|
|
The 1689 London Baptist Confession
of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/89, along with
its predecessor of 1644/46, are perhaps the two most influential Baptist
Confessions in existence. In many ways, the more recent Confession eclipses
the earlier in importance, for by 1689 copies of the First London Confession
had become scarce, so much so that one of the key subscribers to the Second
Confession, Benjamin Keach, stated in 1692
that he knew nothing of the earlier document until someone informed him
of it earlier that year. It was the Second Confession which quickly became
the standard of Calvinistic Baptist orthodoxy in England, North America,
and today, in many parts of the world.
This Confession, influential as it is, may perhaps best be understood
against its historical and theological backgrounds. It did not appear de
novo, the product of a sudden burst of theological insight on the part
of an author or authors, but in the tradition of good Confession making,
it is largely dependent on the statements of earlier Reformed Confessions.
A superficial reading will demonstrate that it is based, to a large degree,
on that most Puritan of documents, the Westminster Confession of Faith
of 1647. A closer inspection will reveal that it is even more intimately
related to the revision of the Westminster Confession made by John Owen
and others in 1658, popularly known as the Savoy Declaration and Platform
of Polity. In almost every case the editors of the Baptist Confession follow
the revisions of the Savoy editors when they differ from the Westminster
document. In addition, the editors make occasional use of phraseology from
the First London Confession. When all of this material is accounted for,
there is very little left that is new and original to the 1677/89 Confession.
This heavy dependence on previous sources was very much part of the
purpose of the composition of the Confession. In the epistle "To the
Judicious and Impartial Reader" attached to the first edition of the
Confession, the editors state:
"And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments,
in this, doth vary from the former [i.e. the First London Confession] (although
the substance of the matter is the same) we shall freely impart to you
the reason and occasion thereof. One thing that greatly prevailed with
us to undertake this work, was (not only to give a full account of ourselves,
to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of Baptism, but
also) the profit that might from thence arise, unto those that have any
account of our labors, in their instruction, and establishment in the great
truths of the Gospel; in the clear understanding, and steady belief of
which, our comfortable walking with God, and fruitfulness before him, in
all our ways, is most neerly concerned; and therefore we did conclude it
necessary to expresse our selves the more fully, and distinctly; and also
to fix on such a method as might be most comprehensive of those things
which we designed to explain our sense, and belief of; and finding no defect,
in this regard, in that fixed on by the assembly [i.e. the Westminster
Assembly], and after them by those of the Congregational way [i.e. the
Savoy Synod], we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order
in our present confession: and also, when we observed that those last mentioned,
did in their confession (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves
and others) choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with
the former in sense, concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed,
but also for the most part without any variation of the terms we did in
like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the
very same words with them both, in these articles (which are very many)
wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs, and this we did,
the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all fundamental
articles of the Christian Religion, as also with many others, whose orthodox
confessions have been published to the world; on the behalf of the Protestants
in divers Nations and Cities: and also to convince all, that we have no
itch to clogge Religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that
form of sound words, which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures,
used by others before us, hereby declaring before God, Angels, & Men.
our hearty agreement with them, in that wholesome Protestant Doctrine,
which with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted: some things
indeed, are in some places added, some terms omitted, and some few changed,
but these alterations are of that nature, as that we need not doubt, any
charge or suspition of unsoundness in the faith, from any of our brethren
upon account of them".
These words are of real importance, and need to be considered very carefully.
The Baptists were concerned to demonstrate to all that their doctrinal
convictions had been, from the very start, orthodox and to a large degree
identical with the convictions of the Puritans around them. This was true
of the First London Confession, published prior to the Westminster Standards,
which was heavily dependent on the 1596
True Confession, and on the writings of William
Ames. In both of their general Confessions, the Baptists purposely
used existing documents in order to demonstrate their concurrence with
the theological convictions of their Puritan contemporaries. In the quote
above, they argue that the doctrines expressed in both Baptist Confessions
are the same, but they have chosen to base the newer Confession upon the
more recent and widely available documents of Westminster and Savoy. By
doing this, they were declaring with some vigor their own desire to be
placed in the broad stream of English Reformed Confessional Christianity.
This methodology provides us with some insight into understanding the
Confession and its teaching. When it concurs with these other documents,
it can be read as an endorsement of the views espoused by those Presbyterians
and Independents who subscribed those documents, and of the theological
works they published in defense of the Confessional statements. Thus, if
one wonders how the Baptists understood the doctrine of the Decrees of
God, or Justification, or the application of the Law to the conscience
of man, or how they worked out the implications of the teaching on the
Perseverance of the Saints, one may consult the writings of paedobaptist
Puritans with much profit. Since both the Westminster Confession and the
Savoy Declaration are readily available, it is relatively easy to compare
the documents in order to determine agreement. Of course, not every word
of every author is necessarily a fair representation of their views, but
in general, their method implies substantial theological agreement with
the writings of their orthodox contemporaries.
When the Confession departs from either of these documents, we should
take note. It is at these points that the Baptists express their distinctive
contributions to Christian Theology. Sadly, few of their theological writings
in defense of their views are available to us today, though it is hoped
that this will soon change.
Their methodology also explains the reason why certain subjects are
addressed in the Confession. In the troubled times of the second half of
the Seventeenth Century, topics such as the relationship between church
and state, the role of the magistrate, and even the Christian doctrine
of marriage were important issues. Long and heated debates over these questions
fired the furnace of controversy. Recognizing many of the problems inherent
in a state church, especially when that church was ruled by a foreign power
such as Rome, the Independents and the Baptists were very much concerned
for liberty of conscience. The Presbyterian party, with an ecclesiology
more conducive to a national church, had some within its ranks who argued
strongly against toleration for any dissenters. One is reminded of John
Milton's famous phrase "New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large".
The attitude of many Presbyterians was the same as that of their Episcopalian
predecessors: those in power make the rules, and everyone else must submit.
During the Commonwealth era, and
Cromwell's Protectorate, a measure
of liberty and toleration was given to many religious groups. The question
at issue was: Should the civil ruler enforce the first table of God's Law?
For the modern reader, the question seems simple and straightforward, but
it was not so clear in the 17th Century. Each of these English Reformed
Confessions, Westminster, Savoy and the Second London speak to the issue,
and each provides a different approach.
After the Restoration of 1660,
and the enforcement of the Clarendon
Code, non-conformists were subject to severe penal acts. It must also
be remembered that the Protestants of England feared a return to Roman
Catholicism throughout most of the century. Charles I and Charles II both
married Roman Catholics, and James II was a professing Romanist. The old
doctrines of the Reformation needed to be asserted in the face of this
royal departure and its potential implications for church and society.
From this mix came the pressing need to address these contemporary issues
in a Confession, and accounts for the presence of topics which may seem
less important at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century.
Compiled by
|
