The Early Particular Baptists were Protestant

[The Biblicist]

In the Records of the Abingdon Association in the year 1651 concerning one named Thomas Proud we read:

"Thomas Proud, having greviously sinned against God by broaching that destructive opinion maintaining the mixed communion of the baptized and unbaptized in visible church fellowship, and haveing endeavored to draw other to the same judgment by several wayes and meanes and seek to rend and divide this church, as in preaching his error " - third general meeting, summer 1651

The Abingdon Association was in fellowship with both William Kiffin and John Spilsbury (p.131)


The Midland Associational records in June 1656 ask whether or not baptized believers should go and listen to unbaptized ministers:


Question 1. Whether baptized believers may joyne in any part of worship or publike hering the national ministers preach or other that are not baptized.


Answer: baptized believers ought not to here the nationall ministers preach or joyne with them in their publike worship, their pretended ministry being Babilonish, Rev. 18:4. Neither may they soe heare or joyne with unbaptized persones, though hoped to be godly, because they are disorderly in carrying one a publick ministery and worship without baptism, Col. 2:5; 2 Thes. 3:6 no, nor with baptized persons neither if not sound in the faith which is the cause of htose that are called free willers, Prov. 19:27. (Association Records of the Midlands to 1658, The Fifth General Meeting 4/6 June 1656)


Daniel King and Benjamin Coxe were part of this Association

 

[The Biblicist]

The Association Records of the West Country in its 8th meeting at Chard in 1657 were so opposed to unbaptized preachers when asked whether it was right to go hear an unbaptized preacher and/or allow such to preach in their congregations, even though this person was not opposed to baptism, said it to go hear such should be governed by "their rule for such a practice" (which previously was declared to be against their rule) but to let unbaptized ministers preach in their congregation was condemned.

Query 6. Whether it be unlawfull or contrary to any rule in the New Testament for baptized believers to hear a person that hath received a gift from the Lord, which gift hath been blest by the Lord to the conversion of sinners and to the confirming of saints in the faith of Christ, being of a holy and grave conversation, and denying wholly the world's waies and which, though not yet baptized, yet so far from opposing that ordinance that he is earnestly longing and diligently waiting for further information therein to the end he may not practice the same formerly but in the power of him into whose name believers ought to be baptized?

Answer: for the hearing of such a person when the church is not assembled, as we desire to be very tender and cautious in our conclusions in such a case, so we do earnestly desire the brethren concerned in this matter to look to their rule for such a practice.

Secondly, but for such a person to be permitted to preach in the church assembled, we judge it altogether without rule, and of dangerous concernment and that for these grounds:
first, because we are to keep close to the commands of Christ and not do everything that is not expressly forbidden, Mat. 28:19f., Acts 3:23, Col. 2:18 to the end.
secondly, because it is a disorderly practice, being contrary to the rule of the gospel, II Thes. 3:6, compared with 2:15, 1 Cor. 14:40. For, if disorder in a person dully received into communion may hinder him from administering in the church, much more will it him that was never orderly received.
thirdly, because that such a practice, being contrary to the rule, becomes justly offensive to the churches and saints and so is contrary to that, 1 Cor. 10:31, Ro. 14:14, II Cor. 8:12, Ro. 16:17.
fourthly, because it will prove the ready way to disorder and confusion in the churches of Christ and therefore is not of God, 1 Cor. 14:33: for God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all the churches of the saints.
Fifthly, it may prove a means to hinder the person himself and likewise others that are waiting at Zion's gates from their obedience to the truth and also beget a low esteem thereof in the hearts of those that are already in the truth, Mat. 2:8.
Sixthly, it laieth the church who ownes such a practice liable to the unsoundness and errours of disorderly persons standing out of the truth, who ordinarily are more subject to receive principles contrary to Christ then persons standing in the truth. And this seems to us to be in part already bothin the person presented and in the persons presenting this query who, as it seems to us, owns it to be a formal thing to obey the Lord in his ordinances upon the account of faith in Christ and love to him but look for a greater power, which principle we desire the Lord to deliver his people from. Wherefore, as our judgement is, that such a practice is disorderly and so contrary to the rule of Christ and dangerous to persons both within and without the church and likewise will prove dishonorable to the Lord, so it is our advance and counsel to such brethren and churches that are or may be concerned in his matter in the fear of the Lord to weigh and soberly to consider the grounds presented by us in this answer.
(Association Records of the West Country - Particular English Baptists - 1655).

Here is evidence that such early English Baptists discourged their members from attending services by unbaptized preachers and would not allow them to preach in their pulpits much less take communion with them.

The early American Baptists came from these early associational English Baptist prior to 1689.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let me sum up my position.

1. The "whole lump" is explicitly interpreted by Paul to be the congregational body of Christ at Corinth

"Ye may be...Ye are"

However your interpretation claims it is a STATE or QUALITY of Christian life.

Not at all. I have read through my previous posts on this subject to see if I might have committed a faux pas, but I don't believe I have. Of course the 'whole lump' is the Corinthian church. I have not suggested otherwise.

2. The PURGING of leaven equals the REMOVAL of the immoral member from the membership

"purge out.....put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

However, your interpretation is purging out equals removing an immoral QUALITY from the CHRISTIAN LIFE.

No. The leaven is indeed the' immoral quality' as you have put it. To purge it necessitated not only the exclusion of the immoral member, but also the repentance of the church as a whole of their approval of this man. The fellow appears to have been re-admitted to the church on Paul's instruction after his repentance, so the man himself is not the issue. The root issue in the church was pride (verse 2, pephusiomenoi, from phusioo, 'puffed up with pride' or 'arrogant') which exhibited itself in the man's fornication and the church's tolerance of it. If the man was expelled but the church's attitude did not change, the leaven would still be leavening the whole lump.

3. The removal of the immoral MEMBER changes the membership of the "whole" lump to become a "new" lump of unleavened bread = disciplined church body as represented by the unleavened bread in the Lord's Supper.

Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.....
with such an one no not to eat.

Absolutely not. As I have explained above, the member certainly had to be expelled, but unless the attitude of the church changed (as it did- 2 Corinthians 2:9; 7:9-11), the leaven would not be removed.

However, your interpretation has nothing to do with church discipline or removal of known unrepentant sinful members but rather the removal of an immoral quality within the Christian life.

I think you'll find it does. It is your interpretation that falls grievously short.

4. The Passover preparation equals the Lord's Supper Preparation of the congregational body

"Let us keep the feast.....Christ our passover was sacrificed for us....unleavened bread.....
with such an one no not to eat.

However, your interpretation is this is representative of the state of the Christian life and this not the singular "feast" but feasts (passover, tabernacles, Penetcost, etc.).

The Passover is finished and done. 'Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.' All the OT feasts are finished and Christ is our feast, not only in the Lord's Supper but in all our Christian lives. The Corinthians were being told not only not to partake of the Lord's Supper with this man but not to invite him to a meal or to accept his invitation to dinner.

5. My position harmonizes the moral condition of the congregational body with the metaphorical application of the "unleavened" bread used in the Lord's Supper as representative of the literal and metaphorical body of Christ, thus demanding removal of known sinning members from the congregational body before observing the metaphorical body (unleavened bread) in the Lord Supper.

No it doesn't. Your position supposes that the expulsion of the sinner was all that was required. It wasn't. The church also needed to repent of its attitude or the leaven would remain in the church. All this has nothing- absolutely nothing- to do with the Lord's Supper.

"leaveneth the whole lump....Ye may be a new lump....ye are unleavened....Let us keep the feast....Christ our passover was sacrificed for us......with such a one no not to eat"

The Lord's Supper requires the congregational body to inspect its public membership condition with regard to open and known sin because the unleavened bread represents that congregational body without known sin. Church discipline removes known unrepentant sinners from the membership in order to qualify the congregation to partake of the Lord's Supper symbolism.

This is true and I have not denied it.

Finally, the fact that Paul says "YE may be....YE are" demonstrates the unleavened bread metaphorically represents the "WHOLE" body at Corinth which church discipline can alter the membership so that it becomes "NEW" with regard to membership number and moral condition as a body that excludes Paul and all other Christians outside that congregational membership at Corinth. Proving the "unleavened bread" represents the local congregational body rather than some all inclusive universal invisible church body that would include Paul and all other true Christians.

This condemns "open communion" with regard to a mixed membership of sprinkled, poured and immersed believers as much as it condemns "open communion" with those known to embrace false doctrine.

This is true only if you regard unbaptized people as non-Christians. There are, alas, many baptized people whose doctrines are far more grievous than non-baptism. I know that you have pooh-poohed my citation of 2 Chronicles 30:18-20, but I believe it is germane here. 'Man looks at the outward appearance; the LORD looks at the heart.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the Records of the Abingdon Association in the year 1651 concerning one named Thomas Proud we read:

I know this and understand it. Yet by 1689, the Particular Baptists had changed their view so that they accepted both Open and Closed Communion views as valid and acceptable.

If you read the history of those times, a great number of events occurred that changed the views of the early PBs. Immediately after the Civil War, the Presbyterians were in power and were as intolerant as the Bishops had been, so the Baptists were, quite reasonably, rather hostile to them. But then Cromwell came to full power and gave religious liberty to everyone except Roman Catholics. Then there was a great smorgasbord of sects like Ranters, Shakers, Quakers and Fifth Republic men, and the Baptists were eager to show that they were quite different from these groups.

Then in 1660, Charles II was recalled and very quickly persecution started again and this time the Presbyterians suffered just as much as the Baptists and Congregationalists. So the 'dissenters,' as they were called, tended to come together and the 1677/1689 Confession (and the Savoy Confession for the Congregationalists), being based upon the Westminster Confession, was an attempt to show the degree of unity and orthodoxy that existed among the dissenters.

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course the 'whole lump' is the Corinthian church. I have not suggested otherwise.

Good.

No. The leaven is indeed the' immoral quality' as you have put it. To purge it necessitated not only the exclusion of the immoral member, but also the repentance of the church as a whole of their approval of this man.

The introduction of church discipline begins in verse 5 after he had already rebuked the congregation for their pride. They could not administer verse 5 without first dealing with their own sin. However, verse 5-13 deals with discipline of the member and why he should be disciplined. One primary reason is that they cannot "eat" the Lord's Supper with such an open sinner in their midst just as Paul's analogy in verses 6-10 makes clear.

The "feast" is singular not plural as your interpretation demands. It specific not generic as your interpretation demands. The analogy is crysytal clear. The house of God at Corinth cannot be prepared to eat the Lord's Supper with an open sinner in their midst any more than the Israelite could be prepared to observe the Passover with leaven in their house. The "whole lump" when becomes a "new" lump when the member that is openly sinning is removed as well as when all openly known sin is removed. Verse 5 deals directly with the member just as verse 11-13 deals directly with that member and any other member like him. Verses 6-10 provides the perfect Old testament analogy that makes the transition from preparation to observe the Passover to preparation necessary to observe the Lord's Supper - cyrstal clear!

Removal of their pride is not the action of church discipline in verse 5 but requires that attitude of the church be rectififed prior to taking the action in verse 5. Their glorying was in this SINFUL MEMBER the glorying had to be removed prior to observing verse 5. Both their glorying and church discipline had to be removed prior to observing the Lord's Supper. The Old Testament analogy for removing leaven from the house of an Israelite is the perfect transition to proper preparation "to keep....to eat" the Lord's Supper for the House of God at Corinth.

While you argue that the "leaven" must include the attitude of pride by the congregation, you cannot deny it does not also include the member which is the object of that glorying. Hence, both are leave and both must be removed or else they cannot "eat" the Lord's Supper any more than the Israelite could eat the Passover.

The Passover is finished and done. 'Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.' All the OT feasts are finished and Christ is our feast, not only in the Lord's Supper but in all our Christian lives. The Corinthians were being told not only not to partake of the Lord's Supper with this man but not to invite him to a meal or to accept his invitation to dinner.

This is pure eisegesis at its finest! You are hammering on a HALF truth while missing the WHOLE truth of this application. The leaven must include the member as he is the object of their glorying and that must be taken care of before they obey verse 5 and before they can "keep the feast" without leaven of both attitude and member. Until that member is purged they cannot "eat" the Lord's Supper (v. 11) and the reason they can't eat with such a one is metaphorically provided in a very clear picture in verses 6-8. They can't eat the Lord's Supper because they have leaven - known public sinner - in the "whole lump." The direct application to preparation of the Lord's Supper is easy to see and a clear transition to make Paul's point why they can "eat with such a one" and so they are commanded to remove him (vv. 12-13).

This is true only if you regard unbaptized people as non-Christians.

You are confusing your universal invisible church with the kind of church that can exclude a "brother" which Paul is speaking of in this context. Unbaptized Christians are not church members in the New Testament period and you can't provide a single text to demonstrate they were. In contrast I can provide clear Biblical evidence that demands baptism prior to church membership (Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:40-41).

 

[The Biblicist]

I know this and understand it.

So, you admits that British baptists apostatized from their historic position. Good, that is a start. I also believe that such an apostasy began to take affect in 1689 but I don't think you can prove that all British Baptist congregations had completely left the older more Biblical order.

Yet by 1689, the Particular Baptists had changed their view so that they accepted both Open and Closed Communion views as valid and acceptable.

. Another admission that the older order still existed in this transition of apostasy from the older order. Baptists after the older order had already come to America and that is made clear in the Philadelphia minutes and the New Hampshire Confession of faith.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So, you admits that British baptists apostatized from their historic position. Good, that is a start. I also believe that such an apostasy began to take affect in 1689 but I don't think you can prove that all British Baptist congregations had completely left the older more Biblical order.

I admit nothing of the sort. Don't be so silly. They came to a wiser, more Biblical decision as they realised that the mere fact of believers' baptism is no automatic guarantee of saving grace. They should have understood this before from the Bible in the case of Simon Magus (not to mention Judas Iscariot, Alexander the coppersmith and Demas). We must never suppose that outward purification can bring about inward sanctification.

Neither 'leaven' (zume) nor 'unleavened' (azumos) is ever mentioned in direct connection to the Lord's Supper. In Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-28, the word is invariably artos, the general word for 'bread.' We assume (no doubt correctly) that the bread used at the first Lord's Supper was unleavened, but there is no command anywhere in the NT for us to use it at the Lord's table. Nor is there any mention of artos, 'bread, in 1 Corinthians 5. The leaven spoken of in that chapter refers to the sinful attitudes of the incestuous man and the Corinthian church. It has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper which is never mentioned. It is you who are guilty of eisogesis.

We are clearly not going to agree on this subject, so unless you want clarification on anything I have written, I will leave it here and let you have the last word. My last word is this: I cannot say to someone who is obviously one whom the Lord has saved, 'Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am holier than you' (Isaiah 65:5) purely because he has misunderstood the Lord's command on baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

I admit nothing of the sort. Don't be so silly. They came to a wiser, more Biblical decision as they realised that the mere fact of believers' baptism is no automatic guarantee of saving grace.........

Again, you are equating church membership with salvation. They never had believed that baptism demonstrated salvation. Read Benjamin Coxe's admission to that in the explanation he wrote with the 1646 Confession.

XVI. Although a true believer, whether baptized, or unbaptized, be in the state of salvation, and shall certainly be saved: Yet in obedience to the command of Christ every believer ought to desire baptism, and to yield himself to be baptized according to the rule of Christ in His word:

Your whole argument is based on confusing the church with salvation. Baptists have ALWAYS taught that salvation is the prerequisite for baptism and baptism is the prerequisite for church membership NEVER vice versa. Your whole argument is based upon confusion of this Baptist and Biblical order - Acts 2:38-40; Mt. 28:19-20. Your whole argument is based upon a complete repudiation of the consistent Biblical command (Mt. 28:19-20) and example (Acts 2:38-41). You have nothing to base your view upon but PURE SILENCE at the expense of and incomplete contradiction to both Biblical precept and example spelled out clearly without any ambiguity.

It has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper which is never mentioned. It is you who are guilty of eisogesis.

Nothing to do with it???? The commands "let us keep the feast" followed by the command "not to eat with such" all in the same context of "unleavened bread" and you think the Lord's Supper is not implied in the very preparation background in order to keep the Passover?????.

We are clearly not going to agree on this subject, so unless you want clarification on anything I have written, I will leave it here and let you have the last word. My last word is this:
I cannot say to someone who is obviously one whom the Lord has saved, 'Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am holier than you' (Isaiah 65:5) purely because he has misunderstood the Lord's command on baptism.

After admitting that the London Baptists regarded both as orthodox (closed and open communion) this is your "last word" evaluation of those who practiced closed communion????? Your "last word" would be equally valid in the mouth of the fornicating man at Corinth in response to church discipline as he was a "brother" which the disciplined proved (1 Cor. 11:5 with 2 Cor. 2:6). Church membership not only demands the prerequisite of baptism but also a holy life and to respond to one prerequisite "Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am holier than you" would be equally applicable to the other prerequisite, even more so if your view were true. You are right, we are clearly not going to agree with each other.

 

[The Biblicist]

This was a good discussion. I will give credit to Bro. Martin for pointing out that the attitude of the congregation was in fact how the sinful member had already leavened the whole lump (metaphor for the observing congregation) and therefore both the wrong attitude and sinning member constituted the leaven that needed to be purged out before they were qualified to partake of the Lord's Supper.

In 1 Corinthians 11 where there can be no question that the Lord's Supper is in view. Here both the congregation and certain individual members failed to "discern the Lord's body." Meaning, they failed to understand that the symbolism of "unleavened bread" used in the supper required that congregational body observing the Supper had to understand that known leaven in the body disqualified that body from observing the supper. Such known leaven consisted of sinful pride and members (1 Cor. 5) as well as open schism (1 Cor. 11:17-18) and to partake in that condition failed to discern the Lord's Body as represented by "unleavened" bread. The individual member who partook of the Supper with KNOWN sin in their own life failed to discern the Lord's Body as represented by the "unleavened bread" as it required that all known sin in the individual member's life be purged as well.