1689 Vs. The Westminster Confession (4): Some Of These Things Are Not Like The Others

Our comparison and contrast of the WCF with the 2LC continues through chapter 2, Of God and of the Holy Trinity.

WCF

2LC

1.There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. 1. 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, working all things according to the councel of his own immutable, and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withall most just, and terrible in his judgements, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

There is a verbal difference at the outset of the article. Here again Jim Renihan’s parallel column’s (comparing and contrasting the WCF and the 2LC) are most helpful. The WCF begins with the words, There is but one… whereas the 2LC begins with the words, The Lord our God is but…. Here the 2LC follows the First London Confession of Faith (1646), and I would guess that the language of the 1LC is drawn from Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

The next difference is the addition of the preposition of to the phrase in himself. From here the 2LC follows the order and language of the Savoy, infinite in being and perfection. The 2LC then adds a clause not contained in either the Savoy or the WCF: Whose essence…but himself but found in the 1LC.

We see the same pattern in the clause who only hath immortality…can approach unto and in every way way…most wise (yet the language following this clause comes directly from the WCF and is not contained in the 1LC).

WCF

2LC

2. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. 2. God having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself: is alone in, and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any Creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but onely manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them, he is the alone fountain of all Being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, and he hath most soveraign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth; in his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independant upon the Creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain; he is most holy in all his Councels, in all his Works, and in all his Commands; to him is due from Angels and men, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience as Creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever he is further pleased to require of them.

The 2LC changes God hath all life… to God having and supplies the relative pronoun he before and hath most sovereign and supplies all creatures to dominion over [them] but these revisions seem inconsequential. They do not appear in the Savoy.

The 2LC follows the addition by the Savoy of as creatures…whatever to the WCF. This, like other revisions we have seen and will see, seems to be a clarification (or perhaps an intensification) of the WCF. To the degree that they are intensifications, they perhaps reveal the more highly realized eschatology of the framers of the Savoy and the 2LC.

WCF

2LC

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. 3. 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 dependance on him.

Here, as we have seen already, the 2LC depends more on the 1LC than it does on either the Savoy or the WCF. The clause In this divine…there is drawn verbatim from the 1LC, but the 2LC then revises the 1LC from is the Father… to are three subsistences…Spirit…. The use by the framers of the 2LC of the somewhat more technical expression subsistences, Calvin’s preferred way of speaking, from the more popular persons (as in the WFC) is interesting. The 1LC simply says, there is the Father… and I suppose the 2LC wanted to make that language more precise. The clause each…undivided is not in the WCF and comes from the 1LC.

Under the confession of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit, filioque (from the Father and the Son), the 2LC (wisely, in my opinion) revises Holy Ghost, which is an English rendering of a German word (Geist), to Holy Spirit, which is the English translation of a Latin word (Spiritus).

Once more, the 2LC follows the 1LC (but not the WCF or Savoy) by adding after and the Son, all infinite…properties to which it adds and…relations. Thence it follows the Savoy by adding which doctrine…him.

Two comments on this chapter are in order: first about the sources of the 2LC and second about its orthodoxy and significance.

The influence of the 1LC in this chapter, a document that is probably not well known among Presbyterian and Reformed folk, does suggest that the widely held notion that the 2LC is merely a lightly revised version of the WCF is misleading. Here I am not suggesting any doctrinal deviation in the 2LC from Christian orthodoxy or even from the WCF but merely that the sources (as Renihan’s presentation illustrates) of the 2LC are more varied than is sometimes said or implied.

My thesis, in this series, is that the Particular Baptist confession has connections to and roots in two traditions: the Anabaptist and the Reformed. Clearly, under the doctrine of God, the Particular Baptists were following the Reformed, who were themselves following the Great Christian Tradition and the settled orthodoxy of ancient ecumenical creeds. Just as my Particular Baptist friends do not seem to grasp the dual nature of the Mosaic covenant, i.e., that it is both an administration of the covenant of works and an administration of the covenant of grace, so too some of their more ardent apologists do not seem to see the obvious: that all Baptists are theologically and intellectually indebted to the Anabaptists in important ways (even if they are institutionally related to Anglicans and Congregationalists).

Here, however, we see the Particular Baptist debt to Reformed and ecumenical orthodoxy. The Reformed rejoice in that commonality and this writer is grateful for those Particular Baptist voices (e.g., James Dolezal, Matt Barrett, Rich Barcellos et al.) who have stood up for and clearly articulated ecumenical and Reformed orthodoxy on the doctrine of God, even as influential evangelicals (mostly Baptist but some P&R) have been toying with quasi-Socinian revisions to the doctrine of God.

Resources

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


4 comments

  1. Good stuff, Dr. Clark. I like your walk-through comparison (and commentary) of these confessional statements. I have one comment and one question.

    First of all you wrote, “my Particular Baptist friends do not seem to grasp the dual nature of the Mosaic covenant, i.e., that it is both an administration of the covenant of works and an administration of the covenant of grace”. My comment would be that while some (most?) modern day Particular Baptists might not see the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace, some in the past (and the present) do. For instance, I took a class on Covenant Theology during my time at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary which was taught by Malcom Watts (a Particular Baptist pastor from England). I don’t remember every detail about the class or his perspective on the Mosaic covenant, but I believe he taught that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. Likewise, there were Particular Baptists (though it may have been a minority) in the 17th century that did believe the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. For instance, Robert Purnell wrote:

    THERE is but one Covenant of grace, and a three-fold administration of that Covenant; the one before the Law, the other under the Law, the third under the Gospel.

    1. Before the Law the promise of grace was, that notwithstanding man had thus rebelled against God, yet the seed of the woman, which was the Lord Jesus Christ, should bruise the head of the Serpent, Gen. 3:15.

    2. This Covenant was given or published by Moses, and made with the Jews, till Christs resurrection, being placed in ceremonies, types, figures and shadows, all pointing at the substance that was for to come, all the Laws and Ordinances remaining in full force and vertue; for he that did but neglect circumcision, was to be cut off from the Israel of God, Gen. 17:14.

    3. This same Covenant in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles is renewed, and the substance of the Covenant more fully opened and cleared, whereby more persons are renewed, and more graces bestowed, being alwaies to endure one and the same; hence it is called a new Covenant, Heb. 9:13; Jer. 31:31.

    (Purnell, R. (1657). A Little Cabinet: Richly Stored with All Sorts of Heavenly Varieties, and Soul-Reviving Influences (p. 35). Thomas Brewster.)

    I’m not disagreeing with your general characterization of most Particular Baptist perspectives on the Mosaic Covenant. At the same time, it is fair to point out that there were others (and continue to be in the present) who represent another position within the Particular Baptist fold.

    Secondly, I have a question regarding what you wrote here, “all Baptists are theologically and intellectually indebted to the Anabaptists in important ways (even if they are institutionally related to Anglicans and Congregationalists).” My question is about historical method and how one might go about proving theological and intellectually indebtedness? How would we prove that someone was influenced or intellectually indebted to someone (or something) else? How can we prove that the Particular Baptists were theologically and intellectually influenced and indebted to the Anabaptists?

    Thanks again for all your work!

    Spencer

    • Hi Spencer,

      Thanks for the encouragement.

      From whom did the first Baptists (c. 1611) learn their view of baptism? From the Mennonites in the Netherlands. Of course the Baptists are intellectually and theologically indebted to the Anabaptists in certain respects. They certainly did not learn their view of the history of redemption, their hermeneutic, or their view the church and baptism from the magisterial Protestants or from Reformed orthodoxy. They didn’t learn it from the medieval or Byzantine church. They didn’t learn it from Augustine or the early church.

      That’s why I clearly distinguished between the institutional history of the Particular Baptists and their intellectual or theological debts.

      I understand that there has been a diversity of views within the broader Particular Baptist movement. I sketched that in another, very long, essay (linked in the resources) “Engaging With 1689” and in the introduction to this series.

      I hasten to note, however, that even in the material you quote, Purnell seems to imply not that the covenant of grace was actually present under the types and shadows (in, with, and under as I’ve been saying) but that it was only typified and promised. Am I inferring too much here?

      Still, Purnell’s is a much more satisfactory account than that which describes all the typological administrations of the covenant of grace as covenants of works.

      The trajectory of the PB movement, in America anyway, seems to be toward the views of Denault and Sam Renihan. Just recently I heard a Particular Baptist podcast in which the Abrahamic covenant was clearly characterized as a covenant of works. Is there any room left in the PB movement for the more moderate view or was the more moderate view always just a half-way house for crypto-Reformed folk who couldn’t get over the sociological and psychological hurdle of seeing babies initiated into the visible covenant community? I really think this last is a serious challenge for a fair number of Baptist folk. They’ve grown up in the Baptist world. They’ve only known the Baptist world. They’ve never seen an infant baptism. It’s a barrier.

    • Dr. Clark,

      There do seem to be influences (and interactions) between the General Baptists (c. 1611) and the Mennonites in the Netherlands. If I am not mistaken, one of the early leaders of the General Baptists joined an Anabaptist group! However, is there the same level of intellectual and theological influence upon the Particular Baptist group that came out of the Congregationalist movement? I’ve heard it said before that influence can be hard to prove. While it is undeniable there are similarities (such as the baptism of professing believers only) between the Anabaptists and Baptists (whether General or Particular), does this similarity mean that the Particular Baptists were necessarily indebted to the Continental Anabaptists for their perspective? I honestly don’t know if these ‘Calvinistic’ Congregationalists (who later became Particular Baptists) were reading Menno Simons or conversing with Anabaptists and then became convinced that the baptism of infants was unbiblical. No doubt there are similarities and parallels, but does this necessarily mean influence or indebtedness?

      I think I understand what your question is concerning Purnell (whom I agree gives a better account of redemptive history). I think Purnell’s description of the substance and administration of the covenant of grace would broadly fit within the standard Reformed perspective. For instance, he says, “it is the same Covenant of grace both in the old and new testaments”. He also says that the difference regards the administration,

      “Although the Covenant of grace be the same then and now, yet there is a difference in regard of the manner of dispensation and revealing it: being severall waies propounded, according to the severall times, ages, states and conditions of the Church: delivered one way, before the coming of Christ, and another way afterward. And therefore in regard of the old way and manner of administering of it, it is called the old Covenant; and in regard of the new manner of dispensing it, its called the new Covenant; the same Covenant is therefore called both new and old, Heb. 8:8, 13.”

      In this description of the covenant of grace, Purnell sounds a lot to me like Herman Witsius and other Reformed theologians. Admittedly, Purnell’s perspective (which I share) is probably not what you might hear from many Particular Baptists today (or Baptists of any stripe for that matter).

      Thanks again,
      Spencer

      • Spencer,

        I’m no expert on Baptist history but yes, two (or so) congregationalists fled the NL c. 1611, where they came into contact with Mennonites. They picked up the Anabaptist view of the sacraments there and transmitted it back to England. The Particular Baptist movement didn’t exist yet but certainly agrees with the General Baptists and the Anabaptists certain very important, even defining, characteristics.

        This connection seems unavoidable.

        Certainly the Particular Baptists also share important debts to the Congregationalists (e.g., the notion of gathered churches and, as I’ve mentioned in the series) a more highly realized eschatology. They also have a relationship to the Anglican tradition. As I’ve been saying, it’s a both/and story not an either/or story.

        The soteriological debts of the Particular Baptists don’t change their highly realized eschatology or their reading of redemptive history or their hermeneutic.

        I understand that the Particular Baptists don’t want to be identified with the Anabaptists or as Anabaptists but the history is the history.

        As to Purnell, the word “broadly” is carrying a lot of weight here.

        From 1524 the Reformed stressed the continuity of the covenant of grace over against the Anabaptists and then, in the 17th century, against the Baptists, who have trouble affirming, when they do affirm continuity of the covenant of grace, the same degree of continuity as the Reformed. This is why I’ve been saying that the substance of the covenant of grace was “in, with, and under” the types and shadows. I don’t think most Baptists are able to say that because I don’t think that they see the history of redemption that way.

        As to the old and new covenants, for the Reformed, it is most precise to restrict the “old covenant” to Moses.

        I agree that Purnell does sound (at least formally) more like the Reformed than some of the other Baptists I’ve surveyed but every Baptist has to introduce a fairly strong note of discontinuity or else what is the point of being a Baptist? If, as the Reformed say, we are in the Abrahamic covenant (of grace) and the same promises exist for us as for Abraham, then we regard our children as heirs of the promise. This is the very way of thinking about the history of redemption that Hercules Collins had to kill with fire. I’ve known some Particular Baptists to hold a view like Purnell’s but I’ve not known them to stay their very long. Eventually they must choose between Witsius and Collins. Typically, they choose Collins because of their other commitments (chiefly, eschatology).

Comments are closed.