Short History of the 1646 London Baptist Confession

Good evening everyone we are beginning tonight a series on the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith, hopefully you all have a copy. If you don't have a copy we have extra copies for you. But everyone should have received a copy the other night when we had our meeting.

And I want to sort of just give you a quick heads up how we're going to do this. Andy and I are going to divide our time every week. And I asked him if tonight I could go first because I wanted to give a history of the confession and I felt like that would be the thing to do first and We're both going to try to take 30 minutes each and the goal is to try to One of us get our 30 minutes the other get his 30 minutes.

And then spend a few minutes at the end to pray. So I know we normally try to keep this to an hour, but for the next few weeks We're going to let it go a little bit beyond an hour. But if you need to leave right at 730 nobody's going to be angry with you.

Just just go ahead and leave no big deal, but we're going to now that it's lighter outside later. We felt like it would be okay to hold for an additional 10 minutes or so for prayer so we're going to hold our prayer our longer prayer to the end have a short prayer to begin and We're going to do this over the next several weeks.

So let us begin still though with a short prayer our father and our God we so thank you for the opportunity to spend time looking at the history of this confession and what it means for godly men to have taken up the pen and written down what they believe and how those beliefs have stood the test of time and Lord we are so thankful to align ourselves with holy men of old who?

Were standing for truth in their day as we continue to try to stand for truth in our own day. Lord we pray that through the adoption of this confession and the moving forward with it that we would better be equipped to understand what your word teaches and most of all Lord to serve you as Faithful followers of that word we pray it in Jesus name and for his sake.

Amen. All right, well my lesson tonight is going to be broken down into three parts. We are going to look first at the battles of the early Baptists we are then going to look at the structure of the first London Confession and then finally we are going to discuss the differences between the first and second Baptist confessions because there are two Confessions that are often cited when you refer to Baptist history the first London Confession Which was first penned in 1644 it was edited in 1646.

I'm going to talk about why that was in just a moment and then the second London Baptist Confession, which was Published it was actually written in this in 77 published in 1689 and so we're going to talk about that in a little while.

The Early Baptist Struggle for Identity

So as we begin let us begin by talking about the battles of the early Baptists you'll notice if you open up your confession to the very first page not the first page of the book. But the first page of the confession it tells a little bit of the history of why the confession was written.

It tells us immediately that this confession was made in response to certain Untrue assertions. Notice this with me on the first page it says this is a confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London.

This is before the denomination Church of Christ so understand when they say churches of Christ that's a general term not aligning themselves with the denomination a confession of faith of seven congregation 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 Strong words and Ultimately it shows us that this document was written with a twofold Mindset it was written first as an apologetic which means a defense for what one believes.

But it was also written as a polemic a polemic is an argument. It was written not only to defend but to offend and when I mean when I say offend I don't mean to be intentionally offensive, but they weren't just on the defense they were on Offense they wanted to come out strong and make a statement about what they believed.

It was important to the English Baptist that they be properly distinguished from those who are known as the.

Anabaptists.

The Anabaptists which that phrase means Rebaptizer for those who are unfamiliar with the history of the Anabaptists They were named by their enemies because of their commitment to the baptism of believers only.

This was not the only position which set them apart, but it certainly was the first and foremost. They had begun as an offshoot of the Reformation which began under Yorick Zwingli now. You'll remember when we talk about the Reformation we talk about the three great reformers the the magisterial reformers.

Which were Martin Luther in Germany? John Calvin in Geneva, and then you had Yorick Zwingli. And he was also in Switzerland well some of the followers of Yorick Zwingli Began the Anabaptist movement and the Anabaptist movement was known as the radical Reformation because indeed their teachings seemed so far removed from What the reformers were teaching?

One of the most significant moments of history Happened when a group of Anabaptists took control of the German city of Munster. They kicked out the city council and they attempted to set up a new kingdom of God on earth.

This is what one statement from history says. Quote half-clothed and with religious zeal the Rebaptizers ran around the streets Singing about the honor that awaited God's chosen ones promising peace and prosperity.

They become they became known as the monsters of Munster because they were so radical and Willing to overthrow even the government seeking to set up a new kingdom of God. Now what's interesting is Anabaptists were typically known for being Pacifistic and unwilling to lift up the sword.

But this within the movement there was a lot of differentiation and there was certain ones who were willing to go in and and Take control of the government and to set up their own government. Well By the 16th for that happened in the 1530s.

By the 1640s, which was only a century later when the Baptists of England Were making themselves known they were beginning to be connected with these radicals.

From.

Munster. Oh, look at what happened there. Look at the danger there so one of the reasons for the writing of the 1646 or the 1644 confession was to identify themselves as We are not that. What you may have heard about the Anabaptists what you may have heard about the radicals what you may have heard about their desire to take over the government and set up a kingdom on earth and those things that is not who we are in Fact as we will see as we get to the end of the confession and you probably know this because most of you I hope have read it the last few articles of the confession make the point that God has set up the magistrate which is the government for the purpose of Serving him and therefore the church is to be obedient as it is Lawful To be obedient to the government, you know.

As long as they're serving and not requiring us not to disserve God then we are to serve And to do what they command us to do. So that's why if you didn't notice when you were reading That's why the last few articles make such a big deal.

They want to make the argument We are not. We are not political revolutionaries. We're not here to try to set up our own kingdom. We want to serve God in peace.

And.

Interestingly enough I've been reading a book on Baptist history in America is as my part of my preparation for this lesson and it's so interesting to see that the Baptists in America were really foundational in Helping America establish the concept of the freedom of religion.

The idea that people should be able to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience and Even the First Amendment was influenced by early Baptist sentiment to have freedom of speech the ability to believe and Worship how one chooses.

It's an interesting History book I'm reading it's called Baptists in America. And it's it's been helpful for me. And they were actually persecuted by the Puritans as much as we respect the Puritans for all they did.

They didn't like the Baptists. Because they considered them to be wrong, especially in regard to their view of.

Baptism.

So.

The Baptists were.

In.

A position where they were trying to separate themselves from the radical Anabaptists. They were also charged with immorality in their meetings. Which they had to respond to. One of the charges was that when they baptized they baptized?

Naked and that became a major point of Attack that these Baptists are really not only are they? Wrong on baptism, but they they they misuse the sacrament. They use it as an opportunity for the for the lust of the flesh.

In fact if you open your book turn back a ways. Back into the append not the appendix, but the preface of the book and go to page 11 and you may not be it's XI in the in the book and You'll notice that it's it quotes Referring to Daniel Featley.

Daniel Featley was an influential and outspoken minister devoted to the Church of England and critical of Puritanism and he penned a scurrilous attack on the Baptist Entitled the Dippers dipped. That was the title of his attack.

Or it had two titles and often books had multiple titles back then interestingly enough if you go back in history You'll notice that they'll have it'll be this or this and the secondary title was the Anabaptist ducked and plunged overhead and ears.

And it was written in 1645 in it he maintained that the Baptists were in the habit of stripping start naked not only when they flock in General in great multitudes men and women together to their Jordans to be dipped.

That would be their. Yeah, well not their shoes. I believe that's dealing with their undergarments, but they would strip to their undergarments to be dipped but also upon other occasions when the season permits.

So Featley basically said the Baptists are a bunch of scoundrels when they get together to baptize. I stripped down to their underwear and There's no sense of propriety among them. So that was one of the accusation by the way.

You again if you've read it You've noticed there is a point under the baptism section of the confession where it says that they will wear Modest apparel when they're. That's why that's in there. In fact the.

1646.

Confession. The reason why it was edited in 1646 is because the 1644 when it was first published.

When they.

Noticed that when Daniel Featley wrote he wrote in 1645. So he's writing in 1645. He's writing after so they respond to his arguments and they edit some of what's in here to Respond to what he's saying.

They're arguing you guys are naked. No, no, no, we're modest. You know, so it's an interesting Historical note to see that some of the responses in here actually responses to accusations Which were being made by the enemies of the early Baptists.

But this was not their only battle as there was also the concern within the Baptist churches of two dissenting opinions Which needed to be distinguished. There were the general Baptists and the particular Baptists very quickly just to help you understand the difference the general Baptists held to the doctrines of Arminianism and the particular Baptists held to the doctrines of Calvinism.

The general Baptists Were actually a little earlier. But the particular Baptists were much stronger in their theology and thus won the day and Therefore this particular document the first confession has a very strong Calvinistic tone because it is actually Expressing the views of the Calvinistic or the particular Baptists not the general Baptists.

One thing that we need to understand with that is that when we think of Calvinism Oftentimes we think of five points T-u-l-i-p total depravity unconditional election limited atonement irresistible grace perseverance of the Saints.

They would not have known of such a thing. They would not have understood five points of Calvinism neither would they have understood a tulip that particular Way of expressing Calvinism would come centuries later in the 1600s.

Calvinism was more in regard to how they would understand God and his nature and his work and his purpose particularly in regard to his saving of souls in.

Their.

Sin.

It was a much more broad concept. I think today when people think of Calvinism, they think it's just five doctrines. It's not it's a it's a whole entire view of how you see God working in.

Fact.

One of the things that was Attacked against the the the particular Baptists was that they were Quote, this is actually in your in your confession on page 10 of that preface that they were holding free will.

Falling away from grace and denying original sin. Well, those are all Arminian positions. Free will as it is typically understood is a Arminian position. Falling away from grace is an Arminian position and original sin denying original sin is Arminian position.

So the Baptists were being accused of believing that and so this document clearly says no we affirm Perseverance of the Saints we affirm what we would call total depravity. We affirm these things and so again.

This is something we need to understand about this document. It's it's making an argument for who they are. It's not intended. It really is not intended to be a full-orbed expression of all theological thought.

In fact, if you read it, you'll you might even notice there's a few things that it doesn't address. It doesn't address things like the person and work of the Holy Spirit I mentioned the Holy Spirit, but there's not a section that addresses the person and work of the Holy Spirit and You say well, why are those things they are dealing with?

What is what the battle is? What is the battle? In fact, I would I would argue this. Some of the same battles they were facing in 1646 are some of the same battles we're facing today. How far has have churches fallen away from the doctrines of grace.

How far have churches fallen away from the the.

The.

Doctrines of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. These things which are clearly stated here and.

So.

Nothing ever truly goes away. It just goes in cycles and here we find ourselves again needing to affirm the things that are herein. On page 12 of the preface it says this. In 1644 the London Calvinistic Baptist leadership decided to issue a confession of faith which would demonstrate once and for all their fundamental solidarity with the international Calvinist community.

This confession seems to have accomplished its goal in diffusing the criticism of many fellow Puritans and it soon became the doctrinal standard for the first period of Calvinistic Baptist advance this document became the standard.

The Sources and Structure of the First London Confession

So that's the battles that they fought. Now very quickly, I want to talk about the structure of the document as It's true of many confessions of faith. The first London Baptist confession did not arise without influence from previous writings.

This particular document had influence from the.

1596.

Separatist Confession. The English separatist confession of 1596 26 of the 53 articles are actually drawn almost directly from that so nothing ever arises out of a vacuum right. Even when we were producing our new Constitution a Lot of it was just taken from the old, you know reworded maybe moved around a little bit, but some of it is just Copied over because there's no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Always when things have been said properly There's not always a reason to say them again. And so we can say that they weren't the first to have these thoughts. That's another that's a positive to say that the Baptists who wrote the 1646 1644 46 confession weren't the first to think these things.

And when we talk about separatists What we sounds like a well I don't know if you're a if you're a Star Wars fan has nothing to do with the the separatists in the rebel alliance. Now the the the separatists referred to the Church of England if you were not if you were in England and you were not part of the Anglican Church.

You were considered a non-conformist and the primary non-conformists were the.

Congregationalists the.

Presbyterians and The Baptists. In fact later we're going to see that's those three groups come together Later and that's why the second confession is so important because the second confession the second London Baptist confession was the Baptists Uniting with the Presbyterians in their non-conformity to be able to have more solidarity Within their group, which is not there's nothing wrong with that.

Historically speaking. They had a need to to have You know unity and they wanted unity. So we'll talk about that in a moment but ultimately this confession was part and parcel taken from the English separatist confession of 1596.

The first 20 articles deal with the nature and attributes of God the doctrine of the Trinity divine election the fall and Sinfulness of all humanity and the person and work of Christ and his office of prophet priest and King.

I Really look forward to teaching those it's going to be great. The first part of teaching this is going to be awesome because we're going to get to talk so much about the attributes of God. The next section which is articles 21 to 32 deal with the work of salvation and unequivocally revealed the confessions.

Calvinism expressing faith as a gift from God article 22 and particular atonement. Articles 33 to 47 deal with ecclesiology. Ecclesiology is the doctrine of the church. This section outlines clearly the doctrine of baptism.

Even indicating that it be done by dipping or plunging the body under water the earliest Baptists did not do that the first Baptists poured. But the issue was baptizing Believers not babies. That was the how the argument began but then later as more and more Study was done.

It became The conviction of the Baptist not only that they should baptize believers, but also that they should not pour but immerse. And again to dip is what the word baptize means. Articles 48 to 51 Are intended to rebut any accusations regarding the Baptist being connected with the Anabaptist revolutionaries.

Notable among these is the ability of a Christian to serve as a civil magistrate. The Anabaptists For the most part would not allow their congregation members to serve in any government Position. It's still that way if you look among such as the Amish and the Mennonites and stuff a lot of them forbid Their people from serving in the military or serving in any government office so that that continues well the Baptist said no we this is something that we see no problem with a Christian serving as a Magistrate.

So when we get to that part of the confession We'll talk about why the why that was an argument. I know I know I seem to be going fast. Are you guys with me? Everybody good. Am I not going too fast. Okay, because I got I want to give Andy his time, so I'm trying to move move move.

I want to make sure I get all this in. The last article is article 52. Which is simply a statement? Regarding the final resurrection and coming judgment it is a reminder that every person will have to give an account of himself.

To God.

52.

Articles in Total and again the vast majority of them dealing with the nature of God the nature of salvation and the nature of the church. So that is the the focus of this document. Now for our final portion of my lesson tonight the differences between the first confession of 1644 slash 46.

And.

The second London Baptist confession of 1689. In fact I want to tell you a quick story. We had a visitor Sunday. He was sweet man came in asked me some questions about the church was his first time here.

Hopefully he'll visit with us again next week, but his very first question. I see you're affirming the 1646. Why are you not affirming the 1689? Good question, and it will not be the last time we hear that.

So I think we should know why and What I'm doing. What I have written tonight is actually going to become an article. I wrote it as an article. Which is maybe why it sounds weird the way I'm teaching this isn't how I normally teach.

I'm sort of reading the article to you. This is going to go on our website. So that as people the elders have already read it and looked it over and it's going to become. Hopefully as people come to the church if they have that question an article that they can read.

Something that they understand more about us, and why we adopted the 1646 Confession all right among Reformed Baptists. The second London Confession is certainly more popular. It is definitely longer and in some places.

I will admit it is even clearer than the first confession. But we believe and by we I mean our elders that there are some things in the second London Confession which we would not be able to affirm and Therefore we have chosen to go with the first rather than second.

Among the most difficult for us as a congregation is our position on the Sabbath. We do not believe that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath but rather we believe Sunday is the Lord's Day that it is distinct from the Jewish Sabbath and The second London Confession clearly teaches that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.

Some would argue as does dr. James Renahan a man who I truly respect and admire That the first and second confessions are fundamentally the same in regard to their theology. He says this. He says quote there is no substantial difference.

Excuse me. There is no substantial theological difference between the first and second London Confessions. I get very much bothered when I read statements asserting or Inferring that there is some kind of theological difference between these two great confessions in Quote so he says there is no difference between the first confession and the second confession.

Well, this is my response to that. While it may be the case that the framers of the 1644 46 confession held the same Sabbatarian teachings as those in 1689 it is not contained in the document itself. Often those who adopt the second confession But who do not hold to a Sabbatarian position are forced to omit sections of the 1689 confession or add an asterisk to it or A note beside the section explaining why they disagree with that position.

We chose rather than doing that to adopt a confession that we could affirm Without having to qualify. I Know of churches that have the 1689 confession with an asterisk beside certain points. We did not want to do that.

We either wanted an sort of an all-or-nothing and we can affirm all of this therefore We chose this one. Additionally the Sabbath is not the only place where we would differ with the 1689. We do not teach the same view of the Lord's table as does the 1689.

Nor do we hold the same perspective as To the identity of the Antichrist as the 1689. Again, while we would affirm the 1689 is a wonderful teaching tool we just believe there would be too many places in it where we would have to qualify and The same is not true of the 1646.

Therefore we affirm the 1646 rather than the 1689. But something else needs to be stated from a historical perspective. The Second London Confession did not come in A vacuum it came in a historical context the same way this came in a historical context the Second Confession came in a historical context as well and much of what is in the Second Confession is Adopted straightway from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Those who try to argue that it's not I think are being somewhat dishonest. There are words and Pages that are directly taken from the 1640. I think it was 1644 Westminster Confession. That's not bad. It just is.

But I want to read to you. This is this is a paragraph. It's not in your book. So I do want to read it to you. This is from a pastor named Blake White. He wrote on on the subject of covenants and confessions in his book, and I just want to read this paragraph to you.

It is important to understand why the Second London Baptist Confession was adopted with King Charles the second at the helm There was persecution and harsh restrictions for dissenters due to the Clarendon Code of 1661 adopted by the pro-anglican Parliament.

The Confedical Act of 1664 prohibited anyone six years old and up from gathering for worship at any service other than those approved by the Church of England.

In.

1665 the Five-Mile Act required the dissenters to swear that they would not rebel against the king or his government or they would be exiled. Charles approved the act of uniformity in 1662. The Church of England wanted uniformity of religion the churches of that time period wanted toleration and Baptists Needed people to know they were good sound Protestants like the Presbyterians and Congregationalists and not crazy like the extreme wing of the Anabaptists and the Quakers.

The so-called dissenters needed to show doctrinal unity so the Congregationalists followed the larger body of Presbyterians who had ruled under Cromwell and the particular Baptist followed the Congregationalists.

In order to show a unified front the Congregationalists adopted and adapted Version of the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646. In 1658 in the Savoy Declaration and the Baptists met in London in 1677 to edit the Westminster Confession to fit their credo Baptist theology Changing it on church polity Sacraments and religious liberty.

I know that was a lot.

To hear.

But basically it's giving you the political Motivations for what happened. I encourage you when this article goes out go back and read it again. I know that was a lot to absorb.

I'm not.

Questioning motivations here, and I'm not assigning anything negative I'm just saying it is what it is. The the the second London Confession Was highly influenced by the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Westminster Confession of Faith. It's great. 1689 London Baptist Confession is great. But to say that the 1689 Was produced for the practical purpose of showing unity between Baptists and other non-conforming churches Namely Presbyterians and Congregationalists is not an unfair statement.

In fact, I think it's a very true statement. It had motivations and. Were they good? Yeah, but it wasn't without that. The elders who serve in every church have the duty to study and decide what confession they will present to their people if They choose to do one at all.

And we have. There will always be a variety of opinions as to which one is better. Certainly all the great Reformed confessions have their high points. Some of the most beautifully articulated doctrinal writings are found in the Heidelberg Catechism and confession and We certainly can't adopt that.

Because that's the Lutheran Confession. But it has some of the best and most well articulated doctrinal statements and all of confessional history. So by adopting one over the other we're not saying the others are all bad or even mostly bad.

We're simply saying there are certain things that we cannot affirm in the end whatever confession we do affirm and we have.

It will always be.

Subject to and underneath the scripture Which is the ultimate and final authority for all faith and practice. So our reasoning for adopting the 1646 is simple. Among those confessions we examined and we did examine more than one.

We were most confident that it articulates what we believe the Bible teaches by adopting it. We have placed ourselves in the long line of biblically faithful Calvinistic Baptists from the past. And Baptist historian WJ McLaughlin writes this.

And I'm going to end with his quote and turn it over to Andy of the 1646 confession. He says this quote. It is perhaps the most independent of the Baptist confessions and is one of the noblest Productions ever put forth by them.

It Probably still represents the views of the Baptists of the world more nearly than any other Single confession. And that so ends my part of the lesson.