Change in the Lord's Supper from First and Second LBCF

[puritanpilgrim]

Anyone on the board know why the requirement of Baptism was removed in the LBCF 1689?

The first confession states:

That Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed only upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized and after to partake of the Lord's Supper (Article XXXIX).


However, this was removed in the 1689.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

According to this page: http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm the 1644 confession adds the final clause sometime after the original text was subscribed.

Assuming the truth of that proposition, in a way the 1677/89 returns to a state of leaving off that "clarification."

One might consider how the final paragraphs of the 1689 mention "worthy/unworthy" reception; then reason to the propriety or impropriety of partaking without first being baptized.

On the other hand, it could be the case that stating the restriction forces the Baptist church to a closed communion, or at least closed to anyone not baptized according to the Baptist confession. Whereas, avoiding that specification might (depending on the conscience of him serving) allow a seat at the Baptist Table of one who, while not baptized according to the Baptist confession (and, in its strictest considerations unbaptized), yet is recognized as a professed believer and member of a Christian church.