New Hampshire Confession of Faith

[Squire Robertsson]

Over the years, I've heard from those who look to the 1689 London Confession of Faith. But, I've read little discussion of the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Here's a link to a pdf version. Though it is contained in Hiscox's New Directory

 

[Iconoclast]

Over the years, I've heard from those who look to the 1689 London Confession of Faith. But, I've read little discussion of the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Here's a link to a pdf version. Though it is contained in Hiscox's New Directory

Hello Squire,
The 1833 confession is a solid tool that can and has helped many believers grow in grace and knowledge. It holds back slightly in some areas, perhaps to give some persons"breathing room", and time to grow. I would not have trouble aligning with a local church who used this as their statement of faith.

1. Of the Scriptures. We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction[1]; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end[2], and truth without any mixture of error for its matter[3]; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us[4]; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union[5], and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried[6].
2. Of the True God. We believe that there is one, and only one, living and true God, an infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is JEHOVAH, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of Heaven and earth[7]; inexpressibly glorious in holiness[8], and worthy of all possible honor, confidence, and love[9]; that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost[10]; equal in every divine perfection[11], and executing distinct and harmonious offices in the great work of redemption[12].
3. Of the Fall of Man. We believe that man was created in holiness, under the law of his Maker[13]; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state[14]; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners[15], not by constraint, but choice[16]; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin[17], without defense or excuse[18].
4. Of the Way of Salvation. We believe that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace[19], through the mediatorial offices of the Son of God[20]; who by the appointment of the Father, freely took upon him our nature, yet without sin[21]; honored the divine law by his personal obedience[22], and by his death made a full atonement for our sins[23]; that having risen from the death, he is now enthroned in heaven[24]; and uniting in his wonderful person the tenderest sympathies with divine perfections, he is every way qualified to be a suitable, a compassionate, and an all-sufficient Saviour[25].
5. Of Justification. We believe that the great gospel blessing which Christ[26] secures to such as believe in him is Justification[27]; that Justification includes the pardon of sin[28], and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness[29]; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer's blood[30]; by virtue of which faith his perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God[31]; that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity[32].
6. 
   

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2

1. Of Sanctification. We believe that Sanctification is the process by which, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of his holiness[54]; that it is a progressive work[55]; that it is begun in regeneration[56]; and that it is carried on in the hearts of believers by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Sealer and Comforter, in the continual use of the appointed means – especially the Word of God, self-examination, self-denial, watchfulness, and prayer[57].
2. Of the Perseverance of Saints. We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end[58]; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors[59]; that a special Providence watches over their welfare[60]; and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation[61].
3. Of the Harmony of the Law and the Gospel. We believe that the Law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of his moral government[62]; that it is holy, just, and good[63]; and that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen men to fulfill its precepts arises entirely from their love of sin[64]; to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy Law, is one great end of the Gospel, and of the means of grace connected with the establishment of the visible Church[65].
4. Of a Gospel Church. We believe that a visible Church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers[66], associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel[67]; observing the ordinances of Christ[68]; governed by his laws[69], and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by his Word[70]; that its only scriptural officers are Bishops, or Pastors, and Deacons[71], whose qualifications, claims, and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.
5. Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer[72], into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost[73]; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life[74]; that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord's Supper[75], in which the members of the Church, by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ[76]; preceded always by solemn self-examination[77].
6. Of the Christian Sabbath. We believe that the first day of the week is the Lord's Day, or Christian Sabbath[78]; and is to be kept sacred to religious purposes[79], by abstaining from all secular labor and sinful recreations[80]; by the devout observance of all the means of grace, both private[81] and public[82]; and by preparation for that rest that remaineth for the people of God[83].
7. Of Civil Government. We believe that civil government is of divine appointment, for the interests and good order of human society[84]; and that magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored and obeyed[85]; except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ[86] who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the Prince of the kings of the earth[87].
8. Of the Righteous and the Wicked. We believe that there is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and the wicked[88]; that such only as through faith are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and sanctified by the Spirit of our God, are truly righteous in his esteem[89]; while all such as continue in impenitence and unbelief are in his sight wicked, and under the curse[90]; and this distinction holds among men both in and after death[91].
9. Of the World to Come. We believe that the end of the world is approaching[92]; that at the last day Christ will descend from heaven[93], and raise the dead from the grave to final retribution[94]; that a solemn separation will then take place[95]; that the wicked will be adjudged to endless punishment, and the righteous to endless joy[96]; and that this judgment will fix forever the final state of men in heaven or hell, on principles of righteousness[97].

 

[Jerome]

Check out how Jim Renihan of imploding Reformed Baptist microdenomination ARBCA has characterized/evaluated the New Hampshire Confession:

"a watered-down theology"

"attempt to placate the objections of Arminian Baptists in New Hampshire to...strong Calvinism"

James Renihan | The Reformed Reader

He makes it sound downright sinister!

 

[Jerome]

Contrast that screed with a thoughtful article by 9Mark Dever on what confession of faith is best for a Baptist congregation to use:

"The Westminster Confession was written to be used by a national, established church, with a final centralized authority....it was baptistified in Restoration England [as the 1689 London Baptist Confession]"

Many men I know, love, respect and learn from would say that the 1689 Confession is the best...I once thought so. Now, having pastored a congregation for a little more than 10 years....I think the New Hampshire Confession actually serves us better.

"I came to appreciate the New Hampshire Confession more and more....18 straightforward articles....clothed in 19th century language....[not] the 17th century language of the 1689 Confession....Instead of getting lost in the finer points of theology—points that we did not have to agree upon in order to be a local church together—we could deal with the main points of doctrine."

 

[Iconoclast]

Check out how Jim Renihan of imploding Reformed Baptist microdenomination ARBCA has characterized/evaluated the New Hampshire Confession:

"a watered-down theology"

"attempt to placate the objections of Arminian Baptists in New Hampshire to...strong Calvinism"

James Renihan | The Reformed Reader

He makes it sound downright sinister!

I understand James Renihan at the same time. Confessions of faith are useful tools as per your article;

2. Secondly, this discussion highlights the importance of Confessions of Faith, especially as they are found in early Baptist life. So often we are told, especially by those who dislike careful theological expression, that Confessions are really an imposition on Baptist freedom. One famous Southern Baptist author has written a very long book on Baptist History, in which one of his major themes is an attempt to show that the most basic value in Baptist history has been religious liberty.

For him, confessions are an intrusion on that heritage. They bind people to a mold—a set of doctrines—a situation that is to be avoided at all costs. But we must reply that our forefathers did not seem to feel this way. They believed that Christianity was a religion based upon revelation, and that that revelation was cohesive and consistent. For this reason, they believed that the doctrines found in that body of revelation could be systematized and expressed in such a way that many Christians could agree together about them.



Dr. Robert Martin has stated that a church without a Confession of faith has the theological equivalent of the aids virus, and certainly he is right. It has no defenses, no means by which to repel the onslaughts of error.

When confessions are neglected or rejected, the opportunity arises for churches to slip and fall into error and unbelief. Has not our own century demonstrated to us the truth of this statement? Why have so many churches, and even denominations been lost to unbelief?

It is because the doctrines that were held at the beginning were undervalued by following generations. The Lutherans lost touch with Luther, the Methodists lost touch with Wesley, and the Baptists lost touch with their Confessions. The brave stand taken by Dr. Mohler at Southern Seminary demonstrates this. He called his faculty back to the doctrinal standard of the past—and God has blessed him—and sent opposition to him—as a result.



A good Confession—and honesty in living with it—can be a means by which much good is done in a church. It will not be an albatross to hinder the work of God; rather it will be a means of uniting the people of God around truth, and prevent the spread of error.

We believe that the Bible is a cohesive book. The doctrines found in it integrate with one another, and produce a system that is to be received and believed. A good confession simply expresses the truth that is found in Scripture in a concise form. In this way, everyone who is interested can understand exactly what we believe.



3. The third implication that I would like to draw out has reference to our heritage as Baptists in America. The theology of these Confessions is our own. When one considers the history and development of Baptist thought and practice in America, one must give a significant place to these two London Confessions of Faith. Their common theological statements shaped and molded much of the thinking and practice of the churches on this side of the Atlantic.

That being said....I can live with a local assembly who desires to take a biblical stand.
Now it is true that the 1833 sought to go a bit"lite" on some of the teachings and not affirm as strongly as the previous confessions. This step back is a bit of a caution to be considered as it starts to "shrink back" from what many others have held.
I could live with it, unless and until it seeks to go further in that direction as the Baptist faith and message does.

 

[Iconoclast]

Contrast that screed with a thoughtful article by 9Mark Dever on what confession of faith is best for a Baptist congregation to use:

"The Westminster Confession was written to be used by a national, established church, with a final centralized authority....it was baptistified in Restoration England [as the 1689 London Baptist Confession]"

Many men I know, love, respect and learn from would say that the 1689 Confession is the best...I once thought so. Now, having pastored a congregation for a little more than 10 years....I think the New Hampshire Confession actually serves us better.

"I came to appreciate the New Hampshire Confession more and more....18 straightforward articles....clothed in 19th century language....[not] the 17th century language of the 1689 Confession....Instead of getting lost in the finer points of theology—points that we did not have to agree upon in order to be a local church together—we could deal with the main points of doctrine."

Again...each local assembly goes where they feel comfortable. Mark Dever is not one of my go-to guys, but the church I am associated with is a mix of the historic men and some of these newer men....

 

[Iconoclast]

Check out how Jim Renihan of imploding Reformed Baptist microdenomination ARBCA has characterized/evaluated the New Hampshire Confession:

"a watered-down theology"

"attempt to placate the objections of Arminian Baptists in New Hampshire to...strong Calvinism"

James Renihan | The Reformed Reader

He makes it sound downright sinister!

Writing in 1881, William Cathcart, the editor of The Baptist Encyclopedia, said "In England and America, churches, individuals, and Associations, with clear minds, with hearts full of love for the truth, . . . have held with veneration the articles of 1689." Certainly, this was true, but sadly, Cathcart failed to see that even in his own day there was a serious departure from this great old document. Many churches moved away from the London/Philadelphia standard in favor of the New Hampshire Confession, a product of J. Newton Brown’s attempt to placate the objections of Arminian Baptists in New Hampshire to the strong Calvinism of the older Confession. With a watered-down theology, theological depth was lost in the churches, and they were swept away by the dueling movements of liberalism and fundamentalism. Without a clear-cut theological system in place, the churches had no defense against the vagaries of liberalism or the reductionism of fundamentalism. For the first half of the twentieth century, awareness of the Second London Confession was at an all-time low among the Baptist churches.

I am afraid this might be accurate. Sometimes a sincere effort to be helpful gets misused and abused.

 

[Reformed]

Over the years, I've heard from those who look to the 1689 London Confession of Faith. But, I've read little discussion of the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Here's a link to a pdf version. Though it is contained in Hiscox's New Directory

My church subscribes to the New Hampshire Confession. Personally, I subscribe to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Do I consider the difference to be a big deal? Not at all. The New Hampshire Confession is good enough. My preferences are not the last word on any matter.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Thank you all for your comments. I do have some observations and suggestions.

• Don't look at the situation in 1833 through 2019 lenses. I suggest reading Francis Wayland's Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. (7.95 on Kindle) Printed in 1857 it's a more contemporaneous view.
• The NHSF is a result of the debates between the Gill and Fuller wings. With it taking the Fuller POV.

 

[rlvaughn]

Writing in 1881, William Cathcart, the editor of The Baptist Encyclopedia, said "In England and America, churches, individuals, and Associations, with clear minds, with hearts full of love for the truth, . . . have held with veneration the articles of 1689."

...the New Hampshire Confession, a product of J. Newton Brown’s attempt to placate the objections of Arminian Baptists in New Hampshire to the strong Calvinism of the older Confession...

Controversies with the Freewill Baptists, who were aggressive and active, is a definite part of the history of the period in which the New Hampshire Confession was written. (These had broken off from the Regular Baptists under the leadership of Benjamin Randall and others. New Durham, New Hampshire was the center of this movement.) Nevertheless, Renihan’s language is inaccurate, in my opinion. I don’t think Brown was trying to placate the Freewill Baptists. I think they were looking to tighten up the confession (shorten, simplify) in a form that the churches could better understand and defend. Certainly, that is just my opinion.

Cathcart quotes S. S. Cutting, “The New Hampshire Confession of Faith was written by the late Dr. J. Newton Brown while laboring in the State whose name it bears. It was prepared ‘with a view to pending controversies with the Free-Will Baptists, who are numerous there.’ Dr. Cutting says, ‘It has been sometimes criticised as aiming at the difficult task of preserving the stern orthodoxy of the fathers of the denomination, while at the same time it softens the terms in which that orthodoxy is expressed, in order to remove the objections of neighboring opponents.’ (Historical Vindications, p. 105.) We have unlimited faith in the goodness and sanctity of the late Dr. Brown, but we very much prefer the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, so dear to our fathers, to the New Hampshire Creed.” (The Baptist Encyclopaedia, p. 268.)

The full quote from Cutting is: “This sketch would be imperfect without a reference to the Declaration of Faith, known at the present time as the New Hampshire Confession, which was issued a quarter of a century since by the Baptist Convention of that state. The work of the Rev. John Newton Brown, D. D., it was written by him when a pastor in New Hampshire, with a view to pending controversies with the Free Will Baptists, who there are numerous. It has been sometimes criticized as aiming at the difficult task of preserving the stern orthodoxy of the fathers of the denomination, while at the same time it softens the terms in which that orthodoxy is expressed, in order to remove the objections of neighboring opponents.” (Historical Vindications: a Discourse on the Province and Uses of Baptist History, by Sewall S. Cutting, pp. 104-105.)

My understanding of Cutting is not that he means that they were trying to pacify the Freewill Baptists, but wanted remove wording on which the Regular Baptists were most easily attacked by them. Whether this was a good idea or not will be a matter of opinion. Barnes seems to agree with this in “The New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Its Origin and Use.” (William W. Barnes, “The New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Its Origin and Use,” Review & Expositor, Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1942, pp. 3-8.)

 

[S0l0m0n]

Over the years, I've heard from those who look to the 1689 London Confession of Faith. But, I've read little discussion of the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Here's a link to a pdf version. Though it is contained in Hiscox's New Directory

Thanks for posting this, as I had been meaning to look into it; and recently have been going through the Westminster and 1689 Baptist Confessions.

'VI. Of the Freeness of Salvation' is most definitely a massive departure from the rest. (To some, there will be a hearty 'Amen!' to this, and with the others, like myself, a hearty head shaking.)

"... the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel; that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial penitent, and obedient faith ..."
​

These documents are always very interesting to look into. And I wish churches were more uniform in adopting similar confessions so as to know their stance.