A Historical and Theological Survey of the Revisions

to the Westminster Confession of Faith Adopted by

American Presbyterian Denominations

Shawn Anderson

Westminster Standards

Dr. D.P. Murray

In 2000 I had been introduced to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I recall thinking that I knew so little about theology. Just within the first chapter there was so much to absorb, such precision, such clarity, such orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I had no idea that this confession had become styled, “the original” confession or “the 1648 version.” You can imagine my shock and confusion the first time I came upon an American version. I was trying to discuss the Assembly's doctrine of the Civil Magistrate and asked my friend to open up to the chapter of this subject in their Confession of Faith. Their “version” said something completely different which forced me to postpone that discussion.

My zeal was re-directed to defend the original Confession to which I have been faithful since the discovery of other versions. However, what I have failed to do, is take a historical look into these revisions and what circumstances surrounded them. This class has provided such an opportunity.

My intention for this paper is two-fold. First, to write a topical survey of the revisions that have been made to the Westminster Confession of Faith by mainline Presbyterian denominations. Second, to attach a chart comparing the original Confession with the revisions which still stand in the constitutions of the contemporary confessional American Presbyterian denominations. For the original Confession text I will be using the critical text of S.W. Carruthers.

It is not within the scope of this paper to cover the difference in punctuation, nor to cover every word difference, but rather to compare doctrinal differences by way of revisional substitutions, deletions or rejections. I will not be mentioning American Presbyterian denominations that agree with the original Westminster Confession, nor will I be covering such large Confessional differences between the original and that of the PCUSA, or Cumberland Presbyterians. Those would produce papers on their own.

PART 1 – A Historical Survey

1 729: Synods of New York and Philadelphia (20/23)

When looking back in American Presbyterian Church history many would begin at 1729 when the Adopting Act was that document which not only united the synods of New York and Philadelphia, but also required present ministers and future candidates for the ministry subscribe to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

To set the background to this Act, Frederick Loetscher, professor of Church History at Princeton Seminary, prepared an address to give May 24, 1929 on the 200th anniversary of this Adopting Act. He noted that,

The first American classical Presbytery was formed in the spring of 1706. In 1716 it transformed itself into a Synod, there being at that time seventeen ministers, about forty congregations, and about three thousand communicants. From the Adopting Act itself, as well as from other contemporaneous evidence, it is clear that the Westminster standards had never been formally acknowledged by either the Presbytery or the Synod, though both had made occasional references to a certain “Presbyterian constitution” and its “rules”. . . candidates were admitted to the sacred office, and ministers were received from other communions, not by subscribing the Westminster Confession, but by satisfying the Presbytery or the Synod of their fitness to become members, either by sustaining an examination or by furnishing suitable testimonials from the Churches, mostly foreign, from which they came.1

Loetscher also noted that due to the increased popularity of Deism in the foreign churches, leading to all kinds

1 Loetscher, Frederick W., D.D., LL.D.. PCA Historical Center: Address on the 200th Anniversary of the Adopting Act (1929), available from http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/subscription/200anniv.html/ (accessed Aug., 2009).

of heresies,2 as well as the lack of commitment to confessional Presbyterianism, “ministerial credentials from abroad could no longer be safely taken at their face value.” There was a conservative movement in America for the same commitment to confessional Presbyterianism and Loetscher summarizes the American struggle between 1724-29

As early as 1724 the Presbytery of New Castle had made subscription of the Confession obligatory upon all its candidates for licensure. And it was a minister of this judicatory, John Thomson, pastor since 1717 of the church of Lewes, Delaware, who presented to the Synod of 1727 an overture recommending not only adoption of the Westminster Standards by the Synod, but also subscription or equivalent acknowledgment by all candidates for the ministry and by all entrants from other communions. Some of the Welsh and native American members strenuously opposed the use of any creed as a test of orthodoxy. But the measure was again brought forward in 1728 and so strongly supported by the Scotch and Irish that, had they chosen to do so, they could have secured its adoption. But the majority, hoping that by showing a conciliatory spirit they might attain their end without rending the Church asunder, agreed to postpone the question till the next Synod, which, it was decided, should be a full and not a delegated body. A judicially chosen committee, to whom the Synod of 1729 referred the subject, brought in a unanimous report, which after long discussion was adopted without a dissenting voice, at the morning session on the nineteenth of September.3

There was not a rending of the Church asunder, but rather an adoption and a union based on such. So how did this assembly work through their particular scruples with the Confession? Note in the full text of the Adopting Act the language of “essential and necessary” articles versus “not essential and necessary” articles. The Adopting Act of 1729 states,

Although the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men's consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances, all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven, yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among as, and so handed down to our posterity; and do therefore agree that all the ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agreement in, and approbation of, the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree, that all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function but what declare his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing4 the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake, to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or governments. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them uncapable of communion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in these extra-essential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them

2 Loetscher, Ibid., “Swift and ever swifter was the downward course from Calvinism through Deism, Arianism, and Socinianism, to Unitarianism, Arminianism, and the sheer Naturalism that professed to find in Christianity only a republication of pagan morals.”

3 Loetscher, Ibid.4 I am not aware of the difference between “subscribing the Confession” versus “verbal declaration of their assent”

with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such sentiments.5

The Minutes concluded, All the ministers of this Synod now present, except one that declared himself not prepared,. . .

after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith and larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare, that they do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority; or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.6

It is unclear what this assembly meant by “essential and necessary” articles, however the term is used five times within the Act7; maybe they meant chapters 20 and 23 of the Confession. Though this is not technically a revision to any document of the Westminster Standards, their words “essential and necessary” would prove to be the license to promote revisions to the Westminster Standards by later generations.

1788: Presbyterian Church of America (20.4/23.3/31.2)

Though the Adopting Act made exceptions to chapters 20 and 23 due to the Westminster Assembly's formulation of the Civil Magistrate, they do not offer an alternative positive position in place of the statements in the Confession. It would take years to develop the new American experiment of anti-establishmentarianism. Both the Church and the State had an agenda to articulate and promote the ideal that the civil government would not make laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.8

The Constitutional Convention would adopt the US Constitution and its infamous First Amendment in 1787. In the same year, in the same month, in the same city, the Presbyterians had drafted a revision to the Westminster Confession of their own articulation of the civil magistrate's Biblical role in relationship to the Church.9

The Synod took into consideration the last paragraph of the twentieth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith; the third paragraph of the twenty-third chapter; and the first paragraph of the thirty-first chapter; and having made some alterations, agreed that the said paragraphs, as now altered, be printed for consideration, together with the draught of a plan of government and discipline. (28th May, 1787)10

What was lacking in 1729, namely an alternative positive confessional position to their exceptions regarding civil government, was adopted by the Presbyterians in 178811.

5 Presbyterian Church in the USA, and William M. Engles. Records of the Presbyterian Church ... - Google Books, 94-95, available from http://books.google.com/books?id=jdCKcqg8ZNYC&source=gbs_navlinks_s/ (accessed Aug., 2009). (emphasis mine)

6 Presbyterian Church in the USA, and William M. Engles. Ibid., 94-95.7 Visit http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/subscription/adoptingact.html for further quotes/references surrounding the Adopting Act 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 9 See Gary North's Political Polytheism, p. 543-50, documenting the parallels between the Constitutional Convention meeting and

the Presbyterian Church Synods meeting in May, 1787. One of his conclusions is that, “the Church sets the pattern for what the State does. That pair of constitutional assemblies held on May 28, 1787 – one civil, the other ecclesiastical; one beginning, the other ending — are the best representative examples in American history of how a change in the thinking of Christians parallels a change in the thinking of politicians. As the Presbyterians closed their meeting and the Framers opened theirs, the nation was turned down a path that would have been covenantally unthinkable anywhere on earth a generation earlier (except, of course, in Rhode Island). In this case, the change in men’s thinking transformed the constitutional (covenantal) foundations of both Church and State in America.” (North 1989, 550). On the Presbyterian influence at the Constitutional Convention, see James H. Smylie, 'We, the Presbyterian People: On Celebrating the Constitution of the U.S.A.,' American Presbyterians, 65 (Winter 1987). – also noted by North.

10 Presbyterian Church in the USA, and William M. Engles. Ibid., 539.11 Warfield sums the alterations, “a correct copy [of the Form of Government and Discipline] be printed, and that the Westminster

Confession of Faith, as now altered, be printed in fall along with it, as making a part of the constitution.' The alterations made at this time in

The Synod having fully considered the draught of the form of government and discipline, did, on a review of the whole, and hereby do ratify and adopt the same, as now altered and amended, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, and order the same to be considered and strictly observed as the rule of their proceedings, by all the inferior judicatories belonging to the body. And they order that a correct copy be printed, and that the Westminster Confession of Faith, as now altered, be printed in full along with it, as making a part of the constitution.

Resolved, That the true intent and meaning of the above ratification by the Synod, is, that the Form of Government and Discipline and the Confession of Faith, as now ratified, is to continue to be our constitution and the confession of our faith and practice unalterable, unless two thirds of the Presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly shall propose alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments shall be agreed to and enacted by the General Assembly. (28th May, 1788)12

And so the new American experiment was promoted and preserved jointly by both Church and State.

B.B. Warfield sums up the historical context and political opinions in which the American Presbyterians formed these alterations and sees it as a positive modification (compared to later ones),

In the new conditions of political life in free America the definition of the Westminster Confession of the relations of the civil magistrate to the Church could not fail to be thrown forward into a fierce light. As we have seen, the English Independents had already, somewhat incidentally, exscinded [removed-SA] the "intolerant" features of the Confession and had been followed in this by the Baptists: though the American Congregationalists, occupying themselves the seat of the civil magistrate, had restored the objectionable principle. The fact is that in the seventeenth century "toleration" was rather a sentiment of the oppressed than a reasoned principle of Christian ethics: while unrestricted "religious liberty" had scarcely risen on the horizon of men's thoughts. Whatever was done toward freeing the Westminster Confession from "intolerant principles" in that age was therefore fitful and unstable, and rather a measure of self-protection than the consistent enunciation of a thoroughly grasped fundamental principle. Thus it happened that the American Presbyterians were the first to prepare modifications of the Westminster Confession which turned on the precise point of the duty of universal toleration, or rather of the fundamental right of unrestricted religious liberty. The first of these modifications in the interests of the principle of religious freedom and the equality of all forms of religious faith before the law, was that made by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in 1788...Thus it has come about that practically the whole body of American Presbyterians has cleansed the Westminster Confession from every phrase which could by any form of interpretation be made to favor intolerance and has substituted the broadest assertion of religious liberty.13

1799: Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (20.4/23.3/31.2)

The Presbyterian Church of America was not the only Presbyterian body in America, just as the national church was not the only Presbyterian Church represented in Scotland. The Seceder or “Associate” Presbyterians and Covenanter or “Reformed” Presbyterians had pockets of societies and congregations established in America as well, though were a great minority here. And it was being in the minority that caused them to form a union into the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in 1782. In that year they also adopted exceptions, already taken by others, to the Confession. Scouler gives the history,

On Thursday, the 31st of October, 1872, the Synod of the Associate Reformed Church was

the Doctrinal Standards consisted, in the Confession of Faith, in omitting the last clause of chap, xx, §4 ('and by the power of the Civil Magistrate'), recasting chap, xxiii, 3, adding a sentence to xxxi, 1, and omitting xxxi, 2...and in the Larger Catechism, in omitting the words 'tolerating a false religion' in Q. 109.” (Warfield The Printing of the Confession of Faith, 78) Note that 'tolerating a false religion' was no longer considered a violation of the second commandment for the civil magistrate.

12 Presbyterian Church in the USA, and William M. Engles. Ibid., 546.13 B.B. Warfield, The Printing of the Westminster Confession... - Google Books, 384, available from

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jl_5aqqrQUAC&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_navlinks_s/ (accessed Aug., 2009).

formally organized, and the Rev. Dr. John Mason, of New York, was elected as its first moderator. Nine ministers and six ruling elders were present...

The most important business in which the Synod engaged was the consideration of the eight articles agreed upon by the Convention which preceded the Synod. These were discussed seriatim, "and after serious deliberation and solemn prayer" were unanimously adopted "as proper to display the principles upon which we intend to act." They were as follows:

I. It is the resolution of this Synod to persevere in adhering to the system of truth contained in the Holy Scriptures, exhibited in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, larger and shorter, and to the fundamental principles of gospel worship, and ecclesiastical government agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the assistance of commissioners from the church of Scotland. This declaration, however, does not extend to the following sections of the Confession of Faith, which define the power of civil government in relation to religion : Chap. XX, sec. 4, Chap. XXIII, sec. 3, Chap. XXXI, sec. 2. These sections are reserved for a candid discussion on some future occasion as God shall be pleased to direct. Nor is it to be construed as a resignation of our rights to adjust the circumstances of public worship and ecclesiastical policy to the station in which Divine Providence may place us. All the members of the Synod acknowledge in the meanwhile that they are under the most sacred obligations to avoid unnecessary criticism upon any of these excellent treatises, which would have a native tendency to weaken their attachment to the truths therein contained. If any of the members of the Synod shall conceive any scruples at any article or articles of the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, Directory of Worship, or Form of Presbyterian Church Government, or shall think they have sufficient reason to make objections thereto, they shall have full liberty to communicate their scruples or objections to their brethren, who shall consider them with impartiality, meekness and patience, and endeavor to remove them by calm, dispassionate reasoning. No kind of censure shall be inflicted in cases of this nature, unless those scrupling and objecting brethren shall disturb the peace of the church by publishing their. opinions to the people, or by urging them in judicatories with irritating and schismatic zeal.1415

Note the similarities with the Adopting Act of 1729. Scruples shall be shared and considered by the brethren of the court, but are not to be publicly aired in publications. Also, while exceptions to the Confession were marked, there was not an alternative positive position articulated; yet a qualification was given to aid the conscience of the membership of this church. These sections were reserved for discussion so that by implication a positive position could be announced and adopted at a later date. Those alterations would come in 179816 and in 1799 the Associate Reformed Synod would announce,

The Westminster Confession of Faith, with the Catechisms Larger and Shorter, having been formerly received by this Synod, with a reservation for future discussion of the doctrine respecting the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion; and the said doctrine being now modified in a manner more agreeable to the word of God, to the nature of the Christian Church, and to the principles of civil society, the Synod do explicitly receive the aforesaid Confession and Catechisms, with the doctrine concerning the civil magistrate, as now stated in the twentieth, twenty-third, and thirty-first chapters of the Confession, as the system of doctrine which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner-stone. And the Synod do hereby

14 James Brown Scouller, A Manual of the United Presbyterian Church of North America,... - Google Books, 39-40, available from http://books.google.com/books?id=rmjUAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s/ (accessed Aug., 2009). (emphasis mine)

15 They also removed “papists” from ch. 24 para. 3.16 “It will be recollected that in the first article of the Little Constitution, where adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith is

professed, the Synod expressly excepted those sections of Chapters 20 and 23 and 31, which define the power of civil government in relation to religion, and reserved them 'for a candid discussion on some future occasion as God shall be pleased to direct.' These sections were under discussion at several meetings of the Synod, and in 1798 it was resolved to alter the text of the Confession so as to free it from all Erastianism, and make the church independent of the State in all matters of government and discipline. At the same time and for the same purpose the word authorizing was substituted for the word tolerating in the enumeration of the sins forbidden by the second commandment, as given in the Larger Catechism.” (Scouller Manual of the United Presbyterian Church, 47-48)

declare, that the aforesaid Confession and Catechisms, as herein received, contain the true and genuine doctrine of the ASSOCIATE REFORMED CHURCH; and that no tenet contrary thereto, or to any part thereof, shall be countenanced in this church.17

This union of Associate Presbyterians and Reformed Presbyterians did not bring two churches into one Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), but rather formed three churches due to the fact that not all the members of the two denominations entered into the union. The ARPC would again unite denominations from the northern branch of the ARPC and majority of the Associate Presbyterian Church (APC) to form the United Presbyterian Church (UPCNA) in 1858. This body received the confessional revisions of the ARPC (1799), and adopted the APC Judicial Testimony (1855), which “covered important subjects which had not been embraced in the Confession, or not sufficiently elaborated to meet present circumstances.”18 It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with these revisions in detail, mainly because the UPCNA united with what is now the PCUSA, and their constitution is no longer upheld by any ecclesiastical body in America.

1887: Presbyterian Church in the USA (24.4)

The Minutes of 1887 of the PCUSA records a new revision to the Confession regarding marriage,Your Committee report that, in response to the following Overture, " Shall Chapter xxiv, Section

4, of the Confession of Faith, be amended by striking out the last period thereof, namely, ' The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own ?'"—one hundred and fifty-six (156) Presbyteries have answered in the affirmative, and eleven (11) have answered in the negative; four (4) have taken no action, and thirty-one (31) have made no report.

In view of this action upon the part of the Presbyteries, your Committee would recommend the adoption of the following:

Whereas, One hundred and fifty-six (156) Presbyteries, being more than two-thirds of the Presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly, have, in writing, approved of an amendment to Chapter xxiv, Section 4, of the Confession of Faith, by striking out the last period thereof; therefore, be it enacted by the General Assembly that the following words: " The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than her own," be and are hereby stricken from Chapter xxiv, Section 4, of the Confession of Faith.

HENRY C. CAMERON, Chairman.

The Report was adopted, and Chapter xxiv, Section 4, was referred to the same Committee to consider and report if any further action is necessary to accomplish the purpose aimed at.

The Moderator declared the last paragraph of Chapter xxiv, Section 4, of the Confession of Faith, no longer a part of the Standards of the Church.

This is the first time we see this confessional revision on a subject besides the civil magistrate.19 There is only a deletion and no alternative positive statement. I only note one other interesting fact that Samuel Lowrie pointed out in an article in the Presbyterian Review a year after this adoption,

Yet it hardly becomes us to pass censure on our predecessors in this matter, in view of what has

17 Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. “Standards”, available from http://www.arpsynod.org/standards.html (accessed Aug., 2009).

18 Scouller, Ibid., 85ff.19 I am not sure of the multitude of state laws regarding marriages of affinity at this time, though it would be interesting to see if there

was any influence that the State had on the Church.

lately been done in the same sphere, since the General Assembly of May, 1887. We all know that the first change made in the Confession of Faith since its adoption by our Church, in 1788, was ordered by that Assembly. We refer to the erasure of the clause in chap. 24, § 4, relating to marriage of a deceased wife's sister. Agreeably to that order, our Board of Publication has promptly furnished an impression of (he Confession of Faith with that clause left out. But it has left in the accustomed place on the page the proof texts hitherto annexed to that clause, and simply transferred the little r to the foregoing clause, to which the texts annexed have no relevancy whatever. We are not able to give an account of the agency in producing this curious and not creditable result, though it belongs to our subject But there must be some one near at hand that can supply the omission.20

1903: Presbyterian Church in the USA (3/10.3/16.7/22.3/25.6/34-35)

Not only articles and essays, but large volumes have been written on the revisions of 1903. Therefore, I will only be giving a cursory overview mostly citing official minutes and opinions that stand out amidst this great debate in Presbyterian history.

John H. Leith describes the background to the revisions of 1903,The modern era in interpreting the Confession had its beginning in the controversy concerning

Scripture which erupted in the 1880s. This debate was sharply focused on the pages of the Presbyterian Review (1880-1889), which was edited by Charles Briggs of Union Theological Seminary (New York) and A.A. Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield of Princeton Theological Seminary. Briggs welcomed the critical historical study of the Scripture. In reaction to these developments, Hodge and Warfield defended a doctrine of the inerrancy of the original manuscripts when interpreted in their natural and intended sense, to which they gave classic expression in an article “Inspiration” published in the April 1881 issue of the Presbyterian Review. In this debate concerning the Bible, Briggs as well as Hodge and Warfield appealed to the Westminster Confession. Briggs contended that Hodge and Warfield interpreted the Confession in terms of the theology of Turretin and not in terms of the writers' intention. (Documentary History of the Westminster Assembly', Presbyterian Review, January, 1880; Whither? (1889); How Shall We Revise the Westminster Confession? (1890).)21

The writings of Briggs encouraged revision to the Confession in the name of progress, after all they were approaching a new century. The progressive party was encouraged to move forward, the old school party was shocked and frustrated on the apparent attack on not only the Confession, but the Bible, and all Presbyterians were caught up in the debate.

In 1891, according to D.G. Hart and John Muether22, Briggs crossed the line in an address regarding the Scripture, by declaring that, so far as he could see, “there are errors in the Scriptures that no one has been able to explain away; and the theory that they are not in the original text is a sheer assumption.” He was declared guilty of heresy, suspended from the ministry and vetoed from his chair at Union by the majority in the Assembly.

Union did not remove Briggs but instead removed the institution from oversight of the Presbyterian Church. The real agenda of Briggs and the New York Presbytery came out in a New York Times column against that “terrible doctrine” under guise of reporting on the Briggs case. It was noted that the New York Presbytery wanted to “de-Calvinize” the Church, and so to de-Confession the Church became their public agenda.

20 Samuel T. Lawrie, "VII. Historical Note: An Account of the Scripture Proofs Attached to the Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism," Presbyterian Review July, vol. 9 (1888), http://books.google.com/books?id=hp7NAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s/ (accessed Aug., 2009).

21 John H. Leith, “The Westminster Confession in American Presbyterianism,” in The Westminster Confession in the Church Today, ed. Alasdair I.C. Heron (Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1982), 96.

22 D.G. Hart and John Meuther, "Turning Points in American Presbyterianism, Part 8: Confessional Revision in 1903," New Horizons, Aug.,/September (2005), http://www.opc.org/TurningPoints.html (accessed Aug., 2009).

There is really no dispute that the doctrine of "preterition" is distinctly embodied in the Westminster Confession of Faith any more than that it is revolting to educated and humane and Christian persons at the present day...The Confession of Faith cannot be modernized without being "de-Calvinized,"...Really, it seems that it is time to abandon the notion cherished by the conservative reformers "of revising our Confession of Faith without impairing in the least our system of doctrine." The Confession of Faith as it stands is a consistent and rigorously logical document, repulsive as it may be to modern minds. To inject into it statements ascribing philanthropy and benevolence to the Being whom it so powerfully and awfully depicts is to deprive it both of consistency and logic. There does not seem to be any tenable middle ground between those who hold to the Confession as it is and those who propose simply to expunge from the creed of the Church the statement of the most discouraging and misanthropic doctrines. Many members of the New York Presbytery have openly declared in favor of this course.23

This only delayed the push for revision to the Confession, but by the turn of the century the agenda was hotly pursued again. Their was a prevalent tenacious desire to rid the Church of the “harsh” doctrine of predestination by the “liberal” party. And not only election offend, but the even the positive statement that, “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,” was not gracious enough. Again the New York Times printed a scathing column on the God of the Confession,

...Suppose that there were none of the glamour of an inherited tradition about the Westminster Confession, and a plain man of the end of the nineteenth century were asked as to what he thought of such a "plank" as this:

The rest of mankind GOD was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth of withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to reprobation and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

Such a person might say, in the language of the legendary American who was confronted with the doctrine of eternal damnation, "Why, Sir, our people wouldn't stand it." Or he might reply, in the authentic language of the late JOHN STUART MILL, "There is one thing that a God of that character, omnipotent as you call him, cannot do, and that is to compel me to worship him."

Such a modern man would regard it as an impeachment of his own character for humanity and decency that he "believed in" such a God. It is not alone that the Deity of the Westminster Confession has grown incredible, it is also that He has grown revolting to the modern man.24

Within 3 years a new Confession had replaced at least twenty-five percent of the original creed, and that actually represented an accommodation between the differing parties. Not only were revisions to the Confession made, but a “Declaratory Statement” was also amended to the Confession to qualify their doctrine of election and predestination, in chapters 3 and 10, in such a way that while some viewed the statement as Arminianizing the Confession,25 and others viewed it to be an affirmation of the text and in-line with both the Confession and Biblical language,26 all could agree that they would maintain their personal convictions despite the Presbyterian Church's creedal position which was now vague and meaningless and therefore didn't really

23 “Dr. Briggs and Revision,” New York Times, November 18, 1891, available at: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9803EEDF133AE533A2575BC1A9679D94609ED7CF (accessed Aug., 2009)

24 “The Presbyterian Creed,” New York Times, April 22, 1900, available at: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A02E5D81E3CE433A25751C2A9629C946197D6CF (accessed Aug., 2009)

25 See Hart and Mueller, Ibid., on the comments of Lefferts Loetscher.26 B.B. Warfield, “The Confession of Faith as Revised in 1903,” Union Seminary Magazine - Google Books." Vol. 16, no. 1. available

at: http://books.google.com/books?id=RogfAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed Aug., 2009).

bind anyone to anything. Here is the text:While the ordination vow of ministers, ruling elders and deacons, as set forth in the Form of

Government, requires the reception and adoption of the Confession of Faith only as containing the System of Doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, nevertheless, seeing that the desire has been formally expressed for a disavowal by the Church of certain inferences drawn from statements in the Confession of Faith, and also for a declaration of certain aspects of revealed truth which appear at the present time to call for more explicit statement, therefore the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America does authoritatively declare as follows :

First, With reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of His love to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and His readiness to bestow His saving grace on all who seek it. That concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all and freely offered in the Gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God's gracious offer; that His decree hinders no man from accepting that offer ; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin.

Second, With reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases.

As to revisions in the Confession, the minutes read,4. Resolved, That Overture No. 4, having received the affirmative vote of 221 Presbyteries,

submitted in writing, be and hereby is agreed to and enacted by this General Assembly, and that the Standing Committee on Editions of the Confession be directed to append footnotes to Chapter III and to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession, reading “See Declaratory Statement, p. ,” and to print the Preamble and the two sections of the Declaratory Statement as one document, after the new Chapters XXXIV and XXXV, at the end of the Confession of Faith.

5. Resolved, That Overture No. 5, having received the affirmative vote of 218 Presbyteries, submitted in writing, be and hereby is agreed to and enacted by this General Assembly, and we declare that Section 7, Chapter XVI, of the Confession of Faith is changed so as to read :

“VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and in themselves praiseworthy and useful, and although the neglect of such things is sinful and displeasing unto God; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to His Word, nor to a right end, the glory of God; they come short of what God requires and do not make any man meet to receive the grace of God.”

6. Resolved, That Overture No. 6, having received the affirmative vote of 215 Presbyteries, submitted in writing, be and hereby is agreed to and enacted by this General Assembly, and we declare that the last clause in Section 3, Chapter XXII, of the Confession of Faith is stricken out of the Confession, viz.: “Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.”

7. Resolved, That Overture No. 7, having received the affirmative vote of 220 Presbyteries, submitted in writing, be and hereby is agreed to and enacted by this General Assembly, and we declare that Section 6, Chapter XXV, of the Confession of Faith is changed so as to read:

“VI. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and tho claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Resolutions 8-10 add a preamble and two new chapters to the Confession, entitled, “XXXIV: Of the Holy Spirit” and “XXXV: Of the Love of God and Missions” each with 4 paragraphs.27

The major and most obvious fruit of this revision would be two-fold. For the conservative party, they feared losing more ground and so they bought into the theory of “essential and necessary” doctrines. While they did not actively abandon the principles of a confessional Christianity, they began to move toward defining and clinging to the fundamentals of the faith so that they could not be lost or revised as well. However this was stepping away from their confession, and in 1910, they would identify five essentials in their summary, “Doctrinal Deliverance”. For the progressive party the experiment was successful, and the Creed that could be manipulated could later be replaced and eventually be removed.

During the Auburn Affirmation in 1925 the liberals would attack even these fundamentals and the Assembly would capitulate noting that they could not establish essential and necessary doctrines. This meant that men who could not affirm the virgin birth or inerrancy of Scripture could still be ordained in the Presbyterian Church. The irony is that the Adopting Act declared that, “if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them uncapable of communion with them.”

1936: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (20.4/22.3/23.3/25.6/31.2)

Gresham Machen contended for Reformed Confessional Orthodox Christianity for years in the Presbyterian Church. Hart and Meuther point out that not only did he begin to edit The Presbyterian Guardian, but also by his hand, “Westminster Seminary was founded in 1929. The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions was formed in 1933, and Machen and his associates were tried in 1934 for their involvement with it. The 1936 General Assembly denied his appeal and defrocked him and other ministers.”28

This Presbyterian Church of America would change its name to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1939 after some battles in the civil courts. And regarding their adoption of the Westminster Confession, they have a Report of the Committee on the Constitution 29 available, as well as a brief explanation of their adoption of the Confession and Catechisms which states,

The Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on August 27, 1647, and (together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms) has served as one of the doctrinal standards, subordinate to the Word of God, for Presbyterian churches since that time. As an American Presbyterian church, the OPC descended from the Presbyterian Church USA and inherited revisions to the Confession made prior to 1900, some of which were ratified by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia as early as 1788. The OPC did not adopt the revisions to the Confession made by the PCUSA in 1903 (notably, new chapters entitled "Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Love of God, and Missions"; and a "Declaratory Statement" softening the Confession's position on election), except for deletions in chapters 22 (about refusing a lawful oath) and 25 (about the Pope being the Antichrist). (For further information see the Report of the Committee on the Constitution submitted to the Second General Assembly [1936].) Aside from minor spelling changes, the OPC made no revisions to the text of the Shorter Catechism. The Larger Catechism was adopted with the deletion of the phrase

27 Presbyterian Church in the USA. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church … - Google Books, Vol. III, No. 2, 1903. 124-127. available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=S4BJAAAAMAAJ&printsec (accessed, Aug., 2009)

28 Hart and Muether, Ibid., http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=9 (accessed Aug., 2009)29 Available online at: http://www.opc.org/GA/constitution.html

"tolerating a false religion" in answer 109.

Though the American revisions to the Confession of Faith are not insignificant, yet, compared to the total length of the Confession, they are quite minor, involving 145 words out of 12,063.30

1938: The Bible Presbyterian Church (20.4/22.3/23.3/25.6/31.2/32.2-3/33.1)

Though there was unity over confessional statements in the OPC, there were peripheral doctrinal debates that surrounded Premillennialism, Dispensationalism, and abstention from alcohol.31 As Hart and Meuther record, “One minister in the new church who was keenly interested in maintaining continuity with the American Presbyterian past was Carl McIntire.” His ultimate concern was that the leaders positioned in the OPC seminary, Westminster, were not of American Presbyterian stock,

For his part, McIntire warned that the new church, like the old church, was in danger of being overtaken by an "unpresbyterian machine." That machine was located primarily at Westminster Seminary, whose faculty, including Murray, Kuiper, Ned B. Stonehouse, and Van Til (a Scotsman and three Dutchmen), was out of touch with the American Presbyterian tradition and unable to lead a continuing American Presbyterian church. The charge was pointedly made by Professor Allan A. MacRae. When he resigned from the Westminster faculty, he described his former colleagues as "a small alien group without American Presbyterian background."32

In 1937, McIntire and others left the OPC and formed the Bible Presbyterian Church. They were convinced that to be spiritual successors of American Presbyterianism they would have to adopt the latest standards of the PCUSA and maintain a New School interpretation of subscription. In their articles of Association, they declared their belief regarding the Confession of Faith,

We believe the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We reaffirm our faith in the system of doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms in the form in which they stood in the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in May, 1936. We propose to amend those standards in any particular in which the premillennial teaching of the Scriptures may be held to be obscured. We affirm our belief in the fundamental principles of Presbyterian Church polity.33

So they maintained the PCUSA's revisions and Declaratory Statement though they did not accept the additional chapters 34 and 35. They further amended chapters 32 and 33 of the Confession to reflect their premillennial convictions.34

30 Taken from the OPC website, available at: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html (accessed Aug., 2009)31 In an article by Christopher K. Lensch, Historical Backgrounds of the Bible Presbyterian Church, he notes 5 distinctives during the

time of separation from the PCUSA:1. A patriotic nationalism as opposed to the Old School’s emphasis on the superiority of Christ’s present spiritual

kingdom. While not denying Christ’s present spiritual kingdom, premillennial BPs look for the consummation of God’s plan in Christ’s messianic kingdom and beyond. They can hardly be accused of being pessimistic ostriches with their heads in the sand as they practice a spirit of “occupying until Christ comes”;

2. Involvement in national moral reforms. Key concerns for the New School of the 1800s were abolition and prohibition, and for the BPC it has been the latter issue;

3. A general preference for doing the work of the church through independent agencies rather than denominational boards or commissions;

4. A willing desire to cooperate with other conservative denominations outside of our confessional tradition, especially in efforts to counterbalance apostate and compromising church bodies; and

5. Revivalism, the hallmark of the New School. BPs have always made a conscious effort to appeal in preaching to unregenerate hearts, and have occasionally used evangelistic rallies. There has been a move away from “altar calls” that shift the focus from the work of God’s Spirit to the decision of the troubled sinner. Of late there also has been an effort to balance revivalism with an emphasis on covenantalism. The biblical promises of the covenant as articulated in the Westminster Confession emphasize God’s dealing, not just with individuals, but with families, and corporate spiritual families (congregations).

32 Hart and Muether, Ibid.33 Taken from an, Article from Christian Beacon of August 31, 1939, available at: http://www.bpc.org/about/history.html 34 Walter Lee Lingle, and John W. Kuykendall, Presbyterians, Their History and Beliefs (Atlanta: John Knox Press,1978), 95.

1940-67: Confessional Revisions to Promote Presbyterian & Reformed Unity

There was a surge of attempts to promote ecumenical relationships and potential mergers between Presbyterian and Reformed denominations for the next 30 years. According to Chris Coldwell, “Both the PCUSA (in 1953) and the PCUS (in 1963) rewrote the original chapter 24 on marriage and divorce.”35

Also the United Presbyterian Church in North America (UPCNA) merged with the largest northern Presbyterian body, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA) in 1958. In this union the UPCNA's “distinctive language on these chapters was dropped in favor of the PCUSA texts”36 as well as the rewritten chapter 24 and the PCUSA's Declaratory Statement.

A similar union was being considered in the South. The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church was looking into possible mergers with the Presbyterian Church (U.S) and the UPCNA, though in 1951 the idea was rejected after a 2 year study.37 In 1959, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church adopted the first clause of the Declaratory Statement regarding chapter 3. They also adopted notes regarding 20:4, 29:3, 31:2, and they adopted the additional chapters 34 and 35.38 It would appear that they were seeking greater confessional unity with other Presbyterian denominations.

In 1967, the UPCUSA would conclude a work that was sought after since the 1950s. One account records the synodical process:

The 168th General Assembly (1956) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA) received an overture asking that the Westminster Shorter Catechism be revised. The 170th General Assembly (1958) proposed instead that the church draw up a "brief contemporary statement of faith." A committee labored at the task seven years. The 177th General Assembly (1965) (UPCUSA) vigorously discussed the committee’s proposal and sent an amended draft to the church for study. Sessions, congregations, and presbyteries suggested changes and additions. In response, a newly appointed Committee of Fifteen made revisions. The 178th General Assembly (1966) (UPCUSA) debated this draft, accepted it, and forwarded it to the presbyteries for final ratification. After extensive debate, more than 90 percent of the presbyteries voted approval. Final adoption came at the 179th General Assembly (1967) (UPCUSA).39

In D.G. Hart's history of the Presbyterian Church in America, he provides another side to the account:The full measure of the significance of the Confession of 1967 must take into account other

confessional changes by the UPCUSA. The church did not replace the Westminster Confession, but rather joined it and several other confessions in The Book of Confessions. The UPCUSA now received multiple documents from the ancient church (Nicene and Apostles' Creeds), the Reformation (Scots Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, and Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism), and the modern church (Barmen Declaration and Confession of 1967). Presbyterians united them in one book to remind the church of the cloud of witnesses from its Christian heritage, and also to remind it that no single creed could capture the fullness of the Christian faith, because each of them was a product of particular historical circumstances. For Van Til and other critics, however, The Book of Confessions was a book of discord-a collection of mutually exclusive gospels.

35 Chris Coldwell, The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms: A Critical Edition (Unpublished), 242-43. (accessed Aug., 2009)

36 Coldwell, Ibid., 232. Referring to chapters 20,23 and 31.37 H. Neely Gaston, "A Brief History of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and Erskine Theological Seminary," The

Christian Observer, March 1, (2009), http://christianobserver.org/a-brief-history-of-the-associate-reformed-presbyterian-church-and-erskine-theological-seminary/ (accessed Sept., 2009).

38 Coldwell, Ibid., 27,37,160,223,232,236,239.39 Taken from the website of First Presbyterian Church of Eldorado, TX, available at: http://jesusdiedfor.us/1967.htm (accessed

Sept., 2009)

The overt conflicts among these various creeds were resolved by rewriting the church's ordination vows. Presbyterian officers were now required to perform their ecclesiastical duties "under the authority of the Scriptures and the guidance of the confessions" of the church (emphasis added). No longer were they to receive confessional standards as "containing the system of doctrine found in Scripture."

By making these changes, the PCUSA arguably abandoned its confessional identity, because the confession no longer bound the officers of the church by determining what was within or beyond the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. The new role of the confessions (as Presbyterians learned to express them in the plural) was to instruct, to lead, and to guide. If Presbyterians sympathetically studied how the faith was once confessed in these windows into their Reformed heritage, they would be better equipped to confess their faith today.

The Confession of 1967, then, marked the end of the Northern Presbyterian Church as a confessional church. In Clowney's memorable phrase, the Confession of 1967 relegated the Westminster standards to a creedal museum, its value restricted to its historical significance. Van Til added that the mainline church would recognize the Westminster Confession as much as modern highways would permit the traffic of Amish buggies.40

It may also be significant to note that a denomination was formed based upon a split from both the northern and southern Presbyterian churches in 1981. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church maintained this non-confessional stance summarized in their motto, “In Essentials, Unity. In Non-Essentials, Liberty. In All Things, Charity; Truth In Love.” In the spirit of the Adopting Act of 1729, they established a list of “The Essentials of our Faith” which has become the basis of their union. They also have a modernized version of the Confession, “The Westminster Confession of Faith: An Authentic Modernized Version” by Douglas F. Kelly, Hugh W. McClure III, and Philip B. Rollinson.

1973: The Presbyterian Church in America

Just as the OPC came out of the Northern Presbyterian Church in defense of the historic Confessional standard of the Church, so in the Southern Presbyterian Church a denomination emerged in 1973 based on similar grounds. From their own denominational website, they state in their history:

Organized at a constitutional assembly in December 1973, this church was first known as the National Presbyterian Church but changed its name in 1974 to Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). It separated from the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern) in opposition to the long-developing theological liberalism which denied the deity of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Additionally, the PCA held to the traditional position on the role of women in church offices.

In December 1973, delegates, representing some 260 congregations with a combined communicant membership of over 41,000 that had left the PCUS, gathered at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and organized the National Presbyterian Church, which later became the Presbyterian Church in America.41

Regarding their adoption of the Confession of Faith, their Constitutional Preface states:The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that

were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope

40 Hart and Muether, Ibid., http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=59 (accessed Aug., 2009)41 PCA: A Brief History, available at http://www.pcanet.org/general/history.htm (accessed Sept., 2009)

as the antichrist (XXV,6).

Other than these changes, and the American amendments of Chapter XXIII on the civil magistrate (adopted in 1789), this is the Confession and Catechisms as agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster which met from 1643-1647. The Caruthers edition of the Confession and Catechisms, which is based upon the original manuscript written by Cornelius Burgess is the Edition presented to and adopted by the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.

In addition to the Confession, we have included with permission of the Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in the United States a historical sketch entitled "The Origin and Formation of the Westminster Confession of Faith." This statement was first ordered printed by the 1906 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. It has been revised only in the last two paragraphs as it refers to the Presbyterian Church in America.42

1980 marks the last Confession revision made by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA). The Covenanter Presbyterians had a long standing tradition of uniting a Testimony to their Constitutional standards. However in 1980, they would fix additional comments to the Confession. Though the Testimony is beyond the scope of this survey, it is significant enough to point out that in the Testimony there are 3 rejections of the Confession of Faith. They include:

1) Rejection of 23:3, after the colon.43

2) Rejection of the last sentence of 24:4 - “The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.” With the further argument given, “The prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s brother is not warranted by Scripture. Lev. 18:18; Deut. 25:5-10.”44

3) Rejection of 31:245

The last revision to the Confession was in 2001, when the ARPC adopted the deletion to 24:4 following the example of the other American Presbyterian denominations.

PART 2 – A Theological Survey

In this section I will use a chart to display the original text of the Confession, represented by the critical text of S.W. Carruthers, and then the comparative revision of the particular Presbyterian denomination. I will bold the original text and underline the revised texts to reflect the differences. Again ARPC and EPC have added Ch. 34 – Of the Holy Spirit; and Ch. 35 – Of the Gospel of the Love of God and Missions, which I will not provide here for sake of space.

WCF Ch. 1 – Of the Holy Scripture: 1) In para. 8 the ARPC attaches a note with a modern definition of the word “vulgar”.

CARR 1:8 The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be

42 PCA: COF Preface, available at http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_preface.htm (accessed Sept., 2009)43 Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, available at http://reformedpresbyterian.org/download/

constitution.pdf (accessed Sept., 2009), A-73.44 Constitution RPCNA, Ibid., A-82.45 Constitution RPCNA, Ibid., A-101.

translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.ARPC note (a) Relating to Chapter I, paragraph 8 – "The language of every people" is a better statement of

the meaning than the use of the word "vulgar."

WCF Ch. 3 – Of God's Eternal Decree: 1) The BPC adopted an edited version to the Declaratory Statement.2) The ARPC adopted the original Declaratory Statement to chapter 3.3) In para. 5 the ARPC attaches a modern definition to the word “mere”.

ARPC note (b) [ Declaratory Statement ] Relating to Chapter III- "Concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it. Concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God's gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin."

BPC [ Declaratory Statement Ch. 3] First, its firm and glad belief in the reality and universality of the offer of the Gospel to mankind. We believe that Christ's atonement is sufficient for the sins of all, adapted to all, and is freely offered to all men in the Gospel. We believe that no man will be condemned except upon the ground of his sin. Second, with regard to the salvation of those dying in infancy we do not regard our Confession as teaching or implying that any who die in infancy are lost.

CARR 3:5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: and all to the praise of His glorious grace.ARPC note (c) Relating to Ch. III, para. 5 – "The word, mere, herein used should be interpreted with the

force of alone."

WCF Ch. 7 – Of God's Covenant with Man: 1) The APC edits this section extensively with additional paragraphs.

APC 7.1 (new) Before the foundation of the world the persons of the Godhead made the Trinitarian Covenant to bring to pass the theocratic kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

CARR 7:2 The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.APC 7.3 The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam

and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. In the family covenant which God also instituted with Adam, the family unit was established as the basis of society to populate the earth with a godly seed and to gain dominion over it.

CARR 7:3 Man, by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. APC 7.4 Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by the covenant of works, the Lord was

pleased to make another, called the Edenic, wherein he promised that Jesus Christ, the seed of the

woman, would redeem man by his blood, cover them with his righteousness, and destroy their enemy Satan.

APC 7.5 (new) After unrestrained wickedness culminated in the judgments of the flood, God made a covenant with Noah establishing civil government to enforce the second table of the law and restrain wickedness, and promising to spare the earth from utter destruction so that human society might be preserved and the purpose of the family be realized until Christ, the Seed, should come and the elect be gathered.

APC 7.6 (new) To provide for the spiritual welfare of the family, God made a covenant with Abraham establishing the visible church, wherein he would be their God and they would be his people, and promised that in his seed, the Christ, would all families of the earth be blessed. God also promised that a great nation and kings would come from him, and to him and his seed the land of Canaan would be given in order to fulfill his purpose of the theocratic kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

APC 7.7 (new) In furtherance of God's purpose a covenant was made with Israel, the elect nation, at Sinai, placing them in a theocratic relationship and giving them provisional possession of the land of promise upon condition of national obedience to the law.

APC 7.8 (new) In partial fulfillment of the terms of the Abrahamic covenant God established an everlasting covenant with David, the king, to provide out of his seed a theocratic king, the Christ, who would sit on David's throne and rule over the elect nation forever in a new earth wherein dwells righteousness.

APC 7.9 (new) Israel broke the covenant that God made with them at Sinai; therefore, he made a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, established on better promises, whereby he would call to himself a holy nation. This covenant, initiated by Christ and sealed with his blood, replaced the Sinaitic and was extended to include the Gentiles, who by faith were grafted into the elect nation, thus breaking down the middle wall of partition.

WCF Ch. 10 – Of Effectual Calling: 1) In para.3 the BPC adopted an edited version of the Declaratory Statement regarding infants that die in their infancy.2) In para. 4 the ARPC added a note to qualify the that they agree with the spirit of the doctrine though they believe the wording to be coarse in “expression and phraseology”.

CARR 10:3 Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.BPC [Declaratory Statement Ch. 10] Second: with regard to the salvation of those dying in infancy we do

not regard our Confession as teaching or implying that any who die in infancy are lost

CARR 10:4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.ARPC 10.4 note (k) Relating to Chapters X:4; XXII:7; XXIII:4; XXIV:3; XXIX:2-"While the Church

admits to the coarseness of expression and phraseology in these passages, nevertheless it continues to adhere to the sentiment herein expressed."

WCF Ch. 15 – Of Repentance unto Life: 1) In para. 5 the EPC dropped the word “particularly” at the end of the sentence.

CARR 15:5 Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavour to repent of his particular sins, particularly.EPC 15.5 Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to

endeavor to repent of his particular sins.

WCF Ch. 20 – Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience: 1) In para. 2 the phrase “if matters of faith or worship” in the original WCF is changed to “in matters of faith and worship” in the ARPC, BPC, and APC versions. (see footnote)46

2) In para. 3 the APC name drinking alcohol and Sabbath-breaking as examples of sins that they believe other Christians might consider Christian liberty. 3) In para. 4 the PCA dropped the phrase, “and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.”4) The OPC, BPC, APC and EPC just dropped the phrase, “and by the power of the civil magistrate.” 5) The ARPC edited para. 4 and added a note regarding the separation of powers between the institutions of church and state in democratic societies.

CARR 20:2 God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.ARPC 20.2 God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments

of men which are in anything contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship...BPC 20.2 God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of

men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship...APC 20.2 God alone is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of

men which are in anything contrary to his Word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship...

CARR 20:3 They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practise any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord, without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.APC 20.3 They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin or cherish any lust, such as the

use of alcoholic beverages and desecration of the Sabbath day, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

CARR 20:4 And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and

46S.W. Carruthers, The Westminster confession of faith: being an account of the preparation and printing of its seven leading editions; to which is appended a critical text of the confession with notes thereon (Greenville, South Carolina: Reformed Academic Press, 1995), 127-128.

“T h i s d o u b l e e r r o r i s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n t h e w h o l e Co nf e s si o n . It h a s o b s c u r e d a d i s ti n c ti o n o f g r e a t s i g n ifi c a n c e , w h i c h i d p e rf e c tl y e v i d e n t i n Dilli n g h a m ' s tr a n s l a ti o n : ' u b i a u t v e r b o ej u s a d v e r s a n t u r a u t i n r e b u s fi d e i e t c u lt u s q u i c q u a m e i s u p e r a d d u n t,' e v e n t h o u g h t h a t v e r s i o n h a s t h e c o m m a a n d t h e p r e p o s iti o n w h i c h h a v e d o n e t h e m i s c h i e f i n t h e En gli s h v e r s i o n . T h e d i v i n e s’ a r g u m e n t i s t h i s: m e n a r e fr e e i n a l l t h i n g s d i r e c tl y c o n t r a r y t o Go d’s w o r d ; b u t, i n a d d i ti o n , if t h e q u e s ti o n i s o n e o f f ait h o r w o r s h i p, t h e y a r e fr e e i n m a t t e r s n o t st at e d i n t h e w o r d .

T h e d i s ti n c ti o n b e t w e e n m a t t e r s c i v il a n d r e l i g i o u s, a n d t h e g r e a t d o c t ri n e c o n c e r n i n g t h i n g s i n d iff e r e n t i n t h e e c c l e s i a s ti c a l w o r l d , a r e c o m p l e t e l y o b s c u r e d b y t h e c h a n g e o f a s i n g l e l e tt e r a n d a n a lt e r a ti o n o f p u n c t u a ti o n .

It w a s Du n l o p w h o i nt r o d u c e d b o t h o f t h e s e c h a n g e s , a n d h i s i nfl u e n c e s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n st r o n g e n o u g h t o s e c u r e t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h i s c o r r u p t t e xt b y t h e Ref o r m e d Pr e s b y t e r i a n e d i t o r, u s u a ll y s o a c c u r a t e. T h e p e r s i st e n c e o f t h e e r r o r s h e w s h o w e a s y it i s t o a c c e p t a w e l l-k n o w n a n d o ffi ci al f o r m o f w o r d s w i t h o u t c riti c al m e n t a l a n a l y s i s. ”

proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.PCA 20.4 And because the powers which God hath ordained,...And, for their publishing of such opinions, or

maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account.

OPC, BPC, APC, EPC 20.4 And because the powers which God hath ordained,...And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.

ARPC 20.4 And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of such opinions or maintaining of such practices as are contrary to the light of nature or the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, conversation, or the order which Christ hath established in his church, they may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church; and in proportion as their erroneous opinions or practices, either in their own nature or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace of the church and of civil society, they may also be proceeded against by the power of the civil magistrate.

ARPC note (d) Relating to Chapter XX, paragraph 4 – "In a democratic society, where the Church and the State, with regard to their functions and their authority, are entirely separate, this must be interpreted to conform to the principles of separation. Certainly the Church believes in the right of the civil magistrate to punish evildoers, but it does not accept the principle of ecclesiastical subordination to the civil authority, nor does it accept the principle of ecclesiastical authority over the State."

WCF Ch. 21 – Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day:1) In para. 4 the ARPC has added a note that the criteria by which one is judged to have committed the sin unto death is not clearly revealed to man.2) In para. 5 the ARPC has added a note regarding the kinds of songs that can be sung in worship.

CARR 21:4 Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death.

ARPC 21.4 Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter; but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death.

ARPC note (e) Relating to Chapter XXI, paragraph 4 – "Though the truth herein expressed be the truth expressed by Scripture itself, yet it is to be recognized that the criteria for judging one guilty of sin unto death are not clearly revealed unto man."

CARR 21:5 The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.

ARPC 21.5 The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God; besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a

holy and religious manner.ARPC note (f) Relating to Chapter XXI, paragraph 5-"To conform with the more recent practice of the

Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, as approved in the year 1946, the validity of suitable evangelical hymns was recognized and their use permitted in those congregations electing to do so."

WCF Ch. 22 – Of Lawful Oaths and Vows: 1) In para. 3 the OPC, PCA, BPC and EPC have omitted the phrase, “Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.”2) In para. 7 the ARPC addends a note to qualify the that they agree with the spirit of the doctrine though they believe the wording to be coarse in “expression and phraseology”.

CARR 22:3 Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act; and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.

OPC 22.3 Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.

PCA 22.3 Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.

BPC 22.3 Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.

EPC 22.3 Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.

CARR 22:7 No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, Popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

ARPC note (k) Relating to Chapters X:4; XXII:7; XXIII:4; XXIV:3; XXIX:2-"While the Church admits to the coarseness of expression and phraseology in these passages, nevertheless it continues to adhere to the sentiment herein expressed."

WCF Ch. 23 – Of the Civil Magistrate:1) In para. 3 each American Presbyterian denomination has taken exception to the phraseology of this section. I have broken this paragraph into sections a and b so that you can more easily compare the original and the revisions at the most obvious and convenient break in the paragraph.2) In 23.3a the original assumes that the office of magistrate belongs to males, while the OPC, PCA, BPC, APC, and EPC replace “himself” with “themselves”.3) The RPCNA rejects everything after the colon in para. 3. They add multiple comments further developing their positive position on the civil magistrate. (see RPCNA Constitution, chapter 23 of the Confession)3) The ARPC has it's own edited paragraph.4) Note in 23.3b the OPC, PCA, BPC, and EPC share the same edited text, unless designated with brackets

5) The APC revision continues with the phraseology close to that of the OPC, etc., except it first omits the phrase, “Yet, as nursing fathers,” and then replaces the magistrates duty to the church with a more social duty, “ uphold the last five commandments of the moral law and thus...”6) In para. 4 the ARPC addends a note to qualify the that they agree with the spirit of the doctrine though they believe the wording to be coarse in “expression and phraseology”.

CARR 23:3a The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:

ARPC 23.3a The civil magistrate may not assume to himself administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

OPC 23.3a Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

PCA 23.3a Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

BPC 23.3a Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven;

EPC 23.3a Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

APC 23.3a Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven,

CARR 23:3b yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

ARPC 23.3b yet, as the gospel revelation lays indispensable obligations upon all classes of people who are favored with it, magistrates as such, are bound to execute their respective offices in a subserviency thereunto, administering government on Christian principles, and ruling in the fear of God, according to the directions of his word; as those who shall give an account to the Lord Jesus, whom God hath appointed to be the judge of the world. Hence, magistrates, as such, in a Christian country, are bound to promote the Christian religion, as the most valuable interest of their subjects, by all such means as are not inconsistent with civil rights; and do not imply an interference with the policy of the church, which is the free and independent kingdom of the Redeemer; nor an assumption of dominion over conscience.

RPC 23:3b [Testimony 18] We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon.OPC, PCA, BPC, EPC 23.3b or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith [in the matter of faith - PCA]. Yet,

as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

APC 23.3b or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. It is the duty of the civil magistrates to uphold the last five commandments of the moral law and thus protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever, and to take order that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

CARR 23:4 It is the duty of people to pray for the magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.

ARPC note (k) Relating to Chapters X:4; XXII:7; XXIII:4; XXIV:3; XXIX:2-"While the Church admits to the coarseness of expression and phraseology in these passages, nevertheless it continues to adhere to the sentiment herein expressed."

WCF Ch. 24 – Of Marriage and Divorce:1) In para. 3 the ARPC omits the word papists from those whom reformed Christians should not marry.2) In para. 3 the ARPC addends a note to qualify the that they agree with the spirit of the doctrine though they believe the wording to be coarse in “expression and phraseology”.3) In para. 4 the OPC, PCA, BPC, EPC and ARPC have omitted the last sentence which states, “The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own.”4) The RPCNA goes further and rejects the sentence, adding a proof-text to defend their rejection.5) The EPC has rewritten this whole section, which was later included in their modernized version of the confession. For sake of space I have not included it here since it is completely different to the original.

CARR 24:3 It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord: and therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

ARPC 24.3 It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent; yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels or other idolaters; neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

ARPC note (k) Relating to Chapters X:4; XXII:7; XXIII:4; XXIV:3; XXIX:2-"While the Church admits to the coarseness of expression and phraseology in these passages, nevertheless it continues to adhere to the sentiment herein expressed." (Amendment No. 1 effective June 11, 1984)

CARR 24:4 Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own.

OPC 24.4 Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.

PCA 24.4 Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriage ever be made by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.

BPC 24.4 Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.

ARPC 24.4 Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. (Amendment No. 2 effective June 11, 2001)

RPCNA 24:4 [Testimony 21] We reject the last sentence in paragraph 4 of the Confession of Faith [Testimony 22] The prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s brother is not warranted by Scripture. Lev. 18:18; Deut. 25:5-10.

WCF Ch. 25 – Of the Church:1) In para. 2 the APC add a qualifying phrase to the kingdom of the Lord, “present aspect of the future, glorious, visible”.2) The ARPC added a note to para. 2 emphasizing the importance of union with the church.3) In para. 6 the ARPC replaces the “Pope of Rome” with “mere man”.4) In para. 6 the APC replaced this section with their own paragraph.5) In para. 6 the OPC, PCA, BPC and EPC have omitted, “but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”

CARR 25:2 The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

APC 25.2 The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children, and is the present aspect of the future, glorious, visible kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

ARPC note (g) Relating to Chapter XXV, paragraph 2 – "It is further believed and taught that union with the visible church is essential to the growth and service of every Christian."

CARR 25:6 There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

ARPC 25.6 There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can mere man in any sense be the head thereof.

APC 25.6 The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the Head of the Church is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.

OPC, PCA, BPC, EPC 25.6 There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.

WCF Ch. 27 – Of the Sacraments:1) In para. 4 the EPC leaves room for extraordinary dispensing of the sacraments.

CARR 27:4 There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

EPC 27.4 There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: ordinarily, neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

WCF Ch. 29 – Of the Lord's Supper:1) In para. 2 the ARPC added a note to qualify the that they agree with the spirit of the doctrine though they believe the wording to be coarse in “expression and phraseology”.2) In para. 3 the ARPC makes qualification regarding administering the Lord's Supper to “worthy persons prevented from attendance upon the public administration of the sacrament”.

CARR 29:2 In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or the dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same: so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the

alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.ARPC note (k) Relating to Chapters X:4; XXII:7; XXIII:4; XXIV:3; XXIX:2-"While the Church admits to

the coarseness of expression and phraseology in these passages, nevertheless it continues to adhere to the sentiment herein expressed."

CARR 29:3 The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

ARPC note (h) Relating to Chapter XXIX, paragraph 3 – "It is recognized that the statement, 'but to none who are not then present in the congregation,' is included here to oppose private celebrations of the Mass, and with this the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church is in harmony. However, the carrying and administering of the elements of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to worthy persons prevented from attendance upon the public administration of the sacrament is deemed advisable and in accord with the principles of Scripture."

WCF Ch. 30 – Of Of Church Censures:1) In para. 2 the ARPC has added a note further clarifying the power to retain and remit sins.

CARR 30:2 To these officers, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed: by virtue whereof, they have power respectively to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.

ARPC note (i) Relating to Chapter XXX, paragraph 2 – "The power to retain and remit sins, delegated in the Scriptures by Christ to His disciples, and delegated to the Session of the congregation, is understood as referring to the function of declaring, by means of acceptance into or excommunication from the Church, the remission or retention of sins."

WCF Ch. 31 – Of Synods and Councils:1) Para. 2 has been deleted by the OPC, PCA, BPC, APC and EPC.2) In para. 2 the ARPC has edited this section to qualify that in extraordinary circumstances the magistrate can call a synod.3) The RPCNA has rejected para. 2.4) In para. 5 the APC omits the phrase, “if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate” which is para. 4 in the APC version.

CARR 31:2 As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.

ARPC 31.2 The ministers of Christ, of themselves, and by virtue of their office; or they with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, have the exclusive right to appoint, adjourn, or dissolve such Synods or Councils; though, in extraordinary cases, it may be proper for magistrates to desire the calling of a Synod of ministers and other fit persons, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; and in such cases, it is the duty of churches to comply with their desire.

ARPC note (j) Relating to Chapter XXXI, paragraph 2-"See note on Chapter XX, paragraph 4." (above)RPC 31:2 [Testimony 2] We reject paragraph 2 of the Confession of Faith.

CARR 31:5 Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

APC 31.4 Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience.

WCF Ch. 32 – Of the State Of Men after Death, and Of the Resurrection Of the Dead:1) The BPC and APC have edited para. 2 and 3 to reflect their Premillenial convictions.

CARR 32:2 At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls for ever.

BPC 32.2 At the return of the Lord Jesus Christ such living persons as are found in him shall not die but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.

APC 32.2 At the return of the Lord Jesus Christ such living persons as are found in him shall not die but be changed, and all the dead in Christ shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.

CARR- 32:3 The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.

BPC 32.3 The bodies of the unjust shall, after Christ has reigned on earth a thousand years, be raised by the power of God to dishonor.

APC 32.3 The bodies of the unjust shall, after Christ has reigned on earth a thousand years, be raised by the power of God to dishonor.

WCF Ch. 33 – Of the Last Judgment:1) The BPC and APC have edited para. 1 to reflect their Premillenial convictions.2) APC replaced “ tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds” with “ Great White Throne, to be judged according to their works”

CARR 33:1 God hath appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

BPC 33.1 God has appointed a day (which word in Scripture in reference to the last things may represent a period of time including the thousand years following the visible, personal and premillennial return of Christ), wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

APC 33.1 God has appointed a day (which word in Scripture in reference to the last things may represent a period of time including the thousand years following the visible, personal, and premillennial return of Christ) wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all reprobate persons that have lived upon the earth shall appear before the Great White Throne, to be judged according to their works and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, The. "The Constitution and standards of the Associate-Reformed Church in North-America (1799)." Internet Archive. http://www.archive.org/details/constitutionstan00asso (accessed Aug., 2009).

Briggs, Charles Aug.,us, and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. "The Presbyterian Review, vol. 9 - Google Books." Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=hp7NAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed Aug., 2009).

Briggs, Charles A. Theological Symbolics. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1914. Carruthers, S. W. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Being an Account of the Preparation and Printing of Its Seven

Leading Editions ; to Which Is Appended a Critical Text of the Confession with Notes Thereon. Greenville, South Carolina: Reformed Academic Press, 1995.

De Witt, John, William G. T Shedd, Henry Jackson Van Dyke, and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. "Ought the Confession of Faith to be Revised." Internet Archive. http://www.archive.org/details/oughtconfessiono00dewi (accessed Aug., 2009).

Duncan, J. Ligon. The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Fearn: Mentor, 2003.

Duncan, J. Ligon, and W. Duncan Rankin. The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Vol. 2. Fearn: Mentor, 2004.

Evans, Llewellyn J., and Charles Aug.,us Briggs. "How shall we revise the Westminster ... - Google Books." Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=2Gc3AAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed Aug., 2009).

Heron, Alasdair I. C. The Westminster Confession in the Church Today: Papers Prepared for the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1982.

Hodge, Charles. "The constitutional history of the ... - Google Books." Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=2tsCAAAAQAAJ&dq=Charles%20Hodge&lr=&pg=PA516 (accessed Aug., 2009).

Kelly, Douglas F., Hugh McClure, and Philip B. Rollinson. The Westminster Confession of Faith: An Authentic Modern Version. Signal Mountain, Tenn: Summertown Texts, 1992.

Loetscher, Frederick W., D.D., LL.D. . "PCA Historical Center: Address on the 200th Anniversary of the Adopting Act, by Frederick W. Loetscher (1929)." PCA Historical Center - Home Page. http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/subscription/200anniv.html (accessed Aug., 2009).

McMurray, Carl Walker. Talks on the Westminster Confession of Faith. United States: s.n, 1984. North, Gary. "Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church." Christian Educational Resources: Free

Books and Newsletters. http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gncf/crossed_fingers.htm (accessed Aug., 2009).

Presbyterian Church in the USA, and William M. Engles. "Records of the Presbyterian Church ... - Google Books." Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=jdCKcqg8ZNYC&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed Aug., 2009).

Presbyterian Church in the USA. “Minutes of the General Assembly, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1903...- Google Books.” Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=S4BJAAAAMAAJ&printsec (accessed Aug., 2009)

Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America: Being Its Standards Subordinate to the Word of God. Pittsburgh, PA: Crown & Covenant Publications, 1998.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998. Scouller, James Brown. "A manual of the United Presbyterian ... - Google Books." Google Books. http://books.google.com/

books?id=rmjUAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed Aug., 2009). Shedd, William G. T. Calvinism: Pure and Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust,

1986. Union Theological Seminary, Virginia. "Union Seminary Magazine - Google Books." Google Books.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RogfAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed Aug., 2009). Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. "The Printing of the Westminster ... - Google Books." Google Books.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jl_5aqqrQUAC&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed Aug., 2009). Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, and Ethelbert Dudley Warfield. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Grand Rapids: Baker

Book House, 1991. Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994. Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Confession of Faith, For Study Classes. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co,

1964.