timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
Thanks to a friend, I have received the following.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/appendix.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/appendix.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And although we do differ from our brethren who are Paedobaptists; in the subject and administration of Baptisme, and such other circumstances as have a necessary dependence on our observance of that Ordinance, and do frequent our own assemblies for our mutual edification, and discharge of those duties, and services which we owe unto God, and in his fear to each other: yet we would not be from hence misconstrued, as if the discharge of our own consciences herein, did any wayes disoblige or alienate our affections, or conversation from any others that fear the Lord; but that we may and do as we have opportunity participate of the labors of those, whom God hath indued with abilities above our selves, and qualified, and called to the Ministry of the Word, earnestly desiring to approve our selves to be such, as follow after peace with holyness, and therefore we alwaies keep that blessed Irenicum, or healing Word of the Apostle before our eyes; if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you; nevertheless whereto we have already attained; let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, Phil 3. v. 15, 16.
Thanks Tim. Good leg work.
1. According to William Joseph McGlothlin, “Baptist confessions of faith,” p. 218, 219: “Among the many important things done by this first Assembly was the approval of this Confession, a second edition of which had appeared in 1688, and the recommending of its perusal both by other Christians and by their own members. It was published without the appendix of the original edition, and with the following, extracted from their minutes, prefixed... In this form this production became the most influential and important of all Baptist Confessions."
Having examined Underhill's collection of Confessions it appears that McGlothlin's statement which I have emboldened cannot be substantiated unless he possessed a copy/copies which did not include the Appendix. The Underhill collection contains a 1688 Confession with an Appendix on Baptism. The microfilm of the 1688 edition corroborates that the Appendix was included, for the title reads as follows: "A Confession of faith [microform]: put forth by the elders and brethren of many congregations of Christians, (baptized upon profession of their faith) in London and the country: with an appendix concerning Baptism. Publisher: London. Printed for John Harris ..., 1688." As with the 1677 edition, it concludes without signatories. The Bible Researcher website contains the 1689 insert after the Appendix. This is misleading. The 1689 insert precedes the Confession in Underhill's collection; it only recommends the Confession and makes no substantive comment on the Appendix on Baptism. The Appendix on Baptism does not therefore add anything concerning the original intent of the 1689 subscribers.
We are not insenible that as to the order of Gods house, and entire communion therein there are some things wherein we (as well as others) are not at a full accord among our selves, as for instance; the known principle, and state of the consciences of diverse of us, that have agreed in this Confession is such; that we cannot hold Church-communion, with any other then Baptized-believers, and Churches constituted of such; yet some others of us have a greater liberty and freedom in our spirits that way; and therefore we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature, that we might concurre, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among our selves, and with other good Christians, in those important articles of the Christian Religion, mainly insisted on by us:
If you accept this reading of their statment
I. On the Appendix:
When the Appendix states, "we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature," the reference is not to the Confession but to the points made in the Appendix giving the reasons why they oppose infant baptism. This is obvious from the previous paragraph, which had just stated why further arguments were not set forth against infant baptism.
Appendix said:These things we have mentioned as having a direct reference unto the controversie between our brethren and us; other things that are more abstruse and prolix, which are frequently introduced into this controversie, but do not necessarily concern it, we have purposely avoided; that the distance between us and our brethren may not be by us made more wide; for it is our duty, and concern so far as is possible for us (retaining a good conscience towards God) to seek a more entire agreement and reconciliation with them.
Appendix said:Let it not therefore be judged of us (because much hath been written on this subject, and yet we continue this our practise different from others) that it is out of obstinacy, but rather as the truth is, that we do herein according to the best of our understandings worship God, out of a pure mind yielding obedience to his precept, in that method which we take to be most agreeable to the Scriptures of truth, and primitive practise.
It would not become us to give any such intimation, as should carry a semblance that what we do in the service of God is with a doubting conscience, or with any such temper of mind that we do thus for the present, with a reservation that we will do otherwise hereafter upon more mature deliberation; nor have we any cause so to do, being fully perswaded, that what we do is agreeable to the will of God. Yet we do heartily propose this, that if any of the Servants of our Lord Jesus shall, in the Spirit of meekness, attempt to convince us of any mistake either in judgment or practise, we shall diligently ponder his arguments; and accompt him our chiefest friend that shall be an instrument to convert us from any error that is in our ways, for we cannot wittingly do any thing against the truth, but all things for the truth.
And therefore we have indeavoured seriously to consider, what hath been already offered for our satisfaction in this point; and are loth to say any more lest we should be esteemed desirous of renewed contests thereabout: yet forasmuch as it may justly be expected that we shew some reason, why we cannot acquiesce in what hath been urged against us; we shall with as much brevity as may consist with plainness, endeavour to satisfie the expectation of those that shall peruse what we now publish in this matter also.
Appendix said:We are not insenible that as to the order of Gods house, and entire communion therein there are some things wherein we (as well as others) are not at a full accord among our selves, as for instance; the known principle, and state of the consciences of diverse of us, that have agreed in this Confession is such; that we cannot hold Church-communion, with any other then Baptized-believers, and Churches constituted of such; yet some others of us have a greater liberty and freedom in our spirits that way; and therefore we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature, that we might concurre, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among our selves, and with other good Christians, in those important articles of the Christian Religion, mainly insisted on by us: and this notwithstanding we all esteem it our chief concern, both among our selves, and all others that in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours, and love him in sincerity, to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace; and in order thereunto, to exercise all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love.
4. The most this Appendix declares is that open communion was being practised by some,
but Baptist historians note that strict communion was the norm, which can easily be ascertained by referring to the confessions and defences of that time.
II. On the historical context of the 1689 subscribers owning the Confession, the following facts reveal that it requires a "strict communion" interpretation.
1. The preface of the original 1677 edition states that the manner of expressing sentiments has been altered from the first Confession, "although the substance of the matter is the same." We should not therefore suppose that terms of communion differed from the one Confession to the other. What did the First Confession teach? "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." (Article XXXIX.) The Appendix clarifies the meaning in a specifically strict communion manner: “we therefore do not admit any in the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any in the use of this ordinance, but disciples having once been Scripturally baptized, lest we should have fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order.”
2. In the 1689 Confession, 26:6 states, "The members of these churches are saints by calling … and do willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving up themselves to the Lord and to one another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel."
28:1 specifically declares "Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only Law-giver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world." 29:2, 4, make plain wherein baptism consists: "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance;" "Immersion, or dipping the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance." If these statements are allowed to speak for themselves they make it requisite to membership in particular congregations that individuals give professed subjection to the ordinance of baptism administered upon profession of faith and by immersion. The chapter on the Lord's supper provides no exception to this rule.
3. Various signatories of the 1689 Confession adhered to strict communion to such an extent that they upbraided those who maintained open communion. William Kiffin wrote specifically on this point. As observed by William Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia (1:265), "men like Hanserd Knollys and William Kiffin – were the last men to sign a Confession favoring ‘open communion.'"
4. It is a little known fact -- but important nonetheless -- that the antipaedobaptists produced a Catechism modelled on the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly. The epistle to the reader states, "Having a desire to show our near agreement with many other Christians, of whom we have great esteem; we some years since put forth a Confession of our Faith, almost in all points the same with that of the Assembly and Savoy, which was subscribed by the elders and messengers of many churches baptized on profession of their faith; and do now put forth a short account of Christian principles for the instruction of our families, in most things agreeing with the Shorter Catechism of the Assembly. And this we were the rather induced to, because we have commonly made use of that catechism in our families, and the difference being not much, it will be more easily committed to memory.” This Catechism asks (Q. 103), "Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance [the Lord's supper]?" It answers, "A. They who have been baptized upon a personal profession of their faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance from dead works (Acts ii. 41, 42)."
....something significant changes. Instead of being united, as they emphasized they were on the points previously mentioned, they now note that, on some matters, they are "not at a full accord among themslves." And it is these points at which they are not at a full accord to which they refer when they remark that they have "purposely ommitted the mention of things of that nature" so that "we might concurre, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among ourselves..."
Actually the Appedix is saying something more. It is plainly saying that the framers have "purposefully omitted the mention" of Church communion with pb's which was the example given of "things of that nature.
And they tell us quite plainly in the Appendix, that because they are divided on the question they .
deliberately chose not to inConfessionate either one or the other answer.
While these men would not have signed a Confession enforcing open communion upon their own churches, they did agree to the Appendix which gave their churches the right to refuse open communion while not making closed communion obligatory from brethren who differed from them.
And the Appendix quite plainly states
And if the Appendix
....something significant changes. Instead of being united, as they emphasized they were on the points previously mentioned, they now note that, on some matters, they are "not at a full accord among themslves." And it is these points at which they are not at a full accord to which they refer when they remark that they have "purposely ommitted the mention of things of that nature" so that "we might concurre, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among ourselves..."
Be that as it may, the statement is not referring to the Confession but to the Appendix itself. Therefore it is of no significance for understanding the intent of the Confession.
(found online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/bcf.iv.iii.html).Petty France Church book said:It was agreed that a Confession of faith, wth the Appendix thereto having bene read & considered by the Bre: should be published.”
Now it may be that the writers of the Appendix had some other document in mind, but if they did not mean to refer to the Confession, what other document provides such "evidence of our agreement both among our selves and with other good Christians in those important articles of the Christian religion mainly insisted upon by us."
Now it may be that the writers of the Appendix had some other document in mind, but if they did not mean to refer to the Confession, what other document provides such "evidence of our agreement both among our selves and with other good Christians in those important articles of the Christian religion mainly insisted upon by us."
It is natural to take "confession" as referring to the document to which the Appendix was appended. But this is irrelevant because the paragraph in context is clearly referring to what was omitted in the Appendix.
It is unlikely that the two authors of the Confession were the parties disagreeing. What is likely is that representatives from a group of churches were declaring their congregational prerogative to let each congregation do according to their own conviction. As stated, the Appendix reveals that open communion was practised; it does not establish authorial intent.
On the "Petty France" reference, Joseph Ivimey's conclusion was that is it was prepared for that particular church; but the Appendix itself indicates a collection of churches and likely refers to an adopting body. This proves, again, that the Appendix and the Confession are two different documents.
Thanks to a friend, I have received the following.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/appendix.htm
Now the document being referred to in this paragraph must be a document setting fort "those important Articles (plural) of the Christian Religion, mainly insisted on by us (the united Baptists) and with other good Christians (pb's)."
That is more than a reasonably strong indicator of authorial intent.
Do you have a more specific Ivimey reference than the link I cited?
I see where things are becoming muddled now. You are conflating the confession as written and the confession as agreed upon, whereas I distinguish them.
Now the document being referred to in this paragraph must be a document setting forth "those important Articles (plural) of the Christian Religion, mainly insisted on by us (the united Baptists) and with other good Christians (pb's)."
....[In the Appendix] The "us" is identified as the ones "that have agreed in this confession." This "agreement" includes diverse strict communionists and some open communionists. The "we" in "we might concurr" refers to both gether. The two groups together have purposely omitted saying anything on the question of the subjects of baptism as it applies to church-communion. They have done so to give evidence of their "agreement" in their Confession. Obviously what they agree on is the Confession, but the omission is for the purpose of showing or presenting their agreement.
Starting from where I excepted your comment and to this point I agree with you entirely. The two groups have purposely omitted saying anything on the subject of baptism as it applies to church communion in the Confession (since the Confession is a document that dealt with multiple articles of religion instead of only the one we find dealt with in the Appendix).
I am not at all sure I understand your distinction between the Confession as agreed and the Confession as written down. If you mean that both camps in the church communion dispute agreed not to try to make the Confession take one side or the other in the matter, I agree with you. Yet the fact that the positions of the differing groups on the matter were outlined in the Appendix is yet another proof that the Appendix cannot be the document setting forth agreement and omitting areas of disagreement that is mentioned in the key paragraph I have been referencing.
The words therefore naturally refer to the agreement in the Appendix, not to the writing of the confession.
But I don't see how you can jump to thinking the Appendix was meant as the subject of their reference in the Appendix when the the terms they used to describe the document they were referring to (several doctrines where there was common agreement between two camps) cannot be made to fit the Appendix, which however it is read, addresses one of two real disagreements.
Sure, if you can establish that they are referring to the writing of the confession rather than to their united agreement with their confession. I don't believe it is a natrual reading to understand them to be referring to the writing of the confession when the omission is on the specific topic of church-communion as an extension of the subjects of baptism, which has been discussed at length in the Appendix.That is more than a reasonably strong indicator of authorial intent.
Yet, as has been previously noted elsewhere, the Confession is written in such a way that one cannot prove that it necessarily forbids all attempts at church-communion. Here in the Appendix, they explain why the omission in the Confession was made.
[Do you have a more specific Ivimey reference than the link I cited?
A History of the English Baptists, 3:332.
Thank you for the Ivimey link. What he said is
Ivimey said:It would seem therefore that this confesson was prepared for expressing the faith of that particular church, but was adopted of upwards of 100 churches in the General Assembly of 1689.
Ivimey is not claiming that the Confession of the PF manuscript church book is different from the 1689. He claims they are identical. If his claim is correct, the PF note establishes that when the 1689 confession was first approved for publication, it had an Appendix attached.
3. Various signatories of the 1689 Confession adhered to strict communion to such an extent that they upbraided those who maintained open communion. William Kiffin wrote specifically on this point. As observed by William Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia (1:265), "men like Hanserd Knollys and William Kiffin – were the last men to sign a Confession favoring ‘open communion.'"
But I don't see how you can jump to thinking the Appendix is meant when the the terms they used to describe the document they were referring to cannot be made to fit the Appendix.
Yet, as has been previously noted elsewhere, the Confession is written in such a way that one cannot prove that it necessarily forbids all attempts at church-communion. Here in the Appendix they explain why the omission in the Confession was made.
Thank you for the Ivimey link. What he said is
Ivimey said:It would seem therefore that this confesson was prepared for expressing the faith of that particular church, but was adopted of upwards of 100 churches in the General Assembly of 1689.
Ivimey is not claiming that the Confession of the PF manuscript church book is different from the 1689. He claims they are identical. If his claim is correct, the PF note establishes that when the 1689 confession was first approved for publication, it had an Appendix attached.
As to the Appendix, its reference point is still the point under debate; your allegation that the Appendix is referring to the writing of the Confession may not be used to prove that the Appendix is referring to the writing of the Confession.
Just a note. The Confession had been republished in 1688. There was no approval for publication in 1689, but an owning and commending of what was already published. The only document owned and commended is the Confession. Subsequent printings omitted the Appendix.
Yet, as has been previously noted elsewhere, the Confession is written in such a way that one cannot prove that it necessarily forbids all attempts at church-communion. Here in the Appendix they explain why the omission in the Confession was made.
I believe I showed clearly that church membership includes avowal of ordinances and baptism upon profession with immersion is described as an ordinance. You didn't gainsay that point, but merely stated the issue is otherwise. You are yet to produce any reason from the Confession itself as to why its stated principles should not be consistently applied..
While the Confession states that the nature of a Biblically organized local church entails submission to the ordiances and baptism upon profession of faith by immersion is the duly required form of the ordinance of baptism, that is not the point I have been confuting. Rather, I have been continually stating and reiterating two very good reasons, given in the Confession itself, that its stated principles cannot be taken so far as to employ the LBC to deny any possibility of recognizing pb's as "brethren and fellow members of the visible church," which was the claim that is being asserted as required of us by our principles (i.e. the Confession).
Now if, as the charge's proponent, you meant "visible church" to be a synonym for "local church", you must say so. And if that is the case, then, as I have said before, the Confession does provide that a local church may determine that the difference over the doctrine of baptism is such that a "consent to walk together" is made impossible because of the difference.
But "local church" is not what "visible church" appears to mean in the WCF 25:2. "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]" This is clearly something larger than one local church, or possibly larger than even one denomination.
Now if, in your charge, you mean local church to mean what it does in the WCF, I deny your charge, and have been supporting that denial with LB Confessional evidence. First, Chapter 26 headed Of the Church, defines particular churches as assemblies that ought to be composed of visible saints, which in turn are defined as "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation". Second, the Confession specifically allows us to recognize that churches are subject to error and may fall into error, not all erring churches become "synogogues of Satan" if they fall. LBC 26:3. Any error not "everting the foundation" LBC 26:2 falls into this less serious class. Pb would fall into such an error and those holding it would be brethren and members of true (if decayed) churches, something that the cb's who issued the 1677 clearly recognized instead of viewing pb as an error everting the foundation of the faith of the gospel. For, as Dr. Renihan points out,
"The 17th century PB's (and all of their followers) recognized Independent and Presbyterian churches as true (but defective) churches. The appendix to 2LCF addresses this question, so does Keach at several points."
His book provides the references:
http://www.amazon.com/Edification-Beauty-Practical-Ecclesiology-Particular/dp/160608481X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258136331&sr=8-5>
And another source has made the following claim: "...the General Assembly minutes of 1689" is the first time "that the brethren answered that church members could go and hear the Pedobaptist ministers and not be excluded for such a practice if they didn’t miss their own services." I have yet to be able to confirm this by finding these minutes online but if anyone else can post a link to the minutes I would be most grateful.
Now if, as the charge's proponent, you meant "visible church" to be a synonym for "local church", you must say so.
Now if, as the charge's proponent, you meant "visible church" to be a synonym for "local church", you must say so.
As you are transferring my statement from the thread entitled "The Design of Baptism," I refer you to that thread where I have specifically spoken of "local churches" while detailing the changes of Westminster in the Savoy and the LBC.
Concerning your statements from history relative to the Penny France congregation, none of this contradicts the fact that the Confession was written by two men representing a single church while the Appendix was clearly written for more than one church; and that the 1689 subscribers did not give their commendation to the Appendix but merely to the Confession, contrary to the misrepresentation made in the linked article at the head of this thread. So, as matters stand, we have a confession which requires submission to baptism upon profession by immersion in order to church membership, and no statement to suggest this should not be consistently practised.
That is not precisely responsive. I am aware that the that there were changes from WCF to SC to LBC and that LBC does not use the term "visible church". But you did use it in your oriiginal charge, something you appear not to have explained in the "Design of Baptism" thread. If you did, I missed it, and since I still cannot find it on rereading the thread, could you please supply the specific post number in which you did so?
Do you know any more about the context of the note than the Ivimey or Renihan references give us?
The Appendix makes it plain and clear that the intent of the authors of the Confession was not to inConfessionate an answer to the question of church communion on which members of the Baptist community found themselves divided.
That is not precisely responsive. I am aware that the that there were changes from WCF to SC to LBC and that LBC does not use the term "visible church". But you did use it in your oriiginal charge, something you appear not to have explained in the "Design of Baptism" thread. If you did, I missed it, and since I still cannot find it on rereading the thread, could you please supply the specific post number in which you did so?
Post #45. LBC and Dagg speak of local churches.
You are obviously reading the WCF view of "visible church" into my use of it; but I am analysing the antipaedobaptist view, not expressing my own.
Do you know any more about the context of the note than the Ivimey or Renihan references give us?
More information is not necessary. If it is accepted that the Appendix requires us to understand that more than two persons are the referent of the omission on terms of communion, and if it is accepted that two persons wrote the Confession, then it is obvious that the authors of the Appendix were referring to the omission in the Appendix and not to any omission in the Confession. That being the case, the Appendix does nothing to indicate authorial intent of the Confession.
The Appendix makes it plain and clear that the intent of the authors of the Confession was not to inConfessionate an answer to the question of church communion on which members of the Baptist community found themselves divided.
This merely assumes the point in question. It must first be established that the Appendix authoritatively speaks the mind of the Confession before your conclusion could be entertained. As it stands there is no historical data to make that connection. The only thing your conclusion has going for it is the linked site at the head of this thread, but I have clearly shown that the names of the subscribers do not appear as that site presents them.
But your analysis of the cb view may not held by all, if any, RB's.
But your analysis of the cb view may not held by all, if any, RB's.
Please read Dagg on the local and universal church. He uses the antipaedobaptist view of local visible churches to substantiate his arguments as to why "unbaptised" professors cannot be in communion with "baptised" churches and still be recognised as being in Christ. If modern "Baptists" have come to be influenced by the Presbyterian view then I can only be thankful for a more biblical approach being adopted.
Concerning the historical significance of the Appendix, it appears the evidence has now been considered and both sides have laid out their arguments, so I am willing to leave it there.
1689 LBC 26:14
As each church, and all the members of it, are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ, in all places, and upon all occasions to further every one within the bounds of their places and callings, in the exercise of their gifts and graces, so the churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification.
One thing that greatly prevailed with us to undertake this work was (not only to give a full account of ourselves to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of baptism...
Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the framers of the confession considered paedobaptists, who professed faith in Jesus Christ, to be visible saints and members of true churches to the extent that they were actually in fellowship with a local church that preached the gospel of Jesus Christ.