# Two different Wesminster Confessions of Faith and the issue of divorce



## Pergamum (May 4, 2016)

http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/?p=550



> there were actually 2 different versions of the Westminster Confession published in the late 1640s. The one we commonly know was a private printing, done for the members of the Assembly and Parliament. It was taken to Scotland and published there without the authorization of the English Parliament. It has become the definitive version for English-speaking Presbyterianism, and incorporates the paragraphs about divorce in chapter 24. But there was another edition published, by Parliament, which included several significant changes, including the excision of the paragraphs on divorce in chapter 24. Parliament probably believed that divorce was a civil matter, and thus not appropriate for a strictly religious Confession of Faith. When the Independents published the Savoy Declaration, they were following the text printed by Parliament a decade earlier.



Help me with links or primary sources as I look into this. 

I suppose this is why the 1689 omits the articles on divorce, following the Savoy?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 4, 2016)

"Edition Seven. This edition stands alone, not only in its title, but also in its contents. Its title is 'Articles of the Christians Religion, approved and passed by both Houses of Parliament, after Advice had with the Assembly of Divines....'" "In a sense, Warfield is justified in calling this an edition 'entirely without significance to the adherents of the Confession'; for it was stillborn." Carruthers, _The Westminster Confession of Faith ... seven leading editions. _The editions that English and Scottish Printers followed, and which the public scarfed up, followed the Assembly's version. However, given the politics it would not have been prudent I guess for those drafting the Savoy to use the unadulterated unexpurgated text of the Assembly. Just guessing. I couldn't find a version online but there may be.


----------



## Pergamum (May 4, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> "Edition Seven. This edition stands alone, not only in its title, but also in its contents. Its title is 'Articles of the Christians Religion, approved and passed by both Houses of Parliament, after Advice had with the Assembly of Divines....'" "In a sense, Warfield is justified in calling this an edition 'entirely without significance to the adherents of the Confession'; for it was stillborn." Carruthers, _The Westminster Confession of Faith ... seven leading editions. _The editions that English and Scottish Printers followed, and which the public scarfed up, followed the Assembly's version. However, given the politics it would not have been prudent I guess for those drafting the Savoy to use the unadulterated unexpurgated text of the Assembly. Just guessing. I couldn't find a version online but there may be.



You say:


> However, given the politics it would not have been prudent I guess for those drafting the Savoy to use the unadulterated unexpurgated text of the Assembly.



So this seems to imply some artifice or political machinations on the part of those who framed the Savoy?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 4, 2016)

No; nothing untoward. I'm just surmising why they went with the official parliament version as having some official pedigree in England, even though as I say, that version was stillborn as the quote noted and it is not the version the people venerated which was the version not changed by the parliament. 


Pergamum said:


> So this seems to imply some artifice or political machinations on the part of those who framed the Savoy?


----------



## Pergamum (May 4, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> No; nothing untoward. I'm just surmising why they went with the official parliament version as having some official pedigree in England, even though as I say, that version was stillborn as the quote noted and it is not the version the people venerated which was the version not changed by the parliament.
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> ...



Do we have any links or papers or diaries which may reveal to us the reasoning behind these decisions?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 4, 2016)

You're into things I've not seen anyone explore. I don't know.


----------



## Pergamum (May 4, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> You're into things I've not seen anyone explore. I don't know.



How exciting! Breaking new ground. I'd love for some theology student to write a thesis on this (the Savoy as opposed to the WCF on this marriage issue). I'd love to know more about the Savoy in general.


----------



## MW (May 5, 2016)

The standard histories will cover the party dynamics and it is the different parties which explain the different attitudes towards the productions of the Assembly. If it is borne in mind that the Assembly was not a church court but an advisory body to the Parliament, it will be evident that there are not two "confessions" in the proper sense of the term. There is the advice of the Assembly concerning a Confession; then there is the adoption of the advice by the Scottish General Assembly in which it functioned as a "confession of faith" in the proper ecclesiastical sense, and was to promote uniformity of religion in the three kingdoms; and there was also an Erastianesque revision of it by the English Parliament to temporarily serve in the place of the articles of religion until a settlement of religion could be reached. The Savoy's choice of the Parliament's "Articles" was owing to the fact that the Commonwealth was a Parliamentary faction to which the Independents owed their establishment of religion.


----------



## bookslover (May 5, 2016)

I imagine that Chad Van Dixhoorn's several fat (and expensive) volumes on the Westminster Assembly could explain this.


----------



## Pergamum (May 5, 2016)

MW said:


> The standard histories will cover the party dynamics and it is the different parties which explain the different attitudes towards the productions of the Assembly. If it is borne in mind that the Assembly was not a church court but an advisory body to the Parliament, it will be evident that there are not two "confessions" in the proper sense of the term. There is the advice of the Assembly concerning a Confession; then there is the adoption of the advice by the Scottish General Assembly in which it functioned as a "confession of faith" in the proper ecclesiastical sense, and was to promote uniformity of religion in the three kingdoms; and there was also an Erastianesque revision of it by the English Parliament to temporarily serve in the place of the articles of religion until a settlement of religion could be reached. The Savoy's choice of the Parliament's "Articles" was owing to the fact that the Commonwealth was a Parliamentary faction to which the Independents owed their establishment of religion.



Rev. Winzer:

You wrote,



> If it is borne in mind that the Assembly was not a church court but an advisory body to the Parliament, it will be evident that there are not two "confessions" in the proper sense of the term.



That right there is a golden nugget that I had not really considered/realized before. Thanks. Makes more sense now.


----------



## Pergamum (May 5, 2016)

bookslover said:


> I imagine that Chad Van Dixhoorn's several fat (and expensive) volumes on the Westminster Assembly could explain this.



Hmmmm......I am saving for Richard Muller's fat volumes.... not sure my budget fits for both.


----------



## Pergamum (May 5, 2016)

MW said:


> The standard histories will cover the party dynamics and it is the different parties which explain the different attitudes towards the productions of the Assembly. If it is borne in mind that the Assembly was not a church court but an advisory body to the Parliament, it will be evident that there are not two "confessions" in the proper sense of the term. There is the advice of the Assembly concerning a Confession; then there is the adoption of the advice by the Scottish General Assembly in which it functioned as a "confession of faith" in the proper ecclesiastical sense, and was to promote uniformity of religion in the three kingdoms; and there was also an Erastianesque revision of it by the English Parliament to temporarily serve in the place of the articles of religion until a settlement of religion could be reached. The Savoy's choice of the Parliament's "Articles" was owing to the fact that the Commonwealth was a Parliamentary faction to which the Independents owed their establishment of religion.



Rev. Winzer, 

You also wrote:


> there was also an Erastianesque revision of it by the English Parliament to temporarily serve in the place of the articles of religion until a settlement of religion could be reached.



Do we have a copy of this additional version or notes explaining how this version differs from the WCF version that we use today?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 5, 2016)

If this question is a determining one you can save your money; Savoy does not appear in the index in volume 5. 


Pergamum said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine that Chad Van Dixhoorn's several fat (and expensive) volumes on the Westminster Assembly could explain this.
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 5, 2016)

I had thought there was another edition but I am only finding the first of 1648. 
Articles of Christian religion, : approved and passed by both houses of Parliament, after advice had with the Assembly of Divines by authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster.
London : Printed for Edward Husband, Printer to the Honorable House of Commons, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the golden Dragon in Fleetstreet, near the Inner-Temple, June 27. 1648.
I have not found a text online but there look to be some sources that may be of interest in this Google search. 
Note that this thread comes up on page 2.


Pergamum said:


> Do we have a copy of this additional version or notes explaining how this version differs from the WCF version that we use today?


----------



## MW (May 5, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I had thought there was another edition but I am only finding the first of 1648.
> Articles of Christian religion, : approved and passed by both houses of Parliament, after advice had with the Assembly of Divines by authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster.
> London : Printed for Edward Husband, Printer to the Honorable House of Commons, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the golden Dragon in Fleetstreet, near the Inner-Temple, June 27. 1648.
> I have not found a text online but there look to be some sources that may be of interest in this Google search.
> ...



The 1648 ed. is the only one I know of. I did a quick search and couldn't find it freely available online. It is available at Early English Books Online.

So far as notes are concerned, the closest would be the Journal of the House of Commons, which shows a progressive deliberation on the different sections of the Confession.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 5, 2016)

And those are online at least. 


MW said:


> So far as notes are concerned, the closest would be the Journal of the House of Commons, which shows a progressive deliberation on the different sections of the Confession.


----------



## johnny (May 6, 2016)

Its impressive to me that ordinary politicians of that time were schooled enough in the scriptures to debate such issues. Imagine if our current politicians drafted up a confessional statement on Christianity now.

It would be a Nightmare of Heresies.


----------

