# Authoritative interpretation of Baptism in the 1689



## timmopussycat (Nov 14, 2009)

Thanks to a friend, I have received the following. 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/appendix.html


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 14, 2009)

Thanks Tim. Good leg work.


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2009)

Downloaded!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 14, 2009)

An interesting read. It is very irenic and they clearly intend it to be read by the other Reformed as brothers and not as outside the pale of Christianity:



> 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.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 14, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thanks Tim. Good leg work.



You're welcome.


----------



## dudley (Nov 15, 2009)

*Thanks Tim*

Thanks Tim, I became a Reformed Baptist a few weeks ago. I quouted you on the other Baptism site, Baptism by Design. I also requested PB friendship with you. Thank you so much for presenting this information.

In fauth alone 
Dudley


----------



## MW (Nov 15, 2009)

I. On the Appendix:

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."

2. According to McGothlin's reprint of the 1677 edition, "FINIS" occurs immediately after the Appendix, leaving no subscribed names.

3. 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.

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)."


----------



## MW (Nov 15, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> 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.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 15, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> 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.



I am not familiar with the material you have identified as "the 1689 insert". Is that is the list of signatories? If it is anything else what is it? What I have quoted is entirely from within the Appendix. The following paragraph seems to make a rather substantial comment on the original intent of the framers, and a very real concern that they be not misunderstood: 



> *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:*



It would appear on first reading that the above excerpt was intended remove any possibility of concluding that framer's original intent was to deny any and all posibilities of church communion with pb's. If you accept this reading of their statment, I wonder why you do not think that we learn nothing new about the original intent of the 1689 subscribers from a consideration of the Appendix? For this very point has been recently controverted here not to mention other places. 

If you do not accept this reading of their statement, how do you read it?


----------



## MW (Nov 15, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> If you accept this reading of their statment



I don't; please read post #7 with the qualifiying post #8 for the historical facts you need to properly interpret what is being said in this Appendix. It has no bearing on the original intent of the 1689 subscribers.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> 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.



The previous paragraph abovementioned reads as follows:



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.



This paragraph occurs after a long statement of differences from the pb position and statements of cb answers to the challenges. The words "These things" seem to link back to the previously mentioned material. And, although they gave reason why they don't deal with some abstruce and prolix points of the controversy that were not necessary concerned in it, throughout this section in which they reply to the pb challenge on the nature of design of baptism, they repeatedly confess themselves united in their opinion. Note, for example, how often the words "we", "us" and "our" are used in the first paragraphs of this part of the Appendix: 



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.



But with the paragraph I cited, ....



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.



....something significant changes. Instead of being united, as they emphasized they were on the points dealing with the design of baptism, 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..." 



armourbearer said:


> 4. The most this Appendix declares is that open communion was being practised by some,



Actually the Appedix is saying something more. It is plainly saying that the framers have "purposefully omitted the mention" and thus have not directly inConfessionated a stance on Church communion with pb's which was the example given of "things of that nature" that the Appendix's framers did not mention. 



armourbearer said:


> 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.



Not all of them. Dr. James Renihan, Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies Wesminster Seminary responded to my (relayed) inquiry like this:

"I deal with this question in Chapter 2 of my book Edification and Beauty <http://www.amazon.com/Edification-Beauty-Practical-Ecclesiology-Particular/dp/160608481X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258136331&sr=8-5> . The short answer is that the paedobaptist mentioned below seems to be reading Baptist history through the lens of Landmark and/or Primitive Baptist practice, but not in the light of more common Baptist practice. A chief tenet of Landmark doctrine was that Baptist Churches (which can trace their succession back to the apostles--they prefer to call it 'church perpetuity') are the only true churches--there may be other religious societies, but they are not churches etc. This was not the common practice before the Landmark movement in the 19th c., and apart from those who hold these views, is not the practice of baptists since the 19th century.

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. The book provides the references.

James M. Renihan, Ph.D.
Dean, Professor of Historical Theology
Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
P.O. Box 300771 Escondido, CA 92030-0771
The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
Bene docet, qui bene distinguit.



armourbearer said:


> 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.”



Please note that the prohibition against communion is commicating under pb auspices, it says nothing about accepting a pb into chuch-Communion under Baptist auspices. For the error being rejected is that of "having fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order," not "they can't enter into fellowship with us as we do according to order."



armourbearer said:


> 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*."



Not quite. 

While, as I have said before, this clause give a LBC church the right to conclude that the mistake in the subjects of the ordinance is one that renders a walk together impossible, it does not enforce recognition of that mistake as necessarily leading to that conclusion. 



armourbearer said:


> 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.



Indeed not. But you seem to be reading an inference you may draw from the their statement of the design of baptism in such a way as to govern how they must have applied it to the case of church communion. And they tell us quite plainly in the Appendix, that because they are divided on the question that they deliberately chose not to inConfessionate either one or the other of the two opinions. A plain statement from a primary source necessarily trumps a contrary inference drawn by someone who is not. They knew what they were talking about, we can only deduce what they meant from reading what they said.



armourbearer said:


> 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.'"



While these men would not have signed a Confession enforcing open communion upon their own churches, that is not what they did when they agreed to the Appendix. Instead, they agreed to an Appendix which effectively gave their churches the right to refuse open communion while not making closed communion obligatory from brethren who differed from them. 



armourbearer said:


> 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)."



Let us be clear that what is being controverted here is not who the subject of baptism properly are, nor that some of the Baptist signatories restricted church communion with pb's, nor that the LBC allows subscribers to restrict church-Communion to cb's only when they have certain grounds to do so. These things no one denies. 

What is being controverted here is that the LBC forces all subscribers to reject all church-Communion at all times. And the Appendix quite plainly states that they did not intend to inConfessionate such a conclusion. 

And if the Appendix does not inConfessionate that conclusion, then no matter what the historical practice of Baptists may or may not have been, no Baptist can be Confessionally forced to deny his pb friend or correspondent his recognition as a "brother" and fellow member of the "visible church".


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> ....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.



timmopussycat said:


> 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.



Again you mistake the reference and make it apply to the Confession when it was referring only to the Appendix. How the Appendix was added is not altogether clear, but it is obvious that Coxe and Collins, the authors of the Confession, did not comprise the parties mentioned in this Appendix as disagreeing.

I omit Dr. Renihan's comments since they don't actually address any point I have written. If he was referenced merely for the purpose of proving that not all Baptists adhered to strict communion, that is obvious, nor did I claim anything to the contrary. I said it was the norm. As Haykin writes, “Probably the most famous of such Baptists is John Bunyan (1628-1688), best known for his classic Pilgrim’s Progress. His open-membership Baptist convictions meant that in his day he was not as influential among his fellow Calvinistic Baptists — *for whom closed-membership and closed-communion convictions were the norm* — as he became for this community in subsequent centuries.” (For God’s Glory, p. 1.)



timmopussycat said:


> 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.



This has already been dealt with.



armourbearer said:


> 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.



No, they didn't. The Appendix was written in 1677. The Confession was reprinted in 1688. The signatories inserted their subscriptions to the Confession in 1689. They made no endorsement of the Appendix, and the Appendix was not reprinted with new editions of the Confession.



timmopussycat said:


> And the Appendix quite plainly states
> 
> And if the Appendix



Your case comes down to the Appendix. You believe you can prove authorial intent from it, but you do not even know who are the authors of the Appendix or who appended it to the printing of the Confession.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > ....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..."
> ...



Since the key paragraph of the Appendix refers to a document which provides "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", there are two reasons in the paragraph's very language that preclude the possiblity that the document being referred to is the Appendix itself. For the Appendix does not provide a statement of agreememt with many doctrines (plural) on which the Baptists were in agreement with other Christians, but it is an exposition of one doctrine -wb- on which the Baptists disagreed with nearly everyone else. 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." 

I am presently awaiting further information addressing whether or not a rejection of the Appendix as authentic can be sustained. For now, however, let me note two points: first, 
the earliest known reference to the Confession contains a reference to the Appendix. On 26 August, 1677, this note was entered in the manuscript Church book of the Petty France Church in London (home church of William Collins):



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.”


(found online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/bcf.iv.iii.html).

If this Appendix mentioned in the PF church book wasn't the one we are presently discussing, what then was it?

Second, I note that the Appendix comports well with the sentence in the preface "To the Judicious and Impartial Reader" attached to the first edition of the Confession, where the editors state: 

"One thing that greatly prevailed with us to undertake this work, was (not only to give a full account of our selves, to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of Baptism,... In those things wherein we differ from others, we have exprest our selves with all candor and plainness that none might entertain jealousie of ought secretly lodged in our breasts, that we would not the world should be acquainted with; yet we hope we have also observed those rules of modesty, and humility, as will render our freedom in this respect inoffensive, even to those whose sentiments are different from ours."

While the LBC proper is a statement of what they believed about water baptism itself, the Appendix, in providing a rationale for their stand, provides a more extensive rationale for why they could not accept pb. Perhaps they thought the more extensive rationale was necessary for giving "a full account of our selves" in the matter to their pb brethren and fellows in the visible church.


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> 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 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.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 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."
> ...



This is not possible. For the paragraph states "...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"

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)." Before one can accept that the writers of the Appendix were referring to the Appendix by these words, it is necessary to explain how the writers of the Appendix could have so misdescribed their own writing. For the Appendix does not describe "those important articles of the Christian religion mainly inisisted on by us, and other good Christians", instead it describes a single article, about which the disagreement between them "and other good Christians" was known to be sharp. 

If one tries taking the reference as being to the Appendix while reading the reference to "other good Christians" as pointing to Baptists taking a differing view over church communion, one is no further on. For as noted above, the document that the Appendix references is one of agreement on many details, and avoidance of matters where the Baptist brethren were known to be in sharp disagreement among themselves. Yet the Appendix mentions such a disagreement while the document they are referring to does not. 



armourbearer said:


> 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.



But when the authors say that "therefore we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature, [ie the communion question] that we might concurre" the reference is to the ommision that they made in the document that set forth the "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" That is more than a reasonably strong indicator of authorial intent in a document other than the Appendix. And in fact in the same paragraph mention is made of "this Confession". So the 1689 text must be concluded the document referred to by default unless cogent evidence is presented to the contrary. 



armourbearer said:


> 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.



Do you have a more specific Ivimey reference than the link I cited? If yes what is it? For the conclusion Dr. Renihan draws in his analysis on the link is that the Confession "originated in the Petty France Church" of Coxe and Collins, but he says nothing to show that the PFC book intended to restrict the Confession and Appendix's use for to particular church only. In fact the note in the PFC book mentions that the Confession and Appendix were approved for publication, something that which would seem to indicate a broader field of usefulnes was intended for these documents than that of one church. And if such a field of usefulness was intended, it is quite possible that eyeball acquaintance with the source document might discover that the bre: (brethren) referred to might be ministerial confreres rather than laymen in one church.

The Petty France church happend to be the home of the two men most generally credited with drafting the original elements in the LBC. If this note in the Church book, refers to a different confession than the 1689, why isn't there any evidence of this earlier work in the church records?


----------



## Herald (Nov 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> Thanks to a friend, I have received the following.
> 
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/appendix.htm



Tim, I tried to fix your link, since it wasn't producing a page that would open. Could you repost the link?

Forget it. I was able to fix it.


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> 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)."



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. Let's break down the sentence and see which is the more natural reading. 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 groups together. 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. The words therefore naturally refer to the agreement in the Appendix, not to the writing of the confession.



timmopussycat said:


> That is more than a reasonably strong indicator of authorial intent.



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.



timmopussycat said:


> Do you have a more specific Ivimey reference than the link I cited?



A History of the English Baptists, 3:332.


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> 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.



Just in case one is inclined to reject this distinction I will quote the 1689 subscribers to show that "our confession" is not the confession they have written: "to recommend to their perusal the confession of our faith."


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 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)."
> ...


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> 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.'"



To substantiate this point, please note the work of William Kiffin and when it was written. It is entitled "A sober discourse of right to church-communion: wherein is proved by Scripture, the example of the primitive times, and the practice of all that have prosessed the Christian religion, *that no unbaptized person may be regularly admitted to the Lords Supper* by W. Kiffin." It was published in London in *1681*, four years after the Appendix was first published.


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> 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.



That is because you are still conflating the writing of the Confession and agreement with the Confession.



timmopussycat said:


> 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. 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.



timmopussycat said:


> Thank you for the Ivimey link. What he said is
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. If it was written for that particular church and the Appendix is written from the perspective that it will accommodate more than one particular church, then it is obvious that the Confession and Appendix were two different productions. It is like the Westminster Confession and Church of Scotland Adopting Act in the Westminster Standards.


----------



## MW (Nov 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 20, 2009)

NB: I am replying to points out of the order in which they were originally given.



armourbearer said:


> 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.



While the Appendix and the Confession may or may not have been written at different times, the PF minute book shows that a Cofession and Appendix were written by 1677 and were thought by the PF brethren to be so much in accord that they were sent to the printers together by the church, whose co- pastors are thought to be the principal authors of the origianl material of the 1689 Confession. No evidence whatsoever exists to support a claim that this confession and appendix approved by the PF church were not the original 1677 publication of the 1689. It is highly unlikely that anybody other than the PF church would have published a different Confession with Appendix after that church's work had been published and where is any sign of the allegedly different PF confession and appendix if it is not the 1677 we know? Both Joseph Ivimey and Jim Renihan believe that the PF Confession and Appendix is the 1677/1689. Absent cogent reason to the contrary, which nobody has yet supplied, Baptists are free to accept their reading of the evidence. 



armourbearer said:


> 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.


 
Even though subsequent publications of the Confession were not published together with the Appendix, their being cojoined in first publication is enough to establish the Appendix is a determinative indicator of the original intent of the Confession where the Appendix speaks to the matter of Confessional ommissions. And since no changes were made to the Confession's content when it was reissued in 1689, we must conclude that no changes in the Confession's intended meaning were purposed by the reissuers. 

One of the authors of the original material in the LBC is believed to be Nehemiah Cox, who had come to Petty France from a time in Bedford where he had been a member of Bunyan's church, which was where he was called to the work of the ministry in 1671...

[Cf. The history and antiquities of dissenting churches and meeting ..., Volume 1p. 186 by Walter Wilson]

and As far as I know the Bedford meeting did not deny Church-communion with pb's nor deny that pb churches were true churches. 



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## MW (Nov 20, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> 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.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Now if, as the charge's proponent, you meant "visible church" to be a synonym for "local church", you must say so.
> ...



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?



armourbearer said:


> 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.



It is not news that only two men wrote the Baptist specific portions of the 1677/89. And you have not provided any evidence that only those two men were the only brethren ("bre.") referred to in the PF church book who referred the Confession plus Appendix to the printer in 1677. The sources I have do not state whether this note was recorded at an internal meeting of the chuch or at a ministerial of some or all of the Baptist ministers then in London. Do you know any more about the context of the note than the Ivimey or Renihan references give us? 

Ultimately it is no matter whether the Appendix was approved by any more than Coxe and Collins since it is a clear statement of their authorial intent when they wrote the Baptist specific paragraphs of the Confession. And it is that authorial intent that the 1689 GA implicitly accepted when they reprinted the Confession without altering it. 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.


----------



## MW (Nov 20, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> 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.



timmopussycat said:


> 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.



timmopussycat said:


> 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.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 21, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



So it appears that you mean "local church" by your term visible church? 

I wish you had plainly stated your charge this way at first. After all, that point is not news. But it should be noted that if Dagg held your view on how the implications of this Baptist doctrine extended beyond local church fellowship, he could never have accepted pb's as fellow disciples which, as I pointed out as early as posts #38 and #41, is something he had done. Since a necessary precondition for that stance is that Dagg must have accepted pb's as brethren and members of Christ's church in the world, even if he could not have accepted them as members of a rightly organized local church, one cannot fairly cite Dagg as accepting the justice of your charge as originally stated.



armourbearer said:


> 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.



Since the LBC does not mention the term "visible church" in 26:2, there is no explicit doctrine to analyze. But your analysis of the cb view may not held by all, if any, RB's. It appears that Sam Waldron for one, may share my understanding that 26:2 was intended to give an RB understanding of the visible church as a visible reality beyond the local church, even while avoiding the use of the term. See Outlines: Chapter 26 
where his outline describes the content of 26:2 is described as "The Universal church [as] visible".



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know any more about the context of the note than the Ivimey or Renihan references give us?
> ...



Not necessarily correct. 
1) If the brethren mentioned in the note as approving publication were a larger ministerial gathering rather then brethren of just one church, one must consider whether they had commisioned Coxe and Collins to write the emendations that resulted in the 1677. Had such a commissioning taken place, the "we" of the Appendix could well be intended to refer to those men, since the Appendix was explaining stances they shared that Cox and Collins expressed in "our foregoing Confession". In addition, the "we" can also be a representative "we", the writers consciously setting down stances of Baptists not present in London but known to them (e.g., Bedford) in the same way that the US Constitution expresses the sentiments of Americans not just those of the delegats Style Committee or Governour Morris, when it begins with "We the people...".

2) There is no ommission of disputable matters made in the Appendix, omissions which, as the Appendix plainly states, marks the referenced document. In the Appendix, unlike the document referred to, the positions of both sides of both questions (pb vs cb and accepting communion vs denying it) are described.
The Appendix' referent is a document where the Baptists simulataneously make a united presentation of their stand on many main articles of religion shared by other good Christians, and omit discussion of matters where Baptists are divided; the Appendix itself deals with one article and two issues. On the issue where the Baptists are united (pb), they are in opposition to every other good Christian of the day; on the issue where they are divided (communion) the Appendix mentions rather than omits the division. 

Whatever document is meant by the key paragraph in the Appendix it cannot be the Appendix itself, unless one wants to accuse the writers of that document of possessing a monumental degree of confusion, something I do not think many Baptist readers will be prepared to grant without much better evidence.



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Contrary to your claim, there is a great deal of evidence against such a claim. Certainly, both an analysis of the text of LBC ch. 26 and the Appendix is strong enough to convince many that the original intent of the Confession was not to inConfessionate a rejectioin of pb's as fellow brethren and members of the visiible church, even though it allows local churches to reject pb's as members at need.

If you wish to remain wedded to your view, I cannot stop you. I do, however, advise you not to expect any degree of Baptist compliance with a claim that we are Confessionally required to deny pb's due recognition as "brethren and fellow members of the visible church". Should you continue to frame your claim that way, you will be driving a new and unnecessary wedge between Reformed Christians, a point that Bill has also asserted.


----------



## MW (Nov 22, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> 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.


----------



## Herald (Nov 22, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > But your analysis of the cb view may not held by all, if any, RB's.
> ...




Matthew,

I haven't followed the entire thread, but I think it is appropriate to point out that John L. Dagg did not make a name for himself until the 19th century. I point that out because that would place Dagg's theology some 100+ years _after _the 1689 LBC. 

I actually taught on this paragraph this morning:



> 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.



I believe it is beyond argument that the framers of the 1689 LBC considered Christians of paedobaptist conviction not only to be true Christians, but to also belong to true churches notwithstanding that paedobaptists were considered to be in error, but not an error of such gravity that it would cast doubt on their profession. This is clearly articulated, or at least implied, in the preface to the 1689 LBC.



> 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. 

How does Dagg fit into this discussion? No one can deny that Dagg wasn't an important voice in 19th century Baptist circles. The question is to what extent did he influence 19th century _confessional _Baptist thought, and must confessional Baptists of the 21st century deal with Dagg as though he somehow mitigates current Reformed Baptist theology?


----------



## MW (Nov 22, 2009)

Herald said:


> 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.



Bill, we cannot understand each other while "visible" as an adjective of "church" is not properly explained and applied. I have tried to introduce threads in which that word and its consequences have been discussed by antipaedobaptist authors. While I am thankful for the more Presbyterian understanding of "church" that is influencing the Calvinistic revival amongst antipaedobaptists, I see little point continuing a discussion where the actual tradition itself is not permitted to speak.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 22, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > But your analysis of the cb view may not held by all, if any, RB's.
> ...



As noted before by me and Bill Dagg is not of confessional authority. The parallel on the other side would be a claim that than Shaw or Hodge is of Confessional authority for Presbyterians. And, as noted ad nauseam, the 1677/89 does not take a stand on the matter for reasons given in the Appendix.

That Dagg does not recognize a pb church as being biblically ordered is not news. But I havn't been able to find anywhere that he denies pb's the brotherly recognition as men "in Christ". Certainly he doesn't do so in the following passage (from Founders Ministries | Manual of Church Order - Ch. 2)

"Objection 2.--If baptism is a prerequisite to church-membership, societies of unbaptized persons cannot be called churches; and the doctrine, therefore, unchurches all Pedobaptist denominations. 

Church is an English word; and the meaning of it, as such, must be determined by the usage of standard English writers. Our inquiry has been, not what this English word means, or how it may be used. We have sought to know how Christ designed his churches to be organized. This is a question very different from a strife about words to no profit. In philological inquiries, we are willing to make usage the law of language; and we claim no right, in speaking or writing English, to annul this law. But our inquiry has not been philological. We have not been searching English standard.writers, to know how to speak; but the Holy Bible, to know how to act. Even the Greek word ecclesia was applied to assemblies of various kinds; and we are bound to admit the application of it to an assembly of unbaptized persons, solemnly united in the worship of God. But we have desired to know how an ecclesia, such as those to which Paul's epistles were addressed, was organized; and we have investigated the subject as a question of duty, and not of philology. The result of our investigation is, that every such ecclesia was composed of baptized persons exclusively"



armourbearer said:


> 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.



Than we are happy that we have provided you with reason to be thankful.


----------



## Herald (Nov 22, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Matthew, I have to concur that an impasse may have been reached. I grow a bit frustrated when confessional Baptists are considered part and parcel with Calvinistic Baptists. The two are not always the same thing. As a confessional Baptist I am am critical of more than a few things written by other Baptist authors. But even if there are Baptist authors who disagree on the visible saints/church, what exactly does that prove? It proves they disagree. I suppose this is where I become a bit frustrated dealing with your argumentation.


----------



## MW (Nov 22, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> But I havn't been able to find anywhere that he denies pb's the brotherly recognition as men "in Christ".



I said, "and still be recognised as being in Christ."


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 23, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > But I havn't been able to find anywhere that he denies pb's the brotherly recognition as men "in Christ".
> ...



Sorry, was in a bit of a rush when I typed that, but where does Dagg deny pb's recognition as "being in Christ"?


----------



## MW (Nov 23, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> Sorry, was in a bit of a rush when I typed that, but where does Dagg deny pb's recognition as "being in Christ"?



He doesn't. As stated, and as clarified, he sets forth his explanation so as professors only baptised as infants may "still be recognised as being in Christ." How many times must one say the same thing? I'm finished.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 24, 2009)

I hope I understand you correctly, but if I'm wrong, I'm really confused. For you originally wrote: 



armourbearer said:


> 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.



but now you write?



armourbearer said:


> He doesn't. As stated, and as clarified, he sets forth his explanation so as professors only baptised as infants may "still be recognised as being in Christ." How many times must one say the same thing? I'm finished.



The original comment appears to say that Dagg held that "unbaptised" professors cannot be in communion with "baptised" (Baptist?) churches *and* still be recognized as being in Christ."

If the conjuncton in the original comment had been "while" or "yet," instead of "and" it would have been clear that the writer believed Dagg to be saying 2 things: although pb's cannot be in communion w. Baptist churches, yet pb's can still be recognized as brothers in Christ. However, the conjunction "and" in the initial comment effectively continues the denial present in the first clause over to the second clause so one reads the summary as attributing to Dagg a denial of both possibilities, something I hope you did not intend to do.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 18, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > 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."
> ...



I missed this the first time around. The 1677 Confession was, as noted above reprinted in 1688 with the Appendix. As James M Renihan has noted, however, (Confessional Subscription in early Baptist History (Part 2) Reformed Baptist Fellowship) it ...



Renihan said:


> ... is curious that though the document is commonly known as the 1689 Confession, I can find no bibliographic evidence that it was printed in that year. It was published in 1677, 1688, and 1699. See Donald Wing, Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America and of English Books Printed in Other Countries 1641-1700, 2d ed., (New York: The Index Committee of the Modern Language Association of America, 1972), 1:369.



If the Confession was not reprinted in 1689, the 1689 preface therefore refers to and commeds either the 1677 original or the 1688 reprint of the Confession both of which contained the Appendix. The Appendix, in so far as it comments on the Confession, must be seen as the authoritative interpretation thereof.

And, as the 1677/1688 Appendix notes, the Baptists were divided on whether or not church communion was possible with pbs. The 1677/88 Confession does not take one side or the other in that controversy, but in defining local church membership as it does, it allows local churches to make a determination of that question for themselves. That is why ardent separatists like Knollys and Kiffin could sing the Preface recommending a Confession with an Appendix recommending communion, because that recommedation had been specifically made of less than Confessional authority.


----------

