Kindred Spirits

A comparison of two historic confessional statements:

The Westminster Confession of Faith and The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

~ Rev. Rogers Meredith ~

 

Introduction

Writing an essay such as this is a daunting task. It is beyond my abil­ity to cover in depth every aspect of the Westminster Con­fes­sion of Faith (WCF) or The Thirty-Nine Articles, or to exhaust­ively com­pare them. Still, much may be accomplished by hitting the high­lights of each, so that is what I have sought to do.

Both documents are of interest for at least two reasons. First, they are of interest as historical docu­ments. I have tried to take their historicity seriously and to look at each one in its context. Second, they are theological works and as such have great depth and are extremely interesting.

At the end of the day though, my interest in each is pastoral. And in this way both documents shine, because they are both imminently practical and useful. It is my hope that this essay might reflect some of their light.

I. Determining “Tone”

Preliminary Thoughts

Tone may be defined as “attitude”. Whether we are considering pos­ture or manner-of-speech, tone is generally reflective of one’s atti­tude. Tone adds nuance to what may be a normally “bald” state­ment. Though a subtlety, tone speaks volumes about situations and concerns. Tone is almost im­pos­sible to mask, yet can be easily misunderstood[1]. Tone may even reverse the actual meaning of a word!

Therefore it is important that we understand as much as possible about a given document’s histor­i­cal situation before we can com­ment or come to a decision about its tone. This is especially impor­tant when trying to discern the tone of a document written hun­dreds of years ago. It is not at all helpful to allow modern consider­ations, and commentaries growing from modern considerations, to de­ter­mine such subtleties for us[2].

Research is our best guide in de­ter­mining tone, and good practice demands that we seek out primary sources: sources as close to the development of the documents as possible. What sort of situations then were at hand? Recalling that both the Westminster and the Thirty Nine Articles are occasional documents is foundational to de­ter­mining their tone.

Historical Background of the WCF

According to the introduction to the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith,[3] the documents were occasioned by the “multitudes of errors, blasphemies, and all kinds of profanities which have in this last age, like a mighty deluge, overflow this nation. . . .” The Westminster Confession and the appended longer and shorter cate­chisms were intended then to deal with these issues, but foremost by the proper instruction of the fam­ily. In his epistle to the reader, Thomas Manson, a signer of the confession, writes that “a family is the Seminary of church and state: and if children be not well princi­pled there, all miscarieth. . . .”[4] The Westminster confession of Faith was occasioned by the need for reformation within the homes, church and state of England.

Historical Background of the Thirty-Nine Articles

The historical background of the Thirty-Nine Articles is a more difficult matter. The Articles repre­sent a body of work began about the time of Henry VIII, and which grew out of his schism with Rome. However, Henry cannot be said to have been the sole author of them any more that Thomas Cranmer can. Indeed even the great John Knox had a say in them at least in part[5].

Still by 1563 and the Elizabethan settlement, the Church of England (and so the Thirty-Nine articles) had become nearly solidified. Indeed, the adoption of the revised prayer book with its Articles was a key to Elizabeth’s mostly success­ful attempts to unify her kingdom and Church. Historically, then, the Articles play a key role in the attempt at unification and recon­cil­iation.

The Tone of the WCF

Considered in light of its historical setting, the Westminster’s tone is most decidedly apologetic if not outright polemical. It seems as if the bulk of the confession is geared towards assuring that Calvin­istic Presbyterianism would steer the course for The Church of England. In a very real way the Westminster Confession repre­sents an attempt to move England back towards the Protestantism of Geneva.

The Tone of the Thirty-Nine Articles

While the tone of the Westminster Confession is generally apologetic, it is equally true that at certain key points the Thirty-Nine Articles are not. In fact, it seems at some crucial places the Articles are left somewhat incomplete, and one may wonder if it was purposely so. As noted above, the 39 Articles and indeed the whole Prayer book had been in a state of evolution since their inception, but with Elizabeth and the Act of Uni­form­ity their development was put on hold for the sake of unity.  How­ever, unity often comes at a price. The Thirty-Nine Articles paid the price in the coin of the realm: ambiguity. Some of the Thirty-Nine Articles have a tone of studied ambiguity. This point will be touched upon again briefly, later in this paper.

II. The manner of writing

Stylistic Features of the Westminster Confession of Faith

If the Thirty Nine Articles are a study in ambiguity, then the West­min­ster Confession is a study in Puritan logic. Having read the Con­fession and also having read a few Systematic Theologies, I won­der how much the style found in the former is based on the latter. Each article of the Westminster fol­lows logically from the previous. This almost proved to be a problem though, for when the original doc­u­­ment was submitted to the House of Commons it was returned with the requirement that proof texts be added! Once added, the document was settled, and nearly became the doctrinal standard for the Church of England. Overall though, the style of the Confession is best described as logical and syste­ma­tic. The chief stylistic feature of the confession though is its epistem­ology. All arguments found in the confession flow as necessary con­se­quences of the confession’s com­mitment to Sola Scriptura.

Stylistic Features of the Thirty-Nine Articles

The two documents are very much related in style, though the Thirty-Nine Articles begins with different considerations. If the Westminster proceeds logically, then the Arti­cles proceed along confessional lines; the first five articles are essen­tially a confirmation of the three Creeds.

There is one way in which the two do differ in style. While the WCF was amended to include Scriptural proof texts, apparently the source of authority for the Articles is considered to result from their origins within the church.[6] Stylis­tic­ally the Thirty-Nine Articles re­flect the chief concerns of the day, to unite and assert the authority of the Church of England.

III. The Length of the Arguments

The Length of the WCF’s Arguments

As I have noted above, both of these great documents were occa­sional and so were driven by the theological and political concerns of the day. This is often reflected in the WCF, especially at points where — deviating from their “pure logic” — the framers make specific applications to the problems of the day. For instance, in Chapter XXIX.ii, Of The Lord’s Supper de­votes half its space to polemical issues associated with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass. Length of argument, like much of the work, is often the direct result of its apologetic and polemical bent.

The length of the Westminster’s argu­ment is necessary, though, for in it we find an expression of a bur­geoning Covenant Theology. Whether in its doctrine of baptism or its doctrine of the Scriptures, perhaps for the first time in a concise fashion we find expounded the logical results of thinking that sought to apply all of Scripture to all of life.

The Length of the Thirty-Nine Articles Arguments

At first glance it seems as if the Thirty Nine Articles present a less detailed argument than the WCF, if by virtue of nothing but their length. However, this sort of observation is decidedly wrong­headed especially when one re­mem­bers that the Thirty-Nine Arti­cles are part of a larger body of theology: The Prayer Book. Still, just as the polemical and apol­ogetic bent of the WCF contributed to its length, the desire to main­tain unity among a church that was sharply divided at points con­tributed greatly to the lengths of some of the Articles. As much as theology, it seems that historical circumstances played a great role in the develop­ment and explana­tion of the doc­trine contained in both works, thus affecting their respective lengths.

IV. Their Completeness

While both documents have their strengths and weaknesses (see below), their completeness is ap­par­ent. Yet by what standard are we to judge them complete? Espec­i­ally since — at least in the case of the Thirty-Nine articles — the document’s development was cut short. Too, it must be recognized that The WCF has also undergone some revision. Since that is the case, in what sense may we call them complete?

The answer to the question must be sought in the documents them­selves and in what they were designed to do: set forth the teach­ing of scripture in a concise way.

While the preface to the 1549 prayer book notes that “There never was any thing by the whit of man so well devised, or so surely established, which in the contin­u­ance of time hath not been corrupted. . . .” both documents do set forth a very concise system of doctrine that is easily understood by any that care to read them. It is in the setting forth of the doctrine contained in Scripture that both documents find their wholeness, and that is what determines the degree to which they remain un­cor­rupted. The system set forth is as harmonious to the Word of God as the work of man can be. Ac­cord­ing­ly and not surprisingly, both are systems that have with­stood the test of time and temp­tation.

There is another way in which both documents, at least from a Calvinistic point of view, are com­plete. Historically, Calvinists have defined a true church by the following marks: the preaching of the gospel, the right adminis­tration of the sacraments, and  church discipline. In both docu­ments, The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, we find excellent and con­cise definitions of these marks, discussions that are both in harmony with each other and with scripture. From a pastoral stand­point — and this is indeed the where the rubber meets the road — they are wonderfully complete. The documents then find their ultimate completeness in their usefulness to the church.

V.  Strengths and Weaknesses of the Two

Any comment on the strengths or weaknesses of these documents must begin with the pastoral con­sid­erations expressed above. It is especially there that the historical background of the works must con­cede to more practical con­cerns. The question then is this:  in what areas do the documents aid the church today, and in what areas are they lacking or perhaps not as clearly applicable to the kinds of questions facing the postmodern church?

Strengths of the Westminster Confession of Faith

In my judgment, the strength of the WCF is in its theology, and its theology is especially strong in three areas:  its Doctrine of Scrip­ture (epistemology), its doctrine of man and sin (anthropology/ham­ar­tiology), and its Doctrine of Christ (Christology). While I can by no means do justice to all of these loci here, I do want to survey them and then to comment on why I consider these three (out of the thirty-three) to be the chapters most essential and helpful to the church today, making them the strong points of the confessional statement.

The Doctrine of Scripture

To anyone arguing a point today it ­will become soon apparent that indiv­idual opinion is, from the stand­point of our modern culture, the trump card that generally ends and settles all argument. We are faced today with a near complete denial of objective truth. Men’s opinions hold sway over all else, and the final court of judgment is the judgment seat of individual opinion. While this problem has reached phenomenal proportions in our present day, it is not an entirely new one. After all, epistemological concerns are cen­tral to the WCF’s argument.

“How do we know what we know is true” is an ancient question. It was faced by Adam in the garden, and it was faced by the church during the time of the Westminster as­sem­bly. To answer the question wrongly is to fall into destruction just as surely as Adam did. Indeed, Adam’s failure was at heart an epistemological one, and also one that has had a profound effect on how that question is to be answered. Adam’s fall effected his progenies’ intellect as surely and profoundly as it affected everything else. Fallen man cannot know the truth; fallen man cannot know God unless He reveals Himself.  Truth then for the WCF is not a matter of public or private opinion but rather a matter of revelation.

Scripture as the only sure source of objective truth is the beginning point of the WCF’s epistemology, and is indeed its strongest point. Every argument that follows from this point is able to be backed up by the sure revelation of God’s word. Unaffected by sin and hu­man design, the Word of God is the foundation upon which the con­fession rests. While the con­clu­sions that follow are not infallible, they have at least some objective standard by which they may be judged.

Doctrine of The Fall

Mankind has always struggled to come to terms with what some have called “the human condition”. Sin and death have caused men to point the finger of blame toward everything and everyone except themselves. The answers to such questions have often been framed in some sort of dualistic cosmology with mankind as the victim, and rarely as the perpetrator. Also, men have sought relief in the ambiguities of circumstance and chance. Of course the problem is sinful ignorance, and in such cases it is not bliss but bondage — bondage from which only the truth may set one free.

Chapter VI of the Westminster Con­fession states for us, in no un­cer­tain terms, four things essential to understanding the human con­dition:  the nature of sin (VI.vi), the doctrine of original sin (VI.ii), the imputation of Adam’s sin to his progeny (VI.iii), and a short but concise Theodicy (VI.i).  These four points are crucial and actually help buttress the doctrine of Scripture. The Word of God must be the final word in all arguments, for in every instance mankind is dealing with an intellect that has not only been marred by sin, but is at odds with its own well being from the start. It is crucial that God cannot be charged with the human condition. Redemption is secured only by His guarantee.

This understanding of mankind puts the WCF in a very strong position to answer the needs of the day. As men become more relativ­istic and so more anthropocentric, the reality of their problem be­comes more acute. When the need for redemption becomes clear, the source of redemption is clear, too. Modern culture will soon find it cannot save itself; for as the WCF implies, self is the very thing which binds us.

Christology

Sin finally makes one thing clear: humanity is in need of redemption. Yet redemption would seem impos­sible, for by what means might an unholy and rebellious nation be re­conciled to a pure and Holy  God? How could divine justice be trumped by mercy?

The Incarnation is central to the WCF’s chap­ter VII, Of Christ the Mediator. It states the ground and hope for mankind’s redemption. God — the second Person of the Trinity — took on flesh.  He was made man. He did so as the result of the expressed will of His Father, and while on earth He continued in obedience to His Father, living a perfect and sinless life. Because He is both God and man, He is able to execute the office of medi­ator to perfection, and because He lived a life of perfect obedience to His Father He not only perfected humanity but was also able to offer a perfect sacrifice on behalf of His people. The benefits of this sacrifice are given to us by virtue of our union with Him, and His perfect work of salvation has not only reconciled us to God, but now applies the benefits of that re­demp­tion to His people by His Spirit.  We have the confidence of His reign in our hearts, and we have victory over our enemies through Him.

The Weaknesses of It

It almost seems presumptuous to offer such observations, especially on such a document, but there are at least two points where the strengths of the WCF are actually also weaknesses. First, I would suggest that the WCF is weak because it is laid out in an overly systematic fashion, and so runs the risk of atomistic doctrine. To frame the concern in another way, I would suggest that because of its overly systematic bent, the WCF tends to formulate doctrine that does not always take into account the progressive nature of re­ve­lation. This can be observed in the confession’s commitment to the idea of a covenant of works, and especially in its application of that doctrine to its Christology. For example, while I would have no exegetical concern in saying that Christ’s obedience on the cross is imputed to the believer, in what way would His obedience to the Mosaic dietary laws need to be imputed to me, a gentile? 

Second, I would suggest that the WCF’s polemical and apologetic bent has done as much harm as it has helped. Some have taken it as a green light for dealing with prob­lems by confrontation and ex­clusion rather than mediation and recon­ciliation.

Strengths of the Thirty-Nine Articles

Like the Westminster, theology is one of the chief strengths of the Articles. This might seem sur­pris­ing to some, if for no other reason than their length. However, while it is true that the arguments of the Thirty-Nine Articles are not as closely reasoned as those found in the WCF, they are very well con­struc­ted and tightly nuanced state­ments.

The Articles also have strong points that are not shared by the WCF, and for the sake of avoiding redundancy let us now turn to those.

The Strength of Tradition

I noted earlier that it is completely wrong­headed to divorce the Thirty-Nine Articles from their im­mediate context, the Prayer Book. This is an important consideration, for the Prayer Book states clearly its com­mit­ment to the three Creeds:  The Apostles, Nicene, and Atha­­nas­ian.  This is germane to the present discussion, for the Articles follow very closely with The Creeds. Just as all three Creeds begin by con­fessing the Trinity, so the Thirty-Nine articles begin the same way. In fact, the first five Articles are essentially a restatement of the Church’s con­fessional standards. But why is this so important? It is important because one of the chief strengths of the Thirty-Nine Articles is their firm grounding in the tradition of the Church: a tradition which is rooted in her understanding of The Holy Scrip­tures. It is a strong point, for it states for us clearly that the Protestant Churches’ under­stand­ing of Sola Scriptura was never meant to undermine or ignore tradition. This is a concept that needs hearing today as perhaps never before. A proper view of tradition is necessary as a weapon against postmodern thought, and is a necessary corrective for those who would twist Scripture beyond the bounds of its historical inter­pre­tations.

The Authority of the Church

Anyone who has encountered prob­lems associated with the nor­mative versus regulative princi­ples, especially in terms of wor­ship, will probably appreciate Arti­cles XX and Article XXI.

In some circles the idea of Church authority is only given lip-service. Thus most key issues — such as the manner-of-worship — are often left to those with little or no knowledge regarding either the theology or traditions surrounding the topic. Also, when problems in such areas do arise, there is    often no recourse beyond the local session. Why? Because the idea of a broader Church government is almost unknown. These two Arti­cles may be considered strong points, because they offer a cor­rective that enables us to steer a course between the two poles of wooden legalism and complete relativism.

A third area of strength is that the Thirty Nine Articles are not overly polemical. There are, to be sure, formulations that are directly point­ed at the Church of Rome.  Yet there is no tendency to over­em­phasize the disagreements. This is a strong point, for it shows us that it is possible to be committed to sound doctrine, and yet do so in a manner that leaves the door open for discussion with those who strongly disagree with us.

A Marked Weakness

While I have a great amount of respect for the Thirty-Nine Articles, I do think a case can be made from the annals of history that at points they have been left intentionally ambiguous. This has left the door open for Anglo-Catholicism, inclu­ding prayer to the saints and the veneration of Mary. While I recog­nize that this is more of an issue of abuse and perhaps not a direct result of any weak­ness in the Articles per se, I do wonder if a clearer statement on The Lord’s Table — one that was decidedly Protestant — would have been an early corrective to such excesses.

VI. Other Considerations

I would like to take a moment to comment on the doctrine of Bap­tism articulated by both docu­ments.  It is interesting to note that — while both teach that Bap­tism is the means by which we are grafted into the Church — only the WCF argues for a form of bap­tis­mal regeneration at the con­fes­sion­al level. This does not mean that a form of baptismal regener­ation is not taught in the prayer book, for it is[7]. But there is a difference between the two state­ments. The WCF’s doctrine of Bap­tism states that baptism is effect­ive for the elect at whatsoever time God’s providence is suited, and that Baptism and regeneration are tied to­gether but not always im­med­iately.

This is a very good way of putting things, for it rules out any idea of ex opere operato, while taking ser­i­ous­ly what The Word of God says about baptism. While I do apprec­iate the language used by the prayer book and in fact have no personal difficulty with it, I do think that adopting more closely nuanced language, such as is found in the WCF, might go a long way towards clearing up any potential confusion and allaying any suspicions outright.

VI. From Alpha to Omega

At the end of the day, both docu­ments are complete. The WCF ends in the most logical fashion, with the doctrine of the last judg­ment. This keeps with its overall schema, with logical precision being the rule of the day.  It is hard to say just why the Thirty-Nine Articles ends with a dis­cus­sion on oath-taking.

It is interesting how harmonious the theology of the two documents is, especially in light of how differently each one begins. One might imagine that starting in two different places — as they indeed do — would mean a completely different finish. Yet that is not the case here. While the two con­fessions have methodological dif­fer­ences, they both share the same commitment to the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures. With that in view, we can see why in reality both finish in complete harmony with one another.

Conclusion

It is sometimes said that doctrine divides.  While that is sometimes true, the fact remains that ortho­dox doctrine never divides the or­thodox. Both of these documents are tried-and-true standards of orthodoxy.  Still, they are the work of men, and as such are fallible, and therefore should never be used as a test of fellowship.

We can love the WCF and the Thirty-Nine Articles alike, but at the end of the day if our love for them is allowed to run roughshod over our brothers, or if we become proud because of our ancient traditions, what good are they? If we master the confessions and still lose Christ; what have we gained?

---

www.39articles.com

---