developed corresponding associations. In time, these became executive associations and, still later, conventions. All this happened over two or three generations. Later these associations or conventions would produce other committees, boards and agencies. They were very different from the loose confederations of early Baptist faith and order. It is urged that Baptists grew up, what was good for them as babes would not be good for them as adults. But, we ask, should saints grow up beyond the guidelines of Jesus Christ? Should saints strive to grow up into the fullness of Jesus Christ or human inventions? Yes, saints should grow, but they have enough growing to do if they grow into the faith and order of Jesus Christ. But, remember, when preachers, deacons and church members outgrow Jesus Christ, they can bring great honor to themselves rather than to God and Jesus Christ. Why should the inventors of new ways and methods be content with Christ's honor and God's glory? They don't have His salvation, so why should He have their glory? By by-passing a weak and failing Christ, human beings can have great honor and much glory by their human inventions which they would not have if they did things Christ's way.
In summary to this section, we should note that extra-church organizations are created by men who feel that the churches are not doing a good enough work for Jesus Christ. These men want to do certain things in Christ's name that Christ did not give them directions to do, or they simply feel that the churches are not doing the work of Christ fast enough or good enough. These actions are always justified by claiming Christian liberty. Yet, is there Christian liberty to go beyond Jesus Christ? Why would a church, minister or saint desire to go beyond Jesus Christ in His Christian liberty? Isn't Christian liberty the liberty to DO WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT AND COMMANDED and to do it HIS WAY? The issue, then, is quite simply, what does the Word of God teach about doing Christ's work? Perhaps the Father assigned Him to much to do.
Perhaps Jesus forgot, or the Holy Spirit was too ineffectual or men simply overcame Christ before He set up all these modern and extra church money making organizations with their officers and ordinances.
The Work and Example of Jesus Christ
Is Christ's work and example complete? Either it is or He didn't finish His assigned work. The Scriptures teach that Christ is the chief cornerstone upon which His people are to measure all they build. The Apostles and their helpers, the Prophets, are the foundation which is joined to the chief cornerstone, Ephesians 2:11-21. They are a part of the foundation as to their gospel faith, order, worship and works. When joined to Jesus Christ, are not the Apostles and Prophets of Jesus Christ a true foundation of gospel faith, order, worship and works? Are not the Scriptures the only representatives of the Apostles and Prophets of Jesus Christ in revealing and maintaining gospel faith and order? Do not the Scriptures express the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles and Prophets in their personal absence? If the Scriptures are not complete and final, then who or what is? The Prophet of Mormonism? The Pope of Rome? Baptist Traditions? Jesus taught us not to be the servants of men and Paul told us not to please men. Yes, the work and example of Jesus Christ is complete. He did finish His assigned work and His Apostles and Prophets did carry out His directions in the way He directed.
Christ Did Build
Christ said He would build up His Church, not start it, for it was already started, Matthew 16:18. Paul taught that Christ did build His own house or church, Hebrews 3. Where did Christ build something for His church to join? Jesus Christ did leave a complete and detailed will to govern His estate or house while He was gone. This will contains not only His words and examples, but also it shows exactly how He wanted everything done by men whom He choose, taught and commissioned. His church or house was complete with ordinances and ministers before He left.
The first administrators of Christ's house or estate were the Chief Apostles and their Helpers. Then came the Church-Chosen Apostles and their Helpers such as Mathias, Paul and Barnabas. These men learned well what Christ wanted them to do. The Holy Spirit empowered, guided and inspired them in such a way that they followed in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. What Christ did teach and do during His earthly life, and what He wanted done and taught during His absence, was worked out in a complete and perfect way in the ministry of the Apostles and their helpers the Prophets and Evangelists.
Christ's first administrators, the Apostles, were true to Him. They built only churches. They did so church by church. Each church was built after the pattern of the Jerusalem church, the mother of us all. The spiritual Sarah soon bore daughters among the Samaritans and the Gentiles. As God caused this expansion and outreach, the mother bore many daughters. These were all known to each other. They helped each other and worked together toward common goals in the way that Christ wanted and directed by His Holy Spirit. Each church soon had its own ministers and ordinances and was walking in the Lord's way blameless. Each church walked as an independent and self-governing church. How did these churches keep up with each other?
The Churches Keep in Contact With Each Other
Did the churches keep up with each other by organizing into an association or did the ministers form a convention? If so, where? Where are the outlines and regulations for such in God's Word? Where is their job description? The churches kept up with each other because they were all constituted according to a complete, perfect and detailed method of church fellowship which was not based on an extra organization but on the unity or oneness of the common faith and order of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Each church walked by the same rule, Galatians 6:16. This rule was based on the unity of the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 4:1-6 and the order of the gospel as recorded in Acts 2:38-44. Church fellowship was not based on an extra-church organization but only on the unity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the order of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The unity of the Holy Spirit, revealing the mind of Christ to His people, will cause all churches, ministers and saints to walk according to the same rule of gospel faith, order worship and works. Baptist traditions, denominational, associational, or conventional rules and guidelines are not enough for saints and churches of saints. God's Word is. The Saints will always cling to Jesus Christ when they are enlightened by His Word in the day of His power. You judge about those who do not cling to Jesus Christ and follower His Word.
In the New Testament What Did Churches Join?
In the New Testament, churches NEVER joined anything. Can you find where any church joined a local association, a state association, an inner-state association, or a national association? They were in Christ, that was enough. They were together by the unity of gospel faith and order, that was enough. Where did any church ever pay any money to join a convention? Saints are to join churches. Churches are not to join anything. They are already joined together by the unity of the faith and order of Jesus Christ. They are to know each other and to work together in the manner presented in God's Holy Word.
The New Testament churches strived to grow into the fullness of Jesus Christ, Ephesians 4:11-16. It is not proper for saints to remain un-joined in a visible manner. Christ set up only one type of organization for saints to join, a gospel church. Then, He stopped.
X
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LORD'S SUPPER
The New Testament Epistles contain the mind of Christ governing and regulating the Lord's Supper. Mainly this material is found in I Cor. 5 and 11. In Christ's written will there are only IN-CHURCH regulations. Paul instructed the church to judge only those within and leave those without to God. Paul commanded that the whole church come together and tarry one for another in taking the Supper.
Did Paul Observe the Lord's Supper with the Corinthians?
If he did so, he did so as an Apostle and not a pastor or elder of the Corinthian church. However, it should be noted, that if He did so it was in open and plain violation of his own directions governing those within and those without. It would violate his directions to command the church to tarry one for another until the whole church be come together. He didn't say, until the whole church and those from other churches you desire to invite to the Lord's Supper, nor did he say, until the whole church and those elders from other churches you desire to invite to the Lord's Supper. Nor did he say to the elders at Corinth, invite elders from other churches to assist you in administering the Lord's Supper.
Did Paul observe the Lord's Supper at Troas?
Dr. J. R. Graves gave a very good answer to this question. Dr. John Gill, nearly one hundred years before Graves wrote on this issue, said almost the same as Graves. Both maintained that Paul did not administer the Supper at Troas. Dr. Graves said there was no church there.
Dr. Gill said this:
The instance of the apostle Paul's breaking bread to the disciples at Troas, supposing it to be understood of the ordinance of the supper, is no proof and example of such a practice; since he was an apostle, and had the care of all the churches upon him, and could administer all ordinances unto them; but to urge and follow his example, is to usurp what is peculiar to apostles, and to confound ordinary and extraordinary ministers together as one; whereas, Are all apostles? They are not.
Ibid., p. 875.
Both Dr. Gill and Dr. Graves maintained that the example of Paul at Troas could not be cited as proof of inner communion. Graves said there was no church there, Gill said Paul did what he did at Troas as an Apostle, not a pastor. In addition, Gill also questioned the fact that breaking of bread at Troas was the Lord's Supper. Dr. Graves maintained that it was not.
Since the Epistles govern only what a church is to do as a church regarding the Lord's Supper, and they govern only those within and not without, who has given further inspired directions to admit those without the church unto the Lord's Supper?
Dr. A. H. Strong's Summation of the Lord's Supper
Dr. Strong of Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester, New York, summarized the New Testament teaching governing the Lord's Supper in the best possible way, see Appendix V. Please turn there and read it right now.
XI
THE TIME PROVEN RESULTS OF INNER COMMUNION
When churches violate the Lord's Supper, they always pay dearly. For instance, the open membership Baptist churches throughout history. For instance, what has become of the Northern Baptists in the United States. For instance, what has become of the Baptists of the Southern Baptist Convention. This evil always maintains itself by a total breakdown of the mystical body of Christ, the gospel church. The church becomes naturalized. This also destroys the Headship of Christ in His church and places it in the hands of some headquarters somewhere else governed by men. Men lust for power and money. See Appendix III.
Inner communion dependents upon the system of Pedobaptist Nationalism. It drives Baptists into the national-perish concept of the church. This may reflect itself either in the universal, visible concept of Romanism or the universal, invisible concept of Protestantism. Always the gospel church becomes an extension of the whole and is governed by some central agency. More value is placed on the central or territorial organization than on the faith and order of the gospel. The loyalty factor among the Baptists is what association or convention are you in? This is true whether or not Baptists are old school or new school. Again, note how so many inner communion churches neglect their own churches in favor of associational or convention meetings. Many times the churches give way, as it is called, or dismiss their services to go to the associational, conventional or union meeting. Men dismiss what Christ built to favor what men build! Soon, the church ceases to take its elders from within and those who come from without administer the ordinances, even when they are not members. Pastoral polygamy is practiced. When a human institution and its ministry is favored over the Lord's house and the Lord's ministry, an in-church ministry, the end result is simply a dipped Pedobaptist nationalism under a Baptist name. In due time naturalism follows. The church and the ministers are not living stones in a spiritual temple of God. The Lord kills the children with His removal of the spiritual power and being of His people. How can a church make sure that the outside ministers and outside people are spiritual? How can it make sure that they are found walking in the faith and order of the gospel? The answer is...they are in our.. what? Association or Convention? What about being in Christ and being in gospel faith and order?
XII
CLOSED COMMUNION IS A PROBLEM SOLVED
Closed communion churches limit the activities of the church to those within the church. This includes the Lord's Supper. This insures a well regulated estate or house of Jesus Christ. The house of God, the gospel church, is the only means on earth God has ordained to show forth the estate and heritage of the exhalted Jesus Christ until He returns. This is done by following the order and faith of the gospel in its constituted form under subjection to Jesus Christ.
Closed communion churches demand that the government of the church be taken from the hands of a central agency or power and maintained within the church. The closed communion church has a proper attitude, a church only attitude, with a proper ministry, an in-church ministry, with a proper constitution, the Bible. Of course, all this presupposes that the church is a living Temple of God to begin with or no change in visible order will help.
Jesus Christ is a Church Only God-Man
Why should saints try to maintain a closed communion church? This will insure the proper and due honor of the right and true exaltation of Jesus Christ as the alone King, Priest and Prophet of His people. Jesus Christ died, rose again, and ascended into the heavens as a CHURCH ONLY GOD-MAN. He never died for nor redeemed an association or a convention. Try and replace the term church with that of association or convention in Acts 20:28. Where do you find such stated about an extra-church organization or an extra-church ministry?
How to Solve a Problem
As John Spilsbery pointed out, always, when we are seeking to re-establish what has been misused, those who are inquiring after the Lord must have a recourse only to the Word of Truth, the Scriptures. All children of truth should study the Book of Acts and ask themselves what is found in the Book of Acts, a church and churches or extra-church organizations? To purify the gospel picture known as the Lord's Supper, children of truth should study the New Testament Epistles and pray for divine light and power to understand the right ways of Christ and walk therein. To have a different pattern of the Lord's Supper established in His house supposes Christ was not wise enough to supply His people with the necessary regulations regarding how they were to walk in church communion and observe the Lord's Supper. Does it not grieve you that Jesus should be so treated?
1. The expression "church communion" used among Baptists today meaning a church-only Lord's Supper, meant something very different among the older Baptists, it meant the entire concept and scope of church membership. The closed churches were closed in membership, therefore, all their ministers and ordinances were IN-CHURCH.
2. The Baptists were united as one on the basis of the unity of faith and order and not by extra church unions or organizations. The old union consisted of BOTH gospel faith and gospel order.
3. The older Baptists, the publishers of the great Baptist Confessions which shaped Baptist life and outreach into the Western World, held to the independent republic concept of the church and made no provisions for an inner-church ministry nor an inner-church Lord's Supper.
Why should we?
No Harshness Toward Those Who Differ
I do not mean to imply that everyone in these extra-church organizations are all the children of the devil, but I do mean that those who changed Christ's way, those who downgraded Him and His organization and ordinances, those who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, they were not living children of God when they did these things. Perhaps some of them were later converted. Only God knows.
Saints are often in these organizations until Christ calls them out. In the day of His power they come out and cleave only to Him. I speak not about those caught up in these extra church organizations, but those who invented these different and many human inventions to take the place of Christ's organization. They manifested by that, either that they were not living Children of God when they did such things, or, they were living children of God without any gospel comprehension. How can it be that a saint can be alive and have no respect for Christ and His Word? They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts, said Paul, Galatians 5:24-26.
Also, there is a large difference between being mistaken on Biblical teachings and subjects and setting aside Christ's ways and setting up human inventions in their place.
APPENDIX I
BAPTIST STATEMENTS ABOUT CHURCH COMMUNION
And as Christ for the keeping of this Church in holy and orderly Communion, places some special men over the Church, who by their office are to govern, oversee, visit, watch; so likewise for the better keeping thereof in all places, by the members, he hath given authority, and laid duty upon all, to watch over one another.
The First
London Confession,
Art. 44, 1644 Edition.
Thirdly and lastly, the communion the church hath with other churches; all the churches of Christ have but one head, and as members of that head, receive influence from it, and ought to seek the good and preservation each of other; their visible communion appears in their union in the doctrine of Christ; there are two things principally belonging to churches to communicate to each other.First, Advice in matters doubtful, as is evident Acts 14 and 15 ac. the church of Antioch sent to the church of Jerusalem for their advice, wherein we see a liberty for every brother, till they were agreed to give their judgment; now this we must not understand to be a dependency upon another, but only a sweet unity and agreement they have each with other.
Secondly, In contributing each to others necessities, as if one be over-burdened, it is the duty of another church to contribute, as is evident, Rom. 15:26,27, 2 Cor. 8 and 9 chap. Acts 11:29,30. The glory of the church of Christ in all these gifts, privileges and spiritual immunities to which it is born by the world of God are innumerable, many of them I might here unfold to you, but of all which with our Apostle, I must conclude, saying, I cannot now speak particularly.
Edward Drapes, Gospel
Glory Proclaimed Before the Sons of Men;
London: 1649, p. 168
I deny not a Communion with God in Ordinances, and a Communion of Saints in the same; Provided, it be indeed with God, and indeed with Saints, and not with Ordinances instead of God, and Ordinances and Men instead of Saints, those who hold Communion under this dispensation, may enjoy God in it, and have communion each with other as Saints; . . .
Thomas Collier,
A General Epistle to All the Saints:
London: 165l, pps. 245.
I shall now for a close, offer a word of advice to those who have listed themselves under the Command of Christ Jesus in this Ordinance, touching the disposal of themselves for the future in Church-Communion, unto which Baptism hath been wont to be preparatory.1. Because Baptism is one of the foundation Doctrines upon which a right constituted Church is built. That the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets is the foundation of a Church of Christ, in which himself is the chief corner stone, is evident from what the Apostles asserts concerning the Church of Ephesus in this behalf, Ephes. 2:19,20.
2. As it was a Doctrine of Christ, delivered by the Apostles, that Churches should be founded upon Baptism as well as other principles of the Doctrine of Christ; that is, that men should first be baptized, and then associate themselves in Church Bodies;. .
1. They gladly received the word.
2. Were baptized.
3. Were added to the Church.
4. Continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayers. So, that as their glad from receiving the word, preceded their baptism, so did their baptism in respect of order, preceded their addition to that particular body of Christians, and their communion and fellowship together in the Ordinances of the Gospel, as breaking of bread and the like;
That believers were baptized before their admittance into Church communion, and in order to it, is clear enough; but that any were admitted to Church-Fellowship before Baptism in the Primitive times, is a thing which to me nowhere appears from the Scripture, but is a thing void of precept or example from Scripture, in those that now practice it.
None are in a due and regular capacity of holding Church-Communion with a particular Church in her appropriate privileges, who are not regularly visible members of the universal Church; as no man is in a due capacity of being a member of a particular Corporation in a Nation, who not being freeborn, is not made a free Denizen of that Nation. For particular Churches receive their respective beings from the Universal, as particular Rivers receive theirs from the sea.
That Baptism is the ordinance of visible initiation or admission into the universal Church of Christ, is a thing which generally hath been acknowledged, and is by Pedobaptists themselves constantly asserted, and is that which I have already proved in the former part of this Treatise from I Cor. 12:13. Rom. 6:3, and Gal. 3:27. . .And if baptism be the means of visible admission into the Church, and of visible engrafting into Christ, then this end is not to be expected without this means, . . .
If then none are to be esteemed as visible members of the universal Church, but only such as are baptized, then none but such as are baptized may be admitted as members of a particular Church. . .
4. This being God's method, order and way of bringing men into the enjoyment of Church-communion, and Church privileges, viz, through the door of Baptism (as hath been already observed) this very method, and order of his, ought to be very sacred unto us, and inviolably observed by us.
Since then it was the Original Order of the Churches of Christ, in the midst of whom Christ himself walked, to admit such only to their Church-communion as had been baptized. . .
5. We know none were to be admitted into the Passover of old, but such who had been first circumcised, Exos. 12:48, And therefore if Baptism bear the like relation to the Supper of the Lord, as circumcision did to the Passover, (which yet is a thing generally acknowledged by all,) then it follows, that as none uncircumcised might be admitted to the Passover, so none unbaptized may be admitted to the supper of the Lord, and consequently not to Church-communion whereof that is a special part.
But now that the joining together of baptized persons, with baptized in Church-communion, was practiced in the Apostolcal Churches, is a thing so evident and clear, that I think none will deny; but that it is as clear, that baptized and unbaptized persons did in the Apostles times incorporate themselves into Church bodies, I think none will affirm; . .
William Allen, Some
Baptismal Abuses Briefly Discovered,
Discovering the disorder and Irregularity that is in Mix
Communion
of Persons baptized, with such as are unbaptized in
Church-Fellowship;
London: 1653, pps. 99-l09.
OF THE COMMUNION OF CHURCHES
Every particular congregational church incorporated by and according to the institution of Christ in the gospel, and duly organized according to the pattern of the primitive churches, hath sufficient power from Christ to call and ordain its own ministers; so that no man, or set of men, have authority to choose ministers from them, or impose any officer on them, without their previous knowledge and voluntary consent. . . .
And such particular congregational churches, constituted and organized according to the mind of Christ revealed in the New Testament, are all equal in power and dignity, and we read of no disparity between them, or subordination among them, that should make a difference between the acts of their mutual communion, so as the acts of one church should be acts of authority, and the acts of others should be acts of obedience or subjection, although they may vastly differ in gifts, abilities, and usefulness.
Such particular distinct churches, agreeing in gospel doctrine and practice, may and ought to maintain communion together in many duties, which may tend to the mutual benefit and edification of the whole; and thereby one church that hath plenty of gifts, may, and ought, if possible, to supply another that locks. They may have mutual giving and receiving, and mutual translation, recommendation, or dismission of members from one church to another, as occasion may require. It is to be noted that persons called to office are not to be dismissed as ministers, but as members; though another church may call such to the same office again.
(NOTE: HERE IS THE FIRST MENTION OF ANY OFFICIAL INNER- CHURCH LORD'S SUPPER, R.E.P.) By virtue also of such communion, the members of one such church may, where they are known, occasionally partake at the Lord's table with a sister church. Yet, not withstanding such communion of churches, by voluntary consent and confederation, the ministers of one particular church may not act as ministers in another church, in any act of government, without a particular call thereunto from the other church where they occasionally come..
Benjamin Griffin, Church Discipline.
Whether a pastor of one church, can officiate as such, in another church; or whether he can administer the Lord's Supper, which is a pastoral act, in and to a church of which he is no pastor. I answer, he cannot; that is, it is not lawful for him to do it. . . .A man can never act as a pastor, where he is not so much as a member; a man must be a member of a church before he can be a pastor of it, as we have seen.
John Gill, Body of Divinity; London: 1836, p. 874.
Conclusion to this Appendix:
These remarks contain a vast assortment of Baptist thought concerning what church communion is and how it relates to individual saints and also to other churches. This seems to be a fair summation of the question:
1. The earliest mentions of church communion up to Dr. Gill's times in England, regard church communion as church membership and also church recognition of other churches in matters detailed by Edward Drapes and also the Abingdon Baptist Association in the 1640s and 1650s. Throughout the rest of the 1600s and well up into the later 1700s the English and Welsh Baptists didn't regard church communion as the Lord's Supper nor did they practice an inner-church ministry or an inner-church Lord's Supper.
2. The open communion movement began in England in 1645 by Henry Jessey; Edward Bean Underhill, Records of the Churches of Christ, Gathered at Fenstation, Warboys, and Hexham, 1644-1702; London: 1856, p. 348.
3. The inner communion movement originated in America within the bounds of the Philadelphia Association in the early to mid-1700s.
4. We quoted at length from William Allen. He held to the idea of a universal, visible church made up of those baptized in water. Many held such a view. Others held to I Cor. 12:13 as water baptism into the Particular church rather than into the Universal, Visible church. Bunyan complained that the Baptists who opposed him had their own universal, visible church made up only of themselves. John Spillsbury and William Kiffen held this view as did those under their early influence. Gospel church. Gospel order is this.. they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them. William Kiffen came into this order about 1638. John Spilsbery baptized him. This is the only order Kiffen maintained through his ministry. He vindicated this order in his work on Communion published about 1680. It is clear and certain that Church-communion did not meant always and only the Lord's Supper.
APPENDIX II
BAPTIST STATEMENTS ABOUT THE MINISTRY
The Ministry Among the General Baptists
During the period of the 1650s, the Fenstation Records suggest that the shape of the ministry and of church ministers generally had not assumed a completely fixed form. Hence Henry Denne, who had been 'chosen and ordained by the laying on of hands as a messenger to divulge the gospel' in November 1653 (after, perhaps, some ten years of itinerate evangelism and church planting), was not free to take up pastoral responsibilities with the group at Canterbury without the church's permission. Nevertheless, when William Jeffery wrote in 1659 he followed Edward Barber's earlier argument that the messenger's task was to preach 'for the gathering the church and establishing of the same' and that he was the successor of the apostles. In addition it was also there made clear that the ministry was to be seen as there-fold with messengers, elders (or pastors)m and deacons. Furthermore, while the church ought freely to provide Maintaince for its ministers, they in their turn ought also 'to endeavor to the uttermost, to make the Gospel without charge". The clear implication here was that ministers ought to have such occupation as would, at least partly, provide for their material needs. This seems to have been a widely held view in this early period.
B. R. White, The
English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century;
London: 1983, pps. 49, 50.
The Ministry Among the Particular Baptists
It was also affirmed [in the 1644 Confession of Faith, R.E.P.] that the administrator of baptism should be a 'preaching disciple' and, clearly reflecting contemporary controversy about the authority for the restoration of the 'lost' practice of believer's baptism by immersion, it was made clear that the right to administer was not to be tied exclusively even to the pastor must less should its practice wait upon the supply from on height of one 'extraordinarily sent.'
The Second new feature in the 1644 arises partly from the last point. There can be little doubt that in this Confession the position accorded to the ministry was measurably less significant than it had been among the Separatists. While both groups held that final authority lay with the whole committed congregation under the guidance of Christ, the Baptists in 1644 laid less stress upon the distinctive function of the ministry considered apart from the congregation. In 1596 there was frequent stress on the importance of the ministry, in 1644 there was hardly any. In 1656 no sacraments were to be administered until ministers had been appointed, in 1644 any 'preaching disciple' could baptize and the administration of the Lord's Supper was not even mentioned. In 1644 the ministry was considered only for the 'better' well-being of the church (though in 1646 'better' was dropped) and think about the ministers of the ministry seems only just to have begun since in 1646 the 'Pastors, Preachers, Elders and Deacons' taken over by 1644 from 1696 became, and were to remain 'Elders and Deacons'. In fact it seems clear that in the thought of the men who drafted the 1644 Confession as a with their baptism so, too, the ministry was firmly subordinated to the immediate authority of the covenant community.
White, Ibid., pps. 62, 63.
Before going on, let me remark here about White's remarks.
1. First, the two Confessions, 1644 and 1646, were by Particular Baptists, not the General Baptists.
2. Therefore, the Particular Baptists didn't share in the concept of a minister made so by office. They held that the ministering brother ministered by a gift.
3. In addition, these old brethren were not the idiots and scatterbrains White and others would make them out to be. They had a very clear understanding of what the ministry was all about. White should have studied Daniel King's Way To Zion, published in 1650 and later in 1656. According to King's own remarks in his Some Troublesome Thoughts, he ministered originally from the Glasshouse Church in London. He was also a very close friend of John Spilsbery. King had a very clear understanding of what the ministers of the church were all about. Here are his remarks:
In A Sense, Apostles, Prophets, And Evangelists Continue.
3. And yet in a sense, that Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, as well as Pastors and Teachers, continue in the Church to the end of the world (and in the Scripture-sense too), but our sense oftentimes differs, and that makes us mistake things in scripture so often, Christ says (Matt 28: ult.) Lo, I am with you always to the end of the world. Now his bodily presence was with them when he spoke this unto them. John 14:18 I will come to you, says Christ. Yet this coming is but in His Spirit according to verses 16 ands 17. So the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists may be said to continue, and to perfect the Church and Saints in regard to their writings and doctrine which the church is to preserve and stick to and upon whose foundation the church is to be built and to rest. In the same sense, as the rich man's brethren are said to have Moses and the Prophets, and bidden to hear them (Luke 16:29) yet Moses and the Prophets were dead (John 8:52), but the meaning is they had them because they had their writings and prophecies. And in this sense, the church has Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists in their writings and preachings and this is complete scripture-sense; so, this is made good.
Objection: But it seems you mean we should have Pastors and Teachers to speak in the church by a audible voice, and so we take it should Apostles, etc. And can they be said to speak in the church, and are dead?
Answer: Yes, it may be truly said so. Is it not said of Abel (He 11:4) that he being dead, yet speaks? And all along the scripture, those that are dead, are said to speak (Rom 10:19-21). Moses says, "I will provoke you to jealousy etc." Why, Moses was dead when Paul wrote this that he said it, but Moses' writings said so, in Deut. 32:21. Verse 20. But Elias is very bold and says he does not write that he did say so, but says, for the present, but he was dead long before. But this is recorded that Elias did once say (Isa 65:1-21), but to Israel he saith, that is , he did say so and his writings say so still. And so it is said of the Spirit (Rev 2:7) he that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Why, the Spirit spoke not by voice, but by these writings. And so the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists speak still in the churches: so that you see, all the whole sentence is full in its sense, and in scripture- sense too.
But now for Pastors and Teachers, ordinary ministers, we have not their prophecies and writings extant, and, therefore, it is necessary that they be personally in the church still. Yea, and in this sense that I have laid down the Pastors and Teachers cannot speak and perfect the saints without Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists.
That Pastors and Teachers Are To Continue In The Church.
Now before I pass from this Scripture, I desire a little to show some particulars about Church-ministers, and to prove that Pastors and Teachers are to continue; which thing is opposed by some: As for example, Master Saltmarsh in his Book, called, Some Beams of that bright morning Star, or Sparkles of Glory, page 131, says, "Pastors and Teachers in the true and proper gift and office was as spiritual as the other"; he means as Apostles, Prophets, etc. "Namely of the pure anointing of the holy Ghost, but Pastor and Teacher since have been considered in a lower capacity and industry; Art, natural parts, and learning has been taken in, in after- times, to the composition of Pastor and Teacher," etc. And page 130. He asks where we have this distinction, that the one is ordinary, and the other is extraordinary, and to last but for a time.
1. I answer to this by propounding a Question, where he has the same distinction in effect, concerning the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, that some of them last but for that age, and the other cease; as he says, page 332 of his Book: But I have shown the distinction, and I hope shall clear it up clear enough to satisfy any impartial man.
2. To answer to the first clause; If they taught by the same pure anointing (i.e.) infallibly, how comes it to pass we have not Pastors and Teachers Works in Scripture-record, as well as Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists?
All That Taught In The Apostles' Times Did Not Teach
So Infallibly As Some Imagine.
3. I conceive, if the Scripture be well examined, it will be found, that all that taught, and that lawfully, and by command too, did not teach by that pure anointing in that measure the Objection means.
For consider, first, the Apostle Paul writes to Timothy diverse charges, to see to the Doctrine others teach, and that himself teaches; which need not have been, if all in the Primitive times had taught by that infallible spirit, or measure of Spirit that they could not err. 1 Tim. 1:3. I LEFT THEE AT EFFUSES, THAT YOU SHOULDST CHARGE SOME THAT THEY TEACH NO OTHER DOCTRINE. He does not say, he should charge them not to teach at all, but no other Doctrine; which need not have been, if they had been taught by that pure anointing only, 1 Tim. 5:21. LAY HANDS SUDDENLY ON NO MAN (i.e.) to instate him into office; which might have been, if all that taught then, had taught in that clear demonstration that Mr. Saltmarsh speaks of, that they were both known to themselves and the Churches, to speak in that pure gift and anointing of spirit, 2 Tim. 2:2. He is bidden to commit the things he had heard of Paul (not being taught by the pure anointing) TO FAITHFUL MEN (not infallible men) THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS ALSO. Here he speaks of ordinary gifts, and he shows, chapter 3:14,15, that the man of God is thoroughly furnished for every good work, not only from an infallible spirit, but from the Scripture, and as certainly; for he says, ALL SCRIPTURE WAS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD.
2. His prohibiting Women to teach, in opposition to the Men, shows, that Men did not teach by that pure anointing, but by ordinary gift, as now; for Women teaching by extraordinary inspiration might teach, as I showed before.
3. The qualifications that Paul required Timothy and Titus to look to be in Bishops or Elders, and Deacons (1 Tim. :2-8; Titus 1:5-10) shows it; which may all be in a man that is not infallibly inspired by that pure anointing. To instance in some of them, he says, 1 Tim. 3, THE BISHOP MUST BE APT TO TEACH. He does not say, ABLE, by an infallible spirit, but APT, (i.e.) inclined to Doctrine, in some measure fit for it; as a man may be apt for a thing that is not perfect, but may be further instructed in it: So was Apollo, Acts 8:25,26. For he cannot but teach, that is infallibly inspired by that pure anointing, therefore he is more than apt for it. Then verses 6,7. HE MUST NOT BE A NOVICE, OR NEWLY COME TO THE FAITH. Why, he that is infallibly endued, if he be never so newly come to the faith, is approved of God to teach, as you may see, Acts 10:46 and 19:6. Therefore he means such as had but an ordinary gift, from an ordinary work of the Spirit.
4. The Bishops and Deacons admittance and trial is the same, they must be both proved, verse 8. Therefore the one administers no more by an infallible spirit than the other.
5. Timothy and Titus both, did not all things by the pure anointing the objection means, as is clear; first for Timothy, 1 Tim. 3:15. Paul shows the cause of his writing was, THAT IF HE TARRIED LONG BEFORE HE CAME TO HIM, HE MIGHT KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE HIMSELF IN THE HOUSE OF GOD, or Church of God; which he might have done by an infallible spirit. And Paul tells him what he should teach, chapter 4:11, (Without Paul's Direction.) and how to walk, verse 12, and exhorts him to industry, and to the use of helps, as reading and meditation, and that diligently, verses 13-15. And bids him take heed to his Doctrine, verse 16, all which had been needless, if he had been inspired so infallibly: So 2 Tim. 1:13. Paul EXHORTS HIM TO HOLD FAST THE FORM OF WORDS THAT HE HAD HEARD FROM HIM: He should rather have said, which you have by that pure anointing, if he had taught so clearly, and only in that: and tells him what things he should put them in remembrance of, 2 Tim. 2:14 and 3:14, 15. He shows he had learned those things of the Scripture, that he exhorts him to continue in. But he might have said, now the time of pure anointing is come, I DESIRE TO LIVE ABOVE THE SCRIPTURE, AND TO WAIT UPON THAT FOR HIGHER TEACHINGS. Nay, Paul says that they are profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness: And they were given by inspiration of God, as well as this anointing, AND THEY ARE ABLE TO FURNISH THE MAN OF GOD THOROUGHLY. Mark, THOROUGHLY FOR EVERY GOOD WORK, THAT SO HE MAY BE PERFECT. So Paul exhorts Titus also, chapter 2:7, 8, TO LOOK THAT HIS DOCTRINE BE SOUND, and tells him in verse 15 what things he should speak and exhort; and chapter 3:8, 9, etc. the same. And yet these men that were so instructed themselves, were to ordain others; which shows they did not in the Primitive times (all of them that taught, and were in office to teach) teach by that pure anointing that he speaks of, but by an ordinary gift.
And that Pastors and Teachers are to continue in the CHURCH, though they have not such an infallible gift, I shall clear up further.
It appears that a visible Church has always had Ministers: The Church of the Jews had Priests and Levites: and after Christ's time they had Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets; and as soon as Churches were gathered, they ordained them Elders, Acts 14:23. And Paul left Titus in Crete for this purpose, Tit. 1. The seven Churches of Asia had Angels to oversee them; the Church of Ephesus among the rest had Elders, Acts 20:17. The Church at Philippi had Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1:1 and this is a piece of Gospel-order, and of true order also, Tit. 1:5.
Seven Points Handled Concerning Ministers In A Church.
Concerning these Ministers with their Offices, I shall briefly touch these seven things.
1. What Ministers are to be in a Church.
2. What their Offices are.
3. What qualifications they ought to have that are those Ministers.
4. How many of them are to be in a Church.
5. That such are to continue in their offices.
6. That these Offices are sufficient.
7. How they are to be instated into Office.
1. What Ministers Are To Be In A Church.
1. For the first; the Ministers in a Church, seem to me, to be ranked into two sorts, or heads in general, which Paul calls Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1:1. And Paul names the same, 1 Tim. 3. And Rom. 12:6,7. He sets them down under the general head of Prophesying and Ministering, and he distributes them into particulars.
I Shall Entreat The Reader To Search The Scriptures, And Consider Them Diligently, For I Have Not Named The Words Because Of Causing The Volume To Swell Too Big.
Now the Bishop is he which the Scripture in other places calls the Elder, Tit. 1:5-7. And it is a general name to Teachers, Pastors, or Overseers, as these Scriptures make clear, Acts 20:17, with 28. And this word Elder, or Bishop, is a general name to all that feed the Church, and takes in as well Apostles as others into the work of overseeing, or feeding, 1 Pet. 5:1,2; 2 John 1:3; 3 John 1; yea, sometimes Christ himself, 1 Pet. 2:25.
Again, these two are distributed into particulars, as the Bishop or Elder, is distributed into Pastor and Teacher, and Ruling Elder, or he that Rules, 1 Tim. 5:17; Rom 12:7,8. There we have a distribution of two generals into particulars: He that prophesies, verse 6, into Teacher, Exhorter, and Ruler. And he that ministers, into giver, and shower of mercy.
1. For Pastor and Teacher, we read of them, Eph. 4:11. And I hinted to you, it is the same with Bishop or Elder, which I proved ordinary Ministers.
2. For ruling Elder, see Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 5:17. And this office is called helpers in Governments, 1 Cor. 12:8.
For the second Distribution.
1. Deacons; such we read of, 1 Tim. 3:8,10.
2. He that shows mercy, Rom. 12:8. These were Widows that were appointed of the CHURCH for the help of the Deacon, 1 Tim. 5:9.
2. What Their Ministers Are.
The second thing is, What their Offices are?
First, The Pastor's office is to feed the Flock, Jer. 3:15, which is a prophecy of Gospel-times, (That God will give them Pastors to FEED them, etc.) as appears, verses 16- 18; yea, in the most glorious state of the Church, WHEN THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SHALL WALK WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH: And when Jerusalem shall be called holy, the Throne of the Lord, etc. So Jer. 23:4; Eph. 4:11. It is called EDIFYING THE BODY OF CHRIST. And this is he that is to wait upon exhortation or application, and bringing home the Word to the heart and conscience, Rom. 12:7. Therefore his Word is called, the Word of Wisdom, 1 Cor. 12:8. And this man is to administer other Ordinances, as Baptism and the Supper, in the Church; because it is the Church's right, and so a part of feeding, Matt. 24:45. The ruler over the house must give his fellow- servants their meat, Luke 12:42.
I Do Not Mean That Any Man Can Make The Word Take Effect Upon The Heart and Conscience, But To Bring It Him, As Nathan Did To David, 2 Sam. 12:7, And Stephen To The Council, Acts 7:51.
Let no man say, Christ is their meat, and nothing else; For,
1. No servant can give Christ, but God alone, John 6:32.
2. The preaching of the Word is called Milk, which is one kind of meat, 1 Pet. 2:2. And the Principles of Christ also, whereof the Doctrine of Baptism is one; Nay, the whole Distribution of the Gospel is called a Feast, Prov. 9:1, etc. Matt. 22; Luke 14. Not but that a Disciple as a Disciple, designed of the Church, may baptize, or break bread, but after the Church has Ministers, then it properly belongs to them, because the Church should choose men best able to dispense the Gospel, and so fittest for all her Administrations.
2. The Teacher's office is to wait on Teaching, Rom. 12. That is, I conceive, principally to expound the Scripture, and lay down sound Doctrine, and confute Errors, that so the Church may be established in the Truth, Tit. 2:8. And Timothy was to oversee Doctrine at Ephesus, and to teach: yea, from Scripture, as appears, 2 Tim. 3:15-17. And those that bring false Doctrine, are called false Teachers, 2 Pet. 2:1. And his Word is called (1 Cor. 12:8) the word of knowledge. And such God promises his Church in her beauteous state, Isa. 30:20. Nicodemus that expounded the Law, and taught the Doctrine thereof, is called a Teacher in Israel, John 3:2. And this the Bishop, Pastor, or Elder must do, 2 Tim. 2:24.
Search The Scripture.
I conceive it is a name given to any one that has a gift of expounding the Scripture, and teaching the Doctrine of the Gospel; either Apostle, Prophet, or any other, 1 Tim. 1:3; and 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11. It is one able to instruct others in the truth, He. 5:12. For to teach, is to preach the Doctrine of the Gospel, Matt. 28:19 with Mark 16:15; Jer. 32:33; Tit. 2:3. He commands the aged women,to be teachers of good things; but this is not in the Church: Therefore the name Teacher, is attributed to any that has a gift to teach, according to the proportion of faith given them; and these may exercise their gift, by the Church's call, Either,
1. In the Church, 1 Cor. 4:17. Or,
2. To the world, Acts 4:18 and 5:28,42.
But I conceive Pastor and Teacher may be understood for one and the same, and may perform the same Offices in the Church; but only where the church is large and mutifarious,they may choose more Ministers for the better ordering of things, and so have several titles given them according to their several gifts, and they fall both under the general name or Bishop of Elder:
For mark, I said the Pastor's office was to feed the Flock; so is the Shepherd's, Micah 5:4. So is the Apostle's, John 21:15,16. So the Elder, Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2. So gifted-Disciples, Rev. 12:6; 1 Cor. 9:7 who feeds a flock, etc. And those are said to be such as preach the Gospel, verse 14. And I proved the same concerning Teachers before, that they are included under name of Elder, appears, Acts 14:23.
Now Elders in Scripture were taken,
Sometimes for Ministers among the Jews in their Church, Mark 8:31. Sometimes for Gospel-ministers, Acts 11:30 and 14:23 whose office was to feed, Acts 20:17 (i.e.) by preaching sound Doctrine, and suitable to the necessities of the Church, and leading them into various pastures for their welfare and fattening, and how they must do it is set down, 1 Pet. 5:1-3.
2. To consult in matters of controversy, Acts 5:2; 4:6, 22, 23. To set things in order in the Church, Acts 16:4. To advise for matter of doubt, Acts 21, 18, etc. To rule, oversee, and govern, 1 Tim. 5:17; it. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:1, etc. To VISIT THE SICK, AND PRAY OVER THEM, BEING CALLED FOR, Jam. 5:14.
3. The ruling Elder is to feed, guide, or go before, and no otherwise to rule, Matt. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:5 and 5:17; He. 13:17. to oversee the manners and lives of men, that none walk disorderly, and to warn them that do; and to see where any are disconsolate, and to comfort them; and to assist in Censures, if any be to be cast out, 1 Thes. 5:14. But I conceive the ruling Elders are to be, only in the necessity of the Church, being many, and spread abroad; for otherwise, all these things the preaching Elder may do. So Paul delivered Hymeneus and Philetus to Satan, as a leading man, 1 Tim. 1:20 with 1 Cor. 5:1, 2. And that such are to be in case of necessity (I conceive) appears from that order, Rom. 12:7, 8, where is, first Pastor, then Teacher, then Deacon; Afterward those that rule, and show mercy; showing that they were to be in case of necessity to help the others.
4. The Deacon's office is to receive and distribute the contribution of the Church, as they see need and occasion, Acts 6:1-6. And this is he that gives, Rom. 12:8 and also to see the Church's members walk not idly.
5. The Widow; and this is she that shows mercy, Rom. 12:8. They were to assist the Deacon, in looking to any poor, sick, or impotent members, that were not able to help themselves, as appears by their qualifications; they were such as were affectionate and compassionate that were to be chosen: And therefore their office must be to attend the service of the Church, in looking to poor feeble members, or whatsoever the Church calls them to do, Rom. 16:1. These had their maintenance also from the church, 1 Tim. 5:16.
The Third Thing, is, the Qualification of these Ministers.
For their Qualifications, I shall refer the Reader to 1 Tim. 3, and 5 and Tit. 1. I shall hint but at some, that some objection may be made against. It is said, the Bishop must be the husband of one wife: Not that he must of necessity be a married man; but he must have but one wife, not plurality of wives: And this appears to be the meaning, for these Reasons: (Margin note: Read the Scriptures, I pray you, 1 Cor. 7:7 and 9:5,12.)
1. Because Paul himself was an unmarried man, and yet and Elder, in the same sense as Peter and John were to feed the Church,
2. Because Paul, 1 Cor. 7:1 where he says, IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A MAN TO TOUCH A WOMAN: He does not except Elders, to say they must marry; not Deacons: but says, LET EVERY MAN HAVE HIS OWN WIFE (not wives) giving this Law here; THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, TO AVOID FORNICATION. And surely he would have excepted Ministers, if they must needs be married men. And mark how this depends; BLAMELESS, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE: Showing, that this Rule is given for the avoiding of Fornication.
3. If so, then Timothy being a young man, without a wife, might not have been a Teacher; but he was so, 1 Tim. 4:11,12.
4. If it were so, that a man must needs be married, or else he could not be an Elder: Then it must needs follow, that if his wife die, he loses his office till has another wife: But that is false, Rom. 12:7,8. Therefore the other.
2. Qualification;
NOT A NOVICE, 1 Tim. 3:6. A word or two of this; I conceive, it is not absolutely that he should not be a young man, or newly come to the Faith; but in case of danger, not being settled in the truth; for Timothy was a youth, as I proved before; yet not a Novice, not newly come to the Faith; for he that teaches others, had need be well grounded himself, and had need be one that is not soon puffed up: And this is his danger, and not the CHURCH'S only, lest he fall into the condemnation of the Devil.
2. For the deacons; They must be full of the holy Ghost, etc. Acts 6:3. By the holy Ghost is meant, either those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost which they then had, and which Stephen had, verse 5, because it is distinct from faith: or else men full of the Spirit, guided, led, ruled by the Spirit, walking spiritually, not minding outward carnal things; and this is necessary for a Deacon: I shall say no more of their qualifications.
Question. It may be questioned, Whether there must be of necessity all these qualifications in Ministers, or else none must be chosen?
Answer.
The Church must see that they come as near this as may be; but I cannot see that they are tied to be punctually such; for what if such a man be not to be found in the world, where all these qualifications meet, shall the Church have no supply till then? But this know, that the Spirit of God in Scripture sets down the most exact rule, and we are to come as near it as we can: For thus I reason; The Scripture commands, LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, etc. Shall I reason now, Because I cannot do this in the extent of it, I need not love the Lord at all? Nay, but I must endeavor, as Paul, Phil. 3, TO PRESS TOWARDS IT; so it is here. Or, what if a man have no faithful Children, or not all, shall he be no Bishop, or Elder? Or, what if he have no Children, then he cannot have faithful Children; will this disable him for his Office?
Again, What if the Deacon be not filled with the holy Ghost, with that gift that they then had in the primitive times, spoken of, Acts 6. Must he not be a Deacon? I conceive, it is enough if he be qualified, as Timothy sets down his Qualifications among the Ministers that are to continue in the Church; shall not poor Members be relieved, unless men be exact to the top of these Qualifications? Again, What if the Widow want one year of sixty; shall poor members, sick or lame, be lost for looking to? Or, what if she never washed the Saints' feet, which is not the custom in these cold Regions; Is she no servant of the Church's because of that? So that I conceive the Scripture-meaning is, to bring us as near the Rule as may be: but where it cannot be, God must be obeyed as far as we can attain to; and have mercy, and not sacrifice, etc.
The fourth thing is,
How many Ministers are to be in a Church?
Some say, every Congregation is to have a Pastor and a Teacher, and two ruling Elders, and two Deacons, and Widows: But I conceive the number is left to the Church, and her necessity: For, in the Church at Jerusalem were many Elders, Acts 21:18, the Church being great; And had seven Deacons, Acts 6, THE POOR BEING MANY; and so many were neglected until they were chosen: and need requiring that there should be a daily Ministration, as you may see, verse 1, which could not be done by one or two; neither do I read how many were in Ephesus, Acts 20, nor how many they ordained in every Church, Acts 14.
The Fifth Thing is,
That Such Are To Continue in The Church, And In Their Office.
The fifth point is, That such are to continue in the Church, I shall prove it two ways. 1. It was prophesied of.
2. Given in charge. 1. It was prophesied of.
Consider The Words Of These Scriptures.
I. That Pastors were to be in the Church in Gospel-times, Jer. 3:15-18, shows it clearly: And chapter 23:4. And this proves the continuance of Ordinances also.
2. That Teachers are to continue, appears from the 20th to the 26th verse of the 30th chapter of Isa. Yea, and this is in the time of the Church's glory upon earth: And if this continue not, we must have none to expound the Scriptures, nor teach at all: but Teaching must continue, 2 Tim. 2:1; He. 5:10. And therefore Teachers must continue: And Master Saltmarsh, Some Beams, etc. page 44, cites Rom. 12:6 to prove that Disciples only so called, may preach and administer: Then Disciples only so called may be Teachers (by his affirmation) for there is he that teaches named; and so the gift by his own proof did not end in that time.
2. It was given in charge,
Matt. 28:19. TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. And HE COMMANDED THEM TO TEACH AND BAPTIZE, etc. with Mark 16:15, GO PREACH THE GOSPEL, etc. Eph. 4:11,12. They are to continue till the unity of the faith, and we come to a perfect man in Christ Jesus.
Objection. But some may say, We may as well plead for the continuance of Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, for they are all in a sentence?
Answer. No, the one may continue, the other not, though they be all in a sentence.
1. Because there is not the like use of their Offices; Apostles and Prophets were to lay the foundation, and speak Scripture, and Evangelists to assist them, and help write it, Eph. 2:20. But Pastors and Teachers to build, and perfect the work: and so they are one with Apostles, the one to speak and write Scripture, the other to open and apply it: Therefore the Bishop must hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught; but now no man is to make new Scripture, for there is a curse pronounced to such, Rev. 22:18,19. But men are to be Teachers still; therefore Pastor and Teacher is to continue, and to feed still. See my Answer before, on Eph. 4. (Titus 1:9.)
Again consider, They ordained them Elders in every Church, but not Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, which Paul would have done, had it been necessary.
Objection. But Paul was present, who was an Apostle? Answer. Paul was present, who was an Elder, as the other Apostles were, and a Teacher, 2 Tim. 1:11. Therefore by this Argument I might as well plead against their ordaining Elders.
Again, consider in a sense, as they may be understood, all those may continue personally in the Church; and so I conceive the Scripture will make it good; Rev. 18:20. speaks of Apostles and Prophets to rejoice at the ruin of the Whore, or great City Babylon; Apostles (i.e.) in the very Word a Messenger, or Ambassador, and so are all Ministers and Elders; To the Angel (or Messenger) of the Church: so they are Apostles or Ambassadors, 2 Cor. 5:19. As Ambassadors for Christ, etc. PROPHETS (i.e.) those that have the gift of Prophecy or Preaching; for so the ordinary Preachers are called Prophets, Rev. 11:10. so Evangelists, as they teach, or write Evangelical truths: And so they may as well be personally as Pastors and Teachers.
Another Scripture to Prove Their Continuance.
Read The Words and Consider Them.
Another place is, Rom. 12:3-8, the 3rd verse contains a perpetual law touching the Government of Christ's Church; the same is either general, appertaining to all the Members of the Church, one of which is contrary unto the Law; for the clearer understanding thereof, verse 3, joined in the same sentence with the Law. The other of a similitude, where as in a glass we may see the truth and necessity of this Law, taken from the natural disposition of the body, verses 4 and 5. Or it is special, belonging to public persons, that is, to Prophets, the dispensers of the Word of God, which he divides into those that teach and exhort, and other necessary Administrators, as I showed before. That it is a Law, appears from verse 3. FOR I SAY (i.e.) I command: And observe here he gives order, not only for a man to provide for his own safety, but to study to provide for the safety of the Church, or body, verses 4 and 5.
In these verses he teaches four things.
1. As we have in one natural body many members, so we have in one Church, or Congregation.
2. AS ALL MEMBERS OF THE BODY HAVE NOT ONE OFFICE, some see, some hear, etc. Neither have they in the Church.
3. AS ANY MEMBERS IN ONE BODY HAVE BUT ONE HEAD, wherein they are: so all the Members in the Church.
4. Every member is one another's in the body, to serve one another; so also in the Church. Now this Law in these verses concerns public persons in the Church, verses 6 and 7. The Apostle takes it for granted, that God had given these gifts already to the Church: And where he says, LET US PROPHESY ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF FAITH; that is, according to the gift of knowledge in the Gospel: And he says, LET HIM WAIT ON MINISTERING, or exhortation: It is clear, he gives a perpetual Law for the keeping of these Offices in the Church.
I shall give you some Arguments for it.
1. This being a Commandment of God, as commandments of the Apostles were, proves it. And Paul said it, THROUGH THE GRACE GIVEN TO HIM, not of himself. It charges all these Ministers to abide in their offices: And he that thinks the Offices are ceased, is one that appears to me to think more highly of himself than is meet, contrary to this law, and does not think to sobriety, verse 3. 2. All these Ministers here are called the true Members of the Body of the Church; therefore the Church being to endure to the coming of Christ, or the last day, those also must be of the same continuance; Except you will say, that Christ is better pleased with a maimed body than a complete one. To plead against Ministers and Ordinances as some do, is to plead for Confusion, 1 Cor. 12:17. They will have all eyes in the body, but no hearing; for ALL SHALL BE TAUGHT BY THE SPIRIT: But God will have the visible body, like a visible body, therefore it must have Ministers. 3. Because Paul commands Timothy to keep this command to the coming of Christ, 1 Tim. 6 (i.e.) TO THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, as I proved before.
4. All things whereabouts they are busied, or employed (as the ignorance and error of the mind, the corruption of the heart, the unruliness of men, the poverty of the Saints, the weakness and impotency of the poor) are always to be looked unto, or cared for; Therefore the Offices that God appoints and ordains for these purposes, are to continue so long as these things last in the Church.
5. Christ the King of Saints shall rule by his own Laws, till he come again to give the new ones: Therefore the Laws left upon record for the Government of the Church shall stand.
From the Distinction of Ministers
Objection. But some plead against Ministers thus, by distinguishing the Ministers in Gospel-times, to be Ministry of Men, and of Angels, and of Spirit, and the one ceases, when the other takes place. Answer. I answer: These ministers are all now, and were in the Apostles days; then men ministered, Apostles and others, so do men now. Then Angels (i.e.) Gospel-Ministers, Angels of the Churches: so now; but they mean celestial Angels. I answer, they minister as defenders of the Saints; but to give words, was a legal Administration, inferior to this that we now have, by the Word of the Gospel. And for the Spirit, it taught the Apostles and Disciples then, so it does still, and shall do more excellently then now: so that they are all on foot, and have been since the Apostles' times in their measure. (He. 1. ult., He. 2:2, 3.)
Question. But are these Ministers to continue, after they are chosen into Office?
Answer. Yea, Rom. 12. LET HIM WAIT ON HIS MINISTERING, ETC. HE THAT PUTS HIS HAND TO THE PLOUGH, AND LOOKETH BACK, IS UNFIT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD. And Paul giving charge to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20, says, THE HOLY GHOST HATH MADE YOU OVERSEERS, and speaks not of their leaving their Offices. Nay, the Deacons were chosen for this very end, that they might wait on their offices, and others might not be interrupted in the execution of their offices, nor leave the station in which they were. Acts 6:1,2. And the Widow is condemned for leaving her office (1 Tim.) and the younger Widows refuted, because they will be apt to marry, AND SO LEAVE THEIR FIRST FAITH, 1 Tim. 5:11,12.
6. Point is, That These Are Sufficient.
The sixth point is, That these are sufficient that I have named.
1. We are bidden, Rom. 12:3, to content ourselves in these, and rest in them: Therefore sufficient.
2. These do make the man of God perfect, with the help of the Scriptures, Eph. 4:11,12 with 2 Tim. 3:16.
3. If these be not sufficient, Christ cannot be glorified as perfect Governor of his Church; neither his Word is such, but something may be added, or taken away, both which are absurd; therefore these, and these only are sufficient. If not Who dare add a member to the body, which he neither made, nor can make? And so, Who dare take away a member which he never took away?
4. Those Functions only are sufficient, that have all the gifts needful for the Ministry of the Word, and other Ordinances, and for the Government of the Church; but all these Functions are sufficient for these ends: Therefore, etc.
5. If any erect a new Ministry, he must either give new gifts, or assure men they shall have new gifts given of God; but none can do this. Therefore these are sufficient.
7. How They Are To Be Instated Into Office.
The seventh Point is, How they are to be instated into Office.
First, They are to be known to the Church, in respect of their gifts, abilities, and conversation, and be proved first, before chosen and ordained; which appears,
1. Because the Apostle gives charge they must have such and such qualifications, therefore the Church must know them well, and elect them with deliberation.
2. The Apostles themselves did not instate men into office as soon as they had planted Churches, but let them have a time to have experience of them, Acts 14:21-23.
3. Paul gives charge to Timothy, to take heed of too sudden instating men into office, 1 Tim. 5:22.
4. And concerning the Deacons, he gives direct commands, 1 Tim. 3:10, to prove them first, wherein the Elders proof is implied also. Secondly, They are to be Elected and Ordained.
1. Elected by general vote, and free assent of the whole Church, Acts 14:23 and 6:1-6.
2. Ordained; that is, put into office, or power to execute: And this is done,
How Ministers Are To Be Ordained.
1. By suffrages, or holding up of hands, or election, or vote, Acts 14:23. THEY ORDAINED THEM ELDERS (by election) IN EVERY CHURCH: So the Geneva and Greek read it; which shows, That he that is elected in this way, is also ordained in part.
2. BY LAYING ON OF HANDS, 1 Tim. 5:22. And that is implied in Acts 14:23, which I conceive is very material; for it is a sign to signify their instating into office; As hands are put upon them, so the execution of the office is laid upon them: As the laying of the hands upon the head of the Scape-goat, was a sign of putting the sin confessed upon him: So here, it was a sign that the Church put this office upon them, Acts 6:6. THEY LAID THEIR HANDS UPON THE DEACON, to signify the same thing. Question: But if hands must be laid on, Who must do it?
Answer: The Eldership, 1 Tim. 4:14. I conceive this was to make Timothy a Pastor or Teacher, or Gospel- administrator among them.
Question: But what if there be no Elders? Answer: I have proved that the word Elder is a common title is given to Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers; nay, sometimes to a grave Church-member, 1 Tim. :1; Rev. 4:4 and 5:5. So that I conceive it may be done by such as have the gift of Prophecy and Teaching to edify their Brethren, being Church-members; for such are called Prophets and Teaches from their gift: Consider well, Acts 13:1-3 for the power of Ministers and Administrators rests in the Church, in Members. And seeing the word is so universally used, if there be necessity of this thing, they may do it. 3. With Prayer and Fasting: This is to be joined with Ordination, Acts 14:23. Or at least with solemn Prayer, Acts 6. And whether before the laying on of hands, or after, I think there is no certain rule; for Elders it seems to be after (by the order of the words) and for Deacons before; so that it is a safe way to use Prayer both before and after.
4. To Ordain, is as much as to appoint, the word is the same, 1 Tim. 2:7 with 2 Tim. 1:11. Now then the appointment of the Church, for such a man to be in such a place and office, according to the form aforesaid, that is, by the general vote of the Church, with prayer and fasting, and laying on of hands of Elders, Prophets or Teachers, is his Ordaining sufficient: And these Offices and Ministers are to be kept; for the Scripture gives as great a charge to observe the Ministry, as to observe Doctrine, one command as strict as another, 1 Tim. 5:21. Paul gives Timothy charge about Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1. About Worships, as Prayer, etc., chapter 2. About Ministers, chapter 3, etc. Now he charges him to observe them, without preferring one before another; showing the one is not ceased, as Ministers, and the other to continue, as Teaching or Doctrine.
Further Against The Being Of A Visible Church, and Administrator.
Objection: But it may further be objected out of 1 Cor. 12:28, where it is said, AND GOD HATH SET SOME IN THE CHURCH: FIRST, APOSTLES, SECONDARILY, PROPHETS, THIRDLY, TEACHERS, AFTER THAT, MIRACLES; THEN GIFTS OF HEALING, HELPS IN GOVERNMENT, DIVERSITY OF TONGUES: But where are these gifts in any particular Church? Therefore there is no Church, nor Administrator of Ordinances.
Answer: 1. The Text says, GOD HATH SET THEM; he does not say, they were always to continue there, but they were there for the present, and they might continue in a sense, as I have shown formerly.
2. By the Church there, I cannot see that he means any one particular Congregation of the Saints; but the Church in relation to her Head, Christ, which is but one complete Congregation, consisting of all Saints and Congregations too. Cant. 6:9, MY BELOVED, MY UNDEFILED IS ONE, etc. And so they are set in the Church in the sense I have before laid down, for I cannot find that in the Apostles and primitive times, any one Congregation was endued with all these gifts; for the Twelve Apostles went from Church to Church, and continued not in one particular Congregation, neither was it possible for every particular Congregation to have an Apostle among them: For first, There was a Church at Jerusalem, Acts 2. A Church at Samaria, Acts 8. There were diverse Churches in Judea, Galatia and Samaria, Acts 9:31. A Church at Antioch, Acts 11:26. Churches at Lystra and Iconium, Acts 14:21-23. Seven Churches in Asia the less, Rev. 1, 2, and 3. A Church at Rome, a Church at Corinth, Churches in Galatia, Gal. 1:2 suppose but two. Churches in Macedonia, suppose but two also, 2 Cor. 8:2. A Church at Philippi, a Church at Colosse, a Church of the Thessalonians, a Church of the Bereans, Acts 17:11,12. Churches in diverse Cities of the Cretians, Tit. 1:5, suppose but three Cities in Crete, and but three Churches there. There were Churches in Syria and Cilicia, Acts 15:41. A Church at Cenchrea, Rom. 16:1. A Church in Babylon, 1 Pet. 5:13. so that suppose but two, where Churches are named in the plural, and but one else where; the Scripture mentions at that time thirty-nine, or forty Churches, and there were but twelve Apostles; therefore there could not be Apostles in every particular Church: but they ordained them Elders in every Church; therefore the one must continue, when the other may not: And Churches and Administrators are to continue. (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; I Thess. 1:1.)
Objection: But some may say, How can Pastors and Teachers perfect the Church, when the Church has not complete helps? For if the Church have no need of Apostolic men now, as you seem to imply out of Timothy, then their office is superfluous: but it is not superfluous; for God never set any thing superfluous in the Church; therefore they are still needful. Answer: Whatsoever is needful in the Church in her ordinary dispensations, is commanded under those Ministers in the Epistle to Timothy; And yet the other were not then superfluous, because Pastors and Teachers could not build till there were a foundation: But now the foundation is laid, to have such men to lay more foundations, would be superfluous: and now it is superfluous to have such an office in the Church that is of no use in the Church.
King, The
Way to Zion,
Edinburgh; 1656. pps. 63-77.
In addition, White, and others like him, should study Drapes' Gospel
Glory Proclaimed Among Men in the Invisible and Visible Worship
of God. Therein is also a very clear and Biblical account of
church ministers. When White and others like him, would leave the
impression that the Baptists who issued the First London
Confession were not quite up to the level of knowledge that
they should have been, I wonder what he is talking about? White
would claim that the 1644 and 1646 Confessions were not very
complete as to church ministers. The ones I have read are very
clear and very complete. What has he been reading? White edited
and helped publish the remarkable work, Particular Baptist
Records 1650-1660. There are some very clear and complete
remarks about the ministry in those records. White should study
his own publications.
No, contrary to the modern Baptist concepts, the old brethren knew very well about the ministry and they did not simply evolve into being better Baptists, with a better understanding of dipping for baptism and the offices and ministers of the churches as they went along. Notice these points about the Particular Baptist Ministry in the 1640s:
1. The method of expansion by the Particular Baptists was also by means of a church-sent messenger, as for instance, Thomas Tillam who was sent from the Coleman St. Baptist Church in London, pastored by Hansard Knollys. This information is in the records of the Hexham church. In addition, when other churches expanded into other areas, it was by means of their messenger or messengers.
2. In those days a preaching disciple was not any common disciple as some would have us believe. Both Hansard Knollys and Daniel King defined what the 1644 Confession meant by its administrator of baptism this way:
We do not affirm, that every common Disciple may Baptize, there was some mistake in laying down our Opinion (by Salmarsh and others, REP); p. 14. Where it conceived that we hold, whosoever Disciple can teach the Word, can make out Christ, may Baptize, and administer other Ordinances. We do not so. For though believing Women, being baptized, are Disciples, Acts 9:36, and can make out Christ; yet and some of them (by their experimental knowledge and spiritual understanding of the way, order and faith of the Gospel) may be able to instruct their Teachers, Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:3, yet we do not hold that a woman may preach, baptize, nor administer other Ordinances. Nor do we judge it meet, for any Brother to baptize, or to administer other Ordinances; unless he hath received such gifts of the spirit, as fitteth, or enables him to preach the Gospel. And those gifts being first tried and known to the Church, such a Brother is chosen, and appointed thereunto by the Suffrage of the Church.
Hansard
Knollys, A Shining of a Flaming
Fire in Zion; London: 1646.
In Smoke in the Temple, John Saltmarsh had affirmed the
exact same thing about the 1644 Confession, and those who wrote
it, that B. R. White affirms. We should therefore suggest that
writers read the Particular Baptists themselves before they
attach false and misleading conclusions onto their statements.
By a preaching disciple who could administer the ordinances, the Particular Baptists in the 1640s era meant one who was:
1. gifted by the Holy Spirit;
2. his gifts were known and tried by the church;
3. and then he was set apart by the vote of the church for the work of the ministry.
The Pre-Calvinistic Particular Baptists believed in an administrator by gift. They commissioned a gift from Christ. This gifted brother functioned by a church Commission and not by being in an office.
We do not affirm that every common Disciple may dispense Baptism, or any other Ordinance in the Church, But that a Disciple able to preach the Gospel may dispense it, that we affirm. . . but to Disciples as Disciples preaching the Gospel, are commanded also to Baptize, Math. 28:19. Beside, we do not affirm that every common Disciple able to preach neither, may dispense Baptism; for women are Disciples, Acts 1.14, and some of them able to preach the Gospel as Prissila Acts 18. yet we do not affirm that women may Baptize: But a Disciple able to preach the Gospel, and moreover chosen and designed of the Church thereunto, Who hath power to Elect and choose Administrators and Ministers, in and of herself; and so he is something more than a common Disciple in this, though he be no Pastor neither.
Daniel King, A Way to Zion; London: 1650, p. 123.
3. No, the Particular Baptists didn't just happen on their own
and stumble around for years until they evolved into proper
gospel faith and order. This is the attitude many have suggested.
In his Brief Remonstrance of the Reasons and Grounds of those
People Commonly Called Anabaptists, for their Separation,
London: 1645, William Kiffen stated:
QUERY II: By what Scripture warrant doe you take upon your to erect new framed Congregations, separated to the disturbance of the great Work of Reformation now in hand?
Ans. This query hath in it these two parts, 1. That wee erect new framed Separate Congregations. 2. Wee doe by this disturb the great Work of Reformation now in hand.
To the first, it is well known to many, especially to ourselves; that our Congregations were erected and framed as they NOW ARE, according to the Rule of Christ, before we heard of any Reformation, even when Episcopacy was in the height of its vanishing glory. . .p. 6.
The height of Episcopacy was in the 1630s under Laud and not during the days of the Protestant Reformation as John T. Christian affirmed. But, note, in 1645, when Kiffen wrote this reply, the churches THEN were like they were in the 1630s concerning their form and order under the rule of the gospel. The additions in the Confessions of Faith were an effort to weed out the Pedobaptist influence. The changes were not made because the Baptists were learning how to become better Baptists!
4. The supposed restoration of believers baptism by immersion was not simply that, it was much more. The Particular Baptists had nothing to do with the General Baptists. They rebaptized each other and reordained each other. Some of those who believed in Particular Redemption among the London Separatists, who became Baptists in theory, sought to establish baptism by a succession from those who held to the doctrines of grace. To do so, they sent Richard Blount over to the Netherlands to receive baptism from some Anabaptists who were in the succession of the old Waldenses. He did so. Upon his return he brought back letters from the old church there and baptized a Mr. Blaylock and these two baptized many others. From this group came four more churches which joined with the older Particular Baptist churches founded in the 1630s by John Spillsbury, Green, Spencer, Hobson, and William Kiffen. Before this time, there were many General Baptist ministers administering believer's baptism by immersion and a few Particular Baptist ministers which did the same. Laud's persecutions destroyed most of the older Particular Baptist churches. They were re gathered in London by Particular Baptist ministers already under gospel church order. Answering his old friend, Dr. Bastwick, Hansard Knollys shows this very point:
I shall now take liberty to declare, what I know by mine own experience to be the practice of some Churches of God in this City. That so both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near the Saints, who walk together in the Fellowship of the Gospel do come in their practice, to these Apostolic rules and practice propounded by the Dr. as God's method in gathering Churches, and admitting Members. I say, that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) That they were thus gathered; viz., Some godly and learned men of approved gift and abilities for the Ministry, being driven out of the Countries, where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates, came to sojourn in this great City, an preached the Word of God both publicly, and from house to house, and daily in the Temples and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ: and some of them have dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came in unto them, preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things, which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many sinners were converted by their preaching of the Gospel, some of them that believed, consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which those Preachers both publicly 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 Christ Jesus, and would be baptized with water into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the Church; but such as did not believe, and would not be baptized they would not admit into Church-communion.
Hansard
Knollys, A Moderate Answer unto Dr. Bastwick
Book Called Independency not God's Ordinance;
London: 1645, pps. 19, 20
Note who these first ministers were.. men of approved gifts and
abilities for the ministry. What did Knollys mean by that?
Simply, they were already preaching brethren who were tested and
known by the churches and set apart for that work by the
churches. When their churches were destroyed, the men, already
ministering brethren, came into London and started again. This
agrees with the account of Jane Turner in her Choice
Experiences. In addition, note well that the churches didn't
evolve into being true and sound churches but were started that
way by men who demanded faith, repentance and baptism IN ORDER
TO CHURCH CONSTITUTION AND MEMBERSHIP.
When Richard Blount secured proper baptism it was not only for himself but for many others as well. There were three ministers baptized by either Blount or Blaylock who later signed the Confession of 1644. They were Thomas Skippard and Thomas Munden who gathered Southwark church in 1642 and Thomas Kilcop who gathered Petty France church also in 1642. Kilcop was involved in justifying the origin and order of the Particular Baptists against a nameless writer. Again, many of the same errors charged against the Particular Baptists today by those who claim to be Baptists, were dealt with by Kilcop this way:
His third affirmation is, Scripture doth not clear Church gathering, without Ministers and baptism preceding, p. 12.
I answer, true, and we by the aforesaid ministry were converted, and were also baptized, before we congregated;
He adds some say believers may consent to be a Church. . . .as a visible church appoint one to baptize...
I answer, none but self-seekers will so say, who being before leaders would be so full, and so found out this by way; others after baptism, by consent became a Church.
Thomas Kilcop, The
Unlimited Authority of Christ's Disciples Cleared;
London: 165l, pps. 14, 17. (Pages miss numbered)
Not only were these churches gathered by orderly Particular
Baptist ministers from already existing churches, most of which
had been dispersed through out England by persecution, but many
of the older ministers were imprisoned for years and released in
1641. When John Turner was released from prison in 1641 he issued
his Confession of Faith saying:
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, sent by the Father and the Son to teach and lead His Elect in all truth instituting by his Apostles particular Churches here on earth, and no other; every ordinance of God belonging to every one of them; all of equal authority, no one being greater or lesser than other, either in power or privileges; who must serve him as he hath commanded in his holy Scriptures; both in Ordinances, and Order, in their own Faith, with a pure conscience; all Believers being bound in duty to have and hold communion in some one of them; and that every Church hath power from GOD to elect and ordain their own Ministers, receive in Believers, and excommunicate any one of them that lives in transgression, without the help or assistance of any. . .By me JOHN TURNER, a Prisoner of our Lord Jesus Christ (committed by the Bishops) near 14 years for affirming Christ Jesus hath left in his written Word sufficient direction to order his Church and Children in his worship; So that nothing may be done, over nor above or besides what is commanded therein by a Precept, an Example or a true gathered consequence, which I dare not but affirm, though I die for the same. And now delivered, (as abusively imprisoned all this time) by the most Honorable Lords in Parliament, 1641. I Cor. 15:57. Thanks be unto God which hath given us victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
John Turner, The Saint's Belief; London: 1641.
Can you believe such? Here is a saint released from London's
worst prison in 1641 after serving nearly 14 years for his faith.
He was imprisoned in or near 1627. And yet, we are told by modern
historians that these old Particular Baptists evolved into their
faith and simply cut and pasted their faith together as they went
along. Tell that to John Turner as he walked forth from the
prison in 1641.
Believer's baptism by immersion was not lost in England from the Scriptures nor from the Churches and Ministers of Jesus Christ. In 1643 the English government changed baptism from immersion to sprinkling. The Presbyterians of the Westminster Assembly did this. The change started in 1641. To verify this study William Wall's History of Infant Baptism, and John Gill's The Ancient Mode of Baptism. Those who were hunting for the true baptism were saints coming out of Babylon who had become Baptists in theory and wanted to become Baptists in practice. In the introduction to his Baptism and the Distinction of the Covenants, issued in 1651, Thomas Patience explains that he didn't know about proper baptism or Baptists being in existence while he was in New England after he became a Baptist in theory. He returned to London and found William Kiffen and became a practicing Baptist and co-teacher in Kiffen's church. Yes, these old Baptists knew all about gospel faith and order and proved it by their sufferings as early as the 1620s. History records the proof much earlier.
Query 1. Whether the setting apart of any to administer officially in the church of Christ is not to be done by that church of which the person set apart is a member?
Answer: 1. That it is in the power of the church to ordain and sent forth a minister to the world, Acts 13.2f. Secondly, that this person sent forth to the world and gathering churches, he ought with them and they with him to ordain fit persons to officiate among them, Acts 14.23, Tit. 1.5.
B. W. White, Records; p.56.
Query 1. Whether a church of Christ, having no ministers elected among them, may, notwithstanding, appoint members for the administration of any or all of the ordinances of Christ? And, if so, what qualifications are required for such a member so appointed?Answer: a church of Christ having no ministers settled among them may, with the assistance of those that have been instrumental in the hand of God in their gathering, set apart such brethren to the work of the ministry as are in some good measure, qualified and gifted according to the scripture upon trial in order to further establishment,. . .But, to appoint a person for the administration of ordinances in the church, not being in order to office, we find not clear in scripture, yet we conclude it not unlawful in all cases.
Ibid., p. 58.
Query 1. Whether the power of the keys spoken of in Mat. 6:19, John 20.23, Mat. 18:18, be given to the church or to the Eldership in the church?Answer: the exercise of the power of Christ in a church having ministers, in opening and shutting, in receiving in and casting out, belongs to the church with its Eldership, . . .
Ibid., p. 60.
Query 1. Whether it be an absolute duty now lying on several churches speedily to send forth persons fitted for the great and good work of preaching the Gospel to the world?Answer: we judge it to be a duty and at this time much to be laid to heart and performed to send forth such brethren as are fitted to the work of preaching the Gospel to poor sinners that they might be saved.
Ibid., p. 64.
Whether it be not unlawful for a member of the Church of Christ to go forth to preach by the magistrate's authority and to be maintained by him accordingly.Answer: It is unlawful. 1. Because our Lord Christ sends forth his ministers by his power alone, Mt. 28.19, and he is the head of the body the Church that in all things he might have the preeminence, Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22.
2. Because Christ hath left all power in his Church both to call and send forth ministers, Mt. 28.20, saying, I am with you to the end of the world, and I Tim. 3; Titus 1; Acts 14; Mt. 18 and 16:18f. 3. Because we find the Church only exercising that power both in choosing and sending forth ministers as appears by these scriptures, Acts 1:23, 26; 8:14; 13.2f. and 11:22. . .
In answer to the next question whether it be lawful for a church member to go forth and preach to the world without the sending or approbation of the church; it is unanimously agreed upon that it is not except in extraordinary cases.
In answer to the last question, whether it be the duty of every church of Christ to call forth those to officiate in the offices of Christ in his Church as they find in a good measure qualified for the same according to the scriptures: it is agreed in the affirmative and that from these Scriptures: Mt. 24:45; Tit., 1:5; Eph. 4:11; I Cor. 12:28; Acts 20:28.
There are many congregations that have gifted brethren that are approved of for the public preaching of the word that doe not baptize nor administer the supper. The churches are desired to consider whether these churches may not call forth those members to break bread and to baptize as need shall require.
Answer: in the affirmative: the churches may call forth such to baptize and administer the supper provided they be very careful that their effectual endeavor after an official minister bee not hereby neglected.
Ibid., pps. 23,24.
(For anyone to suggest that the Particular Baptists didn't have a
complete and proper understanding of the ministry is due either
to not reading what those old Baptists stated, or having read
them, not understanding them. R.E.P.)
Quest. May an Elder of one Church if called, warrantable administer all Ordinances to another?
Answ. No surely; for we find no warrant for any such Practice, he being only ordained Pastor or Elder of that particular Church that chose him, and hath no Right or Authority to administer as an Elder in any other where he is not so much as a Member.
Quest. May a Church call out a Teacher that is no ordained Elder to administer all Ordinances to them?
Ans., You may as well ask, May a Church act disorderly? Why were Ministers to be ordained, if others unordained might warrantably do all their Work. if therefore they have no Person fitly qualified for that Office, they must look out form abroad for one that is. Yet, (as we say) Necessity has no Law; provided therefore they can't do either, it is better their Teacher be called to do it, than the Church should be without their Food and Church-Ordinances neglected. ..
Elias Keach, The
Glory and Ornament of a True Gospel-Constituted Church;
London: 1697, pps. 16,17.
This was almost a word for word copy of his father, Benjamin
Keach's work, The Glory of a True Church and its Discipline
Displayed, London: 1697. The exact words also appear on pages
16 and 17 showing the oneness of the writers and their
ministries.
The Particular Baptist churches in the 1600s had a true and proper understanding of the ministry and ordinances in the churches. They recognized the standing ministry in the church and also the ministry to the world to preach, baptize and gather new churches. They didn't practice an inner-church ministry.
The statements appear strange to us today because those old Baptists were presenting the SPIRITUAL qualifications for the administrators of the gospel and not the legal or church qualifications. When we consider their definitions for the ministry most Baptist ministers today would be disqualified. It was not a question of order but spirituality.
In addition, John Spilsbery and John Norcott solved the problem of a proper administrator of baptism. They received Baptism in Holland while in exile. John Lewis, Anglican, records Spilsbery's baptism in his Brief History of the Anabaptists.
APPENDIX III
EVIL FRUITS OF INNER COMMUNION
Besides differences over home mission policy, the issue of Landmarkism was also interjected into the growing difficulties between the State Convention and various sections of its territory. This was inevitable. Most of the leadership of the State Convention was non-Landmark, while those who felt threatened by the Convention's new policy were committed to Landmark principles. The Western Association's banning of non-Landmark churches from its fellowship gave evidence that Landmarkism could possibly become a divisive factor. Landmarkism's potentiality for division was manifested as early as 1887 when C. P. Bailey in Eastern Oregon asked, "Why is it that all of those who believe in receiving alien immersions get an appointment under the Board, and that at a fat salary, while those who oppose it are put off with the plea of no money?" A little later Bailey wrote, "A great many people are led to believe that the Board has but little use for such men who stand for the old landmarks, and it is hard to get them to contribute to the work." T. Clay Neece wrote at this time, "The things referred to by Bro. Bailey are not all fancies' by any means. . . .But while they were doing this, surely some others ought to have been consulting with God, as to the most needy, as well as the most worthy, places upon which to spend God's money." Others, however, defended the Board and claimed that it practiced no discrimination between Landmarker and non- Landmarker and, after receiving a letter from the chairman of the Home Mission Board of the Convention, Bailey retracted his charges. Nevertheless, the belief that the Convention Board deliberately discriminated against Landmarkers persisted, and many Oregon Landmarkers also believed that the Home Mission Society was committed to a similar policy.At this time most Oregon Landmarkers were not adherents of the more extreme Landmarkism which took root in Oregon after the turn of the century. Conventions and boards were acceptable, and it was not uncommon for Oregon Landmark ministers to fill the pulpits of non-Baptist churches at the close of Baptists convention sessions. (It never has been, but the other way would have been non-Landmark, R.E.P.) In fact, the Baptist Convention of the North Pacific Coast, a Pacific Northwest Landmark convention, soon organized by the Landmarkers, permitted a Methodist minister to address it with a few words. (So what? R.E.P.) In 1899 the Convention invited all non-Baptist visitors to sit with it and a Methodist minister accepted the offer. The editor of the Landmark Baptist Sentinel wrote in 1895, ". . .the question of pulpit affiliation' has cut no figure at all, either among us or the Aliens. If we have ever heard it mentioned in relation to the present unhappy division among the Baptists on the Coast, the occasion has gone from us." Some Northwest Landmarkers, however, followed James R. Graves, leading Landmark spokesman in the South, in restricting the Lord's Supper to members of the local church. The circular letter of the Eastern Baptist Association of California and Oregon of 1887 contended that the ordinance was given only to the local church and for more than one church or portions of churches to celebrate the Supper was to abolish "the symbol of the sacrifice of the one body of Christ." After a number of its members had withdrawn, one of the churches of this association, First Baptist Church of Goose Lake Valley, however, condemned in 1889 the practice of local church communion. Many other Pacific Coast Landmarkers also refused to accept the practice. In 1898 the Baptist Sentinel voiced its disapproval and stated, "The practice of the denomination is, however, very largely in favor of the practice of inviting sister churches or members from other churches of like faith and order.."
In common with Graves and all other Landmarkers, however, Pacific Northwest Landmarkers rejected alien immersion, i.e., immersion performed by a non-Baptist church even though the candidate was immersed on confession of faith. In the minds of Landmarkers the acceptance of non-Baptist immersion was to approve baptism which had neither proper authority nor design. (This is true-R.E.P.) Since they believed that Baptist churches were the only true churches, they alone had the authority to baptize. They maintained that all pedobaptist and Disciples of Christ baptisms originally came from the Roman Catholic Church (which in their minds was Antichrist) and were performed for the purpose of bringing salvation. (They were right-R.E.P.) The editor of the Baptist Sentinel wrote in March, 1895, "When we as Baptists can accept their baptisms as valid, then there is no more a line of distinction worthy of the name; we have proven false to our mission in the world, and are no longer needed." Landmarkers also felt that receiving alien immersion would endanger the doctrinal integrity of Baptist churches or, as a committee of the Western Association expressed it in 1891, it "would eventually lead to a apostatizing from the true faith of the Gospel." They also believed that accepting alien immersion would logically lead to open communion.
Although non-Landmarkers disagreed with their Landmark brethren upon their insistence that a Baptist administrator was necessary for valid baptism, at the same time, however, they insisted that for a non-Baptist immersion to be acceptable it must have had the same design or purpose as a Baptist immersion. The Landmarker believed that no non-Baptist immersion had such a design, while the non-Landmarker believed otherwise. (Again, the Landmarkers were right-R.E.P.)
As disturbed as the Landmarker was with his non-Landmark brother, he had no desire to sever all ties of fellowship with him. The Western Association attempted to correspond with associations near it and made no attempt to break fellowship with supporters of the State Convention. The Baptist Sentinel editorialized in August, 1895,
We wish to announce through the SENTINEL, that we have not declared non-fellowship with the Alien Baptist. That, so far as we know, none of our Regular Baptist churches have gone so far, as yet, to refuse their baptism; nor do we think the time for that action has yet come. It may come somewhere in the future, and that point of time may not be far distant. It is owing to what course they may take in the future, whether the time will be long or short. We do believe, however, that the time is coming when they will be so closely united with Pedobaptists and Campbellites that we will treat them all alike. That time has not yet arrived.
(How sad.. the time had arrived and those old brethren knew it not. R.E.P.) In a later editorial the Baptist Sentinel quoted the words, "Let us not treat them as enemies, but admonish them as brethren."
Albert W.
Wardin, Jr. Baptists in Oregon;
Portland, Oregon: 1969, pps. 219-221.
The old Landmarkers were right. Most of the Baptist churches on
the West Coast are the most liberal and naturalized churches in
America, with the possible exception of the Northeast. The basic
error of those old Landmark men was continued fellowship with the
aliens. Now, the old Landmark churches are also gone.
APPENDIX IV
TESTIMONY OF THE BAPTIST ENCYCLOPEDIA
He (J. R. Graves) is a great preacher, following unusual lines of thought. He is pre-eminently doctrinal, yet Christ crucified is the soul of every sermon. He is lengthy, yet he holds the attention of his audience to the last. He insists strongly upon the form, rights, and duties of the true church, and yet he always places Christ before the church, and upon water baptism, and baptism properly administered, yet he places the blood of Christ before water. . . It is not remarkable that a man of such force of intellect has taken bold and advanced positions, coming in conflict with the opinions of many even in his own denomination. He is the acknowledged head of the great movement among Baptists known as "Old Landmarkism." With all the strong blows he has inflicted upon error he is one of the kindest of living men.In his early ministry, Dr. Graves had many converts under his preaching. The writer was with him on one occasion in Brownsville, Tenn., in 1849, where more than seventy persons, including the best men and women of the place, found the Savior. His arguments, illustrations, and appeals were the most powerful he ever heard. Before he was thirty years of age over 1300 persons had professed religion in special meetings which he held. . .
Dr. Graves in his peculiarities represents a section of the Baptist denomination, a conscientious and devoted portion of our great apostolic community, but in his earnest and generous zeal for our heaven-inspired principles he represents all through Baptists throughout the ages and the nations.
Pages 466-468.
APPENDIX V
THE IN-CHURCH REGULATIONS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
The Lord's Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative, in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of that abiding communion of Christ's death and resurrection through which the life began in regeneration and is sustained and perfected.1. The Lord's Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ
(a) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only after his death could it completely fulfill its purpose as a feast of commemoration. . .Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:23-25...Observe that this communion was Christian communion before Christ's death, just as John's baptism was Christian baptism before Christ's death.
(b) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the church until Christ's second coming, we infer that it was the original intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal obligation. . .
(c) The uniform practice of the N T. churches, and the celebration of such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord's Supper is an ordinance established by Christ himself....
1. The Mode of administering the Lord's Supper.
(a) The elements are bread and wine. . .
(b) The communion is of both kinds, that is, communicants are to partake both of the bread and of the wine...
(c) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature. . .
(d) The communion is a festival of commemoration, not simply bringing Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the world. .
(e) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary observance on the part of individuals. No "showing forth" is possible except in company.
2. Inferences from this statement.
(a) The connection between the Lord's Supper and Baptism consists in this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord's Supper, we show forth the death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are parts of one whole, setting before us Christ's death for men in its two great purposes and results. . .
(b) The Lord's Supper, is to be often repeated, as symbolizing Christ's constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in Baptism...
(c) The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed. . . .
(d) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant. . . .
(e) The Lord's Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord. . . .
5. Prerequisites to Participation in the Lord's Supper. . .
A. There are prerequisites. This we argue from the fact:
(a) That Christ enjoined the celebration of the Supper, not upon the world at large, but only upon his disciples;
(b) that the apostolic injunctions to Christians, to separate themselves from certain of their number, imply a limitation of the Lord's Supper to a narrower body, even among professed believers;
(c) that the analogy of Baptism, as belonging only to a specified class of persons, leads us to believe that the same is true of the Lord's Supper. . .
B. The prerequisites are those only which are expressly or implicitly laid down by Christ and His apostles.
(a) The church, as possessing executive but not legislative power, is charged with the duty, not of framing rules for the administering and guarding of the ordinance, but of discovering and applying the rules given it in the New Testament. No Church has a right to establish any terms of communion; it is responsible only for making known the terms established by Christ and his apostles.
(b) These terms, however, are to be ascertained not only from the injunctions, but also from the precedents, of the New Testament. Since the apostles were inspired, New Testament precedent is the "common law" of the church.
C. On examining the New Testament, we find that the prerequisites to participation in the Lord's Supper are four, namely:
First,--Regeneration.
The Lord's Supper is the outward expression of a life in the believer, nourished and sustained by the life of Christ. (Not only of the believer, but also of the gospel church, for the gospel church partakes of the Supper also as ONE BODY AND ONE LOAF which Dr. J. R. Graves makes very plain in his INNER COMMUNION, R. E. P.) It cannot therefore, be partaken of by one who is "dead through. . .trespasses and sins." We give no food to a corpse. (The Lord's Supper was never offered by the apostles to unbelievers, to the unbaptized, nor the unchurched, R. E. P.) On the contrary, the injunction that each communicant "examine himself" implies that faith which will enable the communicant to "discern the Lord's body" is a perquisite to participation.
Secondly,--Baptism.
In proof that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, we urge the following considerations:
(a) The ordinance of baptism was instituted and administered long before the Supper. . .
(b) The apostles who first celebrated it had, in all probability, been baptized. . .[NOTE: There is no probability about this question-they were joined to Jesus Christ as a part of the foundation of the gospel church.. Ephesians 2; how could they be joined to Jesus Christ as the foundation for all the churches to be built upon if some were baptized like Christ and some were not? How could churches know which ones to build upon? In addition, those religious leaders who would not submit to baptism closed up the kingdom of God to others and would not themselves enter into it, would Jesus Christ call and commission men who would not enter into the kingdom of God and closed it to others, would He chose such men, I ask, to go about preaching the Kingdom and seeking to bring others into that same kingdom? Further, all ministers who didn't follow in the same order as Paul were to be rejected and not only ministers but visible saints as well, 2 Thess. 3. In addition, one of the qualifications of being an apostle, except in an extraordinary case like Paul, was to have begun with the baptism of John. R. E. P.]
(c) The command of Christ fixes the place of baptism as first in order after discipleship. [NOTE: True, were not the apostles all first disciples of Christ or not? If not, then whose disciples were they? It is obvious that they were first the disciples of John the Baptist and then the disciples of Christ. Were some unbaptized? Would Christ commission men to do something according to gospel order which they, themselves, had not first done in Matthew 28:18-20? R. E. P.]
(d) All the recorded cases show this to have been the order observed by the first Christians and sanctioned by the apostles.
(e) The symbolism of the ordinances requires that baptism should precede the Lord's Supper. The order of the facts signified must be expressed in the order of the ordinances which signify them. . .
(f) The standards of all evangelical denominations, with unimportant exceptions, confirm the view that this is the natural interpretation of the Scripture requirements respecting the order of the ordinances.
(g) The practical results of the opposite view are convincing proof that the order here insisted on is the order of nature as well as of Scripture. The admission of unbaptized persons to the communion tends always to, and has frequently resulted in, the disuse of baptism itself, the obscuring of the truth which it symbolizes, the transformation of Scriptural constituted churches into bodies organized after methods of human invention, and the complete destruction of both church and ordinances as Christ originally constituted them.
Thirdly,--Church membership.
(a) The Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, observed by churches of Christ as such. For this reason, membership in the church naturally precedes communion. . .
(b) The Lord's Supper is a symbol of church fellowship.
Excommunication implies nothing, if it does not imply exclusion from the communion. If the Supper is simply communion of the individual with Christ, then the church has no right to exclude any from it.
Fourthly,--An orderly walk.
Disorderly walking designates a course of life in a church member which is contrary to the precepts of the gospel. It is a bar to participation in the Lord's Supper, the sign of church fellowship. With Arnold, we may class disorderly walking under four heads:--
(a) Immoral conduct.
(b) Disobedience to the commands of Christ.
(c) Heresy, or holding and teaching of false doctrine.
(d) Schism, or the promotion of division and dissension in the church. This also requires exclusion from church fellowship, and from the Lord's Supper which is its appointed sign.
D. The local church is the judge whether these prerequisites are fulfilled in the case of persons desiring to partake of the Lord.--This is evident from the following considerations:
(a) The command to observe the ordinance was given, not to individuals, but to a company.
(b) Obedience to this command is not an individual act, but is the joint act of many.
(c) The regular observance of the Lord's Supper cannot be secured, nor the qualifications of persons desiring to participate in it be scrutinized, unless some distinct organized body is charged with this responsibility.
(d) The only organized body known to the New Testament is the local church, and this is the only body, of any sort, competent to have charge of the ordinances. The invisible church has no ministers. [NOTE: That is strange, an executive body, which the word church or ekklesia means, with no ministers? In addition, how can an invisible body execute anything? Also, there is no such thing as a local church. There is a gospel church and one of its attributes is locality. It is not of scattered members from all over the country. Jesus Christ modeled His organization after the governing body in the free Greek city states. This body was the ekklesia which was localized and made up of properly elected members and has leaders and ministers and was not make up of OUTSIDERS FROM THE OTHER EKKLESIAS. Nor did the ministers from the ekklesia of Athens function in the ekklesia found in any other Greek city and its ekklesia. Augusts Neander, a converted Jew, and thereafter a German Lutheran, gave rise to the modern idea that the gospel church was built upon the model of the synagogue. That is not only a falsehood, but a theory of Antichrist as well. Jesus Christ didn't say, "Upon this rock I will build my sunagoogee" but He did say, "Upon this rock I will build my ekklesia."R.E.P.]
(e.) The New Testament accounts indicate that the Lord's Supper was observed only at regular appointed meetings of local churches, and was observed by these churches as regularly organized bodies. [NOTE: Of course, what other types of an ekklesia were there? R.E.P.]
(f) Since the duty of examining the qualifications of candidates for baptism and for membership is vested in the local church and is essential to its distinct existence, the analogy of the ordinances would lead us to believe that the scrutiny of qualifications for participation in the Lord's supper rests with the same body.
(g) This care that only proper persons are admitted to the ordinances should be shown, not by open or forcible debarring of the unworthy at the time of the celebration, but by precious public instruction of the congregation, and, if needful in the case of persistent offenders, by subsequent private and friendly admonition.
A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pages 959-976.
I used Strong because of his unusual and good outline. Remember,
Strong was a Northern Baptist. He became caught up in exchanging
the historic Baptist faith and order with the new. Strong changed
with the times as his theology and practice departed from his
early beliefs. We would not recommend his work on Systematic
Theology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Confession of Faith put Forth by the Elders and Brethren of Many Congregations of Christians (Baptized upon Profession of Their Faith) in London and the Country, London; 1677.
A True Confession, Amsterdam, 1596.
Allen, William; Some Baptismal Abuses Briefly Discovered: London, 1653
Bakewell, Thomas; An Answer or Confutation of Divers Errors Broached and Maintained by the Seven Churches of Anabaptists Contained in Those Articles of their Faith: London, 1646. (This contains the Bakewell-Spillsbury Debate, R.E.P.)
Ballie, Robert; Anabaptism, the True Foundation of Brownism: London, 1647.
Bogard, Ben M.; The Bogard-Penick Debate on the Rights and Liberties of Baptists: Johnson, Tenn. 1910.
Cathcart, William (ed.); The Baptist Encyclopedia: Philadelphia, 1881.
Christian, John T.; Baptist History Vindicated: Louisville, 1899. Communion: Louisville, 1892.
Collier, Thomas; A General Epistle: London, 1651. A Body of Divinity: London, 1674.
Collins, Hercules; Some Reasons for Separation from the Communion of the Church of England: London, 1682.
D'Anvers, Henry; A Treatise of Baptism: London, 1673.
Denne, John; Truth Outweighing Error: London, 1673.
Dell, William; The Doctrine of Baptisms: London, 1647.
Drapes, Edward; Gospel Glory Proclaimed Before the Sons of Men, in the Visible and Invisible Worship of God; London: 1649.
Eaton, T. T. (ed.); The Western Recorder; Dec., 1896, pps. 2, 3.
Gill, John; A Body of Divinity: London, 1839. The Ancient Mode of Baptizing: London, 1726.
Gillette, A.D.; Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association: Phil., 1851.
Gould, George; Open Communion and the Baptists of Norwich: London, 1860.
Graves, J. R.; Both Sides, or the Trial of J. R. Graves: Nashville, 1859. Inner communion; Nashville, 1889.
Grantham, Thomas; Primitive Christianity: London, 1678.
Hagger, Henry; The Foundation of the Font Discovered: London, 1653.
Hailey, O. L.; The Life and Times of J. R. Graves.
Howard, Luke; A Looking Glass for the Baptists: London, 1672.
Keach, Benjamin; The Glory of a True Church and its Discipline Displayed: London, 1697.
Keach, Elias; The Glory and Ornament of a True Gospel-Constituted Church; London: 1697.
Kiffen, William; A Brief Remonstrance of the Reasons and Grounds of Those People Commonly Called Anabaptists, for their Separation: London, 1645. A Sober Discourse on Right to Church-Communion; London,1681. Heart Bleedings for Professor's Abominations; London: 1650.
Kilcop, Thomas; The Unlimited Authority of Christ's Disciples Cleared: London, 1651.
King, Daniel; A Way to Zion Sought Out and Found for Believers to Walk In: Edinburgh, 1656.
Knollys, Hansard; A Moderate Answer to Dr. Bastwick: London, 1645. The Shinning of a Flaming Fire in Zion: London, 1646.
Lawrence, Henry; A Vindication of the Scriptures and the Ordinances: London, 1652. Of Baptism: London, 1659.
Kevan, Ernest F.; London's Oldest Baptist Church: London, 1933.
Lumpkin, William L.; Baptist Confessions of Faith: Philadelphia, 1959.
Paul, Thomas; Some Serious Reflections on that Part of John Bunyan's Confession of Faith Touching Church Communion with Unbaptized Persons: London, 1673.
Patience, Thomas; The Doctrine of Baptism, and the Distinction of the Covenants: London, 1654.
Saltmarsh, John; The Smoke in the Temple: London, 1646.
Spillsbury, John; A Treatise on the Lawful Subject of Baptism; London, 1652.
Strong, A. H.;Systematic Theology: Valley Forge, Pa., 1907.
Stokes, William; The History of the Midlands Association of Baptist Churches: London, 1855.
The First London Confession of Faith, or The Confession of Faith of Those Churches Which Are Commonly, Though Unjustly, Called Anabaptists: London, 1644, 1646, 1651 and 1652.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, London; 1644.
The Somerset Confession, or, A Confession of the Faith of Several Churches of Christ In the Country of Somerset, and of Some Churches in the Counties near Adjacent; London, 1656.
Turner, Jane; Choice Experiences: London, 1653.
Turner, John; The Saint's Belief: London, 1641.
Underhill, Edward; Records of the Churches of Christ Gathered at Fenstation, Warboys and Hexham: London, 1854.
Wardin, Albert W.; The Baptists in Oregon; Portland, Oregon; 1968.
White, B. R.; English Baptists of the 17th Century: London, 1983. Associational Records of the Particular Baptists of England, Wales and Ireland to 1660; London, 1974.
