The Second London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689

Since I haven't posted for a while, I wanted to share my understanding of the differences between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. As I wrote in my WTS Th.M. thesis, I believe that the differences between the two confessions (aside from the obvious differences related to Baptist ecclesiology) are due to a difference theological climate in Great Britain. By 1677, the Baptists were dealing with a different set of theological issues than the divines of Westminster in 1647. This is true, too, regarding the differences between the first London Baptist Confession of 1644 and the second confession. The writers of the 1677 confession made a clear decision to use the Westminster Confession as a model. Yet, they made a variety of changes in wording which I believe are due to the presence of more radical groups such as the Quakers, and the rise of rationalism in religion, especially as that affected doctrines related to Holy Scripture and the Trinity. The 1677 confession's teaching on Holy Scripture seems to be dealing with both the views of Quakers and the views of rationalism as applied to Scripture. With this in mind, I will continue now with more of my Th.M. thesis.

What was the Quaker doctrine of Scripture? To answer this question we may examine the views of two Quakers--James Nayler and Robet Barclay. Nayler was an early associate of George Fox. In January, 1653, he was placed on trial in Appleby, England. The following conversation was part of that trial:

Just[ice] Pears[on]: "To the Word: What sayest thou to the Scriptures? are they the Word of God?"

Jam[es] Nayler: They are a true declaration of the word that was in them who spoke them forth."

Higginson: Is there not a written Word?"

Jam[es] Nayler: Where readest thou in the Scriptures of a written Word? The word is spiritual, not seen with carnal eyes: but as for the Scriptures they are trie, and I witness them true, in measure fulfilled in me, as far as i am grown up." (Hugh Barbour and Arthur O. Roberts, eds., Early Quaker Writings 1650-1700) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 261-262.)

Nayler also reveals his view of the Scriptures in response to Richard Baxter's The Quaker Catechism of 1655 (Baxter's replies to Quaker questions are in Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, p. 273). Nayler refers to Baxter's position that the Scriptures were written to be a standing rule. His response is to mock it. wondering how this could be when "scarce two of you can agree about it, what is the meaing of it, and how many copies is there of it? Which of them is the standing rule? (Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, 284.) He then responded to some queries put forth by Baxter: Do they believe the Scriptures to be true? Nayler answers in the affirmative, but responds negatively to Baxter's position that the Scriptures call themselves the Word of God. Baxter, says, Nayler, did not bring forth any Biblical texts to prove that "the letter is the word." (Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, 284).