RPW and the reading of Confessions/Creeds

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I do pray God's blessings upon you, brother. Whether at your church or mine, I would be honored to worship our God with you one of these days, dv.
:ditto:
 
I'm so glad that God changed His mind. I mean all those times that the OT saints had to say things back and forth to each other during corporate worship times. How rote! How meaningless! How vain!

I don't think this is a case where you're taking the RPW too seriously. But saying that you can't find any Scriptural backing for recitations during worship, is the equivalent of the evangelical argument for chapter and verse. Affirmation and confession of faith is the very essence of worship. We do it in our singing, we do it in our extemporaneous preaching and praying. And, we will do it in heaven. The angels cry out to one another. They're not singing, they're not reading the Scriptures, they're confessing.

And the old argument that if you do it every week it becomes rote and vain.... Really! If done in faith, it can NEVER be rote and vain. We pray every Lord's Day is that rote? We preach every Lord's Day, is that vain? We sing every Lord's Day. Does that become mundane and common? Unfelt, and unworshipful?

If you despise confessing to each other what it is you believe, then you need to check yourself. You're not there for what you want to hear. You're there to say it to God and to dialog with Him. And if it has been an element of corporate worship since the creation of the world, and it HAS, then shame on all of us for having such a disdain for it.

Ex 19:8 Then all the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

Ex 24:3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, "All the words which the LORD has said we will do."

Ex 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient."

Jos 1:16 So they answered Joshua, saying, "All that you command us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go."

Deut. 6:4-5 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."

Deut. 27:11-26 And Moses commanded the people on the same day, saying, "These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people, when you have crossed over the Jordan: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin; "and these shall stand on Mount Ebal to curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. "And the Levites shall speak with a loud voice and say to all the men of Israel: "˜Cursed is the one who makes a carved or molded image, an abomination to the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret.´ And all the people shall answer and say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who moves his neighbor´s landmark.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who makes the blind to wander off the road.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who lies with his father´s wife, because he has uncovered his father´s bed.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who lies with any kind of animal.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who lies with his mother-in-law.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who attacks his neighbor secretly.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´ "˜Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law.´ And all the people shall say, "˜Amen!´

Mark 12:29-30 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: "˜Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. "˜And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.´ This is the first commandment.

We are a confessing people. We are commanded to confess, and oath, and promise.

If confessing the creeds isn't worship, what is it? What does it say? What does it do for those who confess it? What does it say about the God who is the object of the confession?

We need to bring back some of the baby we just threw out with the bath water.

In Christ,

KC
 
Kevin,

There is no need for your heavy sarcasm in discussing matters of worship. There is also no need to deride the Puritan principle of worship to which I adhere that requires a postive Scriptural command for something to be included as an element of Christian worship. You may feel that one can take the RPW "too seriously," but it seems to me that the Bible and Westminster Standards are very clear that the Apostles Creed is not an element of worship. We are not to adhere to the RPW only when it suits us. Confession of faith per se is important, as I have stressed. It has a place in the corporate and individual actions of God's people. I am not anti-confession of faith (far from it!). That does not mean, however, that the Apostles Creed is something that God has ordained to be included in public worship. My position on this is not novel, it is Reformed and Puritan. We may disagree on this point, but please try along with me to do so civilly.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Kevin,

There is no need for your heavy sarcasm in discussing matters of worship. There is also no need to deride the Puritan principle of worship to which I adhere that requires a postive Scriptural command for something to be included as an element of Christian worship. You may feel that one can take the RPW "too seriously," but it seems to me that the Bible and Westminster Standards are very clear that the Apostles Creed is not an element of worship. We are not to adhere to the RPW only when it suits us. Confession of faith per se is important, as I have stressed. It has a place in the corporate and individual actions of God's people. I am not anti-confession of faith (far from it!). That does not mean, however, that the Apostles Creed is something that God has ordained to be included in public worship. My position on this is not novel, it is Reformed and Puritan. We may disagree on this point, but please try along with me to do so civilly.

You said:

Like the Lord's Prayer and other godly sayings, which are good in themselves, such sayings when performed rotely week after week tend towards vain worship. This is a major reason, apart from the RPW, why Presbyterians opposed the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, which contains many godly sayings, but when written into the weekly service as prescribed, set liturgy, tend towards spiritually dead worship.

Vanity creates vain worship. The heart is the idol factory. You cannot blame creeds and confessions for spiritually dead worship. They're words, they don't create a sentiment towards sin.

You need to rethink this. I'm sorry for the sarcasm, really. I'm vehemently rejecting this argument as a reason against corporate confessions in worship, because liturgy exists whether one wants to admit it or not. Everyone has a liturgy. Every element of worship can become rote or vain or spiritually dead, but it is not the fault of the element or the frequency. It is due to the complacency of heart.

As for the RPW, I take it very seriously. But I also see that there is latitude among several as to how it is applied. Application is where the rubber meets the road, and as I see how it is applied, I think that many agree that the creeds are a part of worship per the regula fidei. The Scriptures I listed all had extemporaneous and common sayings, so I believe there is ample evidence for corporate confession in the worship service of the creeds. If anything, it identifies us with the saints in the faith from many generations. Therefore, it should have a solid practice among us.

Every church is mixed with error. That doesn't mean we look for ways to err. But that also means that your hard and fast rules applied, while zealous and exemplary in one sense, can also be a stumbling block and unhealthy division within the church of God. I can worship just fine with you, but you can't worship with me. That's wrong given the amount of agreement we already have. Especially because we differ on two minute contentions across the vast array of contentions. We can't slide a piece of paper between us, yet we're worlds apart. Why is that?

In Christ,

KC
 
Kevin, that is a huge stretch - HUGE - to attribute those verses to examples and commands for us to recite un-inspired words and creeds during a worship service. Everything you just quoted was the Word of God, not un-inspired creeds.
 
Originally posted by kceaster
You said:

Like the Lord's Prayer and other godly sayings, which are good in themselves, such sayings when performed rotely week after week tend towards vain worship. This is a major reason, apart from the RPW, why Presbyterians opposed the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, which contains many godly sayings, but when written into the weekly service as prescribed, set liturgy, tend towards spiritually dead worship.

Vanity creates vain worship. The heart is the idol factory. You cannot blame creeds and confessions for spiritually dead worship. They're words, they don't create a sentiment towards sin.

The primary argument against the Apostles Creed in worship is the RPW. There is no Scriptural command to recite the Apostles Creed.

The argument about formalism in worship is secondary. However, it links will-worship (ie., including as elements in worship things which God has not commanded) with vain worship. The attachment that some have to a Creed that the Bible does not tell us to recite in worship -- even at the cost of dividing believers who would otherwise worship together, except that it goes against their conscience to do so -- is indicative to me that the idol factory of which you speak, ie., the human heart, is at work here. It is characteristic of Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic worship that weekly rituals and ceremonies (not commanded by God) tend towards a dead spirituality. I am not saying that every church that includes the recitation of the Apostles Creed is a dead church, not at all. I think the tendency is there, however, as the historical record indicates. But I should add that formalism is also the bane of churches that adhere to the proper elements of worship when offered to God from hearts that are not right with him. I am not blind to that fact. I still think that customs and traditions in worship that lack Scriptural warrant don't contribute to growth of piety but rather the opposite.

You need to rethink this. I'm sorry for the sarcasm, really. I'm vehemently rejecting this argument as a reason against corporate confessions in worship, because liturgy exists whether one wants to admit it or not. Everyone has a liturgy. Every element of worship can become rote or vain or spiritually dead, but it is not the fault of the element or the frequency. It is due to the complacency of heart.

I hope I answered your comments here above.

As for the RPW, I take it very seriously. But I also see that there is latitude among several as to how it is applied. Application is where the rubber meets the road, and as I see how it is applied, I think that many agree that the creeds are a part of worship per the regula fidei. The Scriptures I listed all had extemporaneous and common sayings, so I believe there is ample evidence for corporate confession in the worship service of the creeds. If anything, it identifies us with the saints in the faith from many generations. Therefore, it should have a solid practice among us.

The Westminster Assembly and its followers rejected the recitation of the Apostles Creed (in worship, not in catechism outside of worship) because it lacked Scriptural warrant as an element of worship. The Scriptures that you cited do not support reciting the Apostles Creed. At most they support the idea of saying "Amen" and the like. Regarding the Lord's Prayer as encouraged by the Directory of Public Worship (a point made earlier in the thread which I neglected to address until now) it gives support for the minister to say the Prayer but does not give warrant for the congregation to speak or sing the Prayer. The Prayer is good both as a model and an actual Prayer. I do distinguish the Lord's Prayer from the Apostles Creed because the former is Scripture and the latter, while good, is not. I am willing to explore the implications of those Scriptures that you cited for Christian worship. I will look into that. I am more inclined to study cited Scriptures when presented graciously than when not. I appreciate that you are sorry for the saracasm. Just as you react strongly to a position in worship that you disagree with, so I react to unnecessary sacrcasm and comments which imply that I am being lectured by someone who does not know me very well. I don't mind someone on the opposite side of a debate holding passionately to their point of view, but I think for debate to be profitable it has to be civil and respectful. BTW, I think there is room for latitude in worship as to circumstances but not elements.

Every church is mixed with error. That doesn't mean we look for ways to err. But that also means that your hard and fast rules applied, while zealous and exemplary in one sense, can also be a stumbling block and unhealthy division within the church of God. I can worship just fine with you, but you can't worship with me. That's wrong given the amount of agreement we already have. Especially because we differ on two minute contentions across the vast array of contentions. We can't slide a piece of paper between us, yet we're worlds apart. Why is that?

In Christ,

KC

I deplore any and all divisions within the body of Christ. I too ask why can't we -- especially those who generally adhere to the same Reformed confessions -- worship together? It ought not so to be.

I see the requirement to recite the Apostles Creed in worship as an intrustion by the church upon the liberty that Christ has given to believers to worship him only as he has commanded, not according to the traditions of men. Therefore, I see this requirement as a hindrance to the communion of the saints because it goes against my conscience and others who adhere to the Puritan principle of worship. I would ask why can't we worship God according to the elements found in the Bible and the Westminster Confession? If we could unite on that point, I think the unity of the brethren would be greatly strengthened. I am not desirous of separation, I am desirous of unity in worship -- but I am jealous for the ordinances of Christ and I do not see any justification for the Apostles Creed to be an element of Christian worship.


[Edited on 8-25-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
To say that confessions are allowable in public worship is also to say that a church/person is in sin if they DO NOT make a confession every Lord's day. Again, I see it as a responsibility for people to confess their faith before men, and I do not desire to belittle this in any fashion.

That being said, it seems to me that an understanding of the regulative principle is what is at stake here. Simply the fact that many Presbyterians today (not pointing the finger at anyone in-particular) argue for what is allowable in worship can be misleading. It is helpful in my opinion, not to look at the RPW in this fashion, but to view it as what is commanded in worship. The elements of worship are not negotiable, nor are they "allowable" like in the realm of Christian liberty. It is SIN if one does not partake in the elements of Christian worship. Period. I am not accusing anyone of this misconception, merely ranting on observations I've made.

When examining EP, I originally was against the idea. But when looked at from a puritan RPW, one can hardly fathom that it would be SIN for a congregation to sing only Psalms or even inspired songs from scripture, and NOT compose/sing songs outside the canon. Does God positively command us to do this? Are we in sin if we don't? Some people are consistent and say yes! That is fine, but consistency with the RPW is what I like to see, and all to often, I see a drift to the Lutheran rules for worship. I don't want to discuss EP in this thread, but I just wanted to use this as an example of my reasoning in relation to the RPW.

Please, let's keep this a friendly debate amongst reformed brethren. If we should desire to fight, I recommend we re-open Puritan Board Annual EXTREME Fighting and GO AT IT! :mad:
 
You know, the more I think about it, Matthew Henry's commentary is just a longer "Creed." In fact, it is a creed ("I believe") taken to it's fullest. All commentaries are just that, "I believe this is what the Bible teaches." In fact, that's what this thread is. "I believe the RPW teaches..." :sing:

Would Matthew Henry be in sin for NOT reciting his creed on the Lord's day?

If my creed is that of Matthew Henry's (and it is in many occasions), would it be sin for me NOT to recite it?
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
To say that confessions are allowable in public worship is also to say that a church/person is in sin if they DO NOT make a confession every Lord's day. Again, I see it as a responsibility for people to confess their faith before men, and I do not desire to belittle this in any fashion.

That being said, it seems to me that an understanding of the regulative principle is what is at stake here. Simply the fact that many Presbyterians today (not pointing the finger at anyone in-particular) argue for what is allowable in worship can be misleading. It is helpful in my opinion, not to look at the RPW in this fashion, but to view it as what is commanded in worship. The elements of worship are not negotiable, nor are they "allowable" like in the realm of Christian liberty. It is SIN if one does not partake in the elements of Christian worship. Period. I am not accusing anyone of this misconception, merely ranting on observations I've made.

When examining EP, I originally was against the idea. But when looked at from a puritan RPW, one can hardly fathom that it would be SIN for a congregation to sing only Psalms or even inspired songs from scripture, and NOT compose/sing songs outside the canon. Does God positively command us to do this? Are we in sin if we don't? Some people are consistent and say yes! That is fine, but consistency with the RPW is what I like to see, and all to often, I see a drift to the Lutheran rules for worship. I don't want to discuss EP in this thread, but I just wanted to use this as an example of my reasoning in relation to the RPW.

Please, let's keep this a friendly debate amongst reformed brethren. If we should desire to fight, I recommend we re-open Puritan Board Annual EXTREME Fighting and GO AT IT! :mad:

I know this isn't the point I'm making. The creed is an element of worship. If a person couldn't confess because they couldn't speak, they wouldn't be sinning. I'm not sure how you can get that out of what I said.

But knowing that the Apostle's Creed was used as a statement of faith for Baptism, which is a sacrament completely a part of corporate worship, then must conclude that confessing it is not a sin, but the absence of it, depending upon the reason, would not be a sin either, depending upon the circumstance. If you asked someone if they believed the articles of the creed, would you say that they sinned if they did not believe them?

It is true if no confession is made at any time, it must be a sin, because we know that Christ will not confess us, if we do not confess Him.

I am not saying that y'all are sinning by not confessing the creed in corporate worship. I do not believe it to be an indespensible element of corporate worship, any more than I believe that we wouldn't be worshipping in a worship service in which we did not sing. We can worship without singing. We do not confess the creed everytime we worship, so it can't be a sin to exclude it altogether. But according to common sayings and the dialogical principal of worship, it is no sin to confess the creed corporately.

Let me ask you this, guys. Is the WCF ever read or talked about in your services? If it is, how is what you're doing squaring with the RPW?

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
You know, the more I think about it, Matthew Henry's commentary is just a longer "Creed." In fact, it is a creed ("I believe") taken to it's fullest. All commentaries are just that, "I believe this is what the Bible teaches." In fact, that's what this thread is. "I believe the RPW teaches..." :sing:

Would Matthew Henry be in sin for NOT reciting his creed on the Lord's day?

If my creed is that of Matthew Henry's (and it is in many occasions), would it be sin for me NOT to recite it?

Matthew Henry is fundamentally different from the WCF. The WCF is the Church's exposition of what the Bible teaches. Matthew Henry is simply a teacher's (albeit a good one's) opinion as to what the Bible teaches.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
You know, the more I think about it, Matthew Henry's commentary is just a longer "Creed." In fact, it is a creed ("I believe") taken to it's fullest. All commentaries are just that, "I believe this is what the Bible teaches." In fact, that's what this thread is. "I believe the RPW teaches..." :sing:

Would Matthew Henry be in sin for NOT reciting his creed on the Lord's day?

If my creed is that of Matthew Henry's (and it is in many occasions), would it be sin for me NOT to recite it?

Matthew Henry is fundamentally different from the WCF. The WCF is the Church's exposition of what the Bible teaches. Matthew Henry is simply a teacher's (albeit a good one's) opinion as to what the Bible teaches.

Agreed. However, both are confessions and creeds. If a confession or creed is necessary in public worship, it seems either would be allowed based upon definition.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
You know, the more I think about it, Matthew Henry's commentary is just a longer "Creed." In fact, it is a creed ("I believe") taken to it's fullest. All commentaries are just that, "I believe this is what the Bible teaches." In fact, that's what this thread is. "I believe the RPW teaches..." :sing:

Would Matthew Henry be in sin for NOT reciting his creed on the Lord's day?

If my creed is that of Matthew Henry's (and it is in many occasions), would it be sin for me NOT to recite it?

Matthew Henry is fundamentally different from the WCF. The WCF is the Church's exposition of what the Bible teaches. Matthew Henry is simply a teacher's (albeit a good one's) opinion as to what the Bible teaches.

Agreed. However, both are confessions and creeds. If a confession or creed is necessary in public worship, it seems either would be allowed based upon definition.

Actually, no both are not. A Confession or Creed is a corporate expression what the Church believes. That is of the essence of "confession" (from the Latin confiteor meaning, "to say together, to agree"). It also the idea behind "creed" which comes about with reference to answering the question, "Christian, what do you believe?" with the answer "I believe (Latin - credo)...{the rest of the Apostle's Creed} ."

The two are as dissimilar as saying, "the preacher is simply talking about what the Bible means, therefore, it seems that it would be allowed to let any Christian stand and do that."

It is all about office, and authority.
 
I have typed out the following section from The Worship of the English Puritans by Horton Davies relevant to this thread.

APPENDIX C

THE PURITAN ATTITUDE TO THE CREEDS

It is surprising that the Puritans who trace their theological descent from John Calvin, whose famous Institutio is a commentary on the framework of the Apostle´s Creed, should have discarded the Creed in public worship. It was in universal use among the Reformed Churches and was included in the first Puritan Prayer-Books. Baillie, a Scottish Commissioner at the Westminster Assembly, lays the blame for the disuse of the Creed at the feet of the Brownists:

"˜The Apostle´ Creed they detest, as an old Patchery of evil stuff; Christ´s descent into hell, they count a blasphemous Article.´

This attitude came to be shared by the Independents. They desired to rid their public worship of any association with the corruptions of Rome and, as the Creed was an integral part of Roman Catholic worship, they discarded it. Milton expresses the Independent viewpoint admirably:

"˜They object that if we must forsake all that is Rome´s, we must bid adieu to our creed; and I had thought our creed had been of the apostles, for so it bears title. But if it be hers, let her take it. We can want no creed so long as we want not the scriptures.´

The Creed was a convenient summary of the articles of faith, it was agreed, but if Roman usage had polluted it, the Puritan would not use it. Indeed so long as he knew his Bible he did not need it.
The Presbyterians were anxious to retain the Creeds. They had originally intended, in the first draft of the Baptismal Order of the Directory, that the father should recite the Apostle´s Creed as evidence that he was a believer. Moreover when the Westminster Divines were revising the Thirty-Nine Articles before a separate Confession was thought of, they proposed to re-translate the Creeds, explaining the harsher clauses of the Athanasian Creed. There was no intention of disowning them. They went as far as to send up to Parliament the following revision of the VIIIth Article: "˜The Creeds that go under the name of the Nice Creed, Athanasian Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles´ Creed are thoroughly to be received and believed, for that the matter of them can be proved by most certain warrants.´
The left-wing Puritans had two substitutes for the Creeds. The Independents or Congregationalists had their own Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration. The Presbyterians used as their doctrinal basis, for the purposes of catechizing, the Westminster Confession. The second substitute was the use of a covenant as the basis of church-membership, which all new members of the local Church subscribed on being admitted into its fellowship. This was used mainly by the Independents and by the Baptists, but it did not win favour among the Presbyterians, although its principle was accepted in the "˜Solemn League and Covenant´ of 1643, by which Parliament had given Presbyterianism the status of the official Church in England.
The sole difference between the Savoy Declaration and the Westminster Confession, which were verbally similar, was that the former declared a consensus of opinion amongst the Independents, whilst the latter was accepted as morally binding amongst the Presbyterians. The character of the Independent Declaration is made plain in the preface:
"˜"¦such a transaction is to be looked upon but as meet or fit medium or means whererby to express that their common faith and salvation, and no way to be made use of as an imposition upon any: whatever is of force or constraint in matters of this nature causeth them to degenerate from being Confessions of Faith, into exactions and impositions of faith

The memory of other "˜impositions´, which had brought fire and faggot in their train, was too vividly present in the minds of the Independents to allow them to repeat the mistake. The Presbyterians, however, made their Confession the basis of their Sunday afternoon catechizing.
The second substitute for a Creed was the Covenant. This was and important part of Independent church-order and worship. The first Independent Church in England, founded in 1616 under the leadership of Henry Jacob, was constituted on the basis of a covenant entered into by all the members. A day was appointed

"˜to seek ye Face of ye Lord in fasting and Prayers, wherein that particular of their Union together as a Church was mainly commended to ye Lord: in ye ending of ye Day they ware United, Thus, Those who minded this present Union & so joining together joined both hand each wth other Brother and stood in a Ringwise: their intent being declared, H. Jacob and each of the Rest made some Confession or Profession of their Faith & Repentance, some ware onger some ware briefer, Then they Covenanted together to walk in all Gods Ways as he had revealed or should make known to them.´

Later Independent Churches, founded in the days of the commonwealth, on a covenant b asis, were: Yarmouth in 1643, Norwich a year later, Walpole in 1647, Bury St Edmunds a year later, Wrentham in 1649, Woodbridge in 1651, Beccles, Guestwick and Wymondham in 1652, Bradfield probably in the same year, Wattesfield in 1654 and Denton and probably Basingtown in 1655. Jacob´s church-covenant was simple and comprehensive in form and served as the basis and model of all subsequent Independent covenants. Later examples are more elaborate. Occasionally, as in the case of the bassingtown covenant, they are more impressive. Indeed the solemnity of the latter covenant could hardly be equalled. As a prelude to the Lord´s Supper it was an equivalent to the Sanctus of venerable use. It ws read by all the members standing. It proceeds:

"˜We do in the presence of the Lord Jesus the awful crowned King of Sion and in the presence of his holy angels and people, and all beside here present Solemnly give up ourselves to the Lord and to one another by the will of God, solemnly promising & engaging in the aforesaid presence to walk with the Lord, and with one another in the observation of all Gospel Ordinances and the discharge of all relative duties in this Church of God, & elsewhere as the Lord shall enlighten and enable us.´

This solemn admission into the fellowship of Christ´s Church was the Independent substitution for Confirmation.
Covenants were not acceptable to all the Puritans. The Presbyterians never appear to have used a church-covenant. At first the Baptists protested against it. Hanserd Knollys, their accepted leader in the days of the Commonwealth, led the attack by challenging the Independents to show that the Scriptures demanded any conditions for admission to the Church other than faith in the Lordship of Christ, repentance and willingness to be baptized. There was even a difference of opinion among the Independents themselves. John Goodwin, the Independent Minister of Colman Street Church, London, was engaged in controversy on this point with Thomas Goodwin, later to be President of Magdalen College, Oxford. Gradually, however, Baptists and Independents adopted church-covenants. The first Baptist covenant is that of the Broadmead Baptist Church, Bristol, which was produced in 1640. They declared

"˜That they would, in the strength and assistance of the Lord, come forth out of the world, and worship the Lord more purely, persevering therein to their end.´

The same Chruch reformulated its covenant five years later. It is also known that in 1656 the Longsworth Baptist Church was organized on the covenant-basis. There are, however, few Baptist covenants available before the end of the seventeenth centure. This is an indication of the truth of Burrage´s contention:

"˜even as late as 1660, probably as late as 1696, the English Baptists as a body had in reality come to no settled agreement in regard to the method of organizing their churches.´

By this time, however, most Baptist Churches had their covenants.
Annexed to the taking of the covenant in the Baptist and Congregational Churches, is a ceremony peculiar to these two denominations. It is termed the "˜right hand of fellowship´. This was given by the Pastor of the Church to new members as a sign of their entry into fellowship of the Church. An account of the manner of receiving new members into the fellowship of the Independent Church at Burwell describes the ceremony thus:

"˜Then he gave them the right hand of fellowship: he took them by the right hand and said, Sister, you having given yourself to the Lord and to us by the will of God; in the name of Christ and with the consent of this church I Admit you a member of this church of the living God, and give you the right hand of fellowship, and the lord bless you in Zion.´

The same custiom was in general use amongst Baptists.
Thus, while the Presbyterians retained their veneration for the Apostle´s Creed longer than the other two Puritan denominations, they and the Independents produced a modern statement of belief. Independents and Baptists used a kind of Creed as the basis for church-membership. It was not primarily a statement of belief; it was rather a promise by members of their fidelity to Christ and his Church. Hence it was named a covenant rather than a Creed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top