The Enduring Legacy of Baptist Confessions: Doctrinal Clarity in Times of Turmoil

England, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had become a place of profound religious change, turmoil, and confusion. The Reformation in England was unique compared to that of Germany, Switzerland, and other parts of Europe. Seismic shifts in ecclesiastical polity occurred during a relatively short period of time in the sixteenth century through the game of thrones that was the Tudor dynasty, and which would continue on into the seventeenth century with the rise of the Stuart Dynasty in the reign of James I and his son Charles I.

Charles made many ecclesiastical decisions that had alienated zealous English Puritans, a group known for their hopes of a complete morally and doctrinally reformed English church. The Puritans saw Charles, and then Archbishop William Laud, as crypto-Catholics who were carrying the established state church back towards Catholicism by filling its bishopric with those who held to Arminian theology and who attacked the Puritan’s Calvinism, while openly tolerating Roman Catholics.¹ Charles did not just alienate religious groups with his policies, but also many powerful nobles and leaders when he refused to call a single parliament for 11 years.² This religious and political resentment against Charles would ultimately boil over into the English Revolution and two civil wars in the 1640s and 1650s creating the short lived English Republic under the leadership of “Lord Protector” Oliver Cromwell.

The English Revolution created a domino effect that led to the collapse of censorship and traditional institutions. This coupled with Cromwell’s policies of religious toleration led to “the unprecedented proliferation of religiously and politically radical groups.”³ This period is known as “the saints regime.” Yet this time of toleration would not last, as the 1660s would see a return of the monarchy, and with it a time of intense persecution for religious dissenting groups. One scholar says that during the 28 years between 1660 and 1688 dissenters were treated with “calculation and often malicious persecution.”⁴ It is within the up and down context of the seventeenth century that we find the birth and rise of the English Particular Baptists.

Though English Baptist origins in general can be traced back to a congregation led by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys in 1611, a specific branch of Baptists, the Particular Baptists, grew out of the Separatist branch of Puritanism in the early to mid-seventeenth century. Particular Baptist origins have been traced back to a London Independent Congregationalist church known as the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey (JLJ) church, named after its first three pastors.⁵ Their name, Particular Baptist, denotes two major aspects of their theological identity. They were “particular” in that they held to Calvinistic soteriology and its teaching of “particular redemption” as opposed to the General Baptists who adopted an Arminian soteriology.⁶ They were “Baptists” in that they advocated for believer’s baptism only (credo-baptism) while rejecting the infant baptism held by both Catholic, Lutheran, and other Reformed churches. From the sources available on the JLJ church, sometime during the 1630s, a particular group of the church became increasingly convinced that the New Testament nowhere taught infant baptism, but believer’s baptism only. This group ultimately broke away and formed the first official Particular Baptist Congregation led by the London cobbler and lay minister John Spilsbury.⁷

Throughout the seventeenth century, English Particular Baptists continued to grow into a well-established ecclesiastical movement and denomination, as opposed to the General Baptists, who by the eighteenth century only had a few remaining congregations left that had not abandoned major tenants of historical Christianity.⁸ Perhaps few things were more important to the growth and survival of English Particular Baptists than through its drafting and adopting of two notable confessions of faith, The 1644 London Baptist Confession and 1677 London Baptist Confession of Faith later revised and reissued in 1689.⁹ These two confessions of faith served English Particular Baptists as a defense against slanderous charges of heresy and immorality, as demonstrations of their lineage within reformed orthodoxy, and as points of unity for the formation of an association of Particular Baptist churches. Confessions of faith established doctrinal clarity in a time of great social, religious, and political confusion and ensured the lasting success of English Particular Baptists.

A Defense against Slanderous Charges

Perhaps there was no label more harmful in the Reformation era than “Anabaptist.” One Scottish divine wrote in 1646 that Anabaptism was the “true fountain of all heretical groups and most of the other errors which trouble the Church of England.”¹⁰ Anabaptism would forever be linked in the mind of many Europeans with Thomas Muntzer and the Peasants’ War (1524-1525). Muntzer, a radical apocalyptic reformer, called for the violent overthrow of the established ecclesiastical and political order, and many Anabaptists joined the ranks of Muntzer to fight on his side in the War.

These Anabaptist fighters were sympathetic to the aims of the “Common Man” and desired to drastically remake the social, political, and ecclesiastical order, and as such, history has labeled them and the Anabaptist leaders during the 16^th century as the “radical reformers.”¹¹ Though the Anabaptists who participated in the Peasants’ War differed from many of the other pacifistic Anabaptist groups during that time, the legacy of Continental Anabaptism would forever be marked with great disdain because of its association with Muntzer and the rebellion of the Peasants’ War. Thus to be labeled with the title “Anabaptist” was to immediately lose one’s religious and political credibility in the Reformation era. It was to be branded as a doctrinal heretic and a political rebel.¹²

The late 1630s and early 1640s in England were a time of great political, social, and religious turmoil. And this turmoil would boil over to the point of civil war. At the center of the war lay the struggle for sovereignty between parliament and monarchy, and religion stood at the center of it.¹³ Most Baptists sided with parliament believing that their victory would mean further religious liberty. The problem, however, was that many of the Presbyterian parliamentarians were just as opposed to religious liberty as Church of England loyalists were. Yes, the Westminster divines believed in the freedom to publish the truth, but the teachings of the Baptists were considered by many of the Presbyterians as blasphemies and heresy that needed to be suppressed by the civil magistrate.¹⁴

Because of their similar views on baptism, it would not be long before the Particular Baptists began being referred to by their opponents as Anabaptists. This was a problem, especially since so many Baptists had joined the ranks of Parliament’s army to fight against the King. Baptists, found themselves fighting for religious liberty in the 1640s next to many men who would have no desire in granting it. What also didn’t help the Particular Baptists during the era of the English Revolution was that a few of them, like Henry Danvers, became a part of a radical millenarian group known as the Fifth Monarchy Movement. This group believed that they were living in the last of the last days, that the fourth empire of Rome was collapsing, and that they would serve to usher in the millennial reign of Christ.¹⁵

Though this group played a major part in Cromwell’s army, even their beloved “Lord Protector” called out and rejected the beliefs and radical plots of the Fifth Monarchy men in 1653.¹⁶ This caused the group to become even more violent and outspoken in their plots. This radical and revolutionary movement seemed to many to be another Munster waiting to happen, and the fact that some Baptists were key leaders of the movement further gave their opponents the ammunition necessary to label the Baptist movement as another attempt at Anabaptist revolt.

This was an identity that the Particular Baptists immediately and fervently distanced themselves from. The original title of their first confession of faith drafted in 1644 reads, “The Confession of Faith, of those Churches which are commonly (though falsly [sic]) called Anabaptists.”¹⁷ Particular Baptists refused to be cast into the mold of Anabaptism, and thus they produced a full confession of faith to undermine both the political subversion and doctrinal heresy they were falsely charged with.

In the preface of the 1644 Baptist confession, it reads, “for the clearing of the truth we profess…briefly published a Confession of our Faith, as desiring all that fear God, seriously to consider whether…men have not with their tongues in Pulpit, and pens in Print, both spoken and written things that are contrary to truth.”¹⁸ The first confession of faith served as a central apologetic for Particular Baptists with the goal to defend themselves from the slanderous attacks being leveled against them and to prove themselves a legitimate strand of English Separatism. One scholar notes, by “submitting their own confession of faith for public evaluation, the London Baptist lay theologians were declaring that their churches and ministers were as valid as those established and ordained by the national Church.”¹⁹

Though the 1644 Confession confesses a complete denial of any continental Anabaptist influence, from a scholarly point it is hard to definitively prove or disprove whether this was the case. Many scholars have pointed to the Dutch connections of some of the early important Particular Baptists, namely Richard Blunt and William Kiffin, as evidence of Anabaptist influence. One scholar has even paralleled symmetrical argumentation between the 1644 Baptist confession and Menno Simon’s Foundation Book.²⁰ Nevertheless, such similarities can be easily accounted for by the use of the same common Scriptures being used to support believer’s baptism and congregational autonomy.

Anabaptism, however, was not merely a pejorative utilized towards political rebels, but also heretics. These suggested “heresies” usually referred to Arminian theology which was common among Anabaptists. Other heresies included: Unitarianism, the denial of original sin, conditional salvation, and other forms of Christian teaching, usually regarding aspects of full sanctification and complete holiness, which taught one could be sinless in this life. Both the 1644 and 1689 Baptist Confessions of Faith lay out their apologetic purpose in disproving these charges of heresy.

During the “Royal Restoration” between 1660-1688, Baptists faced their most severe period of persecution to date because of the supposed heresies they taught.²¹ The preface to the 1689 confession states that the confessing Baptist churches “were in no way guilty of those heterodoxies, and fundamental errors, which had too frequently been charged upon [them] without ground, or occasion give on [their] part.”²² This was especially important for the drafters of the second Confession of Faith after a former Particular Baptist minister, Thomas Collier, produced his Body of Divinity in 1674, which contained many of the heretical teachings noted earlier. Rather than recanting his work after being challenged by his fellow Particular Baptists, Collier published a supplementary work in 1676 titled An Additional Word to the Body of Divinity. Particular Baptists had sought to do all they could to defend against charges of heresy, but with Collier claiming to be a “Baptist” minister producing a work of systematic theology that was filled with the very teachings that Particular Baptists had claimed they didn’t believe, they could waste no time in responding.

One of the major Particular Baptists leaders, Nehemiah Coxe, wrote a scathing rebuke against Collier titled, Vindiciæ Veritatis or A Confutation of Heresies. Coxe claimed to do this “not so much prompted by natural inclination, as to the joint and earnest perswasion of several of the elders.”²³ Collier wrote a refutation back against Coxe and thus proved that he was fully convinced of the teachings he had advanced, like denying original sin, an unorthodox view of hell and punishment, and a quasi-Arian Christology, all while still maintaining that he was among the Baptists.

The major Particular Baptist Congregations and their leaders knew they needed to ensure that Collier’s beliefs could not be mistaken for their own, and thus they produced their second confession of faith in 1677, though they would not be able to publish it until 1689 when the Act of Toleration was passed granting them the freedom of religion that they had fought for so long to obtain. Particular Baptist scholar Samuel Renihan, argues that the defection and works of Thomas Collier may provide the single most important reason for the production of what would become known as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.²⁴

Both the 1644 and 1677/89 Confessions of Faith made strong doctrinal declarations that aligned themselves with the Reformed heritage of many of their opponents (as will be especially noted in the next section) and against the slanderous charges of heresy. Both confessions included articles clearly articulating their historically orthodox beliefs and a commitment to civil authority where Scripture prescribes as such. Remarkably, the confessions not only served as a defense against the slanderous charges of heresy but also of immorality.

The preface to the 1644 Confession states that one of the purposes of this confession is to speak against the charges of “doing acts unseemly in the dispensing the Ordinance of Baptism, not to be named amongst Christians.”²⁵ Many opponents had claimed that during the act of baptism, Baptist ministers called their people to perform perverse acts and to be completely nude during their baptism. One example of this kind of slander comes from Daniel Featley, an outspoken Anglican minister and opponent of the Particular Baptists, who wrote that Baptists were in the habit of “stripping stark naked, not onely when they flocke in great multitudes, men and women together, to be dipt, but also upon other occasions.”²⁶ It was against these slanderous charges of both immorality and heresy that the two confessions of faith effectively served the early Particular Baptists.

A Reformed Heritage

These Confessions of Faith, not only had a negative purpose (defining what these Baptists were not), it also had a positive purpose as well. The English Particular Baptists desired to demonstrate themselves firmly as heirs of the Reformed heritage, along with the English Presbyterians and Independents. Drafting these confessions was so important in this process because confessions are a central aspect of Christian history, especially within the Protestant tradition, where they serve to solidify its theological convictions.²⁷

Particular Baptists believed that they were fully within the Calvinist Reformed heritage with the exception of their views on baptism and certain aspects of ecclesiology (primarily regarding the question of who constitutes the visible church). In order to demonstrate their Reformed Heritage, Particular Baptists chose not to draft completely novel confessions, instead, they utilized existing confessions of faith held by the other major Reformed dissenting groups in England to show that they were more in line with them than apart from those who had launched attacks against them.

The 1644 confession of faith drew from both the 1596 True Confession and The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, a major work written in 1639 by the Puritan theologian William Ames. In a few examples it can be quickly shown the way in which Particular Baptists drew from those sources to draft their first confession. In the very opening article of the 1644 Baptist Confession, it reads, “That God as he is in himself, cannot be comprehended of any but himself, dwelling in that inaccessible light, that no eye can attain unto, whom never man saw, nor can see…”²⁸ Compare that with this portion of Ames’ work from 5 years earlier, “God as he is in himself, cannot be apprehended by any but himself. 1 Tim. 6:16, Dwelling in that Inaccessible light, whom never man saw, nor can see.”²⁹

One can clearly claim plagiarism here, but plagiarism in matters of the faith “once and for all delivered” was exactly the point. The Particular Baptists wanted to prove that they, in almost every way, held the exact doctrinal views as those who often slandered them. In its article regarding the priesthood of Christ, the 1644 Confession reads, “Touching his Priesthood, Christ being consecrated, hath appeared once to put away sin by the offering and sacrifice of himself, and to this end hath fully performed and suffered all those things by which God, through the blood of that his Cross in an acceptable sacrifice, might reconcile his elect only.”³⁰ This is verbatim to what the True Confession reads regarding the same subject.

The only major difference between the teachings of the 1644 confession and the source documents it leans on is that of baptism. This should not be surprising, but an important note is that the Baptists here did not see themselves as diverging from the Reformed tradition they believed they were simply seeing the Reformed tradition through to its logical end. Particular Baptists’ Reformed view of Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle of Worship deduced from it provided the central foundation to their view of baptism..³¹ So the 1644 confessors were unashamed in their theology of baptism but in no way saw this as removing them from the Reformed heritage. They also desired to inform political leaders through their confession of faith that they were not like the Anabaptists in their views of civil government. They wanted to make it clear that they would exist as good English citizens upholding the “divinely established authority of the civil magistrates.”³²

When the English Particular Baptists set to draft their second confession in 1677, one would think that they would merely build upon the already established first confession, and though they did not disagree with that confession, they saw fit once again to utilize other major prominent confessions to serve as the basis of their new statement of faith. The two primary source documents behind the 2^nd London Baptist Confession of Faith, was the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), and even more so the Congregationalist revised form of the Westminster Confession, known as the Savoy Declaration (1658). In the preface to the second confession of faith, the drafters made it much more clear that they indeed utilized these sources for their new confession. They write, “finding no defect in this regard in that fixed on by the Assembly (Westminster), and, after them by those of the congregational way (Savoy), we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order in our present Confession.³³

Their primary utilization of the Savoy Declaration against the WCF was primarily seen in the Savoy’s discussion regarding congregational autonomy. For instance, in the 1677/89 Confession it borrows verbatim paragraph IV of the Savoy Platform of Polity which reads, “Christ has likewise given power to his whole Church to receive in and cast out, by way of Excommunication, any member; and this power is given to every particular Congregation, and not one particular person, either member or Officer, but the whole.”³⁴

Though there was a preference for the more congregational reading of Savoy, the Baptist confessors did, at times, choose the Westminster definitions over the Congregationalists.³⁵ The only area of major disagreement between the Baptists and doctrinal articulations from the two other confessions was the acceptance believer’s baptism as the proper administration of the sacrament. However, what is fascinating is they chose to keep the teachings on baptism from the other confessions mostly the same, and simply changed the recipient and mode of baptism. They also provided a small appendix on baptism to the end of the Confession, but the primary focus of their second confession of faith was to show agreement in Reformed orthodoxy with their Presbyterian and Independent brothers and sisters.³⁶

Baptists were not ashamed of their doctrinal distinctives, and that is clear in their revising and expanding of the Westminster and Savoy confessions. These additions and revisions were primarily made in the second edition of the Covenant published in 1689.³⁷ The new found religious freedom ushered in by the Act of Toleration gave them a newfound opportunity to exemplify their theological distinctives more than they were originally able to in 1677. Particular Baptists had zero desire to claim any sort of doctrinal novelty; rather, they drafted the two confessions of faith to show that they were simply carrying the Reformed heritage forward and thus wanted to borrow and build upon existing Reformed Christian works and confessions of faith. This was the second way in which the confession served an apologetic function.

Association and Cooperation

The final purpose that the two confessions of faith served for the early Baptists was that they provided the doctrinal standards for these congregations to establish church associations. The overwhelming majority of early Baptist pastors were lay leaders, and the primary demographic of early Baptist churches was that of the working-class and poor middle-aged women, with men slowly catching up over the next century.³⁸ Many of these lay leaders, though very intelligent, often had little to no formal theological training, so those who did, like Benjamin Cox, William Kiffin, and Hanserd Knollys, saw it vitally important to draft statements of faith that were theologically sound and Baptistically distinct.³⁹ This would serve to help guide Particular Baptist congregations forward, especially as they became more welcomed in the 1640s and 1690s in England. These men also knew that in their smaller numbers, there was a great need to form associations of faithful Particular Baptist congregations for the purpose of cooperating together to care for less fortunate members, engage in political and social engagement, and conduct greater acts of public evangelism.⁴⁰

The drafting of the 1644 Confession of Faith played a crucial role in the rapid growth of Particular Baptist congregations throughout the 1640s and 1650s and helped sustain them through the renewed persecution of the 1660s–1680s. By the time the 1677/89 Confession of Faith was adopted as their new doctrinal standard, the Particular Baptists were experiencing unprecedented religious liberty. Freed from the fear of persecution, the Baptist movement expanded rapidly across England and America. As one Baptist scholar observes, “The Baptist confessions of faith broke any idea of isolationism and provided the bond of cooperation and mutual care that launched Baptists forward into one of the leading denominational movements in England over the next two centuries.”⁴¹

This period cannot be entirely romanticized—despite strong associations and comprehensive doctrinal standards, Baptists still faced significant internal disputes. The two most prominent controversies revolved around communion and hymn singing. Among early Particular Baptists, two camps quickly emerged regarding who should be permitted to partake in the Lord’s Supper. One group followed John Bunyan, the famed author of Pilgrim’s Progress, who—though not strictly a confessional Baptist—argued for open communion, allowing all believers to participate. In contrast, the Particular Baptist leader William Kiffin strongly advocated for closed communion, restricting participation to baptized members of the local church.⁴²

While this debate may seem minor to modern readers, it was a major point of contention in the 1640s and 1650s. Since the 1644 Confession did not take a definitive stance on the issue, there was no doctrinal standard that would exclude a congregation based on its position. Unfortunately, this disagreement led to considerable strife among Baptists. Had they been fully unified during this period, they might have gained even greater influence as a faith tradition in England, potentially strengthening their position against future persecution.

It is important to note that when the 1677/89 confession was drafted, it sided with a more closed communion stance; this was done to try and prevent further division among confessional Baptists. Yet once again, by the 1680s and 90s, a new controversy arose among Baptists on the issue of corporate hymnody. The primary question the debate revolved around was, does the regulative principle of worship allow for the singing of uninspired hymns in the church?

Baptists wrestled with this issue, and their confession of faith remained somewhat ambiguous on the matter. Fortunately, it did not lead to a major rupture in Baptist cooperation, as they ultimately deemed it a secondary issue of faith, allowing for both perspectives within the Particular Baptist Associations.⁴³ Second only to the confessions that made such unity possible, Particular Baptist associationalism became the anchor that held their community together during a period of significant turmoil and strife. This strong network of associations safeguarded the Particular Baptists from drifting into doctrinal and ecclesiological obscurity, a fate that befell many early English General Baptists.

Conclusion

Historians generally agree that the Baptist witness played a crucial role in the passing of the Toleration Act in 1689.⁴⁴ Yet, in the wake of this newfound religious freedom came a wave of spiritual indifference and doctrinal decay, leading many groups to abandon historic Christian orthodoxy altogether. The continued use of confessions of faith, however, safeguarded Particular Baptists, correcting them when they drifted into error. This was evident during the rise of hyper-Calvinism in the eighteenth century, which stifled Baptist evangelism and missionary zeal until it was revived by figures like William Carey and Andrew Fuller.

From the seventeenth century onward, confessions of faith remained central to Baptist identity, especially as the movement expanded across the Atlantic into America. The first Baptist confession drafted in the American colonies—the 1742 Philadelphia Baptist Confession—closely followed the 1677/89 London Baptist Confession, reinforcing the reality that it was the English Particular Baptists, rather than the General Baptists or Continental Anabaptists, who left the most enduring theological imprint on American Baptist life. This confessional continuity persisted through the nineteenth century with the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith and into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries with the three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, and 2000).

Over time, shifts occurred—American Baptists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries moved away from the Calvinism and covenantal theology that had shaped earlier Baptist confessions, adopting a more synergistic soteriology and a dispensational hermeneutic, especially in the North and West. Yet today, among many conservative Baptists, the pendulum appears to be swinging back toward a more Reformed theological framework. Regardless of these doctrinal shifts, Baptists have consistently maintained the use of confessions of faith as their seventeenth-century forefathers did: as instruments of unity, doctrinal clarity, and theological accountability.

These confessions remain vital today, not only as historical artifacts but as living documents that serve as both a defense against heretical claims and a guide for theological fidelity. Consider the three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message, each revised to address major social and theological challenges of its time, just as the early Baptists used their confessions to clarify their stance on civil government, soteriology, and moral issues. Confessions of faith have also continued to uphold two foundational principles of Baptist identity: congregational autonomy and associational cooperation—both of which find their roots in the 1644 Confession. In recent years, many modern Reformed Baptists have turned away from contemporary doctrinal statements in favor of the more robust and historically grounded 1689 London Baptist Confession, which provides a substantive link to their theological heritage. This demonstrates that these confessions not only strengthened and advanced the Baptist faith in the seventeenth century but continue to do so today.

In an era of growing doctrinal confusion, what the church needs is not broader, more ambiguous doctrinal statements but clearer and more precise ones. A well-articulated confession of faith prevents both the error of elevating secondary doctrines to dogma and the equal danger of losing sight of primary, essential truths. The 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions provided English Particular Baptists with an apologetic against false accusations, a demonstration of their Reformed heritage, and a foundation for associational unity that ensured their survival amid religious upheaval. Their legacy endures, offering a model for how doctrinal clarity can safeguard the church in times of theological and cultural uncertainty.

1. Samuel D. Renihan, From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704), (Oxford, England: Regent Park’s College, 2018), 7.

2. Brad S. Gregory, The History of Christianity in the Reformation Era: Course Guide, (Chantilly, VA: The Great Courses, 2001), 125.

3. Gregory, 127.

4. Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters, (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1978), I, 222.

5. James M. Renihan, "The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705: The Doctrine of the Church in the Second London Baptist Confession as Implemented in the Subscribing Churches," order no. 9811602, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, (1997), 4.

6. Particular redemption is also known as “limited atonement” in that it teaches that the atoning work of Christ is limited and efficacious for the elect only.

7. Matthew C. Bingham, “English Baptists and the Struggle for Theological Authority, 1642-1646.” The Journal Of Ecclesiastical History 68, no. 3 (2018): 546.

8. Michael A.G. Haykin, Kiffin Knollys, and Keach: Rediscovering our Baptist Heritage, (Peterborough, Canada: H&E Publishing, 2019), 31.

9. These were not the only confessions of faith drawn up by 17th-century Particular Baptists, as there was also The Midland Confession (1655) and The Somerset Confession (1656), but because of their larger use and greater circulation, this paper will primarily focus on the other two.

10. A.B. Bradstock, Radical Religion in Cromwell’s England: A Concise History of the English Civil War to the End of the Commonwealth, (London: I.B. Taurus, 2010), 29.

11. Gregory, 47.

12. Tyacke, Nicholas. England’s Long Reformation, 1500-1800, (Routledge, 1998), 243.

13. D. Alan Orr, “Sovereignty, Supremacy, and the Origins of the English Civil War,” History 87, no. 288 (February 2003): 486.

14. H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, (Nashville: B&H Academic, 1987), 107.

15. McBeth, 86.

16. McBeth, 87.

17. William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, revised ed., (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969), 153.

18. 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Preface, accessed August 11, 2021, Romans45.org/creeds.bc1644.htm.

19. Bingham, 565.

20. J.M. Renihan, “An Examination of the Possible Influence of Menno Simons’ Foundation Book upon the Particular Baptist Confession of 1644,” American Baptist Quarterly 15, no.3 (1996): 194.

21. McBeth, 113.

22. 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, preface, accessed August 13, 2021, www.rblist.org/1689.pdf.

23. Nehemiah Coxe, Vindiciæ Veritatis, Or, A Confutation [...] the Heresies and Gross Errours Asserted by Thomas Collier in His Additional Word to His Body of Divinity Written by Nehemiah Coxe, (London: Printed for Nath. Ponder, 1677), preface. Original Spelling and grammar maintained.

24. Samuel D. Renihan, The Petty France Church, pt.1, (Oxford: Regent’s Park College, 2019), 98.

25. 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith, preface.

26. Gordon Kingsley, “Opposition to Early Baptists (1638-1645),” Baptist History and Heritage 4, no. 1 (January, 1969): 29. Spelling left unaltered from original source.

27. Michael Allen, "Confessions," in The Cambridge Companion to Reformed Theology, edited by Paul T. Nimmo and David A. S. Fergusson, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 30.

28. 1644 LBCF, Article I.

29. William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, (London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1639), I.4.2.

30. 1644 LBCF, XVII

31. This idea teaches that only the New Covenant sacraments and worship practices explicitly taught and prescribed in Scripture should be practiced in the church.

32. 1644 LBCF, XXXIV.

33. 1689 LBCF, preface.

34. Savoy Declaration, article IV and 1644 LBCF XXXII.

35. WCF 6.1; 10.3; 16.1; 16.7; 18.2; 21.1; 22.5; 27.2; 29.2; 30.2; 32.3

36. Thomas Crosby, History of the English Baptists, Lafayette, TN: Church History Research and Archives, 1978), 161.

37. For example, see the Covenantal distinctions in 1689 LBCF 7.3 from WCF 7.5. Baptists held to the Covenant of Grace being promised to Adam, progressively revealed through the Old Covenant, and then fully realized in the New Covenant. Presbyterians held to the covenant of Grace being given to Abraham in Genesis 12,15,17 and realized under two administrations — The Old Covenant and The New Covenant.

38. B.R. White, “The Organisation of Particular Baptist Churches, 1644–1660.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 17, no. 2 (1966): 212.

39. Benjamin Coxe, William Kiffin, and Hanserd Knollys, A Declaration Concerning the Publike Dispute, (London: s.n., 1645), ii.

40. Timothy Edward Dowley, "The History of the English Baptists during the Great Persecution, 1660-1688," Order No. U417319, The University of Manchester (United Kingdom), 1976, 44.

41. R. Dwayne Connor, “Early English Baptist Associations: Their Meaning For Baptist Connectional Life,” Foundations 15, (1972): 167-168.

42. Fisher Humphrys, “Baptists and Their Theology,” Baptist History and Heritage 35, no.1 (2000): 16.

43. James M. Renihan, “The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705: The Doctrine of the Church in the Second London Baptist Confession as Implemented in the Subscribing Churches,” 148.

44. McBeth, 122.