Lately, some well meaning (I hope) Landmark Baptists have been bad mouthing the Second London Confession of Faith due to its connection with the Reformed Baptists. This is zeal without knowledge, because few (if any) of the churches in America can trace themselves very far back without finding churches that held to this great confession.
I submit the following from William Cathcart’s Baptist Encyclopedia (1881):
Confession of Faith, The Philadelphia.—The London Confession of 1689 was the basis of our great American Articles of Faith, and its composition and history are worthy of our careful consideration.
It was adopted “by the ministers and messengers of upwards of one hundred baptized congregations in England and Wales, denying Arminianism.” Thirty-seven ministers signed it on behalf of the represented churches.
The sessions of the Assembly which framed it were held from the 3d to the 12th of September, 1689.
The Confession of the Westminster Assembly—the creed of all British and American Presbyterians—was published in 1647; the Savoy Confession, containing the faith of English Congregationalists, was issued in 1658. The Baptist Assembly gave their religious beliefs to the world in 1689. This was not the first Baptist deliverance on the most momentous questions.
It was styled by its authors, “A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of Many Congregations of Christians Baptized upon Profession of their Faith, in London and the Country, with an Appendix concerning Baptism.” The authors of the Confession say that in the numerous instances in which they were agreed with the Westminster Confession, they used the same language to describe their religious principles.
The Appendix to the London Confession occupies 16 octavo pages, and the Articles 52. The former is a vigorous attack on infant baptism, apparently designed to give help to the brethren in defending the clause of Article XXIX., which defines the subjects of baptism as believers. Dr. Rippon gives the Minutes of the London Assembly which adopted the Confession. These include the topics discussed, the residences of the signatory ministers, and the Articles, but not the Appendix.* In addition to his “Narrative of the Proceedings of the General Assembly,” as the London Convention was called. Rippon issued a pamphlet edition of the Articles without the Appendix, with an advertisement of his Register on the cover. Crosby does not give it in his Confession of 1689 No one ever questioned the right of either to drop the Appendix.It was not one of the Articles, but chiefly a mere argument in favor of one of them.
The Appendix has this statement: “The known principle and state of the consciences of divers of us that have agreed in this Confession is such that we cannot hold church communion with any other than baptized believers, and churches constituted of such; yet some others of us have a greater liberty and freedom in our spirits that way.” This refers to the admission of unbaptized persons to the Lord’s Table by some churches, and their rejection by others.
Within a few years, an effort has been made in this country to prove that our Baptist fathers of the Philadelphia, and other early Associations, practised “open communion” because of this item in the Appendix of the London Confession. The learned “strict communion” author of “Historical Vindications”† has contributed to this error, by making the grave mistake that the Appendix was Article XXXIII. of The Philadelphia Confession of Faith. And he gives as his authorities for this extraordinary statement the Hanserd Knollys Society’s copy of the Confession of 1689, and the Pittsburgh edition of The Philadelphia Confession of Faith. In the former, it is not placed as an Article, but as an Appendix. In the latter, it is not to be found in any form. It never appeared in any edition of The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, from Benjamin Franklin’s first issue down to the last copy sent forth from the press. And this could have been easily learned from the titlepage. In the end of the title in the Hanserd Knollys Society’s copy of the Confession of 1689 are the words, “With an Appendix concerning Baptism.” The portion of the title covering the Appendix, and the Appendix itself, cannot be found in any copy of our oldest American Baptist creed. That the honored writer acted in good faith in this part of his valuable work, I have no doubt; but that he was led astray himself, and that he has drawn others into a grave mistake, I am absolutely certain.
The Appendix admits that “open communion” existed among the English Baptists. It does not assert the truth of it; the “strict communion” members of the body which adopted the Confession would tolerate nothing of that nature. And as no such practice existed in the Philadelphia Association when its Confession was adopted, or at any other period in its history, such an admission would have been destitute of a fragment of truth. The Cohansie church, in 1740, sent a query to the Philadelphia Association, asking if a pious Pedobaptist, who declined to have his children baptized, might come to the Lord’s Table without being baptized; and they wished also to know from the Association if the refusal of such a request would not betray a want of charity. The Association unanimously decided that the man should be refused a place at the Lord’s Table in the Cohansie church, and that such action showed no lack of charity. Their action, and their reasons for it, read: “Given to vote, and passed, all in the negative. Nemine contradicente. Reasons annexed. First. It is not for want of charity that we thus answer. Our practice shows the contrary; for we baptize none but such as, in the judgment of charity, have grace, being baptized; but it is because we find, in the Commission, that no unbaptized persons are to be admitted to church communion. Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:16. Compare Acts 2:41; 1 Cor. 12:13. Second. Because it is the church’s duty to maintain the ordinances as they are delivered to us in the Scripture. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2; Isa. 8:20. Third. Because we cannot see it agreeable, in any respect, for the procuring that unity, unfeigned love, and undisturbed peace, which are required, and ought to be in and among Christian communities.* 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:3.” This wise decision, supported by solid reasons, shows, that two years before the formal adoption of the Confession of 1689, as the greater portion of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the Philadelphia Association was unanimously opposed to an “open communion” proposition. Thirty-three years after the Association was formed, and while the Confession of 1689 was “owned” as a Baptist creed, without the special adoption which it afterwards received, one of the oldest churches in the Association would not admit a pious Pedobaptist to the Lord’s Supper without consulting the Association. And that body voted as a unit against the practice.
The declaration of the orthodox London brethren, in reference to themselves, could have been used by the Philadelphia Association about all its churches, at any period in its past history: “The known principle and state of the consciences of us all is such that we cannot hold church communion with any other than baptized believers, and churches constituted of such.” And hence the truth required the exclusion of the Appendix from the Confession of the Philadelphia Association.
The London Confession of 1689, in Article XXVI., section 6, says, “The members of these churches are saints by calling, … and do willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving up themselves to the Lord and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel.” And in Article XXVIII., section 1, it says, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only Law-giver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.” And in Article XXIX., section 2, it says, “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance;” and in section 4, “Immersion, or dipping the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.”
In Article XXX., “On the Lord’s Supper,”† there is no clause giving the unbaptized authority to come to the Lord’s Table. Their existence in connection with this institution is not noticed by a single word. And as the Articles declare that the members of the churches which adopted them lived in “professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel;” that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were “ordinances appointed by the Lord Jesus, to be continued in his church to the end of the world;” and that repentance, faith, and immersion are necessary to baptism, the Articles describe orderly believers only, who lived in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel. There is not a word in them which the strictest Baptist on earth might not heartily receive. The men who avow that “The known principle and state of the consciences of divers of us, that have agreed in this Confession, is such, that we cannot hold church communion with any other than baptized believers, and churches constituted of such”—men like Hanserd Knollys and William Kiffin—were the last men to sign a Confession favoring “open communion.” The Philadelphia Association, while avowing the most stringent “close communion” doctrines in 1740, owned, in a general way, the Confession of 1689. The Charleston Association, S. C., adopted the London Articles, and imported two hundred copies of them; and yet was restricted in its communion. In 1802, in answer to a question in reference to the consistency of Baptists inviting pious Pedobaptists to the Lord’s Table, that body replied, “We cannot but say it does not appear to be consistent with gospel order.”* In England and America, churches, individuals, and Associations, with clear minds, with hearts full of love for the truth, and with a tenacious attachment to “restricted communion,” have held with veneration the Articles of 1689. The Article, “On the Lord’s Supper,” needs safeguards, and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith furnishes them.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith is not the London Creed of 1689.
Almost every writer on this question falls into the mistake of supposing that it is, and he proceeds to prophesy evils, if he is a scriptural communionist, or he begins forthwith to whip us with the supposed liberal scourge of our fathers, if he is a free communionist. The London Creed has thirty-two Articles, and an Appendix; the Philadelphia has thirty-four, and, instead of an Appendix, it has “A Treatise of Discipline,” which was held in as great regard as the Confession for many years. Thirty-two of the thirty-four Articles in the Philadelphia Confession are taken from the English fathers of 1689. One of the two new Articles is on Singing in the Worship of God,—a practice which it commends as a divine ordinance. This Article would have entirely changed the character of the Confession of 1689 to some of the churches that adopted it; for they looked with horror upon such a custom. But in Article XXXI. in the new Confession, “On Laying on of Hands,” the Lord’s Supper receives its appropriate safeguards. In section 1 we read, “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 the Lord’s Supper.”
According to the compilers of this Article, no man should come to the Lord’s Table without baptism and the imposition of hands. It has been declared, with an air of victory, that the Philadelphia Confession of Faith requires no ceremonial qualification before approaching the Lord’s Table. This jubilant spirit is the result of carelessness in examining the venerable Confession: “All such persons that are admitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper” should be baptized believers, who have received the imposition of hands, with prayer. So that two ceremonial prerequisites to the Lord’s Supper—baptism and the laying on of hands—are demanded by the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, and not the English Confession of 1689, was the basis on which nearly all the Original Associations of this Country were Founded.
In 1742, the Philadelphia Association adopted the Confession which bears its name. Some deny that the Association ever formally adopted it; or if it did they assert that we know nothing of the time when such action took place. This statement is based upon a certain amount of recognition which the London Articles undoubtedly received in the Philadelphia Association before 1742; and also upon the fact that the Association simply voted to “reprint” the London Confession. When a publishing house resolves to reprint an English work now it adopts it; it makes the work its own. The Confession of 1689, in 1742 had never been printed in America; the Philadelphia Association voted to reprint it, that is, to adopt its Articles; and they also added two Articles to it, and A Treatise on Discipline. And every copy printed since Benjamin Franklin’s first edition appeared in 1743, bears on its title-page, “Adopted by the Philadelphia Association, Sept. 25th, 1742.” This statement on the title-page would have been canceled at the next meeting of the Association after its appearance if it had not been true. The Warren Association makes the same record about the date of its adoption;† Morgan Edwards gives 1742 as the date of its adoption, on page 5 of his “Materials towards the History of the Baptists, etc.,” published in Philadelphia, 1770, and the act cannot be reasonably doubted, nor the date called in question.
The Kehukee Association, founded in 1765, adopted the Philadelphia Confession.‡ The Ketockton Association of Virginia, founded 1766, adopted the Philadelphia Confession.§ The Warren Association of Rhode Island, organized 1767, adopted the same Confession.|| The General Association of Virginia received the Philadelphia Confession in 1783 with explanations, none of which favored “open communion.”¶ The Elkhorn Association of Kentucky, formed in 1785, adopted the Philadelphia Confession.** The Holston Association of Tennessee, established in 1788, accepted the Philadelphia Confession.†† The Charleston Association of South Carolina was established by Oliver Hart in 1751, fresh from the Philadelphia Association, and full of admiration for its principles and its usefulness. It adopted the Articles of 1689, and a Treatise on Discipline, prepared by Oliver Hart, and Brethren Pelot, Morgan Edwards, and David Williams. This Association, though not adopting the Philadelphia Confession, followed its spirit and plan, and it practised “restricted communion.”
There was not one of the original Baptist Associations of this country that invited the unbaptized to the Lord’s Table. Once we have seen the statement rashly made, and Asplund given as its authority, that there was one early Baptist Association that held “open communion.”—evidently referring to the Groton Conference, Connecticut. But the writer omitted to state that Asplund gave an account, in the same list of Associations, of Six Principle Baptists, Free-Will Baptists, and Seventh-Day Baptists. The “open communion” body of which he speaks was not composed of Regular Baptists, nor were the Seventh-Day brethren named by Asplund as members of our denomination. They did not assume the name of an Association,—they called themselves the Groton Conference. And Asplund pays that “they keep no correspondence,”*—that is, they were not recognized as Regular Baptists. They neither enjoyed, nor were they entitled to, such recognition.
Asplund mentions several other early Baptist Associations that adopted the Confession of Faith,—that is, the Philadelphia. But further reference to this question is needless. Nearly all the original Associations of America adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith; and not one of these bodies held “open communion.” There were “open communionists” outside of our organizations, when our early Associations sprang into life,—especially in New England,—whose erring judgments soon learned the way of the Lord more perfectly, and they united with Regular Baptist communities.
If the Philadelphia Confession of Faith had been accepted in England, as the legitimate successor of the Confession of 1689, the Strict Baptists of Norwich would never, by a just legal decision, have been deprived of their church edifice for the advantage of “open communionists.”
The Philadelphia Association never had an “open communion” church in its fellowship; and it has repeatedly declared the practice to be unscriptural. Its Confession of Faith as adopted in 1742 never was repealed or modified in any of its parts. The latest edition is an exact reprint of the first, and “open communion” cannot even find a shelter in it. (See Appendix.)
* Appendix to volume i. of Rippon’s Annual Register.
† Historical Vindications, p. 105.
* Minutes of Philadelphia Association for 1740.
† Hanserd Knollys Society’s volume of “Confessions,” etc., pp. 221, 225, 226, 244.
* History of Charleston Association, p. 43.
† Historical Vindications, p. 91.
‡ Semple’s History of the Baptists in Virginia, p. 338.
§ Semple, p. 302.
|| Manning and Brown University, p. 80.
¶ Semple, p. 68.
** Benedict’s General History of the Baptist Denomination, p. 82.
†† Semple, p. 275.
* Asplund’s Annual Register for 1790, p. 49.
Cathcart, W., ed. (1881). In The Baptist Encyclopædia (pp. 264–267). Louis H. Everts.