WESTMINSTER & SAVOY CONFESSIONS IMMERSED...

[A presentation of all the Baptists who have loved Reformed Theology, of which group we do not belong - ed]

The Second London Confession of Faith of 1689 is today the vaunted standard of Reformed Baptists and "Calvinistic" Southern Baptists.  How different is it from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterians?  This document also "borrowed" their statements on church government from the Congregationalists in their Savoy Confession of 1658.  The Second London Confession of Faith is just the Westminster Confession of Faith immersed in water.  Are those the only differences between Baptists and Presbyterians & Congregationalists?

The "Reformed" Baptists (if such a thing can exist) have always envied the Presbyterians and other branches of the Reformed churches.  They have received most of their training from the Presbyterians and have been heavily influenced by their books and the books of other Reformers.  They want to be accepted by their elder step brothers.  But they will find in the end that their rejection of the heresy of infant baptism that the Reformers inherited from the Roman Catholic church will ultimately make them step children to the Reformation.

The approach of these baptists groups indeed have some foundation in the early history of the English Baptists, in the persons of Nehemiah Coxe, Hanserd Knollys and the Collins brothers - William and Hercules.

These step children are tolerated by their doctrinal fathers as wayward children who need to be enlightened in regards to infant baptism.  To demonstrate my opinions reflected in their writings, we quote the words of one of their Southern Baptists intellectual leaders James M. Renihan, a professor at the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.  In his republication of a work Discourses on Covenants by Nehemiah Coxe he writes:

Sadly, there have been few works available that have wrestled with these issues at a profound exegetical and theological level. The books written from a paedobaptist perspective are often dismissive of the credobaptist (i.e., believer’s baptism) point of view, and those defending believer’s baptism have often failed to give sufficient effort to presenting a full-blown covenantal system. The end result is that paedobaptists have seldom, if ever, considered the possibility of a covenantal credobaptist position, and many Baptists are simply ignorant of the centrality of the covenant and its usefulness in defending their own beliefs.
Coxe, Nehemiah. Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Kindle Locations 99-103). RBAP. Kindle Edition. 

One would ask why these baptists are so concerned with what infant baptizers think of them?  It is because they wish to be part of the group - to be accepted by their senior brethren who they admire.  To further show how much Dr. Renihan wants to be accepted in this elite Reformed club, he further states:

Recognizing the covenants as the structure of redemptive revelation and history, he progressively offers an exposition of each of God’s covenantal dealings with men prior to the law. In doing this, he is able to demonstrate that Baptists share with their other Reformed friends a commitment to this historical and progressive revelation of God’s grace to men. This is vitally important, and has been the source of surprise and blessing to paedobaptists who have discovered this point. They realize that confessional Reformed Baptists are not closet dispensationalists, but full-blown adherents to Covenant Theology.
Coxe, Nehemiah. Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Kindle Locations 106-111). RBAP. Kindle Edition. 

Dr. Renihan, being someone who writes to delight Presbyterians is joyous in his being able to produce a work that is a source of "surprise and blessing to paedobaptists".  What shameful talk!  His prime concern should be to please His Lord and not men.  Particularly those who are not even properly baptized and therefore are not members of any true gospel church.

The motivation of Dr. Renihan in publishing Coxe's book is reminiscent of the English Particular Baptists of the 1600s.  Many of them in the 1680s wanted to please the Presbyterians and Congregationalists of the time, even though "...the Presbyterians and Quakers and to some extent other parties had bitterly assailed the Baptists, charging them with all the errors and all the calumnies that had once been heaped upon the Anabaptists."  But then, when the Act of Uniformity was passed in 1662 the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers and all others who disagreed with the Church of England (including the Baptists) were persecuted.  And now, those who had formerly attacked the Baptists, experienced the same persecution.  The Baptists instead of standing their ground as they had in earlier persecutions, wanted to impress the Reformed churches on some united front and produced the 1689 confession.  As can be seen from McGlouthin's famous book Baptist Confessions of Faith:  "The Baptists now gave a signal proof of their desire for as much harmony and fellowship as possible by the preparation of this new Confession."

As has been said earlier, it is true that the Reformed Baptists can be properly seen as the doctrinal descendents of some among the Particular Baptists from England in the 1600s.  And so what?  Is that descendancy is so important to them that they would depart from New Testament principles to bear this connection?  Where are we told in the scriptures that we must have a creed or confession?  Where do we see Paul or some other apostle quoting from some man-made document and revere it as meriting his spiritual allegiance?

Gilbert Beebe

This citing of creeds in the past has led to the same consequences that it will lead to today - doctrinal error!  Why?  Because no man-devised attempt to systematize spiritual truth can be isolated from our sinful nature thereby producing some error in doctrine.  Systematic theology is a presumptuous thing.  We agree with Elder Gilbert Beebe (1800-1881) when he stated in a previous article published here:

The primitive saints could only abide in the Apostles' fellowship as they continued steadfastly in their doctrine; they were allowed to follow no man only so far as they followed Christ. Can it then be safe for us to accept the usages or traditions of the church, or of any organization claiming to be the church, as a standard of faith or rule of practice, which have existed since the time the Apostles were in the flesh? If in the days of their sojourn on earth no church was perfectly free from defect, at what period from that to present time have any of the churches surpassed the primitive churches in purity? We have a more sure guide and directory. The doctrine, examples and precepts of God, alone are reliable. To them only are we exhorted to give heed, as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the day star arise in our hearts.

The Reformed Baptists are not alone in their appeal to man made documents or man made organizations.  In case cited by Beebe, in another recently-published article, John M. Peck cited actions taken by the well known Philadelphia Baptist Association in America, as showing that older and previous generations of baptists, particularly in England, were in agreement with new practices being then implemented, Beebe states:

Who the legitimate successors of the Philadelphia Association, of the English Baptists, or of the Welsh Baptists are, is not the question with us; but the grand point is, Who are followers of the Lamb? Who are walking in the footsteps of the primitive church? Who are teaching for doctrines the commandments of men? These references to the history of Baptists of a few centuries past have been often met and refuted. We have often informed the New School that anything short of the apostolic age is too late to have weight with us. The foibles of professed Baptists three hundred years ago are entitled to no more consideration with us than those of yesterday.

Dudley Fenner's Book !st Use of
Term Covenant of Works 1583

For those who are lovers of, and totally dedicated to, covenant theology, we remind them of this definition of it from wikipedia that covenant theology is "...a conceptual overview and interpretive framework for understanding the overall structure of the Bible..." (italics are ours).  Covenant theology was not invented or mentioned by Paul, or any other apostle.  It was invented and first developed as a system by the Roman Catholic Church.  Yes, it is true, of course, that covenants existed in the Bible and that they are an important part in the understanding certain aspects of the transactions between men and God, but covenant theology and the existence of covenants are not the same things.  Some will say that the first use of covenants as a way of structuring the entire Bible began with Irenaeus.  If so, falls short.  We would prefer the beginning of this system of interpretation to have begun with the apostles of Christ himself.  But even this statement about Irenaeus is untrue.  He only mentioned covenants which the Bible already does.  The more correct understanding is that the term "Covenant of Works" was probably first used by Dudley Fenner (1558-1587), a Puritan who later became a Presbyterian in a commentary on the book of Genesis.

Some have said that there is substantial difference between the 1644 London Confession and the 1689 one.  This may not be true if the following excerpt we read is true:

...the method of editing these Confessions was the same. Both are based on existing paedobaptist documents, adapted, not to highlight differences, but to emphasize commonalities. The editors of both Confessions used the identical method. They chose the best existing paedobaptist confessions and “baptized” them. Beyond this, it is important to remember that the first Confession was actually revised in 1646 (specifically and directly in response to Daniel Featley’s strictures) to make it more palatable to the paedobaptist opposition. Throughout the 17th century, the Calvinistic Baptists sought to demonstrate their orthodoxy to their paedobaptist counterparts.

So it would seem that for the English Baptists, even those of the 1644 Confession (First London Confession), curtseying to the Reformed churches, and hoping for acceptance from them was the rule.

According to this same source, these English Baptists were covenant theologians like the infant baptizers:

John Spilsbury, sometimes suggested as the author of the First Confession, writing in his 1643 book A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptisme, said on the very first page of the text, “As the Scriptures being a perfect rule of all things, both for faith and order; this I confesse is a truth. And for the just and true consequence of Scripture, I doe not deny; and the covenant of life lying between God and Christ for all his elect, I doe not oppose: and that the outward profession of the said Covenant, hath differed under severall Periods, I shall not deny.”

Wiliam Kiffin

This was true for William Kiffin as well.  He:

 "...wrote in his 1642 book entitled Certain Observations upon Hosea the Second the 7. & 8. Verses, “in Scripture men are said to forsake God when they forsake the Law of God, the Commandments of God, or the worship of God . . .” (page 4), “to keep close to God is to keep close to the Law of God, the Commandments of God . . . it is best both with persons & churches, when they do so” (Page 16).

Hanserd Knollys

As for Hanserd Knollys, who wrote:

...in his 1646 book Christ Exalted: A Lost Sinner sought and saved by Christ, “The difference betweene these two schoolmasters, the Law and Christ, is this, Moses in the Law commands his Disciples to do this, and forbeare that, but gives no power, nor communicates no skill to performe anything: Christ commands his Disciples to do the same moral duties, and to forbeare the same evils, and with his command he gives power, and wisedome, For he works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure” (page 24), and again a little later in the same book, when commenting on the sins of those he calls carnal professors “They are so far departed from the Faith, which they sometime professed, and seemed to have, 1 Tim. 4.1. that they question whether the Scriptures of truth be the Word of God? Whether Christ be the Son of God? Whether the first day of the Week be the Sabbath of God?” (page 34). He places doubt with regard to the validity of the 1st day Sabbath alongside of doubts about the inspiration of Scripture and the deity of Christ! It would not be difficult to multiply the evidence. When one considers the theological writings of the men who subscribed the 1644/46 London Confession, one finds that they believed the same things articulated more clearly in the 1689 London Confession. The difference is not one of belief, simply of expression.

The same churches who signed the 1644 confession, signed the 1689:

Seven London congregations published the 1644/46 Confession. By 1689, representatives of 4 of these churches also publicly signed the 1689 Confession. What happened to the other 3? They either ceased to exist, or had merged into the remaining churches. In addition, several key men signed both Confessions: William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and Henry Forty, as well as the father-son duo of Benjamin and Nehemiah Coxe. If the theology of the two Confessions is different, one would have to demonstrate that these churches and these men went through a process of theological change. But no evidence for such exists.

The signers of the 1689 confession stated this about the differences between the 1644 and the 1689 versions:

And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former (although the substance of the matter is the same) we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof.

Gangreana

Dr. Renihan finished all these comments by stating that the enemies of the Particular Baptists in England tried to find any departures from Covenant Theology by these baptists but to no avail:

Thomas “Gangreana” Edwards, Robert Baylie and Dr. Daniel Featley left no stone unturned in seeking to prove that the Particular Baptists were heretical. And yet they never give indication that the Baptists or their Confession were unorthodox in terms of Covenant theology, the perpetuity of the moral law, or the abiding validity of the Lord’s day Sabbath. There can be no doubt that they would have made much of these things if they had been present, but they weren’t. If the best

Daniel Featley

heresy-hunters of the day did not find differences on these issues, how can we?

So it seems that Reformed Baptists have the right to claim these as their forebears.  This explains why over time, this branch of the Particular Baptists, produced the likes of Andrew Fuller, William Carey and the rest of the supporters of the London Missionary Society.  The roots were Arminian and those who came after them would follow the logical rabbit trail to Arminius' door.

In reality it seems to us, that Andrew Fuller and the average's views of a Reformed Baptist differ little in substance from that of Jacobus Arminius.  Most have not read his writings.  But here is what he says about the atonement in a defense of 31 assertions attributed to him:

Christ has died for all men and for every individual. This assertion was never made by me, either in public or private except when it was accompanied by such an explanation as the controversies which are excited on this subject have rendered necessary.

He goes on to explain what he meant by quoting from a Prosper of Aquitain (390-455), a follower of Augustine of Hippo:

He who says that the Savior was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world, has regard, not to the virtue of the sacrament, but to the case of unbelievers, since the blood of Jesus Christ is the price paid for the whole world.  To that precious ransom they are strangers, who either being delighted with their captivity, have no wish to be redeemed, or, after they have been redeemed, return to the same servitude. (italics are mine)

This sounds awfully close to Fuller's statement concerning the fate of a sinner:


CREEDS AND OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS

Philadelphia Confession of Faith 1742

Why should Old School Baptists care about these issues?  Because before Old School Baptists came out of the Philadelphia Association (which had turned into Arminian New School Baptists), the association had adopted the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith in 1742.  This is before the earliest splits between Old & New School Baptists.  As is well known, There were two articles that were added from the 1689 London Confession of Faith - one concerning the singing of hymns in the church, the other concerning the laying on of hands on baptized believers.  This last article was important enough in the founding members of Welsh Tract Church to cause them leave in a friendly manner the Pennypack Baptist Church which they worshipped with when they first arrived in America in 1701.  The article (#31) reads:

We believe that laying on of hands (with prayer) upon baptized believers, as such, is an ordinance of Christ, and ought to be submitted unto by all such persons that are admitted to partake of the Lord's Supper; and that the end of this ordinance is not fro the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but for a farther reception of the Spirit of promise, or for addition of the graces of the Spirit, and the influences thereof; to confirm strengthen, and comfort them in Jesus Christ; it being ratified and established by the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit in the primitive times to abide in the Church, as meeting together on the first day of the week was, that being the day of worship, or Christian Sabbath, under the gospel; and as preaching the Word was, and as baptism was, and prayer was, and singing psalms was, for as the whole gospel was confirmed by signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost in general, so was every ordinance in like manner confirmed in particular.

This article was later not practiced by the Welsh Tract Church.  In fact, it was never universally held by all the Particular Baptists in England and America.  It never became a test of the fellowship between these churches.  In a future article we shall review this doctrine.

It will be demonstrated that early on in 1600s, the Particular Baptists had already laid the foundations for the later Missionary Societies, Theological Seminaries, Bible Societies, Tract Societies, etc.,  which would arrive in the following century.  Interestingly enough, these benevolence movements took not only the Baptists by storm, but also the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists and

Savoy Declaration 1658

just about every protestant denomination.  Why?  Because they had in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, The Savoy Declaration of 1658 and the Second London Confession of 1689 already adopted the seed doctrines of Arminianism.  We will leave these other groups to themselves, but shall demonstrate the Arminian principles in the Second London Confession of Faith and the gradual realization among Old School Baptists that these doctrines was what lead to splits that occurred in the 19th century in America.

Like any other document, the Second London Confession (to be abbreviated henceforth as SLB) had its writers.  There are signers of the document and there are the creators of the document such as in our own Declaration of Independence where Jefferson was the mastermind of the document.  The three masterminds of the SLC were William Collins, Nehemiah Coxe and William's brother Hercules Collins. We read:

William Collins and Nehemiah Coxe were elders of the Petty France church in London. It is likely that they were responsible for the collation and editing of the above three documents to produce this Confession of Faith. The first extant reference to the Confession is found recorded in the Petty France Church Book on the 26th of August 1677, it states, "It was agreed that a Confession of Faith w(ith) the Appendix thereto having bene(been) read and considered by the Bre(thren): should be published". Given the spiritual stature of both Coxe and Collins, their involvement in other literary activities, joined with the fact that it appears that the Petty France Church was intimately aware of the Confession it make it very likely that they were its major editors (see Origins of the Confession). Although the Confession was published in 1677, it was done so anonymously due to the persecution of the times. It was not until 1689, after the "Glorious Revolution" under William and Mary of Orange that this Confession was published with the names of the subscribers and the churches they represented attached and has become known as the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith or the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Who were these men?  What did they believe?  We know that they were appointed co-Elders at the Petty-France Church in London which is now extinct and to our best knowledge was first mentioned in 1662.  It was called that due to the concentration French immigrants in that part of London.  In 1675, William Collins and Nehemiah Coxe became co-Elders at the church.  Of Collins we read:

William Collins received a thorough education, graduating B.D. and touring Europe prior to his call to serve at Petty France. In a funeral sermon preached by John Piggott, a fortnight after Collins' death on 30 October, 1702, mention is made of the encouraging "Offers he had to join the National Church, which he judiciously refus'd; for 'twas Conscience, not Humour, that made him a Dissenter". The esteem in which he was held by his brethren may be noted in the fact that he was requested by the General Assembly to draw up a Catechism, and on the strength of this Joseph Ivimey asserts "it is probable that the Baptist Catechism was complied by Mr. Collins, though it has by some means of other been called Keach's Catechism". Later in his work, Ivimey transcribes a letter from Collins to Andrew Gifford, pastor of the Pithay Church in Bristol, and arguably the most important Particular Baptist outside of London. In the letter, Collins refers to the latest impression of the Catechism, and states that there are "some thousands left".

Collins, according to Piggott, "was a studious elder and a good pastor, noted for his peacable spirit. The Subjects he ordinarily insisted on in the Course of his Ministry, were the great and important Truths of the Gospel, which he handled with great Judgment and Clearness. How would he open the Miseries of the Fall! And in how moving a manner would he discourse of the Excellency of Christ, and the Virtues of his Blood, and his willingness to save poor awaken'd burdned [sic.] Sinners!... His sermons were useful under the Influence of Divine Grace, to convert and edify, to enlighten and establish, being drawn from the Fountain of Truth, the Sacred Scriptures, with which he constantly convers'd in their Original Languages, having read the best Criticks, Antient and Modern; so that Men of the greatest Penetration might learn from his Pulpit-Discourses, as well as those of the meanest Capacity".

The LBC was shamelessly copied from the Westminster and Savoy Confessions as can be seen from this source:

Of the 160 paragraphs which make up the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, 146 are directly derived from the Savoy declaration, eight are derived from the 1644 Confession and six from the editorial work Collins and Coxe.