In 1861, when C. H. Spurgeon opened the newly-built Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England, he preached in a structure which had a cornerstone in which a copy of The Baptist Confession of Faith had been deposited along with the Bible and a few other items (C. H. Spurgeon's Autobiography, Vol. 2, p. 323).
This Confession had been signed by such notable 17th century Baptists as Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, Benjamin Keach, and thirty-four other Baptist ministers at the \"first English Baptist General Assembly\" at which one hundred and seven churches of England and Wales were represented by \"messengers.\" The meeting was held September 3-12, 1689.
The Confession had been written in 1677. Later, after England passed the \"Act of Toleration\" in 1689, \"upwards of one hundred baptized congregations in England and Wales (denying Arminianism)\" met together in London, adopted and published this Confession. For many years thereafter, this was the standard summary of the Baptist faith in both England and America. In the American colonies, the Confession became known as The Philadelphia Confession and was printed in this country for the first time in 1743 by Benjamin Franklin. [Baptist Confessions of Faith by W. L. Lumpkin pp. 235-295; 349].
The Primitive Baptist denomination, or \"Hardshells,\" reject much of this Confession, yet they acclaim themselves to be the \"primitive,\" or \"old,\" Baptists. This is a farcical and spurious claim, as is obvious in considering the Hardshells' antipathy to the most widely used Confession in Baptist history prior to the 19th century division between the so-called \"Old School\" and \"New School\" Baptists.
Modern Hardshells Repudiate the Baptist Confession of 1689
Elder S. T. Tolley, a Primitive Baptist leading minister of Atwood, Tennessee has long been the Editor and Publisher of The Christian Baptist magazine, a periodical which obviously speaks the views of many Primitive Baptist churches and preachers. A few years ago, I had a cordial visit with brother. Tolley at his address and briefly toured the \"Christian Baptist Library\" which houses quite a collection of books, minutes, and other historical materials. I was a subscriber to this magazine, and have a collection of Elder Tolley's publication going back many years.
In one of them -- the June 1971 issue -- Elder Tolley headlines a front-page article entitled A Re-Statement of Our Faith Needed. One of the primary targets of the article is the London Confession of 1689. Here are a few excerpts from brother. Tolley's remarks:
>>
Although the \"London Confession\" does set forth much of what we believe -- it does not clearly set forth our full and proper views on several points of doctrine.
Although we do accept most of the London Confession of Faith, we certainly do NOT agree with ALL of it! And we would not agree with the wording on some of the points even though we would agree with the sentiments.
To show that the \"London Confession\" does not set forth the beliefs of Primitive Baptists in full I will here give some excerpts from it: [then follows quotes from chapters 2, 10, 14, and 15].
This quote [from chapter seven of the Confession] has overtones of \"Arminianism\" in it . . . If a Primitive Baptist preacher should set forth such a statement from his pulpit you would clearly see the clamor that it would justly provoke.
They [signatories of the London Confession] believed that the \"elect\" are ordinarily called to regeneration and salvation by the medium of the preached word. Primitive Baptists do NOT believe this.
This [chapter 10] is NOT the concept that Primitive Baptists hold relative to \"Effectual Calling.\"
Does this [chapter 14] sound like Primitive Baptists sentiment? It is not.
We believe that there will be millions of the \"elect\" saved in heaven who have never, nor will they ever, hear the gospel of the Son of God. [Tolley's comment on chapter 15, paragraph 5 of the Confession].
There are several similar expressions in the \"London Confession\" that we do not agree with, and some statements that need to be more fully explained in order to show just what is intended.
>>
