Reformed, Puritan, And Baptist: A Comparison Of The 1689 London Baptist Confession Of Faith To The 1646 Westminster Confession Of Faith

By Paul M. Smalley

The purpose of this article is to compare the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession to its 1646 Presbyterian predecessor, the Westminster Confession of Faith. [1] The author’s thesis is that the Particular Baptists wrote the 1689 Confession to identify themselves publicly with their Reformed and Puritan brothers, while asserting their distinctive Congregationalist and Baptist theology.

In 1677, English Particular Baptists produced a confession of faith which closely mirrored the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith. More precisely, it followed the 1658 Congregational revision of the Westminster Confession, known at the Savoy Declaration. [2] In so doing, the Baptists did not merely alter the sections of the confession regarding baptism and church order. Instead, in 1677, they supplemented a number of sections with statements from their earlier 1644 confession, known as the First London Confession. [3] This 1677 confession seems to be largely the work of William Collins and Nehemiah Coxe, pastors at the Petty France Church in London. The new Baptist confession was published again in 1689 with the signatures of Particular Baptist leaders such as Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, and Benjamin Keach. Today it is known as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith or the Second London Confession. [4]

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith was adopted by American Baptists meeting in Philadelphia in 1742, and thus was known as the Philadelphia Confession. [5] It was also taken up again in the nineteenth century in England by the Baptist Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon wrote of the confession,

This little volume is not issued as an authoritative rule, or code of faith, whereby you are to be fettered, but as an assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation of faith, and a means of edification in righteousness. Here the younger members of our church will have a body of divinity in small compass, and by means of the Scriptural proofs, will be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them. 

Be not ashamed of your faith; remember it is an ancient gospel of martyrs, confessors, reformers and saints. Above all, it is the truth of God, against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail. 

Let your lives adorn your faith, let your example adorn your creed. Above all live in Christ Jesus, and walk in Him, giving credence to no teaching but that which is manifestly approved of Him, and owned by the Holy Spirit. Cleave fast to the Word of God which is here mapped out for you. [6]

In this article, the 1689 Second London Confession of Faith is referred to as the 2LC, the 1658 Savoy Declaration as the Savoy, the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith as the WCF, and the 1644 First London Confession of Faith as the 1LC. Words in the 2LC which are additions to the WCF are marked in italics. Portions of other confessions which may be sources for the 2LC are underlined.

Broad Doctrinal And Verbal Agreement

Much of the 2LC repeats the WCF with minor changes that do not merit our attention. For example, the 2LC follows the WCF very closely in the chapters on:

• Scripture (2LC 1.2-10, WCF 1.2-10)—with the exception of the first paragraph.
• Free Will (2LC 9, WCF 9)
• Adoption (2LC 12, WCF 12)
• Good Works (2LC 16, WCF 16)
• Christian Liberty (2LC 21, WCF 21)—except for paragraph 4 of WCF 21.
• Religious Worship and Sabbath (2LC 22, WCF 22)—except for paragraph 5. [7]
• Death and Resurrection (2LC 31, WCF 32)
• Last Judgment (2LC 32, WCF 33)

Some chapters, such as 2LC 18 and WCF 18 on assurance, show variation in language but with little change of meaning. In other chapters with more significant variations, there are still paragraphs which the 2LC copies identically or nearly so from the WCF. Examples include some paragraphs on the Law (2LC 19.5, 7, WCF 19.5, 7) and the opening paragraph on the civil magistrate (2LC 24.1, WCF 23.1).

The 2LC demonstrates a deep theological unity between the Particular Baptists and their Reformed Orthodox brethren. Samuel Waldron writes, “Of the 160 paragraphs found in the 1689 Confession, 146 are derived from the Savoy (which reflects at many points the Westminster), eight are derived from the First London, and six from Collins.” Waldron then quotes the preface to the 1677 edition of the confession that their purpose wabs to demonstrate “our hearty agreement with them [the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists] in that wholesome Protestant doctrine which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures, they have asserted.” [8] Michael Haykin observes that this unity was forged in the fires of persecution which raged from the Restoration to the Glorious Revolution. All Dissenters suffered together; they treasured their common ground. Haykin wrote, “The desire to present a united Calvinistic front in the face of persecution consequently led the Calvinistic Baptists to employ the Westminster Confession, as modified by the Savoy Declaration, as the basis of a new Confession.” [9]

We now turn to a detailed examination of differences between two confessions.

The Doctrine Of The Scriptures (2LC 1, WCF 1)

The only significant change here is the addition of one sentence at the beginning of 2LC 1.1, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” This statement is found in neither the WCF nor the Savoy Declaration. It has similarities to 1LC 7 and the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 3), [10] but fills them out further with the words “sufficient, certain, and infallible.”

This added sentence on the “rule” of faith was probably motivated by the threat of the Quaker movement beginning in the late 1640s. The Quakers especially targeted Baptist churches in their attempts to win converts to their message of following the inner Light. As one Quaker wrote in 1670, the chief difference between them and other “professors” of Christianity was “concerning the rule.” They regarded the inner voice of the Spirit a far better rule to guide them than the written rule of Scripture. But the Baptists asserted, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” [11]

The Doctrine Of God (2LC 2, WCF 2)

The 2LC 2.1 adds a number of phrases to the WCF’s description of God, but does not alter the Westminster doctrine of God; rather, it becomes redundant at times. Here is the 2LC statement, with additions to the WCF in italics:

[The Lord our God] is but one only living and true God; [whose subsistence is in and of himself,] infinite in being and perfection; [whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself;] a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, [who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;] who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, [every way infinite,] most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute....

Some of the additions can be traced to the 1LC 1-2, [12] which says (relevant sections being underlined),

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.... That God is of Himself, that is, neither from another, nor of another, nor by another, nor for another: But is a Spirit, who as his being is of Himself, so He gives being, moving, and preservation to all other things, being in Himself eternal, most holy, every way infinite in greatness, wisdom, power, justice, goodness, truth, etc....

The next substantial changes appear in the statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. The 2LC 2.3 states, with changes marked,

[In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit,] of one substance, power, and eternity, [each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided:] the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; [all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.]

The words “divine and infinite Being” are preferred to the WCF’s “the unity of the God-head,” and “subsistence” to “person.” The last clause on communion with God comes from the Savoy 2.3. [13] The other additions reflect the 1LC 2, which includes the statement, “...being every one of them one and the same God; and therefore not divided, but distinguished one from another by their several properties.”

Thus the 2LC affirms the same theology of God as the WCF but seasoned with the distinct flavor of the 1LC.

The Doctrine Of The Decree (2LC 3, WCF 3)

There are some differences between the confessions regarding God’s decree. The 2LC 3.1 strengthens the WCF 3.1 assertion that God is not the author of sin by adding, “nor hath fellowship with any therein,” and also adds at the end of the paragraph, “in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.” This comes from a similar phrase in the 1LC 3: “in which decree appears His wisdom, constancy, truth, and faithfulness.” There appears to be a concern here to maintain the goodness of the sovereign God.

The WCF 3.7 (with the Savoy Declaration) clearly teaches the dark side of the divine decree, the doctrine of reprobation:

The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

The 2LC omits this paragraph entirely. But 2LC 3.3 includes part of this statement in another paragraph, altering and expanding WCF 3.3 as marked below:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; [others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.]

This follows the 1LC 3, which reads,

And touching His creature man, God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of His will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace, leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice.

Thus the 2LC avoids the language of ordination unto damnation, while affirming the divine abandonment of the non-elect to justice. Samuel Waldron offers this assessment, with which not all Reformed theologians would fully concur:

Though the Baptist Confession clearly assumes the doctrine of reprobation, its actual statements on the subject do not possess the clarity appropriate to a credal [sic] document. The Westminster Confession must be commended for its faithfulness to Scripture at this point. 

But the Westminster Confession of Faith also has a weakness. It makes a parallel between salvation and reprobation. This is liable to leave the false impression that God is sadistic. God’s relation to reprobation is not the same as his relation to the decree of salvation (Ezek. 33:11, 18). Perhaps this is why the Baptists left out some of the key statements of the Westminster Confession regarding reprobation. [14]

The Doctrines Of Fall And Covenant (2LC 6-7, WCF 6-7)

The 2LC statement on the Fall of Man expands on the WCF 6. First, it slices up portions of the 1LC and adds them with slight modifications at different points to the WCF. The 1LC 4 reads,

In the beginning God made all things very good, created man after His own image and likeness, filling him with all perfection of all natural excellency and uprightness, free from all sin. But long he abode not in this honor, but by the subtlety of the Serpent, which Satan used as his instrument, himself with his angels having sinned before and not kept their first estate, but left their own habitation; first Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of death, and all other calamities due to sin in this world and for ever, being considered in the state of nature, without relation to Christ.

The single underlined portion was added to WCF 6.1 to form 2LC 6.1. The italic portion was added to WCF 6.3 to form 2LC 6.3. These additions may have led the authors of the 2LC to omit WCF 6.6 as redundant, for it reads,

Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

The question of how Adam’s sin relates to the human condition brings us to the subject of covenants. One of the greatest differences between the two confessions appears in their treatment of the covenants. The WCF 7.2 asserts, “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” The next paragraph also mentions this first “covenant.” The 2LC complete omits these references to a covenant of works, devoting the entire chapter to the covenant of grace. The 2LC also omits the phrase “covenant of works” in WCF 19.1 and the phrase “covenant of works and life” in the Savoy Declaration 6.1. A first impression is that the Particular Baptists had some reservations about the doctrine of a covenant of works.

However, the 2LC does have the phrase “covenant of works” in 2LC 19.6 and 20.1. The latter is actually an addition to the WCF, and begins, “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ.” Furthermore, Particular Baptist signatories to the 2LC such as Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, and Benjamin Keach taught a covenant of works. Jerry Doman has suggested that the phrase disappeared from some portions of the 2LC for editorial reasons, not theological objections. [15]

Some 2LC additions to the WCF make positive assertions regarding the role of Adam’s disobedience in human history. The 2LC 6.1 adds the following to the WCF 6.1, “Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof.” The 2LC 6.3 contains further additions to the WCF 6.3, as noted here: “They being the root, [and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind,] the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.” Clearly, the 2LC teaches that God made an arrangement whereby Adam would legally represent all the human race with respect to his obedience unto life or disobedience unto death. This is covenant theology.

The remainder of the WCF chapter on covenants is also heavily edited in the 2LC. The WCF 7.4-6 deal with the covenant of grace as a “testament,” and the different administrations of the one covenant before and after Christ’s coming. These three paragraphs are replaced by the single paragraph 2LC 7.3, which briefly affirms the progressive revelation of the one covenant through the ages.

The 2LC 7.3 also adds that the covenant of grace was “founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect.” [16] Thus the Savoy Declaration 8.1 and the 2LC 8.1 both add the marked words to the WCF, “It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, [according to the covenant made between them both,] to be the mediator between God and man.”

The Doctrine Of Christ The Mediator (2LC 8, WCF 8)

The 2LC 8.2 makes some significant additions to the WCF 8.2 in the doctrine of the person of Christ, emphasizing Christ’s full deity and full humanity.

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, [the brightness of the Father’s glory,] of one substance and equal with him who made the world, [who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made,] did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, [the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures;] so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.

These additions derive from the 1LC 9. The latter, long addition on the virginal conception may be included with a glance toward Thomas Collier, a Particular Baptist who fell into the error that Christ’s human nature was eternal. [17]

The 2LC 8.9-10 are completely new additions to the WCF and Savoy Declaration. The WCF speaks of Christ’s three-fold office of prophet, priest, and king only in WCF 8.1, 8. The 1LC devoted a fifth of its articles to the three-fold office of Christ (art. 10-20). Articles 13 and 14 were revised and adopted as the 2LC 8.9-10,

This office of mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, who is the prophet, priest, and king of the church of God; and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof, transferred from him to any other. 

This number and order of offices is necessary; for in respect of our ignorance, we stand in need of his prophetical office; and in respect of our alienation from God, and imperfection of the best of our services, we need his priestly office to reconcile us and present us acceptable unto God; and in respect to our averseness and utter inability to return to God, and for our rescue and security from our spiritual adversaries, we need his kingly office to convince, subdue, draw, uphold, deliver, and preserve us to his heavenly kingdom.

The Doctrines Of Salvation (2LC 10-17, WCF 10-17)

The 2LC presents the same doctrines of effectual calling, saving faith, justification, sanctification, and perseverance as the WCF. It does add expressions, some drawn from the 1LC (compare 2LC 10.2 with 1LC 24, 2LC 14.2 with 1LC 22, and 2LC 17.1 with 1LC 23), others with no confessional precedent (2LC 13.3). It also follows the more precise language of the Savoy 11.1, 3 on Christ’s active and passive obedience and penal substitutionary atonement, and Savoy 14.3 on the difference between the weakest saving faith and the temporary faith of those who later fall away.

The 2LC follows the Savoy 15 when it completely abandons the arrangement of the WCF 15 on repentance unto life, offering five new paragraphs in place of the latter’s six. But the Savoy/2LC simply rearranged the WCF material, using some of the same phrases at different points. The doctrine is the same.

The Doctrine Of The Revelation Of The Gospel (2LC 20, Not In WCF)

Chapter 20 is an entirely new addition in the Savoy and 2LC, the only full chapter added to the WCF’s content. [18] The 2LC follows the Savoy almost word-for-word in this new chapter. It consists of four paragraphs, which can be summarized as follows:

1. God revealed the promise of Christ immediately after the Fall to effectually call the elect to faith and repentance (Gen. 3:15).
2. The promise of Christ is not revealed in creation or providence, but only in God’s Word, so that without the Word no one can have saving faith.
3. God sovereignly determined which nations and times would receive the knowledge of the gospel without reference to human merit or effort.
4. The gospel is the only outward means of saving grace, but the effectual regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is also necessary for conversion.

Samuel Waldron quotes the Congregationalists’ 1658 preface to the Savoy, “A few things we have added for obviating some erroneous opinions, that have been more broadly and boldly here of late maintained by the asserters, than in former times.” Waldron then comments,

A general knowledge of the period permits the educated guess that the Puritan authors had already sensed the intellectual tendency which would later produce Deism, with its emphasis on the sufficiency of human reason and natural revelation and its opposition to supernatural revelation and the distinctive tenets of Christianity. Such men...disliked the idea that a special revelation given only to some men was necessary to worship and serve God acceptably. [19]

The Doctrine of Liberty and Government (2LC 21 & 24; WCF 20 & 23)

Both the Savoy 21 and the 2LC 21 omit the last paragraph of the WCF 20 on the right of the civil government to punish errors in religious doctrine. The WCF 20.4 reads,

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

When the Congregationalists and Baptists set aside this paragraph, they were not following in the footsteps of the Anabaptists in rejecting the goodness of civil authority. The 2LC 24.1-2 repeat almost identically the WCF 23.1-2, which affirm that God gave to the civil ruler His authority and the right to use physical force (“the sword”), and that a Christian may lawfully serve as a civil ruler or as a soldier. But the Baptists did object to giving the magistrate the right and responsibility to punish religious error. They had suffered too much persecution.

The WCF 23.3 again put the power to punish heresy in the hands of the prince:

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The Congregationalists replaced this statement with the Savoy 24.3, which says:

Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty.

But the 2LC 24 drops the paragraph altogether. Perhaps the Baptists were not comfortable with any wedding of the state and the church, even such that the civil ruler worked to promote the gospel and only punished errors in “the foundation.”

The Doctrine Of Marriage (2LC 25, WCF 24)

The WCF 24 was titled, “Of Marriage and Divorce,” giving four paragraphs on marriage and two on divorce. It allows for divorce only in the cases of adultery and willful desertion. The Savoy 25 is titled merely, “Of Marriage,” repeating the substance of the first four paragraphs but omitting the latter two on divorce. The 2LC 25 follows the Savoy in this regard. The omission is intriguing, but its rationale is not clear.

The Doctrine Of The Church (2LC 26, 27; WCF 25, 26, 30, 31)

Here lies one of the great divergences between the Baptist and Presbyterian confessions. The WCF 25 contains six paragraphs on the nature of the church. The Savoy 26.1-4 adopted paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 6 from the WCF with some changes. The first four paragraphs of 2LC 26 generally follow the Savoy.

Both the WCF and the 2LC affirm a “catholic or universal” church consisting of the elect. But whereas the WCF 25.1 stated that the universal church “is invisible,” the 2LC 26.1 said that the church “(with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible.” This clarifies in what respect it is invisible and guards against radicals who might refuse to join any visible local congregation.

The WCF 25.2 defines the visible church as “all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.” The Savoy 26.2 altered that definition by removing the reference to children and adding a Congregational caveat to require that the profession of faith be reasonable in light of doctrine and life. It reads,

The whole body of men throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according to it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are, and may be called the visible catholic church of Christ

The 2LC 26.2 largely adopted the Savoy reading, but changed “the visible catholic church” to “visible saints,” further emphasizing the necessity of holiness.

The Savoy then added a new, fifth paragraph expressing a post-millennial hope for the glory of the church in the latter days. The 2LC omits the post-millennial paragraph and adds eleven new paragraphs. Samuel Waldron explains the sources for the 2LC 26:

Paragraphs 1-4 are substantially derived from the Savoy revision of the Westminster Confession’s chapter on the church which deals with the universal church. Paragraphs 5-15 are, on the other hand, substantially derived from the platform of local church polity published with the Savoy Declaration. [20] 

Thus the Baptists largely took the Congregational polity of the Savoy into their own confession. This table shows how the 2LC rearranges the Savoy polity statement:

2LC	Savoy “Institution of Churches” 1	Doctrine
2LC 26.4a	Paragraph 1	Christ is the head of the church.
2LC 26.4b	Savoy Declaration 26.4 (Cf. WCF 25.6)	The Pope is the Antichrist and Man of Sin whom Christ will destroy.
2LC 26.5	Paragraphs 2 & 3	Christ calls sinners to obedience and participation in a local congregation.
2LC 26.6	Paragraph 8	The members of a local congregation must be visible saints consenting to walk together.
2LC 26.7	Paragraph 4	Each congregation has full authority to rule itself under the Word of Christ.
2LC 26.8	Paragraphs 7a & 9	Christ organizes His churches into members and officers, namely, elders and deacons.
2LC 26.9	Paragraph 11	Officers must be elected by a congregation and ordained by the eldership.
2LC 26.10	No Savoy parallel. 2	Each congregation must provide comfortable financial support for their pastor-teachers.
2LC 26.11	Paragraph 13	Other teachers besides elders are permissible if called by the church.
2LC 26.12	Paragraph 20	All believers should join a local congregation; all members are under the rule and discipline of that congregation.
2LC 26.13	Paragraph 21	Members are not to withdraw when offended, but to wait on Christ’s work in the church.
2LC 26.14	Paragraph 25	The believers and churches in various places should pray for each other and commune together as providence permits.
2LC 26.15	Paragraph 26	When difficult questions arise, churches may send messengers to a synod or council, but such meetings have no binding authority.

The 2LC 27, “Of the Communion of the Saints,” follows Savoy 27 in abridging the WCF 26’s three paragraphs into two without changing its message. The 2LC also follows the Savoy in entirely omitting the WCF 30, “Of Church Censures.” This is especially significant when one realizes that the polity statement appended to the Savoy Declaration had five paragraphs on church censures (paragraphs 18-22), but the 2LC included only two (paragraphs 20, 21; 2LC 26.12-13). It may be that the Baptists desired to leave the details of how to proceed in church discipline to each congregation.

The 2LC also follows the Savoy in completely omitting the WCF 31, “Of Synods and Councils.” [21] Although the 2LC 26.15 had allowed for synods and councils for advisory purposes, it denied to them “any church-power properly so called.” This is in marked contrast to the Presbyterian doctrine that, although councils “may err” (WCF 31.4), they still have churchly authority granted them by God, as the WCF 31.5 says:

It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.

The Doctrine Of The Sacraments (2LC 28-30; WCF 27-29)

The WCF 27 is titled, “Of the Sacraments,” and consists of five paragraphs. They teach that 1) the sacraments are signs of the covenant of grace; 2) there is a sacramental union between the sign and the grace signified; 3) the sacraments have power not from themselves nor from the minister but by the Spirit and the Word; 4) there are only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and 5) the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments are substantially the same.

The 2LC 28 is titled, “Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” The 2LC consistently avoids the word “sacrament,” as did the 1LC before it. The 2LC 28 does not follow any of the language of the WCF 27, but does reflect some of the concerns of paragraph 4: “There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.” The 2LC 28 reads as follows:

1. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

The WCF 27.4 specified that only an ordained minister of the Word should administer the ordinances. The 1LC 41 indicated that any “disciple” could baptize. But the 2LC 28.2 took a middle road, authorizing “only those who are qualified and hereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.” The 2LC uses the language of calling for elders and deacons (2LC 26.9) and non-elder teachers (2LC 26.11). It therefore opens the possibility of persons outside the eldership administering the ordinances, but it implies that the congregation and/or eldership must authorize them to do so.

The 2LC 29, “Of Baptism,” consists of four paragraphs. The 2LC 29.1 reads,

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

Compare this to the WCF 28.1, with parallel phrase underlined,

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.

We note again the change of “sacrament” to “ordinance,” and the omission of the phrase “of regeneration,” perhaps to avoid any hint of baptismal regeneration. The Baptists also omitted the reference to “the covenant of grace.” This was probably because the Presbyterians built their argument for infant baptism on the unity of the covenant of grace, identifying the covenant sign of baptism with the covenant sign of circumcision. The Particular Baptists affirmed such a covenant revealed from the Fall and then progressively as ages passed (2LC 7). But the full revelation of the covenant of grace did not appear until the New Testament (2LC 7.3). Identifying baptism as a “New Testament” sign subtly indicated that there are significant differences between the New Covenant and the Old with respect to their sacraments or ordinances.

The remainder of the 2LC 29 presents Baptist theology with striking brevity:

1. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
2. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
3. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

These paragraphs show no dependence on the language of the 1LC 39-40 on baptism. They were evidently composed by Collins and Coxe. The 2LC 29.2, 4 stand in direct contradiction to the WCF 28.3-4 regarding the subjects and mode of baptism. But the 2LC 29.3 repeats the WCF 28.2, with the change of “sacrament” to “ordinance” and the omission of the WCF’s phrase, “by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.” Again we observe the Baptist inclinations to avoid sacramental language and to allow for laymen to administer the ordinances.

Similarly, the 2LC 30, “Of the Lord’s Supper,” follows the WCF 29 closely except for repeatedly substituting “ordinance” for “sacrament.” Both confessions make strong condemnations of “the popish sacrifice of the mass.” The 2LC omits the WCF’s condemnation of “private masses,” not from sympathy to Roman Catholic rituals but probably, in Samuel Waldron’s words, “because some brethren believed that taking the Lord’s Supper to those confined at home was occasionally legitimate.” [22]

It is striking that the Particular Baptists did not simply substitute their own statements on baptism and the Lord’s Supper but modified the Presbyterian and Congregationalist statements. This again attests to their desire to identify as closely as possible with the broader Reformed Orthodoxy of their day. At the same time, they left no ambiguity regarding their differences on the subjects and mode of baptism, and they freely changed “sacrament” to “ordinance” to reflect their understanding of Scripture.

Conclusion

The 1689 London Confession of Faith testifies that the Particular Baptists publicly identified themselves as Reformed, Puritan, and Baptist. Michael Haykin writes,

The Calvinistic Baptists regarded themselves as part of an international Reformed movement that embraced believers throughout Europe. 

It was no accident, for example, that the Second London Confession of Faith was largely drawn from two other Reformed documents, the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration. In doing this, the Baptists were explicitly declaring their essential solidarity with other Reformed groups in England and Wales. What united them to these fellow believers was ultimately more significant than those things on which they were divided. [23]

Such dependence on previous confessions displays the humility of godly men who knew that the Holy Spirit had been teaching His church from the Scriptures for centuries before they came on the scene. In the words of Samuel Waldron, “They showed an awareness that the true church of Christ is catholic in the right sense.” [24]

Notes

1. This paper leans heavily upon James N. Anderson, “A Tabular Comparison of the 1646 WCF and the 1689 LBCF” (http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html, accessed 8-29-09).
2. “After thorough study of these documents, I am aware of no instance in which the language of the Westminster is preferred over that of the Savoy.” Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2005), 428. The text of the Savoy Declaration may be found at http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Savoy_Declaration/savoy2.html, accessed 9-1-09.
3. W. L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969), 144-71. For convenience, I have used the digital text available at http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm.
4. Waldron, 425-29.
5. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 1.855.
6. The Baptist Confession of Faith, 8.
7. The most significant change was the addition of “hymns and spiritual songs” to the WCF’s “psalms.”
8. Waldron, 429-30.
9. Michael A. G. Haykin, Kiffin, Knollys, and Keach: Rediscovering our English Baptist Heritage (Leeds: Reformation Trust Today, 1996), 63.
10. Joel R. Beeke & Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds., Reformed Confessions Har­monized (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 11.
11. Haykin, 67, 72.
12. Compare also the Second Helvetic Confession (III.1): “We believe and teach that God is one in essence or nature, subsisting by Himself, allsufficient in Himself...” (Beeke, Ferguson, 6).
13. This was probably the initiative of John Owen. Cf. Kelly M. Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 156.
14. Waldon, 73. It should be noted, however, that the WCF uses “predestinate only with reference to eternal life, while the lost are spoken of as being ordained or judicially condemned to death.” Schaff, 1.792. Schaff himself objects against the Westminster Assembly’s inclusion of reprobation into a church confession. But it is clearly taught in the Scriptures (1 Sam. 2:25; Isa. 6:8-10; 29:9-14; Mark 4:11-12; Luke 22:22; John 12:37-40; 17:12; Rom. 9:18-24; 11:7-10; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4).
15. Waldron, 95, 479 (chapter 6 n.3).
16. The language of the eternal covenant of redemption within the Trinity was just finding broad acceptance among the English Reformed at the time of the writing of the WCF in the mid-1640s. Carl R. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 81-82.
17. Haykin, 68.
18. The Savoy and the 2LC completely omit the WCF 30 and 31, as we will see later.
19. Waldron, 245-46.
20. Waldron, 311.
21. Chapters 30 and 31 of the WCF were also omitted by the English Parliament when it adopted the Confession in 1648 and again in 1659 because of the English government’s Erastian commitment to state control of the church. Schaff, 1.758.
22. Waldron, 367.
23. Haykin, 102. Cf. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 236.
24. Waldron, 430.