A Westminster Bibliography Part 8:
The Confession of Faith
Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9,
10
THE CONFESSION OF FAITH
The Westminster divines were far from being absorbed merely in polemic or even casuistic debates. Much arduous labor was peacefully and quietly carried on in committees and during protracted sessions. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are monuments to the learned deliberations that took place both in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey and in the three committees of the Assembly.
As Dr. B. B. Warfield stated, "The amount of time consumed directly on the preparation of the Confession of Faith was certainly very great. But even this does not completely represent the pains expended on this task."1
The Confession and Catechisms were written by the ablest English speaking divines of the seventeenth century. The first nineteen chapters of the Confession were finished by September 25, 16462 and the entire Confession was presented to Parliament on November 26 of the same year.3 The Scripture proofs for the Confession were finished and then the reconstituted committees were tasked with preparing a Larger Catechism. The Larger Catechism was essentially completed by October 15, 1647 in substantially the same shape we have it today.4 The Larger Catechism was sent to both Houses of Parliament the following week5 and on Monday, October 25, 1647, the Prolocutor reported that the Catechism was delivered.6 Preparation of the Shorter Catechism began on October 19, 1647, by Samuel Ward, Stephen Marshall and Anthony Tuckney.7 The Shorter Catechism, without Scripture proofs, was sent to Parliament on November 25, 1647,8 with the proofs being sent up April 14, 1648.9 The House of Commons the same day ordered 600 copies to be printed for "use of the Assembly and 2 Houses."10 Professor Alexander Mitchell rightly wrote of the Shorter Catechism,
"...it may be regarded as, in several respects, the most remarkable of their symbolical books, the matured fruit of all their consultations and debates, the quintessence of that system of truth in which they desired to train English-speaking youth, and faithful training in which, I believe, has done more on both sides of the Atlantic to keep alive reverence for the old theology than all other human instrumentalities whatever."11
The first task to occupy the Assembly was the revision of the Thirty-nine Articles.12 However, that work was never finished. The first fifteen articles were thoroughly debated, however, and much of the debate must have influenced later deliberations on the Confession.13 Many of the topics treated in various portions of the Confession were also covered in the debates concerning the Form of Presbyterial Government and the Directory for Public Worship.14 For example, in the Minutes for May 6, 1645 — before any part of the Confession came before the Assembly — there is a note, "Debate whether to bring this under the head of government of a Confession of Faith."15 The proposition which was debated on that occasion was later incorporated in substance into the Confession at §23.3. By the same token, the long debates on the divine right of church government must have been fruitful not only for the Form of Government but also for such chapters of the Confession as "The Church and Church Censures."
It is becoming increasingly common to hear candidates for the ministry in the PCA's presbyteries muse about the likelihood (or rather the unlikelihood) of such a far reaching document as the Confession of Faith containing no errors. By April 12, 1644, there were 90 members of the Assembly who were still regarded as being on the roll. Those 90 men were not merely recent graduates of mediocre seminaries, but 90 of the best theological minds in the English speaking world.16 Further, each of them had taken a vow to "maintain nothing in point of doctrine but what I believe to be most agreeable to the Word of God."17 Robert Baillie's description of the Assembly included the following remarks:
"Every Committee, as the Parliament gives order in wryte to take any purpose to consideration, takes a portion, and in their afternoon meeting prepares matters for the Assemblie, setts downe their minde in distinct propositions, backs their propositions with texts of Scripture. After the prayer, Mr. Byfield, the scribe, reads the proposition and Scriptures, where upon the Assemblie debates in a most grave and orderlie way. No man is called up to speak; bot who stands up of his own accord, he speaks so long as he will without interruption. If two or three stand up at once, then the divines confusedlie calls on his name whom they desyre to hear first: On whom the loudest and manifest voices call, he speaks. No man speaks to any bot to the Proloqutor. They harangue long and very learnedlie. They studie the questions well before hand, and prepares their speeches; but withall the mean are exceeding prompt, and well spoken. I doe marvell at the very accurate and extemporall replyes that many of them usuallie doe make. When, upon every proposition by itself, and on everie text of Scripture that is brought to confirme it, every man who will hes said his whole minde, and the replyes, and duplies, and triplied, and heard; then the most part calls, To the question."18
Of course it is possible that fallible men produced a document that does not accurately reflect the mind of Christ at some point or other. We do not claim that the Westminster divines were borne along by the Holy Spirit in the same way as were the authors of Scripture.19 However, when comparing the likelihood of 90 of the most learned and godly men in England (plus the Commissioners from Scotland) making a theological error compared to the likelihood of a recent seminary graduate being in error, the onus probandi certainly seems to fall upon the person taking exception to the most learned and longest deliberating synod ever called in the history of the church. The Assembly taught in its Confession of Faith, "All synods or councils since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both."20 It is therefore evident that the Assembly did not intend their documents, including the Confession, to be made the rule of faith or practice. The Scriptures alone have that status.21
The courts of the PCA, therefore, should not be understood as adding a new rule to that of Scripture by means of their ministerial vows to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms. If the Westminster Confession of Faith and associated documents have any authority, it is because they reflect the mind of Christ as it is revealed in Scripture. If any proposition within the Confession does not reflect the mind of Christ, then it should be removed from the Confession. On the other hand, once men have taken an oath (or vow) they must keep it to the extent that it is for "what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform."22
As the lengthy quotation from Robert Baillie demonstrates, the Assembly regarded the Confession and Catechisms to consist of distinct propositions which were capable of debate and subject to verification or falsification from Scripture. When the propositions were ready to be perfected they were remitted to a committee and subsequently debated in their new form. The Assembly did not simply give automatic approval to every proposition that came from committee. The Confession of Faith does not consist of a vague, undefined, or equivocal system, but a series of propositions under thirty-three heads, any of which is subject to verification or falsification from Scripture alone.
By way of example, the Confession contains the proposition, "The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own."23 The proposition may be divided so that it consists of two propositions: one about the man and another about the woman. However, whether the proposition is divided or not, it contains a truth claim. The Westminster divines claimed that it is the mind of Christ that a man may not marry his [dead] wife's sister, mother, etc. They made the same statement regarding a widow: she may not marry her [dead] husband's father, brother, etc.
For the purpose of this example we will suppose that a candidate for ordination disagrees with the truth of this proposition. He is bound by even the most simple understanding of the ninth commandment to notify the court of jurisdiction of his disagreement. The court is then free to take any of several different courses of action as it sees fit — even to the extreme of sending up an overture to General Assembly to amend the Confession in such a way as to remove the (supposedly) untrue proposition.
Throughout such a procedure as that outlined above it would be totally unnecessary for anyone to appeal to the fallibility of the divines at Westminster. The only issue is the agreement or disagreement of a particular candidate with the truthfulness of a particular proposition in the Confession. While modern existentialists and phenomenologists speak (or rather claim to speak) of non-propositional truth, it is clear from a study of the Westminster Assembly that the divines who met in the Jerusalem chamber did not agree that any such truth exists — and they certainly would not agree that any non-propositional truth could contradict the propositions of Scripture.
The composition of a new Confession of Faith was a quarter of the task that befell the Assembly through the requirements of the Solemn League and Covenant. The Solemn League required the Parliament to bring "the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for worship and catechising."24 The Kirk of Scotland had previously determined to write a new confession, but decided to wait and see first what the English would do. With the passage of the Solemn League and arrival of the Scottish Commissioners, it was determined that the Assembly should begin a confession of faith de novo rather than continuing the revision of the Thirty-nine Articles.25
The first actual movement toward the composition seems to have been on August 14, 1644, when Sir Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, arrived from Scotland with a letter from the General Assembly emphasizing "the general desire of all the nation of Scotland for the hastening of the work in hand." John Lightfoot added, "Mr. Henderson also spoke to the same purpose of forwarding and hastening our work. Where upon it was ordered, that the grand committee should meet tomorrow."26 The report from the Grand Committee came in on August 20, and contained a resolution for "a committee to join with the commissioners of Scotland, to draw up a confession of faith."27 This will subsequently be called "the August 20th committee."28 Two weeks later, on September 4, the Committee was augmented with ten more men, bringing the total on the Committee to nineteen.29 However, it was not until the following summer that any part of the Confession came to the floor of the Assembly for a vote, though there were apparently some debates in April of 1645.30
Meanwhile the House of Commons was debating what should be defined as a "competent measure of understanding" for determing the particulars of ignorance and scandal in reference to the Lord's Supper. Communications passing from the House to the Assembly covered such doctrines as "concerning God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," "concerning the state of man by creation, and by his fall," etc. On April 17, 1645, the House voted to desire the Assembly with all convenient speed to resolve upon a confession of faith for the Church of England and present it to the House.31 The Scottish commissioners carried a letter from the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland to Parliament on April 14 that requested a speedy resolution of church government.32 It must surely have brought as much pressure upon Parliament as did the debates over ignorance and scandal. Thus on April 21 a Committee for Confession of Faith was appointed to meet, likely for the first time, on April 23, 1645.33
No more appears in the Minutes until May 9, 1645. On that date it was ordered, "that the Assembly consider on Monday morning the best way to expedite the Confession of Faith, ... and that the two Committees for the Confession of Faith be put into one."34 It seems that at some point between April 21, when the Committee for the Confession of Faith was ordered to meet two days later and May 9, 1645, when two committees were combined, a second committee must have been formed with no mention of it being made in the Minutes. Shaw supposed the August 20 committee to have been subdivided at some point and then reunited on May 9 of the following year.35 However, it seems just as likely that the original August 20th committee consisting of nine members had met separately from the ten new members which were added as augmentation on September 4. Thus the scribe could write on April 21 as if there were only one committee (viewing the August 20 - September 4 as a single "augmented unit") and yet write on May 9 as though the two separate [sub]committees were [re]combined. There is no way of knowing for sure, but the explanation here offered seems as likely as Shaw's. Much more could be said regarding the various committees referenced in the Minutes, but it does not concern us at this point.36
It would seem that the Assembly itself tired of multiplying committees, for the minutes of September 18, 1646, read, "Upon a motion to appoint a Committee to consider of the Confession of Faith, what errors are not obviated in it, and to that end [or and] that there be a review of the Articles of England and Ireland, it was Resolved upon the Q., There shall be no Committee to consider the reviewing of the Articles, what errors are not obviated in them."37
Warfield was of the opinion that the purpose of this committee would have been to deal with any and all errors in the Thirty-Nine Articles or in the Irish Articles of 1615. Of course, since the committee was never formed, it is impossible to say with certainty what the purpose would have been. However, such a task is not at all evident in either minuted version of the resolution.38 What seems far more likely to this writer is that it was proposed that there may be some errors that had arisen in the church during the history prior to the Assembly that either were not addressed by the previous Confessions or were not addressed by them adequately.
From September 21, 1646, through December 4 of that year, Dr. Cornelius Burges transcribed the final draft of the Confession of Faith chapter by chapter as it passed the Assembly. Dr. Burges' transcript amounted to a third scrutiny of the Confession.39 The Assembly seemed quite satisfied with the third pass, for on December 10, 1646, it was "Ordered - That the Scribes take care of the exact printing of the Confession of Faith."40
All that remained to add to the Confession after that point were the "proof-texts." The Assembly undertook the task somewhat reluctantly as it was regarded by some as simply one more delaying tactic by "the retarding party."41 Baillie noted in his journal on January 26, 1646/1647, "This innovation of our opposites may weell cost the Assemblie some time, who cannot doe the most easie things with any expedition; but it will be for the advantage and strength of the work."42 So then, on January 6, 1646/47, the Minutes explain, "Ordered — That Mr. Wilson, Mr. Byfield, Mr. Gower, be a Committee to prepare Scriptures for the Confession of Faith."43 The Confession with its proof texts in final form was presented to Parliament on April 29, 1647.44 Thus the most complete and precise confession of the Protestant Reformation reached its final form and the advice of the Assembly of Divines to Parliament became the Confessional Standard of the English-speaking Presbyterian Churches since that day.
Footnotes
1. Warfield, 76.
2. Minutes, 290.
3. Ibid., 303.
4. Ibid., 484.
5. Ibid., 485.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., 491-92.
9. Ibid., 510-11.
10. Ibid., 511.
11. Alexander F. Mitchell, Catechisms of the Second Reformation. (London: James Nisbet, 1886), p. ix. Hereafter Catechisms.
12. Hetherington, 122.
13. The first two folio volumes of the Manuscript minutes, which included the period of the revision of the Thirty-nine Articles have never been published. I was able to obtain a microfilm copy of E. Maunde Thompson's handwritten copies. The microfilm consists of 2,331 frames on four reels of film. A supposed description of the MS minutes is contained in Hetherington, but he mistakenly thought Byfield's MS minutes were Goodwin's journals. Professor Mitchell more accurately described the MS minutes in the Preface to his Minutes, v-x.
14. See Supra, Chapters 7 and 6 respectively.
15. Minutes, 89.
16. Minutes, lxxxv.
17. Ibid., lxxx.
18. Baillie, II, 107-109, cited Ibid.
19. II Peter 1:21
20. WCF, XXXI:iv.
21. WCF, I:ii.
22. WCF, XXII:iii.
23. WCF, XXIV:iv.
24. Confession, 359.
25. Mitchell, Westminster Assembly, 185.
26. Lightfoot, 303.
27. Ibid., 305.
28. See Minutes, lxxxvi-lxxxvii. Which committee(s) for the confession are intended gets somewhat confusing at several points.
29. Minutes, lxxxvii. The nineteen were Dr. Gouge, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Arrowsmith, Dr. Temple, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Burges, Mr. Vines, Mr. Goodwin, Dr. Hoyle, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Newcomen, Mr. Herle, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Tuckney, Dr. Smith, Mr. Young, Mr. Ley, and Mr. Sedgwicke.
30. Baillie, II, 266, 275.
31. Shaw, I, 358.
32. Minutes, 80-81, note 1; Shaw, I, 257 ff; Warfield, 84-85. The letter read in part, "And it is with no less zeal and earnestness desired and expected by that whole Kirk and kingdom, that the remanent parts of Uniformity be expedited, especiallly that the materials of Kirk Government, which hath been so long in the hands of the Assembly of Divines, may be formed into a practical Directory with all possible diligence, which, beside the Uniformity longed for by all the Reformed Kirks, especially the Kirk of Scotland, will be a hedge and fence to the Directory of Worship...."
33. Minutes, 83.
34. Ibid., 90.
35. Shaw, I, 358.
36. See Warfield, 86-96.
37. Minutes, p. 286.
38. Warfield, 100-101; Minutes, 286. Another entry in fascicle III of volume III of the folio minutes reads, "A new Committee to consider of all the errors unobviated in several Confessions of England, Ireland, and Scotland, to give in the catalogue of those errors to the Committee for the wording. R — No Committee to consider of the reviewing Articles what errors are not obviated in them." Minutes, 286, n.3.
39. See Minutes for the period, i.e. pp. 286-308. It seems from the wording of the Minutes on Sept. 21 that Dr. Burges had already undertaken the task of transcription, but there is no mention of it in the Minutes until Sept. 21. Since Dr. Burges was on the Committee for the wording of the Confession, it is possible that he was simply reporting for the Committee.
40. Minutes, 310. Mitchell notes in the Minutes that the House of Commons directed the Assembly to print 600 copies "for the service of the two Houses and of the Assembly," 310., n. 1.
41. Baillie, ii, 403.
42. Ibid., iii, 2.
43. Minutes, 318-319.
44. Minutes, 354, n. 1.
Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 12:21:30 PM