Thus, it is the Congregationalists who also believed in a gathered church of visible saints.  It is true that they continued to practice paedobaptism, but the fact is that they, by their statement of faith, believed that only those who were visible saints who were visibly repenting of sin and visibly turning to Christ were the only proper subjects for church membership.  It was also the Congregationalists who, like the Baptists, embraced the completeness of the local church in such a way that connectionalism in the Presbyterian sense is not needed and not Biblical.

I’m sure many have seen the online debate concerning the label and definition of ‘Reformed’.  Interestingly, the debate has concerned only whether those who embrace believer’s baptism can be considered ‘Reformed’.  But, it seems that there is another historical group which has not been subjected to the same scrutiny as the Particular Baptists, and that is the Congregationalists.

Rather than restrictively placing the label “Reformed” upon only those who subscribe to the doctrines of the Westminster Standards, it seems more better and more accurate to place the tag upon the broad group of Confessional Calvinistic Protestants who hold to truths contained within the Westminster Standards/Three Forms of Unity, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.  Those who relegate the title “Reformed” to only those of this group who practice infant baptism, infant church membership, and Presbyterian polity prove too much. 

In doing so, they have banished Reformed Congregationalists and Particular Baptists who considered themselves in basic agreement with Presbyterians on the core doctrines of Scripture.  It is clear that the writers of the Savoy Declaration and the Second London Confession saw themselves within the same broad stream that is the Reformed faith.

Recently, William H. Smith, who does not believe that Baptists can be considered Reformed, has written showing that there “significant differences” between Baptists and Presbyterians in regards to ecclesiology.  In particular he says,

In the Baptist Confession there is nothing of the visible church consisting of believers and their seed.  Rather, according to the Baptists the church (particular congregations, says the London Confession) consists of “visible saints” who profess faith and obedience to God and who do not undermine their profession by errors or doctrine or life.

It is correct what Mr. Smith says here.  There are significant differences between the Baptists and the Presbyterians here.  But, what must be said is that the absence of children from being included as members of the visible Church is not only a Baptist difference, but a Reformed Congregational one ( Savoy Declaration 26.2).  In fact, the Second London Confession more closely follows the Savoy Declaration than the original wording of the Westminster in many cases, and it does so in this regard as well. 

The Savoy Declaration, under the section entitled The Institution of Churches, and the Order Appointed in Them by Jesus Christ, declares that church members are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; who, being further known to each other by their confession of the faith wrought in them by the power of God, declared by themselves or otherwise manifested, do willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and to one another by the will of God in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel. 

Thus, it is the Congregationalists who also believed in a gathered church of visible saints.  It is true that they continued to practice paedobaptism, but the fact is that they, by their statement of faith, believed that only those who were visible saints who were visibly repenting of sin and visibly turning to Christ were the only proper subjects for church membership.  It was also the Congregationalists who, like the Baptists, embraced the completeness of the local church in such a way that connectionalism in the Presbyterian sense is not needed and not Biblical. 

Curiously, Mr. Smith states that these changes made to the London Confession (also the Savoy Declaration) are a sign that these groups did not embrace a “high view of the visible church” as found in the Westminster Confession which states that “there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside of the visible church.  In fact, the Baptists and Congregationalists did have high views of the visible church, as is evidenced by the expanded chapters on the church in both their respective confessions.  It’s not that they didn’t have a high view of the visible church, it’s that they defined it differently.  They denied that the universal visible church has ecclesiastical organization because it is invisible. 

Rather, the universal church is made up of all the elect in heaven and on earth.  It is this church that there is no salvation outside of.  The universal church is made visible at the local level within particular congregations composed of visible saints.  Thus, no denomination is a church, it is rather a collection of churches.  This, of course, is different from the Presbyterian understanding of the universal church which they understand to be visible as well as invisible.  But, the fact that it is different does not mean that it is any less of a high view of the visible church than Presbyterianism has. 

Later on in his article, Mr. Smith also states that “there is much more to Calvinism (and to being Reformed) than the five points of Calvinism”.  With this I agree.  The Reformed faith is all encompassing and affects every part of a man’s theology and life.  But, he goes on to say that “if the Institutes are taken as the summary of the Christian religions, Reformed Baptists will find much more to disagree with than Calvin’s views on baptism and church order”.  The same statement could be applied to Congregationalists who disagreed with Calvin in some areas of ecclesiology.  Certainly, the Congregationalists are closer to the Baptists than to Calvin on many of these issues, but does that mean that the Congregationalists are not ‘Reformed’?  Is Calvin’s Institutes the plumb line for Reformed orthodoxy?  I think not.  The Reformed world is wider than Calvin, though we don’t deny Calvin’s large influence. 

So, what’s the bottom line?  According to some Presbyterians’ definition of the term ‘Reformed’ not only confessional Calvinistic Baptists are excluded from the label but so are Congregationalists men such as Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, Phillip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge, Sidrach Simpson, William Greenhill, Joseph Caryl, Jonathan Edwards, John Cotton, Richard Mather, Increase Mather, Cotton Mather, Thomas Shepard, Samuel Petto and perhaps even William Ames, amongst others who are not to be reckoned Reformed by this definition.  These men differed from Presbyterians in ecclesiology just as Baptists do.  Some also differed in areas such as the covenant of grace in which Congregational men, like John Owen, found basic agreement with Baptists.  Carl Trueman even states that

There are strong tendencies in Owen’s thinking on the Covenant of Grace to restrict it just to Christ and his elect. Owen is a paedobaptist. But there is a lot in Owen’s thinking that I think pushes in a Baptistic direction. For Owen, the visible manifestation of the Covenant of Grace is not entirely clearly worked out in terms of children being embraced (as I read him). It’s not an area I have looked at in great detail, but I see tendencies in Owen’s ecclesiology and his understanding of the covenants that push it in a Baptistic direction. (emphasis mine)

Those who would seek to cast Calvinistic Baptists, who hold to the London Confession, out of the Reformed fold should also have no problem casting Owen, Goodwin, Burroughs, and Edwards out as well.  Their ecclesiology is a mediating position between the Baptist position and the Presbyterian one, but which, truth be told, actually is closer to Baptist polity than Presbyterian.

Coming into the twentieth century, those who hold the exclusive formula that Presbyterian=Reformed must bar Martyn Lloyd-Jones from the label “Reformed”.  Not only was Jones a Calvinistic Methodist and a Congregationalists, but he was a convinced credobaptist.  And yet, Lloyd-Jones must not be accounted amongst those who may wear the title of Reformed! 

I, for one, am not ready or willing to give the definition of ‘Reformed’ such a narrow meaning, either historically or in our contemporary culture.  For those who wish to relegate it to only those who can subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards, the time has come to be consistent and cast out the Congregationalists from your Reformed tent.  We who wish to have broader tent, comprised of Confessional Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists, will accept Owen, Goodwin, Lloyd-Jones, and Spurgeon. 

Spencer Snow is a student at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids