Special Acknowledgments

Thank you Brother John and Sister Lisa.

Why The First London Confessions Of Faith?

The differences between the First and Second London Confession of Faith and the faith, order, worship and works of those two generations of Particular Baptists were as real as life and death and as visible as daylight and darkness once a student knows what to look for and why. I will list some of the differences and not take up the space to explain nor vindicate these differences nor my proofs for them. This shall be done elsewhere, I hope, if the Lord wills.

The First London Confession is purely a Baptist Confession. It does not owe its origin to any other confession. I realize many will dispute this but when we look to the original sources issued in that era we find that the faith, order, worship and works of the Anabaptists, as they were then called, were the true foundation of Independency and Brownism, as pointed out by Robert Baillie, issued in his Anabaptism, The True Foundation; London: 1647. Baillie was a Presbyterian who came into England to stop the progress of the Anabaptists. In his work he grants that the Anabaptists were the original dissenters and the Brownists formulated their creed from the model of the Anabaptists. The old brethren were called Anabaptists because they baptized all who came over to them. Therefore, when modern historians claim that the First London Confession came from the earlier pedobaptist confession of the Brownists issued in the late 1500s, they are in error, that is, if Mr. Baillie is correct. The opposite is true. Because the Baptists, or Anabaptists as they were then called, had a separate existence and a well regulated statement of faith, even though it was unknown to the world and many state religionists; therefore, the Brownists, or Congregationalists, as they were later called, borrowed and built upon it. This is not to say that the Anabaptist Confession was drafted and printed before 1644, for it was not (that we know of). It was illegal for the Baptists to do this. However, their statements and confessions have been found recorded in their church record books. This was the case of the old Midland Baptist Association Confession. I am not saying it was found among the early writings of the early Baptists of London. To my knowledge, this is not the case. But, the framers of the First London Confession, mostly done by John Spilsbury and William Kiffen, were exposed to and well skilled in the old faith and order of the Anabaptists before they helped issue the First London Confession of Faith in 1644.

In his A Brief History of The Rise and Progress of Anabaptism in England, London; 1738: John Lewis, Episcopal writer, records that John Spilsbury was baptized while in exile in Holland. What is known as the Kiffen Manuscript, as well as other historical records, reports that William Kiffen joined with Mr. Spilsbury’s church about 1638. This would be the Church gathered by Mr. Spilslbery at Wapping in 1633, according to their history. Mr. Kiffen records that the Particular Baptists he walked with were gathered into the regular and orderly churches which existed in the 1640s, during the days of Archbishop Laud’s reign of terror. This is mentioned in Kiffen’s Reasons For the Separation of the Baptists. At least three Particular Baptist Churches were founded in the 1630s in London; Spilsbury’s, in 1633, Kiffen’s in 1638, and Paul Hobson’s also in 1638. There were other brethren involved but I have named these three churches in this manner only for classification. In addition, when Hansard Knollys became public in his defenses of the Baptists, about 1645 or 1646, he justified the origin of the Baptists in London to Dr. Bastwick in much the same manner as Mr. Kiffen did, by the means of ministers who came into London from the dispersed and scattered churches which had been meeting in the countryside.

These ministers came to London as regular and orderly ministers; see Knollys' A Moderate Answer Unto Dr. Bastwick, London; 1645. The same is reported by Jane Turner in her Choice Experiences of the Kind Dealings of God, London; 1654. Jane and Captain John Turner, her husband, were in close connection with John Spilsbury, and may have been members of the church at Wapping. Mr. Spilsbury wrote one of the introductions to her work.

When we consider these original writings and their sources, then we conclude these old brethren were not the idiots and scatterbrains some have imagined. In fact, my conclusion is, after over twenty years of studying them, they represent the finest group of New Testament defenders and maintainers of the faith, order, worship and works of Jesus Christ, of any era, I have read, since the days of the Apostles and the Inspired Scriptures. When these Particular Baptist writers are considered with the Apostolic Fathers, even the entire scope of Anti-Nicene, Nicene or Post-Nicene writers, they will be viewed as vastly superior in every department. This may be true also for any other time period in church history or historical theology. After years of studying a collection of the Baptist writers since the 1600s, we can also suggest that we have found no writer or group of writers who can come close to those who issued The First London Confession of Faith.

Therefore, rather than needing to copy from an already existing Pedobaptist confession, or standard of theology, as is the case with the Second London Confession, the writers of the First London Confession occupied original ground and needed only to restate their statements as they were attacked by the Pedobaptist Nationalists.

The attacks by the Pedobaptist Nationalists came from the Episcopal writers, the Puritans, the Presbyterians, and some of the Brownist or Separatists. They came because of the following doctrines:

1. The Sufficiency of the Scriptures to Govern the People of Christ in all points;

2. The subject and mode of baptism;

3. The denial of the Law of Moses, as necessary to preach and teach in order to the conversion of sinners, or its validity as a rule of life for believers;

4. The denial of the O. T. System in any way for a foundation of the New Testament system;

5. The denial that the Pedobaptist ministers of any groups, were ministers of Jesus Christ, but they were affirmed to be the ministers of antichrist under the succession of error;

6. The denial that the Pedobaptist ministers preached a true gospel, and their churches were valid churches of Jesus Christ; and the members of those parishes or pedobaptist churches were saints;

7. The denial of the invisible church and the concept of any salvation which did not bring the professor into a visible conformity with the New Testament standard established by Jesus Christ and contained in His Last Will or New Testament.

8. The denial of the Pedobaptist concept of prophecy, which was the gospel-millennial or amillennial position. The old brethren were historical premillennial or fifth monarchy men.

9. The denial of apostolic succession, maintaining rather that the saints, as saints, were called and gifted by the Spirit of God, and as such, were brought into the true succession of Jesus Christ as maintained by the true gospel, the true faith and the true order of Christ, administered by the Holy Spirit.

10. The denial of a Popish style of high churchism, maintaining rather that the church is because the saints are. And, because the saints are complete in Christ, by union with Christ, and because of that union, they give being to the church, the ministry, and the ordinances.

11. The denial that there were elect and none elect infants who died in infancy. The old Baptists simply affirmed that the salvation of infants was one of the secret things of God. They didn't affirm their salvation or their damnation. See this presented in John Spilsbury's Baptism, in both the 1643 and 1652 editions.

To the Pedobaptists, perhaps the most unsettling of all the Particular Baptist doctrines was their belief that Jesus Christ wrought a full and complete redemption for His people. The redemption did in fact redeem the total man, his inner-man, his mind and his body. This redemption concerned itself with a total redemption now, in this life as well as in the world to come. The old Baptists affirmed that the blood of Jesus Christ not only delivered the elect from the wrath to come, but also now, in this present evil world, delivered them from their sins, the bondage of their sins, the walk and habits of the old man, the Law of bondage and death, the penalty of sins and false religions. In addition, they held that the elect would make a public profession of Jesus Christ and serve Him in the New Jerusalem way. These deliverances are all the certain and sure fruits of the atonement of Jesus Christ and therefore unconditional on the part of the elect. These great truths are opened up in Garner’s Mysteries Unveiled, London; 1646; Spilsbury and Cox’s The Saint’s Interest in The Death of Jesus Christ, London; 1646; Spilsbury on Baptism, 1643 and 1652 editions, and Knollys' later work, The World that Now Is And the World That Is To Come; with many other works too numerous to mention here.

As a result of the saving work of the Son of God, the elect of God are not involved in the work of progressive sanctification, but they are sanctified or holy by Jesus Christ. This salvation by Christ is known. The saints do rest in their great Sabbath. The Holy Spirit of God leads them into the land of rest and gives them His seals and signs as they obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. Obedience to Christ, and the signs and seals of the Holy Spirit are also the sure and certain fruits of the atonement of Jesus Christ and in no way conditioned upon the elect. This obedience of the saints and their entering into the gospel rest of Jesus Christ, is a promise made by the Father to the Son, to bear testimony to the Son of God in His exaltation of humiliation in His office as Mediator as He is declared to be the Prophet, Priest and King of His saints and churches of saints. Therefore, the sanctification of the saints, and the succession of the gospel system of Jesus Christ are both so involved in His saving work that they are sure and certain and in no way conditioned upon the elect. See John O'Brien's Sanctification by Christ Alone.

As you study the Bakewell-Spilsbury Debate, you will note that modern Baptists, under all their divers and sundry names and fellowships, hold more to the position of the Presbyterians and Puritans than they hold to the old Particular Baptists.

1. The First London is a Baptist product. The Second London is the dipped version of the Westminster Assembly Confession of Presbyterians and Puritans.

2. The First London Confession, after 1644, eliminated the downgrading Popish, Protestant and Puritan definitions of the Trinity of God. Please read Richardson’s able remarks thereupon. The old Baptists were Biblical Trinitarians, and didn’t hold to the Babylonian or Heathen ideas of the Trinity of Deity. Therefore, they didn’t believe that Christ owed His deity to the Father, anymore than the Father owed His deity to the Son. Nor did they believe the Holy Spirit had a dependence upon either or both for His deity. If you will compare the 1646 Confession with the statement in the 1677 Confession or 1689 Confession, the Philadelphia Confession or the Westminster Confession, you will see the only being in the Godhead Who is of Himself is the Father. The First Generation of Particular Baptists denounced this as blasphemy and rightly distinguished between the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ and His generation, denying the heathen and popish concept of the eternal generation of any deity, including the Lord Jesus Christ. Rather, they rightly maintained that the generation of Jesus Christ related ONLY to His humanity. This concept of an eternal generation of deity is brought from the heathen view of the Trinity into the Roman Catholic Church, and then into the Protestant and Puritan concepts and then, by way of the Second London Confession of Faith, into the Baptists. The same is true of the false theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Please turn and read Richardson’s remarks and then consider the statements in any of the various versions of the Second London Confession of Faith. How can any saint, who has had a renewing of his mind, affirm that the Holy Spirit is a being by a procession of His Deity from both the Father and the Son? Can any enlightened saint maintain that the Holy Spirit and the Son of God owe their beings to God the Father anymore than He owes His to either of them? True, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son, to the elect, but only in respect of His work in the Covenant of Redemption, and not in regard to His own divine being. Please take the time to read and study well the concepts of the heathen Trinity of Unity in Hislop’s Two Babylons, and other related works. Remember, we are not denying the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ; only the eternal generation of Jesus Christ as it relates to His deity, nor are we denying the procession of the Holy Spirit in the covenant of redemption, but only as it relates to His deity.

The expression, "the Father is of none neither begotten nor proceeding"as found in the Second London Confession of Faith, becomes very objectionable. It is certainly true, the Father is of none, but it is also true that the Son of God, as relating to His deity, is also of none. This is equally true of the Holy Spirit.

Baillie, and other Pedobaptist writers, claimed that the Anabaptists did not hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity. This showed that the old Baptists were different from the Pedobaptists on the doctrine of the Trinity. The Baptists held to the true and proper deity of the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father. The Pedobaptists held to a downgraded view of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This came from heathenism by way of the Papacy.

The false views of the Holy Trinity, as advanced by The Second London Confession of Faith, opened the doors for later and serious departures from the older Baptist position. Earlier, Thomas Collier, an ex-Particular Baptist, had manifested himself in some of his writings, as holding to the Sabellian view of the Trinity, that God is only one person with three personalities. He was not able to abide long among the First Generation of Particular Baptists, who, by the late 1670s had totally disowned him as a reprobate. Later, a great number of General Baptists came among the Particular Baptists following the persecutions from 1670-1688, and brought their unclear ideas on many doctrines with them. Most of the first generation of Particular Baptists were already gone from the churches, either by death or scattered by persecution. It was only natural for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to suffer and the honor of Jesus Christ to be disregarded. If Christ were a divine being by eternal generation, and owed His deity to His Father in some way or another, then perhaps also it is all right to regard him as a created God as well as a generated God. And, in due time, if a God by generation or creation, then why not simply another created being, highly regarded, but certainly not as highly regarded as God the Father, Who is of Himself and no other? Then, why not also consider Christ as simply a good human being who was not divine at all and by His death left us an example of suffering, humiliation and love? And, if we are able to follow in his example, we too will be elevated to a higher life as He was? These are the steps which the Baptist churches and ministers took over the next 100-150 years in England following the adoption of the Second London Confession of Faith. The Second London Confession did not cause these changes but was simply a manifestation of, and banner for, these changes.

3. The First London Confession illustrated the views of the older Baptists concerning the Law of Moses and the distinction between the Two Covenants, the Covenant of the Law and the Covenant of Grace. In fact, so sharply is this manifested, that the confused views of John Gill, Benjamin Keach and Hercules Collins, (the latter even pastored the old church at Wapping), would have been denominated as the views of a false gospel by false ministers, by the earlier writers like Thomas Patience, and the others of the first generation. The later writers beginning with Keach, Collins, and then Gill and Brine, would never have been tolerated among the earlier Particular Baptist writers. The reader should study well Patience’s The Doctrine of Baptism and the Distinction of the Covenants.

In addition, Paul Hobson’s Practical Divinity and his other related writings, and Hansard Knolly’s Exaltation of Jesus Christ, and The World That Now Is and The World that is To Come, are must readings to understand these points. So strongly did the older brethren distinguish between the two covenants, one of Law and the other of Grace, and their denial of the continuance and need for the first covenant in any way, that they were styled Antinomians by the Pedobaptists of all sorts. The first generation of Particular Baptist writers regarded a minister who maintained that the saints were under both law and grace, as a minister of antichrist teaching a false gospel and administering a false baptism and under the succession of error.

4. The First London Confession maintained a much higher regard of the Office and Work of Jesus Christ as the Mediator of the Everlasting Covenant in His manifestation to His elect as their Prophet, Priest and King, than did the Second London Confession. Many were the grand and wonderful messages, works and articles in which Jesus Christ was so set forth in the early 1600s by the old Particular Baptist writers. Few did so following the 1680s.

5. The First London Confession was framed by men who mostly would have been regarded as higher grace men than those who framed the Second London Confession. Both William Kiffen and Samuel Richardson were defenders of the high grace views of Dr. Crisp. John Spilsbury was an infralapsarian. The majority seemed to stand somewhere between these two views. The reader should study Paul Hobson’s Practical Divinity and Hansard Knolly’s Exaltation of Jesus Christ, for their high grace and antinomian views. It was left to an Hercules Collins, later, to produce a catechism that would call for the saints to learn the Law of Moses so they could become more holy. Later, men like Benjamin Keach would claim that by the death of Christ, God was reconciled back to man and the Scripture was incorrect in affirming that the world was reconciled back to God. But, remember, the first generation of Particular Baptists regarded the General Baptists as the ministers of antichrist, see article 7 of John Spilsbury’s Personal Confession of Faith. Also remember that many of the later generation of Particular Baptists were simply low-grace men who evolved into being Particular Baptists ministers without a new beginning. That is something which would not have occurred among most of the earlier Particular Baptists.

6. In the First London Confession, the articles dealing with the doctrine of the church, its officers and ordinances, are more spiritual and more centered in Christ and His saints than those in the Second London Confession. Read carefully the articles dealing with the church, its officers and ordinances, and you will see the simple definitions and statements of the New Testament in the First London Confession. Also, you will see the place of the saints and the churches of the saints and their importance and standing maintained by right of their union with Jesus Christ, set forth in a very clear and certain manner. The gospel church is, not because it came from another church, but rather, because it came from the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is not valid because it came by means of apostolic succession through men, but because it came by a gift of the Holy Spirit. A gift of the Holy Spirit was a man gifted and called by the Holy Spirit and tried and known by the church. Then, he was commissioned by a church vote to preach and administer all the ordinances. Yes, the sheep could take out from among themselves, a fellow sheep, who differed from them only by gift, and make him a shepherd. True and proper church succession was maintained and believed, not by organization, or motion and vote, but by the succession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the true Saints and the Succession of the Holy Spirit. See King’s Way To Zion, 1656. These older brethren believed far more was involved in church succession than the later Baptists, or even those today do. However, neither group believed in the invisible church and both groups regarded 1 Cor. 12:13 rightly as water baptism. The earlier brethren understood it to refer to the general baptized church made up of the sum total of all the particular gospel churches, while the later group maintained that it referred unto the particular, gospel church. Most of the earlier writers denied that baptism placed one into the gospel church. This was done by reception after baptism. See Richardson’s remarks thereon. In addition, see President Laurance on Baptism and Spilsbury works on Baptism and God’s Ordinances.

The old Welsh Association had a grand and complete statement as to the concept of the general church and the gospel church and how they were both visible and interrelated, in its old records. This outraged John Bunyan who was not allowed among these old brethren, nor, the new either.

Church Officers who ministered by gift rather than by power or authority, and administered ordinances as the signs and seals of the covenant, what novel and strange concepts these were to the Pedobaptists of the early and middle 1600s. These are just as new and strange today among modern Baptists. These views were forsaken by the Second Generation of Particular Baptists who moved into low grace views, low Trinitarian views and later into a new gospel and a new baptism which was not of Jesus Christ, but of antichrist.

That the Holy Spirit in some way works and acts in a special manner in connection with water baptism and in the Lord’s Supper is just what the older brethren believed and taught. That forgiveness of sins, and justification by Christ alone, would be confirmed to the subject, the administrator and the witnesses, in a wonderful way by the Holy Spirit was a central and often recurring theme of the older Baptists. That the ordinances were signs and seals, this too, was an often recurring theme of the old Baptists. The ordinances did not give nor cause grace. They were not conditions of grace nor salvation in any way. But rather, they confirmed, witnessed unto and displayed that which existed already by faith. This confirmation, this witness, and this outward display would be worked in the administrator, the subject and the witnesses all as well. The ordinances were held forth as GOSPEL ORDINANCES which were used by the Holy Spirit to preach to the world, and they often resulted in the conversion of sinners. The post-baptismal life of the believer displayed his union with Jesus Christ as the certain, sure and fruitful work of the atonement of the Savior. See Garner’s Treatise of Baptism, Laurance on Baptism and later Baptism Plainly Discovered by Norcott. John Norcott was a co-worker with John Spilsbury and the second Pastor at Wapping.

That the saint could expect to receive something new by the Holy Spirit in connection with his water baptism, and there would be also a constant renewing every day of his life, yes, this was the doctrine maintained by these old Baptists. This did not come because of water baptism, but as a witness to the saints that they were walking in the way of Jesus Christ. Please turn to the First London Confession and note the statements explaining the gifts and seals of the Covenant of Grace as they relate to the church and the ordinances.

6. In the First London Confession of Faith, the blood atonement of Jesus Christ is presented in a more full and complete manner than in the Second London Confession. This is not to say that either group held to general atonement, for they did not, nor is this to deny that some ministers within each generation differed from their other brethren on the fullness of the atonement, for they did. But, the point is, the older Particular Baptists believed the blood of Jesus Christ brought forth a full and complete redemption of the entire man now, in this world, as well as in the world to come. This did not mean they held to a sinless perfection, for they did not, but it was simply a setting forth of what Paul taught in Romans chapters 6, 7, and 8. The older brethren claimed that the redemption of Christ quickened the inner man, renewed the mind and delivered the physical man from the old man, from the dominion of sin, from the law of sin and death, and the practice of sinful ways. Sin still remained, but not as a dominating way of life. Now, Jesus Christ, and His newness of life dominated. Because the elect were redeemed by this unconditional, sure and certain redemption of the Lord Jesus Christ, it was unthinkable that any of the elect would fail to profess Jesus Christ and serve Him in the ways of the New Covenant. And, yet, they recognized that there were exceptions and these exceptions belonged to the secret things of God. Please read from the Bakewell-Spilsbury Debate, his Baptism, and also Knollys, The World That Now Is.

7. The older brethren issuing the First London Confession were total and complete separatists. They didn’t refer to any of the Pedobaptists as brethren, nor did they go and hear them preach. They practiced what was known as the ordinance of hearing. See this detailed in Jane Turner’s Choice Experiences OF The Kind Dealings of God, before, in, and after CONVERSION, London; 1653 and in the Records of the Particular Baptists, 1650-1660. Found in the General Assembly minutes of 1689 is the first time noted that the brethren answered that church members could go and hear the Pedobaptist ministers and not be excluded for such a practice if they didn’t miss their own services. This was an open and sad departure from the earlier brethren who wouldn’t even allow their dead to be buried with the Pedobaptists. By reading such works as Gangerea, by Thomas Edwards, issued about 1646, (Edwards was a Presbyterian), you will note that the older brethren regarded the Pedobaptist ministers as antichrist’s and were the frogs spoken about in the Book of Revelation.

The Pedobaptist churches were called The Cities of The Nations, in distinction from the City of the living God, the New Jerusalem. Furthermore, the older brethren sent forth their messengers to infiltrate the pedobaptist churches and there in, seek to teach and preach so as to recover the saints of God out of their antichristian captivity. Paul Hobson and others would hold mock baptismal services and sprinkle newly born animals in an effort to show that it did as much good to do this as it did to sprinkle newly born infants. Many times the Particular Baptist ministers would stand up and challenge the Pedobaptist ministers in the midst of their services. (Remember, the churches would send forth some of their ministers to do these very things.) Often the results would be that the Pedobaptist ministers would flee from the services and the Baptized brethren would preach with great success. Baptisms would follow. Many churches would be established. Soon, debates would occur. When the Pedobaptists could not stop the Baptists they would try to involve Parliament in the proceedings. The Westminster Assembly of Divines even went so far as to try and pass a law in or near 1646, outlawing the gathering of Baptist churches. When the government would not stop the Baptists, the Puritans and Presbyterians would often employ mobs and ruthless men to fall upon and beat the Baptist ministers and disrupt the church services. This is well reported in the Introduction to the Confession issued in 1646. The later generations of Particular Baptists would offer no such threat to the Pedobaptists.

8. Under the section dealing with Effectual Calling, article 3, this statement is found: "Elect Infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit . . ." This is a total and complete departure of the older position concerning the state of infants. In the First London Confession there is no section explaining either infant salvation or infant damnation. The old Baptists DID NOT believe in infant damnation. Read from John Spilsbury's remarks in his Treatise of Baptism, and the Spilsbury-Bakewell Debate. Note the following points:

a. If there are elect infants who die in infancy, then it follows,

b. There are also none elect infants who die in infancy.

This concept is Popish to the core. It teaches that the natural offspring of the church members are elect infants when they die. Those who are not the natural offspring of the church members and who die, are damned. Where does the Bible teach that there are elect infants or none elect infants? This was a major Baptist attempt to bring their natural offspring into the church and ordinances. Next, a low grade Arminianism would bring multitudes of natural members into the churches and ordinances simply with a natural faith. Soon, most ministers and churches would become natural. Baptist offspring would be welcomed into the church and ministry because they were family members. Popery would win the day again, thanks to the Puritans and Presbyterians and their dipped Westminster Confession of Faith. Once the natural ministers and church members gained control of the churches, inspiration of the Scriptures would be denied, the Trinity doctrine would be rejected, the doctrines of grace would depart for the social gospel, and the ordinances would be opened up to all persons. A new system would take the place of the old system. This is exactly what happened to the English Baptists in the 1700s and the American Baptists in the 1900s. One proud writer who claimed that he helped replace the old system with the new, was Ebenezel Hewlett. His work, The Royal Spyglass or The Baptist Inquisition, London: 1743; is must reading. The new Baptists would be in Rome and would not even know it.

In conclusion to these essential differences, we should note that Justification by Christ Alone, in opposition to justification being caused by personal faith, and Sanctification by Christ Alone, in opposition to progressive sanctification by keeping a mixture of law and grace, are the strong and clear hallmarks of the First London Confession of Faith. See Samuel Richardson’s Justification by Christ Alone and his Divine Consolations, issued in 3 volumes, published during the mid and late 1640s.

[Please remember that these older brethren were not raised up under the King James Bible, but rather under the Geneva or Bishops Bible. Therefore, many statements which they made, which would seem to contradict the Bible, did not, because they had reference to the Greek Text and the older Translations . R. E. P.]