Political Theology of the 17th Century Particular Baptists

Theology in Particular of IRBS Media recently replayed one of their greatest hits — Dr. Renihan's interview on the Political Theology of the 17th Century Particular Baptists. Here's some of the things that I've learned from this informatively clear response in answer to the question provided by one of the podcast's listeners.

This episode originated from a listener suggestion. Joe Anady reads the question at length, noting it is so well-framed it practically wrote the interview.

The listener writes:

"What was the political theology of the 17th century Particular Baptists? I think this would be an illuminating and timely topic. From what I've seen online, the question of political theology has increasingly become an area of debate amongst Baptists. On the one side, increasing numbers of Baptists are advocating for a more magisterial view such as integralism, so-called Christian nationalism, lighter forms of established religion, and the like, where Christianity and the first table of the law are to various degrees regulated by the state. On the other side, many Baptists are arguing for a maximal religious liberty perspective where the state only regulates the second table of the law, commonly appealing to Baptist thought from the 18th century and later and claiming this is the only historic Baptist view. And then — in all this — 17th century Particular Baptist thought on the subject is conspicuously absent and it's difficult to know where to look for such information. For those of us who fully subscribe to the 2LBC according to its original intent, this question is important. If 17th century Particular Baptist political theology was diverse, then it's important for us to extend liberty and patience to each other on this point. If their perspective was actually very specific and unified, then it's important for us to understand the biblical foundations for that. If their perspective evolved over time, it would be good to know why that evolution occurred and if it was theological or practical. For example, Dr. James Renihan's exposition of the First London Baptist Confession says that the Particular Baptists were not arguing for universal religious toleration and uses Christopher Blackwood's words as a representative example. Similarly, my recollection of Matthew Bingham's Orthodox Radicals is that Particular Baptists participated in Cromwell's program to privilege a generic Reformed Protestantism."

The listener's specific questions:

What was the political theology of the 17th century Particular Baptists?
Was it diverse or unified?
Did it evolve over time — and if so, was that evolution theological or practical?
Was there a difference between those in England versus those in the American colonies?
Did they make a hard distinction between the first and second tables of the law regarding government, or was it more nuanced?

"In a time when sadly politics is influencing our theology rather than the other way around, I think it would be very edifying for the podcast to do an overview of what our 17th century Particular Baptist fathers in the faith believed and why they believed it."

Contemporary relevance noted by Renihan: A Supreme Court case that week involved a Colorado website designer asking whether she could be compelled to construct websites for those whose moral views conflict with her Christian values. A Virginia restaurant that same week refused service to a Christian group for not representing its "inclusive values." The same fundamental question — appearing from two directions.

I. Was the Political Theology Diverse or Unified?

Answer: Diverse — in two ways:

A progression of ideas driven by changing political circumstances
Diversity among the men themselves as to how to apply shared principles

The Four Confessions

There are actually four confessional documents, not two — because the First London Confession was issued in three versions:

Year	Document	Political Context
1644	First London Confession (original)	Parliament and Charles I at war
1646	First London Confession (revision)	Parliament clearly winning; king still alive
1651	First London Confession (revision)	King executed; England seeking new governance
1677	Second London Confession	Period of persecution under Charles II

In all three versions of the First London Confession, the articles dealing with the Christian's response to government change. The 1677 confession further nuances the expression.

How Each Version Reflects Its Political Moment

1644: Parliament and Charles I are at war. The confession straddles the divide — acknowledges both king and Parliament; a middle road between the two.
1646: Only 14 months later, it is clear Parliament will defeat the king. The revisions orient more toward parliamentary rule. The king is still alive; the outcome is still uncertain.
1651: The king has been executed. England is in uncharted territory. From 1649–1660 (eleven years), England attempted several governing mechanisms:
- Parliamentary rule (immediately after the execution)
- The "Parliament of the Saints" (early 1650s) — Parliament nominated largely from Puritan congregational churches in London; lasted less than a year
- The Protectorate under Cromwell — effectively a monarchy, though he refused the title of king

Baptist participation in these events was shaped directly by what was happening in the political sphere around them.

II. Were Their Theological Views Changing, or Were They Adapting to Circumstances?

Answer: They were men of their times. Until the 1640s, all they had known was powerful monarchy.

Since Henry VIII, the monarch claimed all power — the throne did as it pleased.
The 1630s: Charles I's "personal rule" — he prorogued (dismissed) Parliament for nearly a decade.
The forced financial crisis led him to recall Parliament, which sparked the Civil War, which produced the Particular Baptist churches.

Key caution: One of the biggest mistakes readers make is projecting modern political expectations back onto these men — assuming they "ought to have known" things they had never encountered. Their theological politics were governed by the word of God, and specifically by: How far must we go in obedience to the monarch whom God has placed on his throne?

Illustrative Example: Archbishop James Ussher and the Irish

Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh (chief ecclesiastical officer of the Church of England in Ireland) wanted to bring the gospel to the Gaelic-speaking Irish.
The king refused unless the people were taught English first — he wanted to make them Englishmen before making them Christians.
Result: The Irish were never effectively reached by the Reformation.
Ussher's dilemma: Do I obey the king (fifth commandment — honor father and mother, extended to governing authorities), or do I send preachers in Irish Gaelic?
His answer: Obey the king.
See: Crawford Gribben, The Irish Puritans

There is no reason to think the early Baptists had any different framework. Their development was the working out of their responsibility to obey God's word — particularly the fifth commandment's extension to governing authorities — within circumstances they had never before faced.

III. Was There a Difference Between England and the American Colonies?

Answer: Yes — significantly. The common assumption is reversed.

The expected narrative: Early colonists fled persecution to find freedom in the New World. The historical reality for Baptists: At least in the early period, the opposite was often true.

England

Particular Baptists appear in 1638; flourish in the 1640s during the Civil Wars.
During the 1650s, enjoyed relative (if unofficial) religious toleration under Parliament and Cromwell.

The American Colonies

Roger Williams

Expelled from a Congregational church in Salem, Massachusetts.
Founded Rhode Island on the basis of religious freedom.
Also notably insisted that Native Americans be compensated for land taken by European settlers — refused to allow colonists to simply seize it.

The Newport Incident

Three men from the Newport, Rhode Island, Particular Baptist Church (the second Baptist church in the New World) went to visit a blind member living in Lynn, Massachusetts.
Arrested on the Lord's Day — not for holding a private service, but for failing to attend the worship of the established Congregational church.
John Kandle was one of the three; forced to pay a fine.

Henry Dunster and the First Baptist Church of Boston

First president of Harvard College.
Became aware of the Newport incident, re-examined his views on infant baptism, rejected them, embraced credobaptism.
Forced out of his Harvard presidency.
One of his friends, similarly convinced, became a founder of the First Baptist Church of Boston.
That church adopted the Second London Confession of Faith as its own confession.

John Clark's Ill News from New England (1652)

Written by one of the three arrested Newport men.
Subtitle: While old England is become new, New England is become old.
New England was going backward to medieval religious persecution; old England under Parliament/Cromwell was allowing relative freedom of worship among Christian dissenters.
Clark appealed in the book to the London Baptists to go to Parliament and pressure the New England Puritans to relax their persecution.

Isaac Backus and Taxation

A Baptist minister who participated in the Continental Congress.
Appealed to the Massachusetts state house for Baptists to be freed from taxation funding the established Congregational church.
He was successful — but this was late 18th century, 100 years after the era under discussion.
Massachusetts and Connecticut both maintained established (tax-supported) churches into the 1830s.
Thomas Jefferson's "wall between church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists comes even later.

Summary: The radicalization of Baptist views on religious liberty was much stronger on the American side — driven directly by persecution from Puritan colonial authorities.

IV. Did They Make a Hard Distinction Between the First and Second Tables of the Law?

The question: Should the civil magistrate enforce only the second table (duties to fellow man: commandments 5–10) and not the first table (duties to God: commandments 1–4)?

The American Baptists

Largely argued the magistrate has no right to enforce the first table.
Key reason: The second commandment (worshiping God as he has prescribed) was used by paedobaptists as a basis for enforcing infant baptism — "You shall worship God according to his prescription, therefore baptize your infants." The Baptists developed a theology denying the magistrate this right precisely because it was being used against them.

The English Particular Baptists

Broadly sympathetic to the same view — but complicated by the Sabbath.
They would certainly have supported what we now call blue laws — civil enforcement of the Lord's Day. That is itself a first-table matter (fourth commandment).
Their position was therefore more nuanced than a clean first/second table divide.

The Case for Jewish Toleration in England (mid-1650s)

Puritan leaders became aware of persecution of Jews in European ghettos (especially Germany and Poland).
Proposed granting Jews a homeland in England to free them from economic persecution.
Henry Jesse — a very important early Particular Baptist — was among the leaders of that movement.
They were advocating for the entry into England of those holding a different religion — acknowledging the same God is worshiped, while recognizing Judaism's failure to recognize Jesus as Messiah.
The proposal failed — not for theological reasons, but because London merchants with parliamentary power feared economic competition from Jewish traders and financiers.
But Baptist Christians were a key part of the movement to give freedoms to non-Christians within England.

V. What Does the Second London Confession Say?

Answer: Chapter 24 presents a generic rather than specific political theology — deliberately.

Written in 1677 during persecution; any of the authors could be — and some were — arrested and imprisoned. Some died in prison.
Does not commit to any specific type of government.
Key language: Paragraph 2 refers to "the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth."
- The 1646 First London Confession used the language of "king" alone — which could be read as committing Baptists to a monarchical political theology.
- "Kingdom and commonwealth" reflects the variety of governing systems England itself had experienced — monarchy, commonwealth, protectorate.
- Opens space for Baptists to live faithfully under different forms of government.

Conclusion: The 2LCF gives us the basic teaching of holy Scripture about our obligations to governing authorities and their role over us — without committing us to any particular form of civil government.

VI. Counsel for Christians Today

Vote and Engage

Take the privilege of voting seriously; participate.
Vote on the issues with a clear conscience before the Lord — not merely by following a personality.

Allow for Differences of Opinion

Christians in different countries relate to their governments differently — and rightly so.
Example: Renihan's conversation with a Christian brother from a country with a much more powerful government presence in daily life — who was genuinely thankful for that clarity and enforcement. "I realized it's not proper for me to argue that the American way is necessarily the right way."
The Bible does not give us a specific system of government. It tells us that the Lord places people in authority over us and we are to be subject to them.

"We do live in a world where there are a variety of political systems. Probably the majority of our listeners in the English-speaking world are in some form of constitutional democracy. And the first thing that I would say is vote. Take your privilege of voting and participate, and do so wisely and with a clear conscience before the Lord. Don't just follow a man, but follow what the issues are and how the issues can be supported by you if that person comes to power, whatever his or her views may be. I would suggest that what we need to do in helping our people to think through these things is to give to each other a certain amount of freedom, liberty, generosity in acknowledging that wherever we live, we live under that circumstance to the glory of God... The Bible doesn't give us a specific system of government. It simply tells us that the Lord is the one who places people in authority over us and we're to be subject to them." — James Renihan

Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing

Joe Anady's pastoral caution:

"I think it's so important for us as Christians and ministers to keep the focus on the advancement of the kingdom of God — the preaching of the gospel, the teaching of the word of God to the people of God so that they obey all that Christ has commanded. We need to be concerned with promoting and maintaining sound doctrine, caring for souls. I am concerned that it's possible for Christians and ministers to become so preoccupied with political issues that we actually begin to grow distracted from the main thing."

Renihan's affirmation:

"The church of Christ that will be gathered around the throne is not going to be an American entity. In fact, the American identity of all of us is going to be wiped away and we will stand with people from every tribe and tongue and kindred and nation. And it will be that we're part of the kingdom of God, not part of any earthly political system."

VII. Recommended Resources

David VanDrunen, Politics After Christendom — Both hosts commend highly. Addresses the two kingdoms and the importance of maintaining the two-kingdoms distinction.
Ron Baines, Separating God's Two Kingdoms — A posthumously granted PhD dissertation from the University of Maine. Studies the Baptists in Maine and their struggle for freedom from oppression by the established Congregational churches before Maine became a state (originally part of Massachusetts). Available on the University of Maine website.

Notes from Theology in Particular, Episode 72 — a podcast of International Reformed Baptist Seminary (IRBS). Hosts: Joe Anady | Guest: James Renihan. Originally aired: December 2022 | Replayed: July 2026.