It seems that there continues to be a misunderstanding of the 1644/46
doctrine on the administrators of baptism.
Here is an edited
portion of a post that I made in 1997:
The text of the 1644 edition is as follows (taken from Lumpkin, page
167): "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the
Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tyed
to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the
Commission injoyning the administration, being given to them under no
other consideration, but as considered Disciples."
The text of the 1646 edition is: "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."
The [1646] revisions came largely due to the strictures published by
Daniel Featley in his book "The Dipper's Dip't and Plunged over Head and Heels
. . ." Featley said "A preaching disciple, sounds as harshly as a
Scholar Master, or a Lecturing hearer. . . ." (pg. 183). This was the
fifth of his strictures aimed at the 1644 Confession. The Baptists
revised their statements in response to Featley and published the 1646
edition.
Now, notice carefully what they did in the revision. The 1644 edition
stated that the adminstrator of baptism was to be a "preaching
disciple." This was a reference to the individuals described in article
XLV, who later came to be known as "gifted brethren." [brief
digression: there was a controversy between the high presbyterians and
the Independents and Baptists over who could properly preach. The HP's
said that only educated ordained clergy could preach. The I's and B's
said that gifted men, tried and approved by the church, could rightly
preach. These were the gifted brethren. Under NO circumstances was
anyone allowed to preach who had not been tried and approved by the
churches. They all had a very high view of the preaching office.]
Featley criticized the expression, so they changed it by moving it to
the end of the article "being given to them as considered disciples,
BEING MEN ABLE TO PREACH THE GOSPEL." It is simply a more elegant way of
saying the same thing. They did not believe or practice that any church
member could baptize; nor did they restrict the administration of the
ordinance to elders alone; they believed and practiced that the men who
were recognized by the church as officers, teachers and preachers were
allowed to baptize, but not all of the members.
To confirm this, notice the words of Hanserd Knollys, writing in his
1646 book "The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion" (page 9): "We do not
affirm, that every common disciple may baptize, there was some mistake
[by his opponent--JMR] in laying down our opinion. . . . Where it is
conceived, that we hold, Whatsoever Disciple can teach the word, or make
out Christ may Baptize, and administer the orinances. We do not do so;
for though believing Women being baptized are Disciples, Act. 9.36. and
can make out Christ; yea, and some of them (by their experimental
knowledge and spiritual understanding of the way, order, & faith of the
Gospel) may be able to instruct their teachers, Acts 18.26. Rom. 16.3.
yet we do not hold , that a woman may preach, baptize, nor administer
other Ordinances. Nor do we judge it meet, for any brother to baptize,
or to administer other ordinances; unless he have received such gifts of
the spirit, as fitteh or enableth him to preach the Gospel. And those
gifts being first tried by, and known to the church, such a brother is
chosen, and appointed thereunto by the suffrage of the church."
The administration of the ordinances was not tied to office, but to
recognized preachers. Thus, the 1st LCF does not endorse the notion
that any disciple may baptize.
This is the same doctrine as the 1677/89 LCF.
Jim Renihan
