# 1644 / 1646 Baptist Confessions of Faith



## satz

Does anyone have information or views on the 1644 and 1646 Baptist confessions of faith? How are they different from the 1689 and are they good documents?


----------



## eqdj

Yes, the are good documents.
See Dr. Renihan's "True Confessions: Baptist Documents in the Reformed Family" from Reformed Baptist Academic Press
RBAP -- Reformed Baptist Academic Press


----------



## JM

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/first-london-baptist-cof-1646-a-14207/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/catechism-confession-links-36365/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Amazon.com: A discussion of seventeenth century Baptist confessions of faith: Published to examine the historical, political and religious background of the 1644 and 1689 Bapitst Confessions of Faith: Richard P Belcher: Books



> Historical Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith---$5.95
> 17thcentury Published to examine the Historical, Political and Religious Background of the 1644 and 1689 Baptist Confessions of Faith.
> 
> There are those today who are claiming that the First London Confession in its 1644 and 1646 editions has a different view of the Law than does the Second London Confession of 1689. It is contended that the First London Confession has a New Covenant emphasis that was lost or eliminated in the Second London Confession. The Second London Confession, it is claimed, possessed an Old Covenant emphasis concerning the Law because of the influence of the Westminister Confession as its view was forced on Baptists by the historical, religious, and political climate of the day.
> 
> This present work by Dr. Belcher and Anthony Mattia examines these claims to determine their historical validity. The authors set forth the evidence from history in a clear and convincing manner as they reach definite conclusions concerning this important and controversial subject. This book is a must for those who want to inform themselves further about the religious and political background of the seventeenth century Baptist confessions of faith.



This is a good book to get on the subject.


----------



## Christusregnat

The 1644 unfortunately creates confusion in its preface by linking the English Particular Baptists with the Anabaptists.


----------



## LawrenceU

Christusregnat said:


> The 1644 unfortunately creates confusion in its preface by linking the English Particular Baptists with the Anabaptists.



Linking them? Not hardly. The preface make is very clear that they English Particular Baptists were being falsely called Anabaptists.





> London Baptist Confession of Faith
> 1644/46
> 
> The first edition was published in 1644. This second edition "corrected and enlarged" was originally published in 1646.
> A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.


----------



## Pergamum

> Belcher, Richard and Anthony Mattia, A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith. Southbridge, Mass.: Crown Publications, 1990. This book was written to demonstrate that there is no evidence to support the theory that the two 17th century London Confessions have differing positions on the Law of God. It is very well done, and is highly accurate. More could be said on this issue to support the conclusion, but this is the best available material on this subject.




PM me and I can get you Tony Mattia's email so he can maybe mail you a copy.

-----Added 12/7/2009 at 03:38:17 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Amazon.com: A discussion of seventeenth century Baptist confessions of faith: Published to examine the historical, political and religious background of the 1644 and 1689 Bapitst Confessions of Faith: Richard P Belcher: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith---$5.95
> 17thcentury Published to examine the Historical, Political and Religious Background of the 1644 and 1689 Baptist Confessions of Faith.
> 
> There are those today who are claiming that the First London Confession in its 1644 and 1646 editions has a different view of the Law than does the Second London Confession of 1689. It is contended that the First London Confession has a New Covenant emphasis that was lost or eliminated in the Second London Confession. The Second London Confession, it is claimed, possessed an Old Covenant emphasis concerning the Law because of the influence of the Westminister Confession as its view was forced on Baptists by the historical, religious, and political climate of the day.
> 
> This present work by Dr. Belcher and Anthony Mattia examines these claims to determine their historical validity. The authors set forth the evidence from history in a clear and convincing manner as they reach definite conclusions concerning this important and controversial subject. This book is a must for those who want to inform themselves further about the religious and political background of the seventeenth century Baptist confessions of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good book to get on the subject.
Click to expand...



Oops, you done beat me to it.


----------



## Claudiu

LawrenceU said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1644 unfortunately creates confusion in its preface by linking the English Particular Baptists with the Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking them? Not hardly. The preface make is very clear that they English Particular Baptists were being falsely called Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> London Baptist Confession of Faith
> 1644/46
> 
> The first edition was published in 1644. This second edition "corrected and enlarged" was originally published in 1646.
> A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I noticed you hold to the 1644/46 Confession. Is there any specific reason why...like something the others mention that is not in the 1689?


----------



## Christusregnat

LawrenceU said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1644 unfortunately creates confusion in its preface by linking the English Particular Baptists with the Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking them? Not hardly. The preface make is very clear that they English Particular Baptists were being falsely called Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> London Baptist Confession of Faith
> 1644/46
> 
> The first edition was published in 1644. This second edition "corrected and enlarged" was originally published in 1646.
> A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Lawrence, the "unjustly called Anabaptists" is liable to different understandings. Dr. W.R. Downing would argue that this is a link to the anabaptist groups back to the Donatists. Unjustly could simply mean that there was never any real "baptism" with paedobaptism, whereas the Baptist baptism was not _again_ (ana-), but was the first. Note, the umbrage is with the epithet itself, not with the historic groups called such.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Christusregnat said:


> Lawrence, the "unjustly called Anabaptists" is liable to different understandings. Dr. W.R. Downing would argue that this is a link to the anabaptist groups back to the Donatists. Unjustly could simply mean that there was never any real "baptism" with paedobaptism, whereas the Baptist baptism was not _again_ (ana-), but was the first. Note, the umbrage is with the epithet itself, not with the historic groups called such.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



Not really Adam. The understandings of which anabaptist frame where laid out by Dr. Daniel Featly in 1645 concerning the 1644 which led to the updated 1646. Dr. Featly leveled accusations of *English Anabaptist teaching* concerning the Christian and civil service in the political arena and oath taking along with a few other things. These were things that the Particular Baptists were trying to separate themselves from.


----------



## Christusregnat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Not really Adam. The understandings of which anabaptist frame where laid out by Dr. Daniel Featly in 1645 concerning the 1644 which led to the updated 1646. Dr. Featly leveled accusations of *English Anabaptist teaching* concerning the Christian and civil service in the political arena and oath taking along with a few other things. These were things that the Particular Baptists were trying to separate themselves from.



Dr. Downing thinks otherwise:

A Biblical and Ecclesiastical Chronology by W.R. Downing in Christianity

You may read this for yourself, or look up his numerous lectures on church history.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Christusregnat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really Adam. The understandings of which anabaptist frame where laid out by Dr. Daniel Featly in 1645 concerning the 1644 which led to the updated 1646. Dr. Featly leveled accusations of *English Anabaptist teaching* concerning the Christian and civil service in the political arena and oath taking along with a few other things. These were things that the Particular Baptists were trying to separate themselves from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Downing thinks otherwise:
> 
> A Biblical and Ecclesiastical Chronology by W.R. Downing in Christianity
> 
> You may read this for yourself, or look up his numerous lectures on church history.
Click to expand...


Adam,

Dr. Featley is a historical figure during the time. His book to which I refer with the accusations was dedicated to Parliment with the accusations. It is historical. Thus the 1646 was also dedicated to the English Parliment to refute these specific accusations. It matters not what some self published author might think. Dr. Featley's accusations were the kind the Particular Baptists were defending themselves against. 

The Particular Baptists were not hiding their view of baptism. That ought to be obvious. They were denying the charges of what Continental Anabaptists were being denounced for. The Particular Baptists were specifically addressing fears that were arising concerning rebellion and the dangers that happened in Munster. Learn the facts about the background. 

Here is something Dr. Renihan wrote for our edification and understanding.
Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689, James M. Renihan | The Reformed Reader

Here is the first part of the article. 



> Try to imagine a situation like this: You live in a large city, the capital of your country. You are a member of one of a handful of churches, just beginning to grow and be noticed in the city. But it is illegal for you to meet with your brothers and sisters. For as long as anyone living can remember, there has been only one legal religion, and every attempt to disagree with that one religion has met with opposition and persecution.
> 
> As your churches grow, rumors begin to spread. A hundred years before, some people with beliefs that were marginally similar to your own had been involved in a terrible rebellion in another country relatively close by, and rumors were beginning to spread that your churches would do the same kinds of things. What would you do?
> 
> That is something of the situation facing the members of seven Calvinistic Baptist churches in London in 1644. In the space of a few short years, their numbers had grown, and people were beginning to take notice of their presence in London. But it was often not a friendly notice. *In 1642, an anonymous pamphlet entitled A Warning for England, especially for London; in the famous History of the frantick Anabaptists, their wild Preachings and Practices in Germany was published. *It is an amazing piece of work. The author, in 9 double sized pages, *described the sad events of Munster, Germany. Rebellion, sedition, theft, murder are all charged to the "anabaptists."* Throughout, there is no mention of anything but these events from another time and place—until the very last sentence of the pamphlet which stated "So, let all the factious and seditious enemies of the church and state perish; but, upon the head of king Charles, let the crown flourish! Amen." The warning was in one sense subtle, but in another brilliantly powerful: beware! *What was done in Germany by the anabaptists may well happen again in London, if these people are allowed to spread their doctrines.*
> 
> So what did the Baptists do? The situation was potentially explosive. They knew that it was essential to demonstrate that they were not radicals, subversively undermining the fabric of society. To the contrary, they were law-abiding citizens, who were being misrepresented and misunderstood by many around them. They wanted and needed to demonstrate that they were quite orthodox in their theological beliefs, and that they had no agenda beyond a faithful and conscientious commitment to God and His Word.
> 
> As the Baptists faced these circumstances, they decided that they needed to take action to relieve the fears and misinformation spreading. God had blessed their efforts thus far, and they did not want to see those efforts frustrated by the rumor and innuendo of their enemies. So they adopted a practice frequently used by others in the last 150 years—they issued a confession of faith so that anyone interested in them might be able to obtain an accurate understanding of their beliefs and practices.
> 
> One of the primary purposes in publishing their Confession of Faith in 1644 was to disavow any ties with the Continental Anabaptists. This is evident by a glance at the title page which says, "The Confession of Faith, of those Churches which are commonly (though falsly [sic]) called Anabaptists."1 The epistle at the beginning of the Confession identifies the problem:
> 
> *Wee question not but that it will seeme strange to many men, that such as wee are frequently termed to be, lying under that calumny and black brand of Heretickes and sowers of division as wee doo, should presume to appear publickly as now wee have done: . . . it is no sad thing to any observing man, what sad charges are laid, not only by the world, that know not God, but also by those that thinke themselves much wronged, if they be not looked upon as the chiefe Worthies of the Church of God, and Watchmen of the Citie: . . . charging us with holding Free-will, Falling away from grace, denying Originall sinne, disclaiming of Magistracy, denying to assist them either in persons or purse in any of their lawfull Commands, doing acts unseemly in the dispensing the Ordinance of Baptism, not to be named among Christians.*2
> 
> It is evident that in this list of charges there are several that were relevant, either in reality or fancy, to the Anabaptists of the Continent. All that an opponent of the Baptists had to do was say the name "Munster," and all of the supposed horrors of that sad city would be imputed to their English "counterparts."3 Evidently, the Particular Baptists felt the pressure of these charges, and desired to remove as many of them as possible. They therefore openly asserted that the name "Anabaptist" was falsely given, and did not reflect their own convictions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just for a reminder and a good understanding of Baptist History this was presented on the Reformed.org forum. This gentleman, James Dolezal was asked to present this in Carl Trueman's Class according to the podcast. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Saw this on the RBLIST. Give it a listen.
> 
> Reformed Forum Credo-Baptism During the Reformation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Credo-Baptism During the Reformation
> *
> When approaching the question of credo-baptism during the Reformation, *James Dolezal argues for viewing three distinct categories: Anabaptists, general baptists, and particular baptists. The theological differences between these groups are as great as the differences among all forms of paedo-baptism. As such, it is important to trace these three groups separately throughout the Reformation. * This informative discussion chronicles this history and concludes with a friendly debate on the issue of credo-baptism from a covenantal position. For credo- and paedo-baptists alike, this discussion will be both engaging and insightful.
> Bibliography
> 
> Belyea, G. “Origins of the Particular Baptists.” Themelios. 32, no. 3 (2007): 40-67.
> 
> Klaassen, Walter. Anabaptism in Outline: Selected Primary Sources. Kitchener Ont. Scottdale Pa.: Herald Press, 1981.
> 
> Renihan, James. True Confessions: Baptist Documents in the Reformed Family. Owensboro Ky.: RBAP, 2004.
> 
> White, B. The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century. London: Baptist Historical Society, 1983.
Click to expand...


----------



## LawrenceU

Thanks, Randy. I was going to post pretty much the same thing. You saved me the effort


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Your welcome Pastor. Ignorance is bliss but can make one look ignorant. LOL And I have appeared to be ignorant before. Wanna know why? I was ignorant.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

One strange thing about the 1644 Confession is, unless I missed it, its lack of an article on the Lord's Supper.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The 1644 was not meant to be a systematic theology of sorts. It's main emphasis was to quiet fears as was the 1646. The 1677 was meant to be more theological and systematic.


----------



## LawrenceU

cecat90 said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1644 unfortunately creates confusion in its preface by linking the English Particular Baptists with the Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking them? Not hardly. The preface make is very clear that they English Particular Baptists were being falsely called Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> London Baptist Confession of Faith
> 1644/46
> 
> The first edition was published in 1644. This second edition "corrected and enlarged" was originally published in 1646.
> A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed you hold to the 1644/46 Confession. Is there any specific reason why...like something the others mention that is not in the 1689?
Click to expand...



Because our congregation is a bunch of New Covenant, Open Theistic, Federal Vision, New Perspective, Paedo-Communion, Hyper-Calvinsitic baptists. 

Now that I have your attention: We chose the 1644/46 simply for the reason that due to time constraints I had to teach the confession to the men in a very short span of time. The 1644/46 is easier to do that with than the 1689. We are now going the 1689 and will adopt it once the men have been through it. In short, it is a stepping stone for our congregation, much as it was in the development of the Baptist statement of faith in its day.

Just for the record, we are none of those things listed above!


----------



## Claudiu

LawrenceU said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking them? Not hardly. The preface make is very clear that they English Particular Baptists were being falsely called Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you hold to the 1644/46 Confession. Is there any specific reason why...like something the others mention that is not in the 1689?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because our congregation is a bunch of New Covenant, Open Theistic, Federal Vision, New Perspective, Paedo-Communion, Hyper-Calvinsitic baptists.
> 
> Now that I have your attention: We chose the 1644/46 simply for the reason that due to time constraints I had to teach the confession to the men in a very short span of time. The 1644/46 is easier to do that with than the 1689. We are now going the 1689 and will adopt it once the men have been through it. In short, it is a stepping stone for our congregation, much as it was in the development of the Baptist statement of faith in its day.
> 
> Just for the record, we are none of those things listed above!
Click to expand...


Haha...well you got my attention quick there!


----------



## LawrenceU

Y'all will have to pardon my typos today. I have had a splitting near migraine all day and have also been stringing lights outside between showers.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

TaylorOtwell said:


> One strange thing about the 1644 Confession is, unless I missed it, its lack of an article on the Lord's Supper.



 You haven't missed it. It isn't there! 

I first realized this when reading _Baptist Theology: A Four Century Study_ by Dr. James Leo Garrett. 

This in my mind is truly odd and has been one of the reasons (among others) that I prefer the Baptist Confession of 1689.


----------

