If you’re reading the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith and in 19.4 of your copy it says that the general equity of the Israelite judicial laws are of “modern” use, then you’re probably reading an edition copied from Charles Spurgeon’s 1855 reprint (found commonly in places like this). Putting aside the reasons for the change, you should know that “modern” is not the original reading. It should read “moral” instead of “modern.”
You should also know that the following editions of the confession have “moral” in 19.4, not “modern”: 1677, 1688, 1699, 1719, 1720, 1743 (two different printings), 1773, 1774, 1790, 1798, 1809, 1818, 1829, 1850 (2LCF is copying the Savoy Declaration here, btw). To my knowledge and research, Spurgeon’s reprint is the first to make this change.
In the McDurmon v. Hall Theonomy Debate this was brought up, in part at the 59 minute mark, by Dr. Joel McDurmon when he said:
“…it also makes a difference which one of the London Baptist Confessions you’re reading. Are you reading the original that says the general equity of the judicial is of moral use only? Or are you reading the later edition that changed it to say they’re of modern use only? Which opens the door wide open to the same Theonomic view as the Westminster Confession. And that just so happens to be the version that got picked up by Charles Spurgeon when he did his popularized version, he said it’s of modern use not merely moral use but modern use and that was the version that got published when JD Hall published his version, and I can make the case that that opens the door to Theonomy just as easily. “
Sam Renihan concludes his post:
So if you’re going to make an argument from that wording, then appeal to Spurgeon and his reprint (if anything), but not any of the 15 (at least) editions of the confession that precede his.