Rev. Angus Stewart
Introduction
One good way to explain something less familiar is by comparing and contrasting it with what is better known. As Christians in the Dutch Reformed tradition, we hold to the Three Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and the Canons of Dordt (1618-1619). So how does Presbyterianism’s Westminster Confession (1646) compare?
1. Triad
The Westminster Confession comes in a confessional triad, along with the Westminster Larger Catechism (1647) and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), collectively known as the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity, our triad, were produced in (what are now) three different countries: Belgium, Germany (Heidelberg) and the Netherlands (Dordt or Dordrecht). It is very different with the Westminster Standards, for all three of its documents were debated and finalised in one room (the Jerusalem Chamber) in one building (Westminster Abbey)—whence the name of the creeds and the men who produced them: the Westminster divines—in one city (London), which is the capital of England and the United Kingdom (UK).
2. Scripture Proofs
While the Three Forms of Unity, especially the Canons of Dordt, contain some quotations of, and many allusions to, various passages in God’s Word, they do not include officially approved proof texts. The footnotes in the various editions of the Three Forms of Unity have been added later by theologians and/or committees.
The Westminster Confession and the other two documents of the Westminster Standards, however, come with biblical proofs provided by the Westminster divines, as required by the House of Commons, the Lower House of the English Parliament at the Palace of Westminster. The Westminster Standards contain a massive number of quotations of verses or passages from Scripture (over 4,900!) in the form of footnotes.1 Even though they are in a much smaller font than the text of the confession and catechisms, they typically occupy more than half of each page of the various editions of the Westminster Standards. These official proof texts not only help us to see the reasoning of the Westminster divines, especially given that key parts of the Bible verses cited are italicised, but they also increase the value of the Westminster Standards in theological instruction.
As an example, we cite the Westminster Confession’s succinct and helpful statement of the communicatio operationum (communication of operations) or communicatio apotelesmatum (communication of mediatorial operations in and for the sake of the work of salvation) of our Lord Jesus, followed by the last three of its five biblical proof texts:2
Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself: yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature (8:7).
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13).
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren (I John 3:16).
3. Form
In its form, the Westminster Confession is like the Belgic Confession in that both are confessions, not catechisms (with questions and answers) or canons or theses. As with the Belgic Confession, the order of subjects treated in the Westminster Confession is similar to that of a work on systematic theology: the doctrines of Scripture (ch. 1), God (chs. 2-5), man (ch. 6), Christ (chs. 7-8), salvation (including the Christian life; chs. 9-24), the church (chs. 25-31) and the last things (chs. 32-33). Not all of the Westminster Confession easily fits this classification though, such as the excellent and detailed twenty-second chapter, “Of lawful Oaths and Vows.”
The Westminster Confession contains 33 chapters, compared to the 37 articles of the Belgic Confession. Though longer in terms of chapters or articles, the Belgic Confession is only about two thirds of the length of the Westminster Confession in terms of words.
4. Style
Whereas the treatment of topics in the Belgic Confession is more discursive and personal (often beginning “we believe” or “we confess”), the Westminster Confession is more analytic or scientific, with each chapter consisting of a number of sections (ranging from 1 to 10) in which the subject is unfolded logically.
“Of Free Will,” a subject to which the Westminster divines devote a whole chapter, provides us with a good example. Westminster Confession 9 opens with a statement regarding the nature of “the will of man” in general (9:1), before treating man’s will from a historical-theological perspective (9:2-5): first, in a “state of innocency” before the fall (9:2), second, in a “state of sin” after the fall (9:3), third, in a “state of grace” after regeneration (9:4) and, fourth, in a “state of glory” in heaven (9:5).
5. Highlights
The Westminster Confession includes many highlights, such as its masterful treatments of Scripture (ch. 1)—its longest chapter—and God’s eternal decree (ch. 3), including eternal and unconditional election and reprobation (3:3-8).3 Its inclusion of the doctrine of adoption (ch. 12)—its shortest chapter—is also significant.4
Among matters not presented as explicitly in our Three Forms of Unity, the (later) Westminster Confession includes fine statements regarding, for example, the preservation of the text of God’s Word “by his singular care and providence” (1:8), Jehovah’s creation of the universe in “six days” (4:1), His absolute sovereignty over all sins and even the fall of mankind (5:4; 6:1), the salvation of elect persons who “are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word” (10:3) and the error of theonomy: “To them [i.e., the Old Testament Israelites] also, as a body politick, he [i.e., God] gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require” (19:4). The Westminster Confession contains excellent definitions of the “invisible” church (25:1) and the “visible church,” which “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children,” before adding, “out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (25:2). It is easy to see the relevance of all these articles for our own day!
The Westminster Confession clearly and comprehensively teaches the covenantal or family or household baptism of both believers and their seed (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:38-39; 16:15, 33; 18:8; I Cor. 1:16; 7:14) over against Anabaptism (28:4, 6), pointing out that it is “a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance” (28:5). Moreover, “The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person” (28:7). As regards the mode, immersionism is “not necessary” (28:3).
Listen to this penetrating and well-rounded critique of the alleged good works of the unconverted, as opposed to Abraham Kuyper’s false doctrine of a civil righteousness produced by unbelievers due to an alleged “common grace” of God:
Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God (16:7).
The Westminster Confession’s article on the conscience is not only famous but also moving:
God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also (20:2).
6. Disagreement
Sadly, we are compelled by infallible Scripture itself (cf. 1:10) to disagree with parts of Westminster Confession 24, “Of Marriage and Divorce”—a subject not treated in our Three Forms of Unity.
First, the Westminster Confession teaches two grounds for divorce: not only “adultery” but also “such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate” (24:6). However, Christ only gave one exception permitting divorce: “fornication” (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:9). According to I Corinthians 7:15, if the married child of God is deserted by his/her unconverted spouse because of his/her faith in Christ, he/she is not to chase after him/her ceaselessly (“bondage”). Instead, the believer is to acquiesce in the situation, for “God hath called us to peace.” No less than arch-Puritan, Dr. William Gouge (1575–1653), one of the most active members of the Westminster Assembly, an assessor (or assistant) to its prolocutor (or presiding officer) and the chairman of the committee which drafted the Westminster Confession, presents this correct exegesis of I Corinthians 7:15.5 Divorce in seventeenth-century England was almost non-existent, being only available to a select few men and requiring an act of Parliament. Nowadays divorce is rampant, being granted for practically any reason—the position of the Pharisees (Matt. 19:3)—and this is accepted by state and church, including the vast majority of Presbyterian denominations, contrary to Westminster Confession 24. As the Westminster divines themselves noted, “the corruption of man [is] such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage [Matt. 19:5-6; Mark 10:7-9]” (24:6).
Second, Westminster Confession 24:5 allows for the remarriage of the “innocent party” while his/her spouse is living: “In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.” This does not agree with God’s supremely authoritative Word which teaches that marriage is dissolved by Jehovah alone at (real, physical) death and that marrying another while one’s spouse is living is “adultery”—whether one is the guilty party or the “innocent party” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:10-11, 39). Tragically, following the world, most Presbyterian churches allow the remarriage not only of the “innocent party” but also of the guilty party, as well as the remarriage of those divorced for any and every reason.6
7. Template
Neither the Belgic Confession nor the Heidelberg Catechism nor the Canons of Dordt have been used as a template for a creed of another confessional tradition. In contrast to our Three Forms of Unity and, indeed, the other Reformed confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Westminster Confession has been thus employed and that by two different Protestant groups: the Congregationalists and the Baptists. Both the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration (1658) and the London Baptist Confession (1677; new editions 1689, 1719, 1720, 1791 and 1809) omit Westminster Confession 24:5-6, with its two grounds for divorce (adultery and desertion) and allowance of the remarriage of the “innocent party.”
The principal difference between the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration concerns church polity, of course. The Congregationalist creed omits entirely Westminster’s “Of Church Censures” (ch. 30) and “Of Synods and Councils” (ch. 31), modifies “Of the Civil Magistrate” (ch. 23) and “Of the Church” (ch. 25), and adds a new chapter: “Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof” (Savoy Declaration 20).
Basically, the London Baptist Confession accepts the Savoy Declaration’s omissions from, modifications of, and addition to, the Westminster Confession (as above). Concerning the London Baptist Confession, Philip Schaff writes,
It is simply the Baptist recension of the Westminster Confession, as the Savoy Declaration is the congregational recension of the same Westminster Confession. It follows the Westminster Confession in sentiment and language, with very few verbal alterations, except in the doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments.7
In comparison to the Westminster Confession’s treatment of the sacraments (ch. 27) and baptism (ch. 28), the corresponding chapters in the London Baptist Confession are shorter in length and shallower in theology. Also they exclude the children of believers and include a lot more water.
What about the role of the various creeds spoken of in this article as regards the subscription of office-bearers, membership classes, teaching, church discipline, etc.? Generally, the Three Forms of Unity have a more significant function in churches in the Dutch Reformed tradition than do the Westminster Standards in Presbyterian churches. In turn, the Westminster Confession, along with the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism, are usually more prominent in Presbyterian churches than the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession (or any other creeds) are among Congregationalists and Baptists, respectively.
Conclusion
The seven points in this article regarding the Westminster Confession can be divided into three sections. The first views the Westminster Confession as the (first) part of the Westminster Standards triad, along with the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (#1), all of which come with official Scripture proofs in the footnotes (#2). The second part considers the Westminster Confession in itself (#3-6), in terms of its form (#3) and style (#4), as well as some of its major strengths (#5) and one weakness (#6). Part 3 treats its use as a template for the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession about one decade and three decades later, respectively (#7).
By means of this presentation of the Westminster Confession’s similarities and differences with our Three Forms of Unity, it is hoped that Christians in the Dutch Reformed tradition will be better able to understand, appreciate and benefit from this great Protestant creed framed in the Jerusalem Chamber in Westminster Abbey in London by the Westminster divines.
___________________________________________
