Particular Baptist Training for Ministry

In the seventeenth century, the halls of Oxford and Cambridge were closed to nonconformists. Dissenters of all kinds sought alternate methods of educating themselves through tutors, academies, Dutch universities, or church-based training.

One of the practices of the Congregationalists and the Particular Baptists was the recognition of gifted brethren in the church. These men were formally recognized as gifted to preach in the church, though not (yet) called to pastoral ministry. Candidates for ministry often came from among the gifted brethren, who were tested and trained up in their gifts. Individual churches and The Particular Baptist Fund facilitated this training through the purchase of books and other related expenses.

The church which met in Wapping, London under the pastoral care of Hercules Collins kept a book of its records, within which are two lists of books purchased for gifted brethren who were being tested or trained to serve in the church. These short lists provide a sense of what they considered essential reading for a gifted brother preparing to preach in the 1680s-1690s.

The list below is a collation of the two short lists, both of which include many of the same works, presented with modern bibliographic conventions.

Ames, William. The Marrow of Sacred Divinity. London: Edward Griffin, 1642.

Baxter, Richard. Of the Nature of Spirits; Especially Mans Soul. London: B. Simmons, 1682.

The Bible.

Bunyan, John. The Holy War, Made by Christ upon the Devil, for the Regaining of Man. London: Dorman Newman, 1684.

Charnock, Stephen. A Treatise of Divine Providence. London: Thomas Cockeril, 1680.

_____. Several Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God. London: D. Newman, 1682.

Coke, Zachary. The Art of Logick. London: Robert White, 1654.

A Confession of Faith Put forth by the Elders and Brethren Of many Congregations of Christians (baptized upon Profession of their Faith) in London and the Country. London: Benjamin Harris, 1677.

Cotton, Clement. A Complete Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation. London: Thomas Downes, 1638.

Diodati, John. Pious Annotations, upon the Holy Bible. London: T.B., 1643.

An English Dictionary.

Barker, Matthew. Flores Intellectuales: Or, Select Notions, Sentences and Observations Collected out of several authors and made publick, especially for the Use of young Scholars, entring into the Ministry. London: J. Astwood, 1691.

_____. Flores Intellectuales: The Second Part Containing Three Centuries More. London: Thomas Snowden, 1692.

Haak, Theodore. trans., The Dutch Annotations Upon the Whole Bible. London: Henry Hills, 1657.

Leigh, Edward. A Systeme or Body of Divinity. London: A.M., 1662,

Newton, John. An Introduction to the Art of Logick. London: A.P., 1678.

Rowley, Alexander. The Schollers Companion, or a little Library, Containing all the interpretations of the Hebrew and Greek Bible, by all Authors. London: M. Bell, 1648.

Smith, John. The Mysterie of Rhetorique Unvail’d. London: E. Cotes, 1656.

Wilkinson, Robert. A Jewell for the Eare. London: John Stafford, 1643.

Acts 14:23 in 2LCF 26.9

2LCF 26.9 states that elders are chosen by “the common suffrage of the church” and ordained by elders. This language is taken directly from the Savoy Declaration’s Platform of Polity. In 2LCF The margin points you to the Greek text of Acts 14:23 to justify this (the Savoy Declaration doesn’t provide textual references).

Such “proof texts” in the Confession refer you to the textual tradition of that verse, not the bare text itself. What can we find in commentaries and treatments of this text, especially ones that deal with the Greek word itself?

Charles Marie Du-Veil, a Particular Baptist (formerly Roman Catholic), wrote a commentary on the book of Acts and argued that “χειροτονήσαντες” meant to choose by election.

Nehemiah Coxe, a few years earlier, argued in a sermon on Elders and Deacons (1681) that the Greek of Acts 14:23 means to appoint through suffrage. He appealed to Erasmus and Beza to explain the Greek word, “χειροτονήσαντες.” Here is the marginal note from his published sermon:

Following the note to Theodore Beza, we find in his “Annotationes majores in Novum…Testamentum” that he translates this word in Acts 14:23 as “they appointed by suffrage” and argues “It is based on the Greek word for this practice, where decisions are made by raising of hands.”

Beza’s work had been noticed and used by Baptistic Congregationalists (i.e., early Particular Baptists) at least as far back as the 1650s. In 1656, the Abingdon Association wrote to the church in Petty France about the issue of how elders were to be appointed. Edward Harrison and Samuel Tull, the pastors of the Petty France church, responded and appealed to Beza on Acts 14:23.

[In] Acts 14 Luke informs us that elders were ordained in every church by lifting up of the hand: so in the original: by election: so it is in the old translation: which must imply the action of the church. Wherein we do agree with the paraphrase of Beza, and others, upon the place.

John Owen made the same argument from the Greek text of Acts 14:23 in his “A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God.”

And in his posthumously published “The True Nature of a Gospel Church” Owen took note of Beza, Erasmus, and others to justify the same translation.

Above, Edward Harrison stated that the “old translation” rendered Acts 14:23 in this way. Owen states the same, that “all our old English Translations” did this. They are referring to pre-King James translations, namely the “Great Bible” authorized by Henry VIII and published in 1539 and the “Geneva Bible” first published in 1560.

The Great Bible rendered Acts 14:23,

And whan they had ordened them elders by eleccyon in euery congregacyon, and had prayde and fasted, they commended them to the Lorde on whom they beleued.

[And when they had ordained them elders by election in every congregation, and had prayed and fasted, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.]

The Geneva Bible was published with annotations in its margin. Here is a 1610 version of such a Bible, with its annotation for Acts 14:23.

The text of the annotation reads:

Acts 14:23 The Apostles committed the Churches which they had planted, to proper and peculiar Pastors, which they made not rashly, but with prayers and fastings going before: neither did they thrust them upon Churches through bribery or lordly superiority, but chose and placed them by the voice of the congregation.

When the new version, the “King James Bible” was published, it changed the translation of Acts 14:23. Here is a 1638 edition,

[And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.]

Note the deletion of “by election” in comparison to the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible.

In the 1640s the Westminster Assembly published an edition of this Bible, with annotations much like the Geneva Bible had done. On Acts 14:23, the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations noted that “χειροτονήσαντες” could be interpreted as suffrage and consent, but agreed with the more modern (King James) rendering.

We can draw several conclusions from these evidences.

First, it is a helpful reminder not to treat “Proof Texts” in the Confession as merely pointing you to the text of Scripture. 2LCF 26.9 tells you to look at the Greek text. You are being pointed to resources dealing with the Greek text, that is, commentaries, translations, and other related literature. The “proof text” is asking you to consider, “What does the Greek of this text say?”

Second, we find that the Baptistic Congregationalists’ theology was developed in conversation with the literature of their time, and the literature that preceded them. They weighed, measured, and considered the text with the literature of others in mind. They were taught, persuaded, and instructed by a tradition much larger than their own particular slice of it. They didn’t loot and leave that tradition. They saw themselves living within it. When we see writers like Harrison and Coxe drawing from the Protestant and Reformed tradition, it reinforces the fact that we should read 2LCF as a particular version of a larger heritage (as if the fact that so much of 2LCF was taken from WCF and SD wasn’t enough to prove the point already).

Third, related to the previous point, we see here another evidence of Matt Bingham’s thesis that those whom we ordinarily call “Particular Baptists” are best known as “Baptistic Congregationalists.” They did not arise in a vacuum. What distinguishes John Owen from Edward Harrison or Nehemiah Coxe on this issue? Nothing. What distinguishes the Savoy Declaration and 2LCF on this issue? Nothing. They share congregationalism. But Harrison, Coxe, and 2LCF represent the Baptistic wing of Congregationalism.

Fourth, similar to the previous points, we find that 2LCF 26.9 isn’t “Baptist” at all. (Apostrophe: To be honest, very little of 2LCF is “Baptist” except a very short chapter on Baptism.) The view that elders are to be appointed by elders, with the suffrage of the church, was the standard translation of the text of the Bible in English as far back as 1539, and it had a heritage in scholastic literature. All this was well established long before the Baptistic Congregationalists arose in the 1630s-1640s.

Fifthly, and lastly, when we realize that there was a tradition of interpreting Acts 14:23 as appointment by election, then we realize that the phrase “common suffrage” in 2LCF 26.9 is, in effect, an attempt to embed the words of Scripture in the Confession itself. It is, so to speak, Beza’s rendition of Acts 14:23, “per suffragia creassent”, in English.

This was originally going to be a Twitter thread, but the rabbit hole went pretty deep and I thought it best to put this in a blog post. I hope you find it useful.

As a somewhat unrelated extra, Patrick Fairbairn weighed in on the translation of this text in his “Hermeneutical Manual”, again taking note of Erasmus and Beza.

In further reading, William Bucanus offered the same interpretation of Acts 14:23 in his A Body of Divinity.

 

They [ministers] ought to be approved of the chief men, which do excell other both in piety and in dignity in the church, as of the magistrate, if he be godly, Christian, or an allower of the Christian Religion: yet not excluding the consent of the people, but given them power, if they have any reason to dissent, to declare the causes of their lawfull refusal, so that none be admitted to Ecclesiastical Functions without the privity, open notice given, and the acceptance of the whole Church: So Paul and Barnabas are said to have appointed Elders in the Churches, not according to their own private pleasures, but by advisement of the people, first by wholesome counsel, and yet the people declaring their voices or consent by holding up of their hands. And then they had ordained them Elders by voices (or holding up of hands) in the Church, said Luke, Acts 14:23.

Referring to a congregation’s “power, privileges, and liberty to choose their officers,” John Cotton, in his The Keyes of the Kingdom said,

The like, or greater liberty is generally approved by the best of our Divines (studious of Reformation) from Acts 14:23. They ordained them Elders, chosen by lifting up of hands.

Don’t Discourage Gifted Brethren

 

At the first General Assembly of the London Particular Baptists, held in 1689, the following question was proposed by a church and answered by the assembly.

It is important for churches to recognize the gifts of the exalted Lord Jesus Christ (i.e., deacons and ministers–Eph 4:8-12). Having recognized such gifts, it is equally important for the church not to then throw them by the wayside or abuse them. Ingrown and self-blinded churches have turned away and thrown away good men for foolish reasons, and in so doing they have discouraged and dissuaded some men from the ministry, whether they are the candidates themselves or those who ponder pursuing the ministry.

If one can say, as a very general observation, that Presbyterian ordinations can be overly mechanical, ordaining men who pass examinations but do not possess God-given and homegrown preaching and pastoring gifts, then it can also be said as a general observation, that Baptist ordinations can be self-serving, lazy, and overly demanding.

The church as a whole needs actively to seek, recognize, pursue, promote, and prepare men for the offices of deacon and elder, knowing all the while that our King, Jesus Christ, will gift the same to his beloved spouse, the church. To do otherwise is “omission of an ordinance of God.” It is sin.

Anthony Burgess on the Unity of God’s People (Part 5: Remedies for preventing and repairing schism)

This concludes Anthony Burgess’ five sermons on Christian unity. The following is a continuation of the previous sermon, offering remedies for preventing or healing disunity in the church.

First (or fourth if you keep counting from the previous sermon), make sure that you deal fairly and honestly with a disagreeing party. Great damage has been done in the church by brothers misrepresenting each other and positing greater errors of the other than they actually profess to believe. If we are not to bear false witness in society, how much more in the church? “Therefore that is necessary in all disputations to state the controversie aright, for that is like the first concoction, which if it miscarry is not mended afterwards, men may write voluminous books, and bring multitude of arguments to no purpose, if the true state of the controversie be not laid down.”

Second, we should also avoid slippery slope arguments. If our opponent denounces the conclusions to which we take their arguments, we should be very careful about what we say. The point is not that we can’t draw logical connections in others’ arguments. The point is that we have to deal fairly in the connections we make. “Indeed what is the evident and plain Consequences of a Doctrine, that is to be accounted of as the doctrine it self; As whatsoever is a clear genuine consequence from Scripture is Scripture, but not every consequence, We are apt to deduce, Thus it is here, what is evidently a consequence from any Doctrine, we may charge it upon the doctrine, but then we must be sure it’s the proper and natural childe, not a bastard, that is the true issue not suppositions.”

Third, if we find ourselves holding a doctrine that differs from the church of Christ, we should exercise the utmost of caution in what we do, and especially what we say about it. Publishing our opinions to the world without careful consideration should be far from our minds.

To differ from the church ought to cause us great concern, and it ought to cause us to seriously examine ourselves. If we know how easily we err, then how much more humble ought we to be? Self-examination is a necessity. “Wheresoever the Spirit of God leadeth into all truth, there he doth likewise into all humility.”

Before we publish an opinion which we know differs from the church, we should consult the teachers of the church. No matter who we are or what function or office we hold in the church of Christ, no one is infallible and no one sees the entire picture clearly. Consulting others adds accountability to our thoughts before we publish something which we cannot take back.

We should not pride ourselves in novelty. We should be content to tread the tried and true paths of the church. “But to be weary of the known truth is in effect to be weary of the same God, the same Christ, Why do we not desire a new Sun, a new Earth, a new world as well?”

Not all schisms are doctrinal. Sometimes those who hold the same doctrines leave churches and begin new ones in a breach of order. This is sinful and unacceptable as well.

Be sure that if you leave a church it is for doctrinal aberrations at the most fundamental levels, and not merely personal preferences. “Do not thou leave it till God leaveth it; Do not thou unchurch it till God doth.” And before we leave, do all we can to heal the evils we see in the church. That may result in you being asked to leave, in which case your conscience is clear that you did not simply walk away without effort. There are good schisms and bad schisms. Dividing from a unity based on evil is a good schism. Dividing things united in truth is a bad schism.

When there are problems in administration and government, do all that you can within the capacity of your calling. And leave the rest in God’s hands, patiently waiting and humbly enduring for the sake of the church.

To prevent schism, we must root out pride in our hearts. Many have split the church because they did not get what they wanted.

“Let the Sum of all be, as much as in us lieth, to put this prayer of Christ into practice; Peace is of so great a matter, that it’s called the peace of God, and God is called the God of peace, and Christ is called our peace, seeing Christ praieth for it; We see it’s not all the Sermons, all the irenicall books can do any good till God give one heart, be Importunate therefore with God, and strive with him for this unspeakable mercy.”

To conclude with a few applications to confessional associations:
1. Where there are differences, we must deal fairly with the disagreeing party. This requires both parties to state their positions clearly, so as to be understood positively and negatively (i.e., where there is agreement and disagreement).
2. We should prize the doctrinal accountability of an association, and we should prize the wealth of teaching gifts within an association. Beyond prizing these things, we should take advantage of them and submit ourselves to them.
3. We should defend the fundamentals (that which we confess), and avoid disputing the rest.
4. We should root out pride, promote humility, and pray to God that he would give us one heart established on one faith immersed by one baptism serving one Lord in one Spirit. Let our unity begin and end with Christ, his truth, his commands, and his ways.

Anthony Burgess on the Unity of God’s People (Part 4: Cautions concerning unity – good and bad principles)

We have come to part four of five in Anthony Burgess’ sermons on Christian unity. Having dealt with the necessity and nature of unity, as well as the mischief of division, Burgess now offers us some cautions concerning how unity should be pursued, and how it ought not to be pursued. He also provides helpful thoughts on dealing with disunity.

Unity is a serious matter. Unity built on falsehood is a sin because it covers up falsehood with an appearance of truth. “Cursed be that peace which forsakes the truth.”

That being said, our unity is to begin and end with Jesus Christ. But it is not just a common profession of faith in Jesus that unites his people. It is also a common obedience to all of his teaching, his commands, and his ways. Christ as King is to be the fountain of our unity. This simple fact makes the unity of hell, the world, and the Roman church to be sinful wicked and abominable unities.

Our unity must be manifested in orderliness, according to the Scriptures. If our unity is built on Christ and his commands, and if Christ has left us complete instructions for the government of his church, then our united obedience to his commands should yield a united and ordered church.

This ordered unity under the authority of Christ is consistent with things which might appear to foster disunity. For example, someone who is willing to oppose falsehood and stand for truth in the church may appear to be promoting disunity, but they are actually being faithful to Christ and his commands, as well as faithful to the unity and order of the church. It’s true that doctrine divides. It divides light from darkness, truth from falsehood. “For he that is pitiful to the wolf is cruel to the sheep.” And “So there is a counterfeit disguised unity and love, and that is, when because of this peace and agreement, no damnable heresie, no corrupt or evil way is to be severely dealt with, and a Scripture-way taken to stop the progress of it.” Unity must be built on Christ’s truth and his commands. “Be then fully persuaded, that the unity and love Christ prays for, does not oppose Scripture-zeal, and courage against any profane and erroneous ways: It does not bring in a compliance and symbolizing with all heresies and profaneness.” To fail to stand firm against error is to promote disunity, or at the least a sinful and unbiblical unity.

How do we deal with disunity or breaches in unity? There are two ways, extremes, proposed: The Papal way and the Socinian way.

The papal way imposes all belief and allows no dissent.

The Socinian way allows anything and everything (except the truth).

The right way forward, according to Burgess, is to build unity on three things: True doctrine to remedy heresy, True order to remedy schism, and true love to remedy wrath and contention.

Wherever you agree, agree heartily and stand firm and fast on that doctrinal agreement.

Submit to biblical authority in the church. Church members are to give due reverence to their ministers, recognizing that their authority comes from Christ. We should give great weight and consideration to the teaching that comes to us from Christ’s ministers. And we should value it much higher than our own private opinions (while acknowledging all to be under the authority of Scripture).

While we should have a “holy impatience” with falsehood, we are to be compassionate and careful in how we deal with those who go astray. When we consider how prone we are to wander, “these things will greatly move thee to tender bowels.”

Thinking in an associational context, there is much wisdom to be gleaned from Burgess’ comments. For example, between the tyrannical imposition of Rome and the licentious liberty of Socinians stands a voluntary confession of faith by the people of Christ as churches of Christ. In this model, no belief is imposed. Yet each person/church is held accountable for what they have confessed to be true. Thus, while the conscience is not imposed upon by any external compulsion, it is still guarded and bounded by external and mutual vigilance and accountability. Furthermore, a confessional association can mutually agree to establish sanctions or means of redress when a breach of confessional integrity arises. This strikes a perfect balance of unity built on Christ’s truth and commands without the tyranny of Rome, the license of Socinians, or the toothless doctrinal accountability of non-confessional “associations” of whatever kind.

Anthony Burgess on the Unity of God’s People (Part 3: Why are there so many divisions in the Church?)

This is a continuation of Anthony Burgess’ five sermons on Christian unity. It is also a direct continuation of the previous sermon, describing the benefits of unity and the mischief of division.

Burgess here teaches us that divisions come from sin. It is our own sinfulness that produces rents in the church. He also gives a helpful caution to those who stride forth in the name of truth. However much we may have the truth on our side in any given situation, we ought to avoid pride and force. “Though a man pretend never such singular gifts, such extraordinary Teachings of Gods Spirit, yet if contentious, he is not to glory, yea, he lieth against the Truth; Thou sais, it’s for the truth thou are thus contentious, It’s for the truth thou hast made these divisions, No, the truths of Christ are to be maintained by the Spirit of Christ.”

In the ensuing passage, Burgess argues that unity is of utmost importance. The Scriptures demand and declare it plainly. And we must strive for unity. If the devils can unite against the church, cannot the church unite against the devil? There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

If all this is true, how do we account for our disunity?

First, our unity immediately implies a decisive and complete rupture from the world. Division is necessarily entailed in our unity. This comes about not because of some defect or intentional disruptiveness on the part of the gospel, but rather natural man’s enmity towards God and hatred of his truth.

It is the remnant of sin, either within believers or found in false believers, that causes divisions and disunity in the church. Divisions are evidence of the false church within the church.

If the elect cannot be deceived in fundamentals, ultimately, then a fundamental agreement is to be sought after and considered more than non-fundamental agreement.

As a side note, it’s reasoning like this that informs our perspective of why the Particular Baptists followed the form and content of the Presbyterians and Independents’ confessions of faith. They were attempting to join that fundamental unity which Burgess has been describing. They explain:

We should also remember that Christ’s prayer will be fulfilled at last in heaven when we are truly all one in every respect.

As long as we dwell here in this sinful world, and as long as sin dwells in us, we should expect a certain amount of division and disunity.

And we ought not forget that the Devil is hard at work, though he will never triumph, to subvert and disrupt the church at every turn.

Associations of churches should not be surprised when disunity arises. But they should take action, carefully and collectively, to deal with divisions so that the truth and love of God rule the day and form the foundation of our unity.

Anthony Burgess on the Unity of God’s People (Part 2: The Benefits of Unity and the Mischief of Division)

Continuing on in Anthony Burgess’ five sermons on christian unity we come to his exposition of the benefits and necessity of unity, as well as the mischief of division. His previous sermon dealt with the nature of unity: invisible through the Spirit, visible through confession of faith, church ordinances, government, membership, and ministry.

One of the excellent features of this sermon is Burgess’ balance of unity in love and doctrine. Those two things should never be placed in antithesis to one another.

Here Burgess reminds us that Christ does not merely pray for our unity. He commands it. Christian unity is not a convenience; it is a mandatory necessity. “There is no greater scandal to Religion and holines, then when those that do believe, are as the Levites Concubine, that was cut into many peeces.”

Our unity is to be a testimony to the world. And for that reason, when doctrinal divergences arise, we are to take them seriously and deal with them carefully. Love and doctrinal unity are to be one. “We are to use Scripture-zeal and Scripture-means to convince even those that are godly, when erring in Doctrine: Therefore the Scripture doth not commend an unity and love, so as to let all errours and prohanenesse alone.”

We have been promised unity in the covenant of grace. Therefore we should pray for it, expect it, and pursue it. Why then so much division? Burgess will deal with that in another sermon.

There is safety in numbers. Unity is advantageous because it promotes accountability, mutual help, mutual concern, and mutual encouragement and edification. Consequently, any subversion of unity hurts everyone, including an instigator of disunity. “And therefore observe, whether the power of godlinesse doth not much abate, when differences do arise: There is not that heavenly communion, nor hearty concurrence in the waies of holiness. There is not that mutual helping of one another, as at other times.”

We must always be in pursuit of unity so that we will be able to withstand persecution and difficulty. In times of peace and calm, we are all the more prone to divide. God may send persecution that we might put aside petty differences and stand firm on true unity in faith, hope, and love. “And therefore if love and godlinesse do not unite you, take heed God doth not make some outward trouble and affliction to put you together; If you do not imbrace one another willingly, he may binde you in his chains together.”

Unity strengthens. A body with unbroken bones is stronger than a body of broken bones. How sad it is then, and evil, to break the unity of the brethren. “Now if not only the Wolf and the Fox, but also one Sheep shall devour another, Must not this bring utter ruine?…That which the devils of hell, and all the wicked adversaries thereof could not do, that you will do to one another.”

True unity is a beautiful thing to behold and to experience.

Unity is so beautiful that we must all strive to be peacemakers.

We should love and long for unity to such an extent that it is our natural inclination and desire in this life. We need Scripture and ministers to remind us, but let us take it to heart and pursue it from our own hearts’ compulsion not purely a mandatory obligation.

In the previous post, I mentioned that Burgess’ sermons are excellent material for associationalism. All of that remains true in this sermon. Christians have an obligation to join with other Christians, first in local churches, then as local churches. This unity is to be built on truth and love, and it its strength and beauty will grow as we stand firm on that foundation. Thus built up and solidified, we can help each other and accomplish much good, with God’s blessing. And we will be a strong testimony to the world of the life-changing power of God’s grace, and the fulfillment of the promises of the New Covenant.

Anthony Burgess on the Unity of God’s People (Part 1: Invisible and Visible)

Anthony Burgess, a member of the Westminster Assembly, preached CXLV sermons on John 17, five of which were concerned with the topic of unity among Christians. This is the first of those five. It is well presented and well worth reading. I also find this material, including the subsequent sermons, to be excellent arguments and information for the practice of associationalism (although Burgess of course would not have taken it in that direction).

The fundamental doctrinal assertion of this sermon is in italics below: “That union amongst the godly is of so great necessity and consequences that Christ doth in their behalf principally and chiefly pray for this.” Unity is important, and necessary. We must pursue unity. And, as Burgess argues, this unity is fundamentally built upon agreement.

Burgess proceeds to distinguish between invisible and visible unity. Our invisible unity comes from our union to Christ through the Holy Spirit. This invisible union is the foundation for our visible union. Christ’s people establish visible union by “outwardly and visibly express[ing] their compacted nearnesse to one another.” Such a visible unity is one of the chief testimonies to the world of Christ’s church, and conversely all divisions and ruptures are a blight on this otherwise beautiful picture.

But what does this visible union look like? It is first of all, and above all, a unity of faith and profession. It is a doctrinal unity, “for unity in errour and idolatry, or false waies, is not peace, but a faction or Conspiracy.” Apart from unity in faith and sound doctrine, unity is worthless, meaningless, and useless.

But Christian unity is much more than simply collective intellectual concordance. We are to be sincerely and deeply concerned for the being and well-being of our brothers in Christ. If we are brothers, God’s children, how can we ignore our spiritual siblings?

This union is visible in churches. Rogue Christians who will not join the church either are not Christians (because they intentionally reject Christ’s commands) or they are unwittingly destroying the church’s unity under some false delusion of doctrinal deviation which they think keeps them from joining the church. When we gather to worship, hear the word, and partake of the Supper, we collectively hold fast the confession of our hope and proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Within the church, visible unity plays out in a biblical order of church government. Each member ought to play his or her role faithfully, complementary to the rest.

Visible unity also produces a people who help one another and share a common pilgrimage and exile while waiting for our eternal inheritance.

There is also a visible unity within churches and between churches wherein they cooperate for the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom.

These things being premised, we should understand that the invisible unity of Christ’s people goes far beyond any boundaries of visible unity we may have established for doctrinal or practical reasons. And we ought to pray for the church throughout the world.

Visible unity means that there will be some false professors who are not truly of the church. And because our unity begins and ends with Christ, such individuals not only do not share in Christ, but receive greater judgment for their false profession and apostasy.

However far away we may be from other believers and churches, let us pray for the church around the world.

Application: If Christ prays for the unity of the church, let us strive for the unity of the church. And because unity is fundamentally built upon the truth, let us eschew division, departures, breaches, and differences among the body of Christ. Let each one examine himself and be sure that we are contributing to the unity, not the disunity of the church.

Associationalism is essentially the idea that because there is one church, the family of God, therefore each individual visible manifestation of that one church ought to be deeply concerned for and cooperating with other individual visible churches. This is confirmed by the example of the apostles and the early church. Thus, while no church can impose beliefs or exercise authority over others, the churches ought to join together under a voluntary, mutual, sincere, collective, and common profession and confession of the faith. And in this way, confessing the faith together, we present a united front of doctrine and practice to the world.

The 1677 Confession on Open vs Closed Communion

The editors of the confession intentionally avoided addressing open and closed communion in order to allow more churches to be able to subscribe to the confession. The majority of its subscribers were advocates of closed communion, but there had been a strand of open-communion going as far back as Henry Jessey and others among the original Particular Baptists of the 1640’s. To accommodate those, and especially Baptists in Bristol, the confession is silent here.

By church-communion is meant “official church membership.”

They explain their rationale below.

Confessions do not exhaustively represent everything that a given church or association holds to be true. For that reason, a line has to be drawn somewhere by which some things are confessed and others not. Unity should be striven for, but never at the cost of truth. In this case the editors extended an olive branch to their open-communion brothers, and exhorted paedobaptists to do the same to them. Remember that through government power (whether controlled by Presbyterians, Independents, or Charles II), the Baptists were persecuted for their view on baptism. Because infant baptism, or christening, was a means of social and political enrollment and enforcement, failure to participate in this process was viewed as a breach of loyalty to the country. You were supposed to be registered in a given parish and required to attend the church of England within that parish. The Baptists did not submit to infant baptism, and they excommunicated their members who left for the church of England. This adds a certain character to their plea for tolerance beyond that of “let’s all get along.”

This is found at the end of the Appendix on baptism.

Click the image for a larger version.

Thomas Manton on “The Man of Sin”

From Thomas Manton’s “18 sermons on the second chapter of the second epistle to the Thessalonians.”

Click the image for a larger version.

See also:
https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/david-dickson-on-the-antichrist-in-the-westminster-confession-of-faith/

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/antichrist-the-man-of-sin/

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/thomas-beard-on-the-pope-as-the-antichrist/