In this discussion I've alluded several times to the premillennialism of the English Puritans. One of the sources on this is Robert Baillie. Baillie was one of the Scottish representatives to the Westminster Assembly and the Principle of Glasgow University. In the three volume compilation, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie (edited from the authors manuscripts). [Edinburgh, Printed for Robert Ogle, 1841], Baillie writes extensively on his observations of the Assembly proceedings.
In one of those letters, addressed to William Spang (1607-64) a noted Scottish minister and Baillie's cousin, Baillie makes a statement about the eschatological beliefs of the Westminster Divines. It is in the context of commenting on a new book by Dr. John Forbes (1593-1648), Instructiones Historico-Theologicae (Amsterdam, 1645); that Spang had sent to Baillie. Forbes was the first Professor of Divinity at King's College and has been called, "one of the greatest patristic scholars and theologians Scotland has produced" (Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology, IVP, 1993. p. 328).
Here is the quote from Baillie in full (I have updated the English spelling to make it a little more readable):
Send me the rest of Forbes : I like the book very well, and the man much the better for the book's cause. I marvel I can find nothing in its index against the Millenaries : I cannot think the author a Millenarie. I cannot dream why he should have omitted an error so famous in antiquity, and so troublesome among us ; for the most of the chief divines here, not only Independents, but others such as Twisse, Marshall, Palmer, and many more, are express Chiliasts. It's needful, if his judgment be right, that he should amend that omission, by an express and large Appendix (Baillie, Journals and Letters, 2:313; letter dated Sept 5, 1645).
The first individual he names as a Millenairie or premillennialist is William Twisse. Twisse was the Prolocutor or Moderator of the Westminster Assembly and gave leadership to the entire work. Twisse's Premillennialism is well noted. He wrote the preface to the English edition of Joseph Mede's important work, Clavis Apocalyptica (Key to Revelation) and he and Mede were regular correspondents. Additionally, important to this discussion, both believed in the future national conversion and territorial restoration of Israel.
The others are Stephen Marshall and Herbert Palmer; men of considerable importance in the Assembly's work. Marshall, in particular is noteworthy, in that he was one of the leading writers for The Directory of Public Worship; and specifically his writing on Expository Preaching, called by Sinclair Ferguson, "the finest brief description of expository preaching to be found in the English language" (Scottish Dict, p. 864).
The quote by Baillie is significant in a couple of regards. It seems that he regarded the fact that the Independents (mainly Thomas Goodwin [1600-80]), would be premillennial as almost a "given;" which in the case of Goodwin was true. Baillie admired the Independents learning and godliness, but rails against them, especially Goodwin, on their opposition to Presbyterianism and their views on "liberty of conscience" in regards to religious expression. Baillie is also astonished that so many of the English Puritans were premillennial as well. Interestingly he wanted Forbes to write an "express and large Appendix" against premillennialism as long as "his judgment be right." I can't answer Baillie’s question as to whether or not Forbes was also premillennial; his work is only available in Latin and plowing through a lot of pages in Latin is not high on my list of things to do at the moment. I do know that Forbes refused to sign the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 and was forced into exile.
The question surrounding all of this is simply this. Given the premillennial positions of the leader of the Assembly, two named influential individuals, the Independents, and the "many more" who were express Chilaists (there were 151 members of the assembly); is it likely that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the other documents produced by the Assembly could possibly be "anti-premillennial"? Or, is it, as Nathaniel West stated, "a premillennial document" at its core. Given the significant influence of the WCF on other confessions, like both London Baptist Confessions, this is an interesting question.
Baillie's quote also helps establish the fact that Premillennialism was a significant force within English Puritanism in the 1600's.
Posted by Narnia3 at May 26, 2008 10:05 AM | TrackBack