The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), often celebrated as one of the crowning achievements of Reformed Protestantism, arose from a specific historical and theological context that shaped its character and purpose. Drafted during the English Civil War (1642–1651), it was designed to articulate a cohesive theological framework for the emerging Presbyterian Church and to establish a unifying standard for England, Scotland, and Ireland. While the WCF has been lauded for its clarity and rigor, its theological and ecclesiological principles diverge significantly from Anglican theology.
This article, as part of a broader series, argues that the WCF is fundamentally incompatible with Anglicanism, not only in its doctrinal specifics but also in its overall ethos. Anglicanism, with its commitment to the via media, emphasizes sacramental theology, episcopal governance, and liturgical continuity. The WCF, by contrast, embodies a sectarian vision rooted in the majority of the Puritan’s rejection of these principles. Furthermore, the Confession’s covenant theology, rigid predestinarian framework, and rejection of episcopacy stand in direct opposition to the broader traditions of the early Church, exposing its theological deficiencies.
To fully understand the WCF’s incompatibility with Anglicanism, we must first examine its historical context, its role as a national document, and its impact during the English Civil War. Along the way, we will explore its opposition to the theological vision of King Charles I and Archbishop William Laud, both of whom championed an Anglicanism deeply rooted in the catholic and apostolic tradition.
The Historical Context of the Westminster Confession:
The WCF was born out of the English Civil War, a conflict that was as much theological as it was political. The war was marked by deep divisions between the Royalists, who supported King Charles I and the Church of England, and the Parliamentarians, many of whom were influenced by Puritan ideology. For the Parliamentarians, reforming the church was integral to their broader political goals.
In 1643, the Westminster Assembly was convened by the English Parliament to draft a new confession of faith that would interpret the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England1. This effort was tied to the Solemn League and Covenant, an agreement with the Scots to adopt Presbyterianism in exchange for their military support against the Royalists.2 The WCF thus became a tool of political expediency, designed to secure a military alliance and impose religious uniformity.
The Confession’s primary aim was to reform the Church of England and and unite the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland in religious manners. The most debated topic was church polity.3 Its authors believed that such uniformity would bring peace to a nation fractured by religious and political strife. Most of the Assembly members favored Presbyterian church governance, which involved elected assemblies of both lay and clerical representatives, although many were not firmly attached to it as a doctrinal position.4 However, this vision of unity was fundamentally flawed.
Central to Puritan thought and debated vigorously within the Assembly was the doctrine of predestination. Many of the divines adhered to the doctrine of particular redemption, teaching that Christ’s death was only intended to save those whom God had predestined for salvation. However, a minority, including Edmund Calamy, argued for hypothetical universalism, the idea that Christ’s death offered salvation to all, contingent on belief. While the Westminster Confession did not explicitly endorse this view, scholars debate whether its language leaves room for a hypothetical universalist interpretation.
Covenant theology, a significant development during this period, became the interpretive framework of the Assembly. The Confession outlined two major covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works “wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”5 While the covenant of grace: “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.”6
Ultimately and finally, the divines were vehemently opposed to William Laud and his followers, whom they saw as aligned with Catholicism.7 Before the Civil War, they considered Laud’s influence one of the greatest threats to the Church, though with the rise of radical sectarian movements, they focused more on groups such as the antinomians—those who rejected the moral law’s applicability to Christians—viewing them as a more immediate danger. By privileging a narrow theological perspective, the WCF alienated large portions of the population, particularly the High Church Anglicans who remained loyal to the Church of England’s sacramental and liturgical heritage
The Role of King Charles I and Archbishop Laud:
King Charles I and Archbishop William Laud stood as defenders of the Anglican vision of the Church, which was rooted in the catholic and apostolic tradition. For Charles, the Church of England was not merely a national institution but a divine organism. He viewed episcopal governance and liturgical worship as essential to the spiritual and political unity of the kingdom. His commitment to the divine right of kings further reinforced his belief that the monarchy and the Church were inseparably linked.
Archbishop Laud, as Charles’ chief ecclesiastical advisor, implemented reforms that emphasized the “beauty of holiness” in worship. His policies sought to restore the sacramental and liturgical richness of Anglicanism, countering the Puritan emphasis on austerity. Laud’s efforts included the restoration of church altars, the use of vestments, and the promotion of ceremonial practices. These reforms were met with fierce resistance from Puritans, who saw them as a return to “popish” practices. The Reverend Lucius Waterman in 1912 summed up William Laud’s contribution to Anglicanism best when he observed:
“That we [Anglicans] have our Prayer Book, our Altar, even our Episcopacy itself, we may, humanly speaking, thank Laud …… That our Articles have not a Genevan sense tied to them and are not an intolerable burden to the Church, is due to Laud. ….. . Laud saved the English Church …… The English Church in her Catholic aspect is a memorial to Laud.”
Archbishop William Laud, was a tireless defender of the Church of England’s catholicity and liturgical integrity, recognized the dangers posed by an over-reliance on Calvin’s theology, particularly among the young and impressionable. Writing in 1635, he observed:
“I do not deny but that Calvin’s Institutions may profitably be read, and as one of their first books for divinity, when they are well grounded in other learning; but to begin with it so soon, I am afraid doth not only hinder them from all grounds of judicious learning, but also too much possess their judgments before they are able to judge, and makes many of them humourous in, if not against the Church.” 8
Laud warns against the premature exposure of students to Calvin’s Institutes, noting that such exposure risks cultivating a narrow, sectarian mindset that undermines the Church’s unity. The Puritan insistence on doctrinal rigidity and their suspicion of tradition made them “humorous in, if not against the Church,” incapable of appreciating the theological breadth and sacramental depth of Anglicanism.
The Book of Common Prayer (BCP), particularly its 1662 edition, serves as a testament to the Anglican vision championed by Charles and Laud. The preface to the BCP underscores its purpose to “maintain uniformity in worship,” reflecting the Church of England’s commitment to liturgical continuity and theological balance. The prayer book’s emphasis on sacramental worship, daily prayer, and the unity of the Church stands in stark contrast to the theological minimalism of the WCF.
For Laud, the Puritan disdain for tradition was not just a theological error but a practical threat to the Church’s ability to maintain decency and order. In a 1638 letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford University, he defended the role of customs in preserving the Church’s integrity:
“[W]e find, that besides articles and canons and rubrics, &c., the Church of Christ had ever certain customs which prevailed in her practice, and had no canon for them; and if all such may be kicked out, you may bid farewell to all decency and order. In the meantime I will acquaint his majesty with this distemper growing, that the blame may not be cast upon me.”9
This defense of custom illustrates Laud’s broader argument that the Church’s practices, even those not explicitly mandated by canon law, are essential for maintaining reverence and continuity. The Puritan push to “kick out” such customs in the name of reform was, in Laud’s view, an attack on the Church’s very essence.
The Westminster Confession as a National Document
Ironically, the WCF was envisioned as a unifying document for a divided kingdom. However, its role as a national confession reveals its profound shortcomings. By aligning itself with a specific theological and ecclesiastical vision, the WCF alienated those who did not share its Calvinist and Presbyterian principles. Ironically, despite being a consensus document, it did not take the consensus of all those that were apart of the Church of England.
The abolition of episcopacy, a cornerstone of the Church of England’s identity, was central to the WCF’s agenda. The Confession’s authors rejected the idea of apostolic succession, viewing it as an unbiblical innovation. This stance was not only a departure from Anglican theology but also from the broader traditions of the early Church. As St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “Where the bishop is, there is the Church,” a principle that underscores the centrality of episcopal governance in Christian history.
The insistence on Presbyterian polity and the imposition of Calvinist doctrine further deepened divisions within English society. The Confession’s rigid predestinarian framework and minimalist sacramental theology contrasted sharply with the Anglican understanding of the sacraments [will be touched upon in the future looking at several sources]. These theological differences were not merely academic but had real-world consequences, as Anglican clergy and laity faced persecution for their adherence to the Church of England’s practices.
The English Civil War and the Failure of the WCF:
Far from achieving its goal of national unity, the WCF became a source of division. The Parliamentarian forces, driven by Puritan ideology, sought to dismantle the traditional structures of both church and state. However, their efforts to impose religious uniformity through the Confession proved futile.
The persecution of Anglicans during this period underscores the Confession’s sectarian nature. Churches were desecrated, liturgical worship suppressed, and sacred art destroyed. The Confession’s rigid theology left little room for the diversity of expression that characterized the Church of England’s liturgical and theological heritage.
The Westminster Confession of Faith was not born in a vacuum of pious theological reflection. It emerged as the creed of a Puritan movement that was willing to desecrate churches, persecute clergy, and even spill royal blood in its quest to destroy the Church of England and impose a narrow, sectarian Calvinism. The execution of King Charles I, an act of regicide unparalleled in English history, revealed the depths of the Puritan movement’s cruelty and its rejection of the Anglican vision of a church grounded in apostolic order, sacramental life, and liturgical beauty.
The Collect for the Martyrdom of King Charles I, preserved in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, captures the Anglican response to this atrocity with striking clarity:
O most mighty God, terrible in thy judgements, and wonderful in thy doings toward the children of men, who in thy heavy displeasure didst suffer the life of our gracious Sovereign King Charles the First, to be, as this day, taken away by the hands of cruel and bloody men: we thy sinful creatures here assembled before thee, do, in the behalf of all the people of this land, humbly confess, that they were the crying sins of this nation, which brought down this heavy judgement upon us. 10
Read it all at The Way of Walsingham
