# No Terror or Preaching of the Law



## JM (Feb 5, 2012)

Article 25 of the First London Baptist Confession reads, "The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law; but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, who is made a Prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him." John 3:14, 15; and 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7: 37; I Tim. 1: 15; Rom. 4:5, and 5:8; Acts 5:30, 31, and 2:36; I Cor. 1:22, 24.

Did the authors of the first LBC believe there was no purpose in the Law? I have read the early Baptists agreed with Tobias Crisp who taught the same.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 5, 2012)

Good question, I had never noticed that before.


----------



## MarieP (Feb 5, 2012)

JM said:


> Did the authors of the first LBC believe there was no purpose in the Law? I have read the early Baptists agreed with Tobias Crisp who taught the same.



It's my understanding that the language of the 2nd LBCF was embraced by at least some of the signers of the first. It looks like the 1st is merely pointing out that intense terror over one's sin is not needed in order for sinners to come to Christ:



> Chapter 19: Of the Law of God
> 1._____ God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
> ( Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:10, 12 )
> 
> ...


----------



## Stargazer65 (Feb 6, 2012)

It doesn't say that there is no purpose in the law. It seems to be stating that excessive preparationism (the inciting of certain feelings and/or proof of repentance) prior to receiving the gospel is not a requirement. So if someone see their need, and desires to come to faith in Christ there are no required steps of preparation for them to make.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 6, 2012)

JM said:


> Article 25 of the First London Baptist Confession reads, "The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law; but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, who is made a Prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him." John 3:14, 15; and 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7: 37; I Tim. 1: 15; Rom. 4:5, and 5:8; Acts 5:30, 31, and 2:36; I Cor. 1:22, 24.
> 
> Did the authors of the first LBC believe there was no purpose in the Law? I have read the early Baptists agreed with Tobias Crisp who taught the same.



Jason there was considerable debate in the 17th century on the issue of what, if any, preparations of the soul were requisite for the right reception of the good news of the gospel. There were some hyper-calvinists who insisted that the gospel could only be preached to "sensible sinners". Others believed in "preparationism". Still others believed that no biblical or spiritual knowledge whatever was needed. One could just toss out the proposition "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." It was an era of sorting and sifting with calvinists, arminians, antinomianians, neonomians, and hypercalvinists all trying to lobby for their particular views.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 6, 2012)

It was John Agricola, in Luther's time, who went down the path of advocating "gospel only" ministry. He wouldn't preach the law at all to the unconverted, and hence wouldn't prepare sinners by causing them to recognize their sin. Luther was strongly opposed to him on this point, and stressed the need of the law to bring the conscience of man into agreement with the law. I'm not so sure that Crisp was in line with Agricola, otherwise I don't think that John Gill would have defended his writings.

Here's a good book about Melanchthon and Agricola's debate over this topic: Amazon.com: Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon's Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben Over Poenitentia (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Though) (9780801021589): Timothy Wengert, J. Timothy Wengert: Books

As well as a helpful article concerning, if you google this: A Review Article: Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthons Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over "Poenitentia" by Lowell C. Green. For some reason, it won't link.

When reading either of these, along with many of the writings of Luther/Melanchthon on this topic, it is helpful to remember that the word "repentance" (poenitentia) refers to the agreement of the mind with the law that such and such is sin, not a reformation of behavior or a commitment to such, which are seen as fruits and effects of justification.

Blessings!


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 6, 2012)

> It seems to be stating that excessive preparationism (the inciting of certain feelings and/or proof of repentance) prior to receiving the gospel is not a requirement



Technically speaking _true_ evangelical repentance - rather than some prior legal convictions and/or outward reformation of life - follows or accompanies true saving faith, anyway, as faith's view of sin and turning from it to Christ.

This ties in with what Charles has just said about the use of the word _poenitentia_ by Luther and Melanchthon.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 6, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> When reading either of these, along with many of the writings of Luther/Melanchthon on this topic, it is helpful to remember that the word "repentance" (poenitentia) refers to the agreement of the mind with the law that such and such is sin, not a reformation of behavior or a commitment to such, which are seen as fruits and effects of justification.



Actually if reading this debate in Latin it is well to recall that

*Penance* from the *Latin* *poenitentia*: an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin
*Repentance* from the *Greek* *μετάνοια*: a change of mind


----------



## JM (Feb 6, 2012)

> It's my understanding that the language of the 2nd LBCF was embraced by at least some of the signers of the first.



But did they? I was told that Knollys, for example, does not believe in a universal invisiable church. That he held to an idea of Landmarkism and this idea is found in his commentary on Revelation. I just found the epub of this work last night and hope to start reading it this week. Kiffin is said to have taught a form of Landmarkism in his work on Church Communion. These and other works were written between 1644 and 1690. 

I haven't read these works yet and hope to do so soon.

jm


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 6, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > When reading either of these, along with many of the writings of Luther/Melanchthon on this topic, it is helpful to remember that the word "repentance" (poenitentia) refers to the agreement of the mind with the law that such and such is sin, not a reformation of behavior or a commitment to such, which are seen as fruits and effects of justification.
> ...



Right, but I remember reading in Luther or Pieper's Christian Dogmatics that "by repentence, we mean that acknowledgment of sin and agreement with the law regarding it." I'd have to find the quote for you, but, once that was understood, it made the context of the writings flow together much better.

Blessings!


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 6, 2012)

JM said:


> > It's my understanding that the language of the 2nd LBCF was embraced by at least some of the signers of the first.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what Knollys' views WRT the universal church have to do with your question in the OP unless it's simply the question of which signers believed what. (I took Marie's post to refer to the signers views on the specific question in the OP.) But I am interested to know where these ebooks of his can be obtained.


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2012)

Dr. James Renihan: CONFESSING THE FAITH IN 1644 AND 1689 available here: Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader



> *There is no substantial theological difference between the First and Second London Confessions. *I get very much bothered when I read statements asserting or inferring that there is some kind of theological difference between these two great confessions. Some seem to think that the 1644/46 Confession is more authentically Baptist, while the second is less so. Most often, this is asserted by those who dislike the Covenant theology that is more explicit in the Second Confession than in the first. It is especially true of those who espouse the so-called "New Covenant" theology. But the question that I would like to ask those who assert this difference is this: On what basis do you make this assertion?
> 
> Too often, this alleged distinction is made by those who have little or no familiarity with the historical and theological backgrounds of the two confessions. Like good postmodernists, they read into the Confessions the type of theology that they hope to find there, without any serious investigation into the theological thinking of the men who wrote the Confessions. Like any other historical document, our confessions need to be subject to historical and grammatical exegesis. We cannot simply read into them what we think we may find there. Instead, we need to ask and answer the question "How did the men who first adopted this Confession understand its theology? Do their writings give support to the notion that there are significant theological differences between the two?" An examination of this kind can be a very fruitful exercise in sorting out this notion.





> Thirdly, *it should also be remembered that it was the same churches, and several of the same men, who issued both of the Confessions.* Seven London congregations published the 1644/46 Confession. By 1689, representatives of 4 of these churches also publicly signed the 1689 Confession. What happened to the other 3? They either ceased to exist, or had merged into the remaining churches. In addition, several key men signed both Confessions: William Kiffin, *Hanserd Knollys,* and Henry Forty, as well as the father-son duo of Benjamin and Nehemiah Coxe. If the theology of the two Confessions is different, one would have to demonstrate that these churches and these men went through a process of theological change. But no evidence for such exists.


----------



## JM (Feb 6, 2012)

Ken, I have seen that work before, but doubt has been cast on Kiffin and Knollys actually signing that document because of their views on baptism and the local church.

Have you read the work by Dr. Featley or the Baptist reply titled a "Briefe Considerations on Dr. Featley's Book?"

Quote from Grimes:

We come now to the doctrinal statement of the English Baptists as found in their Confession of Faith. We take the first (1643) and last (1689) of the Calvinistic Confessions of the seventeenth century. The first of these has this to say upon this point: Art. 41 –“The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the scripture holds forth to be a disciple, it being nowhere tied to a particular church officer or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.”

The latter of these (1689) says:

Art. 28 – “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.”

The former of these was adopted by seven Baptist churches in London ; and the latter by more than one hundred “Baptized” (Baptist) churches in England and Wales .

If language has any meaning it seems apparent that in both of these articles the administration of baptism is confined to the pales of the church, and must be performed by the authority of the same. In the first, it must be a disciple and also it must be a man capable of preaching the gospel. In the latter it confines it not only to the church, but to those called and set apart for that specific purpose. The seeming difference may be explained in this way: When the first Confession was adopted the clergy, of the State Church , had made themselves very obnoxious, and had assumed such authority as to create a prejudice with the Baptists against anything that savored of clerical domination. This article, no doubt, was intended to assert church authority on the one hand and rebuke an arrogant clergy on the other. When the latter Confession was put forth matters had changed up, and assumed a somewhat normal attitude. It would be hard to get stronger and plainer language than is found in the Confession of 1689.

But, the question comes back: “Did the framers of these Confessions intend to confine the administration of baptism to the authority and agency of Baptist churches? Were they Baptists of the strict type?” This must be answered in the affirmative.

There was a living link which binds the two Confessions together. The name of William Kiffin is appended to both these Confessions. He was the first to sign the Confession of 1643, and the second to sign the one of 1689. He was a leader of Baptist thought in his day. When you would learn the doctrinal standing of William Kiffin and Hansard Knollys, you wold know the doctrinal caste of the Baptists of England in the seventeenth century. Concerning Kiffin we find the following in Cramp’s Church History: “The young man (Wm. Kiffin) became an independent inquirer, prepared to follow the leadings of truth regardless of consequences. Observing that some excellent ministers had gone into voluntary banishment rather than conform to the Church of England, he was induced to examine the points in dispute between that church and her opponents. He had been five years a member of the Independent church, then under the care of Mr. Lathrop, when, with many others, he withdrew and joined the Baptist church, the first in England of the Particular Baptist order, of which Mr. Spilsbury was pastor. Two years after that, in 1640, a difference of opinion respecting the propriety of allowing ministers who had not been immersed to preach to them –in which Mr. Kiffin took the negative side- occasioned a separation. Mr. Kiffin and those who agreed with him seceded, and formed another church, which met in Devonshire Square . He was chosen pastor, and held that office until his death, in 1701 (sixty-one years), one of the longest pastorates on record.” –Baptist History (Cramp), p. 447, and Both sides, p. 22.

Such was the type of the Baptists who framed the London Confession of Faith. *He and his church did not only reject the administration of the ordinances at the hands of unbaptized ministers, but made the preaching to them of such a minister a test of fellowship, sufficient to create a division in the church. Can any one conclude for one moment that such Baptists would tolerate alien immersion? or frame a Confession of Faith in any way favorable to it? or that they would even wink at it?*

We would not undertake to say that there were not some individuals in England who held connection with Baptist churches that would tolerate alien immersion. And that they have grown more loose during the last century is admitted. What we mean to say is that the Baptists of England and Wales during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as a denomination, stood unflinchingly against all such innovations as alien immersion and mixed communion.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 6, 2012)

Perhaps irrelevant to the historical discussion, but Durham addresses this point briefly and solidly:



> Grace stands not precisely on fore-preparations (where souls honestly and sincerely come), as that you have not been so and so humbled, and have not such and such previous qualifications as you would be at. Nay someway it excludes these, as offering to bring money and some price, which would quite spoil the nature of the market of free grace. Nay yet, I say further , if it were possible that a soul could come without sense of sin, grace would embrace it; sense of sin being no condition of the covenant, but a physical (to speak so) qualification of the covenanter, and grace is free to them that want it.


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2012)

JM said:


> Ken, I have seen that work before, but doubt has been cast on Kiffin and Knollys actually signing that document because of their views on baptism and the local church.
> 
> Have you read the work by Dr. Featley or the Baptist reply titled a "Briefe Considerations on Dr. Featley's Book?"
> 
> Quote from Grimes:



Are these men Landmarkists?


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2012)

JM said:


> but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly



Having rejected the testimony of God as found in the law one wonders how this so-called confession proposes to bring "the naked soul" to the realisation that it is "a sinner and ungodly." The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Sum of Saving Knowledge are far better equipped for dealing with sinners in this regard.


----------



## JM (Feb 6, 2012)

Grimes was a Landmarkist who quoted Kiffin and Knollys. You can view Dr. Featley's wiki to see that he was not a Landmarkist.

---------- Post added at 02:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 AM ----------




> Having rejected the testimony of God as found in the law one wonders how this so-called confession proposes to bring "the naked soul" to the realisation that it is "a sinner and ungodly." The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Sum of Saving Knowledge are far better equipped for dealing with sinners in this regard.



Rev. Winzer, do you believe this is not a confession? (I refer to you words "so-called.") Ken posted a few quotes from Dr. James Renihan who wrote there was "no substantial theological difference" between the First and Second LBC.

When I read the First it seems disconnected to the Second.


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2012)

JM said:


> Rev. Winzer, do you believe this is not a confession? (I refer to you words "so-called.")



A confession of faith is an instrument for confessing the faith once delivered to the saints. By referring to this confession as so-called, I was questioning its status as an instrument of confessing the faith. If it refuses to accept the testimony of God as contained in the law for the conviction of a sinner it does not deserve to be called a confession of faith, in my humble opinion. If it regards the consciousness of sin as coming through some avenue of individual experience apart from the word of God it might more appropriately be called a declaration of fanaticism.


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2012)

If it was so easy to refute that Knollys was a signer of the second confession, it seems improbable an historian of the caliber as Renihan would stand by his statement.

As to apparent contradictions it must be remembered, as Renihan points out, that the two confessions were derived from two different sources. The first from Ames and the True Confession; the second from the WCF. Their intent was to demonstrate how similar they were to these orthodox documents. Just because there are differences in the wording of the two confessions does not necessarily mean they were substantially different in doctrine. 



JM said:


> Did the authors of the first LBC believe there was no purpose in the Law?



I am assuming you mean the authors of the first LBC and not the second? Because later, the English Particular Baptist clarified their position.

Chapter 19:



> Paragraph 6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them *as well as to others,* in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.


----------



## JM (Feb 6, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. Winzer, do you believe this is not a confession? (I refer to you words "so-called.")
> ...



I agree with you Rev. Winzer. To me...the First Confession doesn't seem to be in the same stream as the Second LBC.


----------



## Petty France (Feb 11, 2012)

Using the original sources, allow me to address several questions, the first being, “Did the authors of the first LBC believe there was no purpose in the Law?”

With regard to the quote in question, it is most certainly a statement against preparationism, which has been helpfully explained previously. It is not a statement of the nullification of the law with regard to believers, nor is it an ignoring of the law in general. In short, that quotation is meant to say that sinners do not need to clean themselves up before coming to Christ for salvation, as some in that time taught.

In 1646, Benjamin Coxe published an appendix to the first Baptist Confession in which he intended to clarify their views to those that had made inquiries concerning them. In it, he addressed their view of the law specifically. I have copied this from the original 1646 publication of Coxe’s appendix. In it he said:
“Though we that believe in Christ, be not under the law, but under grace; Romans 6:14, yet we know that we are not lawless or left to live without a rule; not without law to God, but under law to Christ, I Corinthians 9:21. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a law, or commanding rule unto us; whereby, and in obedience whereto, we are taught to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; Titus 2:11-12, the directions of Christ in his evangelical world guiding us unto, and in this sober, righteous, and godly walking, I Timothy 1:10-11.
“Though we be not now sent to the law as it was in the hands of Moses, to be commanded thereby, yet Christ in his gospel teacheth and commandeth us to walk in the same way of righteousness and holiness that God by Moses did command the Israelites to walk in, all the commandments of the second table being still delivered unto us by Christ, and all the commandments of the first table also (as touching the life and spirit of them) in this epitome or brief sum, Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, etc. Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:8-10.”

The second question revolves around the continuity of doctrine between the 1st and 2nd London Baptist Confessions. 

In the Epistle Dedicatory to the Judicious and Impartial Reader of the 1677 publication of the 2nd London Baptist Confession, this question is answered. They said:
“And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former (although the substance of the matter is the same) we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof…” 

This is an unreserved and unqualified statement of substantial continuity of doctrine between the 1st and 2nd London Baptist Confessions. 

Consider the following:
1.	The editors of the 2nd confession had no reservations in affirming continuity with the previous confession. In fact, in a few places the language of the first confession is used to edit the language of the Savoy Declaration/Westminster Confession (2.1; 8.9,10; 14.2).
2.	It was published and signed by the same churches and men. The Petty France church published the first and second confessions. Of the original seven churches that published the first confession, four were represented at the 1689 General Assembly. The rest closed or combined with the other churches. Kiffin and Knollys were signatories of both confessions. Benjamin Coxe was also an original signatory and publisher of the first confession. His son, Nehemiah Coxe, is the most likely editor of the 1677 confession. 
3.	We know that in the Particular Baptists minds, they took confessing the confession seriously. When the early Particular Baptists were accused of not requiring the financial maintenance of ministers, Kiffin came to their rescue. He was an integral part of the publication of the first confession and a living witness of those times. Their confession did, of course, require the maintenance of ministers. He vindicated them by saying “they must needs be the grossest sort of hypocrites, in professing the contrary by their profession of faith, and yet believing and practicing quite otherwise to what they solemnly professed as their faith in that matter.”
4.	These are consensus documents. It is a mistake to believe that every single signatory and church applied the doctrine of the confession in the exact same way. Take, for example, the controversy over hymn-singing. Knollys and Keach advocated it. Kiffin was against all singing (including Psalms) in public worship. They both confessed “…Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord…are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to him.”

Given these factors, substantial unity in doctrine between the two confessions is not only possible, but is positively asserted.

The third question is the example of the administrators of baptism. To understand this question, we have to consider several things already mentioned: the 1644 publication, Dr. Featley’s critique, the 1646 revision, and Benjamin Coxe’s appendix. Here are the sources:

1644
“The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples.”

Featley criticized the 1644 confession on six points. I could supply Featley’s criticism, but it’s rather verbose and obnoxious. The Baptists revised all six of those points in reply to Featley. They were not afraid of refining or clarifying their position. 

1646
“The person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.”

Benjamin Coxe explained it thus:
“A disciple gifted and enabled by the Spirit of Christ to preach the Gospel, and stirred up to this service by the same Spirit, bringing home to his soul the command of Christ in his word for the doing of this work, is a man authorized and sent by Christ to preach the gospel, see Luke 19:12, Mark 16:15, and Matt 28:19 compared with Acts 8:4, Philippians 1:14, III John 7. And those gifted disciples which thus preach Jesus Christ who came in the flesh, are to be looked upon as men sent and given of the Lord, I John 4:2, Romans 10:15, Ephesians 4:11-13. And they which are converted from unbelief and false-worship and so brought into Church-fellowship by such Preachers according to the will of Christ, are a seal of their ministry, I Corinthians 9:2. And such preachers of the gospel may not only lawfully administer Baptism unto believers and guide the action of a church in the use of the Supper, (Matthew 28:19, Acts 8:5-12, I Cor. 10.16) but may also call upon the churches, and advice them to choose fit men for officers, and may settle such so chosen by a church, in the places or offices to which they are chosen, by imposition of hands and prayer, Acts 6:3-6, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5.”

As to the question of Kiffin and Landmarkism, I will quote from “A Sober Discourse of the Right to Church Communion, 1681.”

Kiffin considered anyone unbaptized who had not been dipped in water upon profession of faith. He wrote to other Baptists who allowed believers-baptized-as-infants to partake in communion in order to tell them it was wrong to allow an unbaptized person to the Lord’s Supper.

“We comprehend all persons that either were never baptized at all, or such as have been, as they call it, christened or baptized, more properly sprinkled, in their infancy.”

Some considered this to make baptism a “Wall of division” among Christians.

“The phrase “wall of division” is ambiguous; if it be meant of a total exclusion of other Christians from our love, charity, and Christian-communion, as far as we agree; we do not look upon baptism to be such a wall of division, neither do we practice it.
If it be meant, of an excluding from immediate church-fellowship, although we meet not with this phrase, viz. wall of division, in those very words, yet we find what is equivalent in II Thessalonians 3:6 and several other texts.”

After establishing that the apostolic pattern was: preach-baptize-partake of communion, Kiffin went on to say:
“As for the ages next the Apostles, for near 300 years, we have examined the records of those times, and find that the ordinance of baptism was retained by the churches in the same order and mode of administrations as is recorded in the New Testament.” He goes on to quote Justin Martyr which was quoted by Baxter.

Kiffin saw Baptism being corrupted around the 3rd century by Cyprian and others who used John 3:5 to say that without baptism, none could enter heaven. Thus it was applied to infants, and since dipping them was dangerous, the manner was changed to sprinkling. He said that those who baptized infants throughout history were more excusable than Baptists who allowed Christians-baptized-as-infants to communion because at least they held to a consistent doctrine of baptism. Kiffin’s argument was that allowing “unbaptized” Christians to communion was to dispense with the necessity of the ordinance altogether.

Kiffin then talks about the “Cathecumeni” who required instruction before baptism, and baptism before communion. Quoting a divine named Magdeburg, he says Athanasius practiced this pattern with Jews who converted to Christianity. Later he quotes Augustine who said “Let them, that is, the cathecumens, pass through the Red-Sea, that is, be baptized, and let them eat manna, that is the body and blood of the Lord. Quoting Isidorus in the 7th century and Haymo in the 9th, the same point is defended.

This is not Landmarkism. Yes, it is an attempt to see the preservation of the apostolic practice throughout history, but it does not un-church all those Christians who practiced baptism defectively. Kiffin himself already clarified that they do not treat baptism as an absolute dividing wall. Landmarkism does this intentionally. Kiffin did not deny infant baptism’s presence alongside of believers’ baptism, nor did he say that those who practiced believers’ baptism separated from those who practiced infant baptism. Landmarkism cannot find its foundation in Kiffin. It is forced to follow a trail of blood through heretical sects and schisms.

I trust that all of these original sources will help to clarify some things about both confessions, and I trust that you will see them as united in substance rather than flowing from different streams.


----------



## JM (Feb 11, 2012)

What an awesome response! Thank you Samuel for clearing that up.

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

I just read through it twice and have to ask you to post more often. Thanks again.


----------



## Petty France (Feb 11, 2012)

JM said:


> Thank you Samuel for clearing that up.



The original sources are gold, aren't they? It's always nice to see that they wrestled with many of the same objections/difficulties in their own time. Their diligence in response to such objections is invaluable to us today.


----------



## JM (Feb 11, 2012)

Samuel, do you know of any sites that have Kiffin and Knollys work in epub...or even pdf?



> Kiffin considered anyone unbaptized who had not been dipped in water upon profession of faith.



Would this be the position held by the signers of the 1689 and the churches they represented? Thank you.


----------



## Petty France (Feb 11, 2012)

JM said:


> Samuel, do you know of any sites that have Kiffin and Knollys work in epub...or even pdf?
> 
> Would this be the position held by the signers of the 1689 and the churches they represented? Thank you.



Early English Books Online has some of their resources available in PDF form. I believe you need a subscription to access their database.
I don't know of any sites off the top of my head. I would be glad to inform you if I find any. 

A reoccurring argument in the Particular Baptist writings was that _baptizw_ meant "to dip." This was, of course, in contrast to the word _rantizw_, to sprinkle. They would often say that a person had been "Rantized" rather than "baptized." This is why Featley called his book "The Dippers Dipped and Plunged Beneath Head and Ears." I would expect it to be the consensus view among the signatories in 1689 that sprinkling at any age was not baptism. 

I do know, however, that they took the administration of baptism very seriously. Consider this entry from Petty France's church book, written by hand - "December 24th, 1676 - Mrs. Hart and Hannah that had been lately servant to Brother Collins did propound for baptism, and were accepted: only the administration of the ordinance to them was deferred a while, because by reason of the extremity of the present frost, we could not now come at the water."

Of course, we need not mention that several of them went to jail for these beliefs. The church at Petty France also excommunicated members who left for the Church of England.

Kiffin wrote on this in 1681, after the publication of the confession but prior to the first general assembly. In his work, he explicitly addresses himself to other Baptists. He says that presbyterians, anglicans, and others all require baptism, albeit infant baptism, before church communion. 

He said that those to whom he wrote held with him the common ground that infant sprinkling was invalid.

“And our dissenting brethren grant, that the administration of baptism by rantism or sprinkling in infancy is disorderly, as being a practice without example or consequent warrant from scripture, and administered to a subject not capable or qualified to receive it, nor in an orderly manner.”

“Now our dissenting brethren with whom we have to do, look upon this way to be absolutely invalid, and so no baptism (else they would not be baptized themselves) and consequently esteem all unbaptized: so that we need not prove what is granted, and shall therefore proceed to examine the question in the following chapter.”

Judging from this it would seem that the Baptist consensus was to consider believers-sprinkled-as-infants as unbaptized. Kiffin wasn't arguing about that, rather he assumed it as common ground in order to argue that baptism was necessary prior to communion.


----------

