← Back to sermon library

Well, good afternoon and greetings 
in Christ's name. It is wonderful to be here with 
you. It's exciting to see all of you. It's been several years 
since I've been here in British Columbia. I've been looking forward 
to this conference. Thank God for also the privilege 
of sharing it with my beloved friend, Richard Barcelos. This 
is, he pointed out, we spoke at a conference together in Mississippi 
earlier this year. What'd you say, Rich? There are 
five conferences we're doing together this year in different 
places. And it's been 25 years that we've 
been speaking together at conferences. So very thankful for his friendship 
and for the opportunity to be with him again. Now why is my 
tablet continued to go blank on me? That's not very helpful, 
is it? Hello. That's why I brought a 
notebook with me, so everything's printed, so I can rely on the 
old-fashioned way. All right, that's what we'll 
do. I've been asked to speak about the Second London Confession 
of Faith, talk about its origination, and give an overview of its doctrines. So that's what I'll do. On the 
26th of August in 1677, The following entry was recorded 
in the manuscript minute book of London's Petty France Church, 
one of the oldest particular Baptist churches in London. And 
the minute said this, it was agreed that a confession of faith 
with the appendix thereto, having been read and considered by the 
brethren, should be published. This is the first known reference, 
literary reference, to what has become popularly known as the 
1689 Confession of Faith. It arose in a specific context. It reflected the theological 
commitments and understanding of the members of the churches 
that first published it. In fact, that note in the minute 
that says it was read and considered by the people of the church, 
the brethren as they are stated, is significant because it demonstrates 
the contextual nature of the statements that are made in the 
Confession in its 32 chapters. the publication of that confession 
was explicitly intended to provide the members of the churches a 
clear doctrinal compass for their lives. Now, at this point, I 
want to ask the question, what are the factors that were involved 
in leading them in 1677 and giving rise to the publication of this 
confession? And there are several of them 
that need to be mentioned. I'll go in order in terms of 
the internal conflicts and then deal with some external matters 
as well. The first has to do with a man 
named Thomas Collier. Now before I talk about him, 
let me talk about another young man. His name is Nehemiah Cox. 
He was born in 1650, died in 1689, and he was the son of the 
first generation particular Baptist pastor whose name was Benjamin 
Cox, but he's an important figure in the second generation of the 
baptized congregational ministers. He had been recognized as a gifted 
brother, that is, a man who was licensed to preach by John Bunyan's 
Bedford congregation in 1671, and then he was called and ordained 
to be pastor, along with a man named William Collins, of the 
Petit France Church in London in September 1675. And because of this entry in 
the church's minute book, it has been surmised that these 
two men, Nehemiah Cox and William Collins, edited the document 
that's now popularly known as the 1689 Confession, published 
originally in 1677. Now think about this. He was only 27 years old. He had ministered in London for 
approximately two years, and he became enmeshed in a theological 
dispute carried on by the pastors of several London churches. One 
of their own had been sent from London to minister in his home 
county of Somerset, out in the west of southern England in the 
mid-1640s. This man was named Thomas Collier. He seems to have been born around 
1613, and probably died before 1690. For three decades, he had 
been active out there in the West Country planting churches 
and leading associational efforts. But in the 1670s, he began to 
publish opinions that were deemed to be, literally this is what 
they were called, heresies and gross errors. These produced 
great concern among members of his own congregation, among other 
ministers in the West, near where he was located, and ultimately 
with several key pastors in London. He openly and unabashedly published 
his views for all to see, especially in two books. Now, notice the 
titles. The Body of Divinity or A Confession 
of Faith And the second one, an additional word to the body 
of divinity or confession of faith. You notice the phrase, 
the key phrase that's in both of these titles, a confession 
of faith. Let me read to you some of his 
errors in his own words. These are the types of things 
that he was advocating. First, that Christ is the Son 
of God only as considered in both natures. Christ is the son 
of God, only as considered in both natures. That's a denial 
of eternal sonship. He says, as he was the prince 
of life, the Lord of glory, he was killed and crucified, and 
that was not in the human nature only. Thus, Collier says, God 
died. As God-man, he was a creature. 
Now, it's true that his human nature was a creature, but not 
his deity. To say that as God-man he was 
a creature is to diminish the deity of our Lord. He goes on, 
he says, this creature God-man made all things. Does that mean 
that his human nature was present during the creation week? That 
somehow there was a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord? He says 
this, the word God-man was made flesh. So whatever he was before 
as God-man was incarnate. He goes on, there are uncreated 
heavens, for the eternal God must have some eternal habitation. You can see that he's struggling 
with the concept of eternity. He's struggling with the concept 
of the eminence, or the transcendence of God, rather. And so I ask 
the question, does God require habitation? Is there some place 
to which he is confined, where he can be brought within a box, 
a place, and say that's his dwelling place? Collier says, Christ died 
for the universe, for the heavens and the earth and all things 
therein. It's almost like a St. Francis 
of Assisi view of preaching to the creatures in the world. He 
says, those that never heard the gospel cannot be under the 
judgment of damnation. Why do missions? If those who 
never hear the gospel cannot face the reality of eternal punishment, 
why should we go to them and tell them? In fact, we will make 
their situation worse because they'll hear the gospel, many 
of them will reject it, and then be subject to an eternal damnation 
that would not have been true of them if no one had told them. 
He says, the sinful defilement of our nature is not the sin, 
but the affliction of man. So total depravity and total 
inability are not true. He says, it's possible for men 
in respect of power to believe the gospel if God do not work 
it all upon them by his spirit. That can be described in two 
words, self-salvation. We save ourselves. He says, regenerate 
persons or true believers may finally fall away from God and 
perish. Men may repent so as to obtain 
deliverance from their torment after death and the last judgment. So there's a second chance for 
salvation to those who have seen God upon his throne, heard the 
words depart from me, and then are welcomed back into God's 
presence. He says, perhaps the torment 
of some sinners may not exceed 100 years. That sounds like purgatory, 
doesn't it? You go and, Eternity becomes 
a period of time and or after you burn off your sins. You're 
welcomed into God's presence and finally he says this The 
infinite sacrifice of Christ remains the same to have its 
influence for the obtaining of grace after the judgment as before. That follows along with what 
I've just read to you. Now I hope that you will agree 
with me that these are very serious errors. This is heresy. This is not within the bounds 
of orthodoxy. This is absolutely outside of 
the bounds of orthodoxy. Thomas Collier was publicly identified 
with the particular Baptist churches. Maybe I should define that for 
you. Broadly speaking, two types of Baptists in 17th century England. The general Baptist, who believed 
in a general atonement. and the particular Baptist who 
believed in a particular atonement, Armenian Baptist and Calvinistic 
Baptist. We're talking here about the 
particular Baptist. He'd been sent out from the Devonshire 
Square Church in London. He was the acknowledged leader 
of the many churches that had been planted in the West. He 
had published books with the words Confession of Faith in 
their titles. There were observers from other 
Christian denominations who took notice of his heresies and on 
occasion, in print, they hinted that his views reflected the 
views of the prominent London churches. In addition, The congregations 
that he had planted or had been involved in planting were in 
an uproar. Many of them recognized the serious 
nature of his errors. His own church was divided. Some 
were in favor, many were against, and the situation was grave and 
it required resolution. Meetings were held, conversations 
were held with Collier and other ministers, and they were fruitless. 
He dug in his heels, he resisted every effort to call him to repentance, 
and because of his prominence, because of his long and influential 
ministry, and since he had used the phrase confession of faith 
in the title of his books that were deemed so heretical and 
erroneous, the London pastors determined that a publication 
exposing and refuting his errors was necessary. And so they approached 
young Nehemiah Cox, 27 years old, to write on their behalf. 
And there are two productions that came out of that approach. 
One is called Vindicii Veritatis, or A Vindication of the Truth, 
in which Nehemiah Cox examines point by point Thomas Collier's 
errors and refutes them from Scripture theology and the history 
of the church. It's a brilliant piece of work. 
It's impressive when you look at it, but also Pardon me at 
the same time the confession of faith appears first noted 
in the minute book of Cox's Church and then later distributed and 
adopted by churches all over southern England and If you are 
aware of Collier's deviations, and you read the Confession of 
Faith carefully, you can notice how in several places they phrase 
themselves in such a way to distance themselves from the errors that 
had been promoted from Thomas Collier. A prominent man who's 
become a heretic, he's identified with the churches, they publish 
a Confession of Faith in order to say, we are Orthodox. And you need to recognize that 
we are Orthodox. But we'll say more about that 
in a few moments. There's another man whose name needs to be mentioned, 
another significant doctrinal problem that was identified with 
the baptized churches. Now this man was with the General 
Baptist, but there were many onlookers who didn't make the 
distinction between the two groups, and when they saw error arising 
among the baptized churches, they would impute that error 
to all of the different churches. That's wrong for them to do that, 
but that's the reality of the words. to hold his view was to 
deny orthodoxy. I want you to listen to the words 
of Chapter 8, Paragraph 2 of the Second London Confession 
of Faith. You will be encouraged by these words. It says this, The second person in the Holy 
Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's 
glory, of one substance and equal with Him, who made the world, 
who upholdeth and governeth all things He hath made." We ought 
to be saying amen at every one of these phrases, because this 
is holding up before us the eternal deity of our Savior, Jesus Christ. 
It goes on. Did, when the fullness of time 
was come, take unto him man's nature, with all the essential 
properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin, being 
conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, 
the Holy Spirit coming down upon her, and the power of the Most 
High overshadowing her, and so was made of a woman of the tribe 
of Judah, of the seed of Abraham, and David according to the Scriptures, 
so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably 
joined together in one person without conversion, composition, 
or confusion, which person is very God and very man, yet one 
Christ, the only mediator between God and man." That is a wonderful 
Orthodox statement about the person of Jesus Christ, who from 
eternity is true God, and in this world, true man, our incarnate 
Lord. Now, we need to notice in what 
I just read for you that the Second London Confession omits 
an important phrase that was included in the parent documents. Maybe I should mention that. 
The Second London Confession of Faith is based upon the Westminster 
Confession of 1646, And it's revisioned by congregational 
divines, theologians, in 1658. It's called the Savoy Declaration 
of Faith. So both of those, the Savoy Declaration 
is the immediate parent, the Westminster Confession of Faith 
is the grandparent. In both of those, there is a 
statement that says, as it's speaking about the humanity of 
our Lord, these three words are present, of her substance. And 
in the place of that statement, the Second London Confession 
adds a very lengthy statement, which is partially drawn from 
an earlier confession that they had published. Now someone might 
say, since they deleted those words of her substance, were 
they actually heterodox? Well, why is this important? 
The reason that it's important is because of Matthew Caffin 
and the significant error of Christology that was present 
among the General Baptists. Sometimes it's called Hoffmanite 
Christology. It takes its name from a 16th 
century Dutch Anabaptist whose name was Melchior Hoffman. Fascinating 
life. He had been a contemporary of 
Luther, had been in Wittenberg, was sent out from Wittenberg 
to the Baltic countries, and then ultimately to the Netherlands, 
dying in jail in Strasbourg in 1543. But this fascinating journey 
in his life led him to significant error. Because the Hofmannite 
Christology argued that Christ did not take his humanity from 
Mary, but that Jesus brought celestial flesh from heaven to 
earth, one of the phrases that they used was, like a pearl from 
heavenly dew in a shell. From this perspective, Mary was 
simply the conduit through which the heavenly flesh, the celestial 
flesh of Jesus came to earth. Now, please don't ask me what 
celestial flesh is, I can't describe it to you. I don't know what 
they intended by that phrase, but obviously they meant some 
kind of pre-incarnate physicality that was heavenly, that belonged 
to Christ. And so Mary was not the source of his humanity, not 
the instrument that the Holy Spirit uses to give him humanity, 
but rather simply a conduit through which he came. Another illustration 
that sometimes is used about this is that she was more like 
a pipe through which water flows. Water doesn't take anything from 
the pipe. It simply flows through it. Jesus 
didn't take anything of his humanity from Mary. the heavenly, the 
celestial flesh simply came through him. This became a major problem 
among the English General Baptists because it was championed by 
an important leader among them whose name was Matthew Caffin, 
who came from Sussex. And he promoted and he preached 
the Hoffmanite Christology within this community of churches for 
years and years and years. Robert Prudhomme, who is pastor 
of the Bridlington, England, particular Baptist church said 
this, we have also other heretics raised up among us who I hear 
are headed by one Matthew Caffin and swarm in Kent and Sussex 
who seem to favor the Aryans, but with this difference, these 
seem to say that the spirit was converted into a sort of flesh 
or was made flesh in the Virgin's womb, but partook not of her 
substance, so that they deny both his divine and human nature. 
Namely, affirmed that he is not God of the essence of the Father, 
nor man of the substance of Mary, not the most high God, though 
he be a God, yet a lesser or demigod, a God by office only, 
and not God by nature. Another particular Baptist, you 
may have heard his name, Benjamin Keech, boldly and by name described 
Caffan and those who agreed with him, he called them grand heretics, 
and he urged his readers to take heed when they encounter anyone 
favoring Caffan's abominable heresies. That's the language 
that he used. Clearly, the confessing churches 
were opposed to the caffeinate error. And why then, we should 
ask, did the editors of the Second London Confession delete the 
phrase of her substance? Well, the answer is found in 
the lengthy edition from the First London Confession, Article 
9, which expresses the doctrine of the Incarnation in greater 
detail. The emendation from the First 
London Confession provides great clarity and specificity, strengthening 
the assertions of Christ's true humanity in order to deal with 
this heresy. I asked, is the phrase, of her 
substance, any different to made of a woman, of the tribe of Judah, 
of the seed of Abraham and David? Not at all. In fact, what they 
did was bring together phrases from a number of New Testament 
texts, Galatians 4.4, Revelation 5.5, Hebrews 2.16, Romans 1.3, 
2 Timothy 2.8, and reflect the teaching of the scriptures. According 
to his human nature, Jesus was a true descendant of Abraham 
and David, and thus was heir of all the promises, prophecies, 
and especially covenants that were made with those who came 
before him. In the face of Caffan's heresy 
and its identification with baptized churches, if we speak generically, 
the strength in language is exceedingly helpful. It protects the confession 
and it protects the subscribing churches from charges of heresy. Now, it's really easy to remember 
Caffan's name because I like to tell my students the general 
Baptist needed to be decaffeinated. You'll remember that. A heckler in the front row. Someone 
take care of him, please. This is the way that we work 
with our conferences, that we heckle each other as we're going. 
It's fun. Don't anyone else do it? A third reason that the Confession 
of Faith was published was to demonstrate orthodoxy. Though 
often neglected, and to many unknown, there is an epistle 
at the front of the confession that is titled, To the Judicious 
and Impartial Reader. It's an ironic account of the 
purpose for the publication of the confession, and was considered 
by its authors to be an important part of the text. Now, if you 
were to read it, you could say it's an apology in the classical 
sense of the term. It's a justification or a vindication 
of the doctrines or practices of the issuing churches and expressed 
in their confession. Though it was, in a sense, anonymously 
published, for no names were included in the 1677 and 1688 
editions, the identities of the churches and subscribers could 
be easily ascertained from information provided on the title page. which 
says, a confession of faith put forth by the elders and brethren 
of many congregations of Christians baptized upon profession of their 
faith in London and the country. These words pointed to a specific 
group of dissenting churchmen, and the epistle and the contents 
of the document provided further identifying information, for 
they made claims and confessed doctrines that could only be 
held by a portion of the baptized churches. After a greeting, the 
epistle begins by contextualizing the publication. It refers to 
a different confession, issued more than three decades previously, 
published under circumstances of duress and distrust. The story 
of the First London Confession is really interesting. That text, 
published first in 1644, and again in 1646 and 1651, It accomplished well the purpose 
for its issue, convincing even some eminent onlookers, members 
of the Westminster Assembly, of the orthodoxy of those first 
churches, though by 1677 it was out of print and difficult to 
obtain. Similar circumstances a generation later called forth 
the appearance of a new confession of faith. They asserted that 
the substance of the matter of the two confessions is the same, 
though the format differs, and the authors then provide the 
reasons for the contours of the new document. In their circumstances, 
it was desirable to provide a comprehensive statement of their faith to the 
pedobaptists around them, but more pastorally to supply the 
people of their churches with a full and distinct system of 
faith for their clear understanding, steady belief, comfortable walking 
with God, and fruitfulness before him. That's the pastoral motive 
that's evident in the next to last paragraph of the epistle. 
And so in order to accomplish their purpose, they settled on 
a method that was similar to the one used in the 1640s. They 
adapted the form and language of the best available confessions 
of faith, neither of which had been published when the first 
confession was issued. As I said a little earlier, these 
were the Westminster Confession of 1646 and the Savoy Declaration 
of Faith and its accompanying Platform of Polity, which were 
published in 1658. both of which advocated a well-developed 
commitment to the principles of Reformed theology, providing 
further identifying information for the subscribing churches. 
They were not advocates of Arminian views, for in solemn language, 
the authors asserted, I quote, their hearty agreement with Westminster 
and Savoy in that wholesome Protestant doctrine that was expressed in 
their texts. These were the fundamental articles 
of the Christian religion. So adapting the form and language 
of these earlier Puritan confessions resulted from an expressed desire, 
I know that this is one of Cam's favorite phrases, we have no 
itch to clog religion with new words. While asserting this commonality 
of doctrine, the editors acknowledged that there were some differences 
both of faith and practice, and using modest terms, they openly 
but humbly present their distinctive beliefs. And to support their 
conclusions, they supply texts of scripture urging readers to 
be like the Bereans of Acts chapter 17. This epistle continues. It promotes the theme of peace 
among churches. A further statement about motivations. 
They have no desire for contention and fervently desire that the 
appearance of their confession will promote love even among 
those who differ. It was their hope that churches 
and leaders with other convictions might be strengthened in faith 
by noting the many commonalities despite the relatively few dissimilarities. Jim is right, you'll be dead 
before you get to the parts of the confession where there are 
differences. Everything else, there's agreement. And above 
all, they desire godliness to triumph in every church. You 
see, their motivation in publishing was unity and peace without sectarianism, 
respecting the importance of conscience. They appealed for 
that which they were willing to grant. They were acknowledging 
that the church of Jesus Christ is greater than the sum of her 
baptized congregations. Nearing the end of the epistle, 
pastoral concerns are expressed in some detail. Lamenting what 
they called the decay of religion in our day, the authors urged 
parents and masters to categorize and instruct the young under 
their tutelage. The doctrines of the confession 
served a practical purpose to benefit the rising generation. 
They understood that the Christian life must be based upon the Christian 
faith, and an understanding of the Christian faith must come 
before living the Christian life. They understood that point. The 
final paragraph expresses the earnest prayer that God's Holy 
Spirit will ensure that truth will be confessed, not only in 
word, but with sound faith and conscientious obedience, all 
of which is to glorify God's name through Jesus Christ. Now, 
in humility, They explain the reason that they don't join with 
the pedo-baptist churches. They're accused to some degree 
of breaking the unity of the church because they formed their 
own confession. When the confession first appeared 
in 1677, an appendix on baptism was included. This appendix was 
also printed with the second edition of 1677, with the publication 
in 1688. And it seems that most, though 
not all, subsequent printings have omitted it, and that's sad 
because it's important. and it is so beautiful and so 
wonderful in its peaceful and humble tone, it's clear in its 
arguments, and I believe that it serves as a model for expressing 
disagreement in a God-honoring manner. It begins again with 
speaking about the peaceful sentiments that were addressed in the Epistle, 
seeking to place the particular Baptist churches within the circle 
of Orthodox Christianity by means of the doctrines expressed in 
the Confession. Given the difficulties associated with the heresies 
and defection of Thomas Collier, and the rumor and accusation 
which seemed to follow, tarnishing the reputation of everyone affiliated 
with him, they considered a plain declaration of their theological 
commitments to be essential. But there was a second nuisance 
that confronted the churches. They were accused of separatism, 
and perhaps in a modern sense, maybe using this anachronistically, 
elitism. for not joining with other non-conformists 
in their congregations, so the authors as representatives of 
many churches sought to assure their readers from these pedo-baptist 
churches that they had no discriminatory motives by forming and attending 
assemblies ordered according to their own principles. With 
great appreciation for their pedobaptist brothers, their consciences, 
based on an understanding of the teaching of the Word of God, 
required organization according to what have come to be known 
as Baptist principles. Listen to their words. Whoever 
reads and impartially considers what we have in our foregoing 
confession declared may readily perceive that we do not only 
concenter with all other true Christians on the word of God 
revealed in the scriptures of truth as the foundation and rule 
of our faith and worship, but that we have also industriously 
endeavored to manifest that in the fundamental articles of Christianity 
we mind the same things. and have therefore expressed 
our belief in the same words that have on the like occasion 
been spoken by other societies of Christians before us. This 
we have done, that those who are desirous to know the principles 
of religion which we hold in practice may take an estimate 
from ourselves, who jointly concur in this work, and may not be 
misguided, either by undue reports, or by the ignorance or errors 
of particular persons who going under the same name with ourselves, 
Thomas Collier, Matthew Caffin, may give an occasion of scandalizing 
the truth we profess. And although we do differ from 
our brethren who are pedobaptists in the subject and administration 
of baptism and such other circumstances as have a necessary dependence 
on our observance of that ordinance, and do frequent our own assemblies 
for our mutual edification and discharge of those duties and 
services which we owe unto God and in his fear to each other, 
yet we would not be from hence misconstrued as if the discharge 
of our own consciences herein did any ways disoblige or alienate 
our affections or conversation from any others that fear the 
Lord. but that we may, and do as we have opportunity, participate 
of the labors of those whom God hath endued with abilities above 
ourselves, and qualified and called to the ministry of the 
word, earnestly desiring to approve ourselves to be such, as follow 
after peace with holiness, and therefore we also always keep 
that blessed irenicum, or healing words of the apostle before our 
eyes, if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even 
this unto you, Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, 
let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Let 
it not therefore be judged of us, because much hath been written 
on this subject, and yet we continue this our practice different from 
others, that it is out of obstinacy, but rather as the truth is, that 
we do herein according to the best of our understandings worship 
God, out of a pure mind yielding obedience to his precept, in 
that method which we take to be most agreeable to the scriptures 
of truth and prone to practice." Isn't that great? They acknowledge 
the truthfulness of other churches and say our consciences based 
upon the Word of God bind us to the practice that we have 
adopted. But that's not to condemn anyone else, it's to say positively 
this is what we believe we must do because of the Word of God. 
Another reason why the publication of the Confession came forth 
was for the benefit of families. They were very concerned with 
the growth and grace of families, parents who confessed their faith 
in Christ, raising up children to follow after them and be servants 
of the Lord Jesus. They say this, verily there is 
one spring and cause of the decay of religion in our day which 
we cannot but touch upon and earnestly urge a redress of, 
and that is the neglect of the worship of God in families by 
those to whom the charge and conduct of them is committed. 
Well, to whom is the charge and conduct given? It's the parents, 
the father, if there is no father than the mother, But the confession 
of faith was a means by which parents are able to instruct 
their children in the great truths of the Christian faith, so that 
they might come to faith, and that they would believe in the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and from generation to generation, there would be 
believers. Now there's a fourth reason for 
the publication, and it's found in its first sentence. Now I've 
said, and I'm going to ask you in a few minutes to turn to one 
of the pages in your notebook, But I've said that the confession 
of faith is based on Westminster and Savoy. But when you begin 
to read it, the very first sentence was added by the Baptist. It's 
not present in Westminster, it's not present in Savoy. Here's 
what it says. The Holy Scripture is the only 
sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving faith and 
knowledge and obedience. The Holy Scripture is the only 
sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, 
faith, and obedience. This is not found in Westminster 
or Savoy. It has been added by the Baptists. 
And so we can ask the question, what was the purpose of adding 
this statement to chapter one, which in itself, as it comes 
to us from Westminster and Savoy, is an excellent statement about 
the scriptures. Why did they add this? Well, 
there are three possible reasons for the addition. I think that 
they all play into the decision to include these words at the 
beginning of the confession. The first has reference to a 
contemporary group, a different set of religious people, not 
Collier, not Caffin, but rather the Quakers. Now, the Quakers of the 17th 
century were not like the Society of Friends that you may know 
today. To a large degree, they were a much more Oh, a group 
sort of like, I hope this isn't a mischaracterization, sort of 
like some of the modern charismatics, maybe some of the wackier modern 
charismatics. They had some very strange practices. Michael Hagen says this. It's 
very probable that this strengthening of the statement in scripture 
grew out of the particular Baptist concern with the Quakers. My 
good friend, the esteemed Baptist historian Robert Oliver, says 
that the influential Broadmead Baptist Church in Bristol lost 
a quarter of its members to the Quakers in the mid-1650s. In 
the manuscript records of the Petit France Church, remember 
that's where the first literary reference to the Confession is 
found, we find this entry for the 8th of October, 1676, so 
10 months before the Confession is published. It says this. Mrs. Haddam was cut off from this 
congregation for forsaking the assembly of this and all other 
churches of Christ, and closing in with and cleaving to the Quakers, 
of whose evil she had often been admonished, both by the elders, 
brethren, and also appointment of the congregation, who diverse 
times sent messengers to endeavor the reclaiming of her, but she 
neglected and refused to hear them, and therefore was she thus 
proceeded against according to the rule of Christ. The Quakers 
were stealing people from the baptized churches. They were 
stealing people from other Puritan churches as well. These kinds 
of inroads would certainly influence these members of baptized churches 
as they prepared a new confession of faith. An opening sentence 
asserting the foundational role of scripture in the church would 
immediately alert readers to the Baptist church's commitment 
to the centrality of scripture. The second reason, the second 
factor, was the fear of Roman Catholicism. King Charles II 
issued what he called a Declaration of Indulgence in March 1672, 
in which he granted a certain amount of freedom to religious 
dissenters and allowed Roman Catholics to gather for worship 
in private homes. Now maybe you know something 
about Charles II and his brother James II. James became an open 
Roman Catholic before he came to the throne. It is said that 
Charles became a private Roman Catholic near to the end of his 
life. but they were sympathetic to 
Roman Catholicism. By lifting this proscription 
against Roman Catholics, this was a move that was not happily 
received by the dissenters, who feared that the benefits of the 
Reformation might be slowly slipping away. Many of these members of 
the churches knew of the struggles of Protestants in Romanist countries 
such as France, and they did not want to find themselves in 
a similar situation. As such, it was fitting to strengthen 
their statement to speak of the exclusive rule of faith, which 
is the scripture, not the church, not the tradition of the church, 
but scripture alone. Now, this is not to say that 
a supplement such as this would prevent the political return 
of the power of the Roman church. but rather that such a return 
would diminish the place of Scripture in English theology." So they 
add this statement. A third element which may have 
contributed to the change was the theological argumentation 
of the day which often relied on extra-scriptural reasoning 
for certain conclusions. They wanted to emphasize the 
fact that they were committed to the scripture and what the 
scriptures taught wholeheartedly and exclusively. They were unwilling 
to allow the importation of anything that could not be based in scripture 
or taught in scripture to influence their churches. Now this did 
not mean that they were saying that only the words of the Bible 
themselves are the basis for Christian belief. They recognized 
that there are doctrines that must be culled from the scriptures 
and Christians are to believe them. The greatest illustration 
or the simplest illustration is the complex doctrine of the 
Trinity. I don't mean to say that the doctrine of the Trinity 
is simple, but there is no place in the Bible that says explicitly 
God is one and God is three. We must work with various texts 
of scripture, bring them together to recognize the doctrine of 
the Trinity and affirm it. Now, I'm bold enough to say that 
while we cannot comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, we must 
confess it. And to deny the doctrine of the 
Trinity is to put oneself outside of the Christian faith. Anyone 
who actively and openly denies that doctrine cannot be considered 
a Christian. But it is a doctrine that is 
compiled, it's drawn from various places in the Word of God and 
presented to us. So I think that this is probably 
the third reason why they put this together. Now at this point 
I'd like you to take your notebook and turn to page It's not numbered. It's 6, I guess, page 6. And you have a confession comparison. Now, we don't have the chapters 
of 2nd London listed, but because they are almost identical to 
those of the Westminster Confession, it'll be fairly easy to make 
my points and for you to be able to follow along. The first six 
chapters of the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the 
Second London Confession are what I call foundational principles. They're basic matters of the 
Holy Scripture, of God and of the Holy Trinity, of God's eternal 
decree, of creation, of providence, of the fall of man of sin and 
the punishment thereof. Each of these chapters lays down 
fundamental matters upon which the rest of the confession builds. 
We start with Holy Scripture. There are 10 paragraphs in the 
chapter on Holy Scripture and they lay out for us what Scripture 
is, they name the books of the Bible, they speak to us about 
its sufficiency, its perspicuity or its clarity, of its authority, 
they reject any other man-made works that would seek to have 
an equal place in the Christian faith. It's a great chapter. 
So they begin with the building block. We have a faith that's 
not built on a mystical experience, We have a faith that is built 
upon a revelation that God has given to us in scripture So the 
three Puritan confessions begin here then chapters 2 3 4 & 5 all deal with the doctrine of 
God Chapter 2 speaks to us about God the first two paragraphs 
Speaking generically about God paragraph 3 in technical language 
that we'll notice later on today speaks to us about the doctrine 
of the Holy Trinity and Chapter three, God's eternal decree, 
speaks to us about God's eternal purpose and what he determines 
to do. And then maybe you remember from 
the shorter catechism, there is the question, how does God 
execute his decree? And the answer is God executes 
his decree in the works of creation and providence. Well, those are 
the next two chapters that we find in these three Puritan confessions. God's decree comes into reality 
by his creative act, and then by his providential rule over 
the world. Then chapter 6, the last of these 
foundational principles, deals with the problem of sin. speaks 
to the historical fall of Adam, of the nature of sin and its 
transmission to the race, and it also speaks of the punishment 
that comes. Now it's a dark chapter, but 
it's a chapter that realistically presents to us the teaching of 
the word of God, preparing the way for the doctrine of salvation 
that comes next. Chapter seven through, now this 
is where we're getting a little bit different. In the Second 
Londons, chapters 7 through 20, chapter 20 of Second London is 
not present in Westminster. The numbers of the chapters are 
one different. But from seven through 20 in 
the Second London Confession, you have a section that deals 
with God's covenant. Now, again, let me say this. 
The doctrine that is taught in these chapters is the same for 
the Presbyterians in the Westminster Confession, for the Congregationalists 
in the Savoy Declaration, and for the Baptists in the Second 
London Confession. They are recognizing that they 
share these doctrines together, and they are glad to confess 
them. Chapter 7 is the leading chapter here of God's covenant 
with man. It lays out for us the nature 
of God's purpose to save men and women by means of covenant. Chapter eight of Christ the Mediator, 
in our confession of faith, begins with the eternal covenant, the 
covenant of redemption, and it presents to us the fact that 
the means by which God has determined to bring salvation to humans, 
the means by which the covenant comes into this world is through 
Jesus Christ himself. So there's a wonderful chapter 
that deals with our Savior in his person and in his work. Chapter 
nine of free will, is an important chapter because number one, it's 
a doctrine that's frequently misunderstood, but also because 
it deals with the nature of human will in four different states 
of life. Innocence before the fall, sin 
after Adam and Eve fell, grace when we are brought out of the 
death of our sin and given new life, and then glory, the final 
state. And so it addresses the various 
states by which God's covenant grace comes to individuals in 
relationship to free will. Then in chapters 10 through 13, 
and then 14 through 18, we have various aspects of the covenant 
described to us. Now, notice this, pay attention 
here to how the, we owe this ordering of chapters to the Westminster 
Presbyterians. And there's a reason that they 
put them this way. I can remember many, many years 
ago looking at this order and saying, why is there a chapter 
on justification that precedes the chapter on faith? Don't we 
usually say that we are saved by faith? Shouldn't we describe 
the nature of faith leading up to the doctrine of justification? 
So I had to think about this pretty deeply. I had to investigate 
and ask the question. Well, the order of these chapters 
eight through 18, I'm sorry, 10 through 18, is because our 
Puritan fathers viewed the doctrine of the covenant in two different 
ways. Now they would argue that there's 
one covenant of grace. There's only one. But it can 
be viewed from two different perspectives. One perspective 
is what they called a one-sided covenant. and the other is a 
two-sided covenant. The one-sided covenant, now it's 
like looking at the facets of a diamond. One diamond, it will 
reflect different ways when you look at it. The one-sided covenant 
speaks to us about God's actions The two-sided covenant speaks 
to us of our responses to God's actions always by God's grace. 
So chapter 10 of effectual calling speaks to us of the work of the 
Holy Spirit of taking sinners out of the death of their sin 
and bringing them to life in Christ. Chapter 11 of Justification 
speaks to us about the fact that justification is a declaration 
of God. It's a judicial act that God 
makes based upon the work of his Son and those who place their 
faith in him. Chapter 12 of Adoption speaks 
to us of God's action of taking those who have been called and 
justified and bringing them into his family. And then chapter 
13, Sanctification speaks to us about 
the work of the Holy Spirit in setting us aside for his purposes 
So those four chapters look at the work of the covenant of grace 
from the divine perspective and speak to us about what God himself 
does But then there's a change in 14 through 18. Think about 
it like this now We're not going to become Arminians here Okay, 
everything is done by the grace of God. Nothing can be accomplished 
apart from the grace of God. But of saving faith, who believes? Does God believe on our behalf? 
Or does he grant us faith so that we believe? Repentance, 
who repents? Now repentance is a gift of God. 
It's not something that we do on our own. But we repent, the 
Lord doesn't repent. You're beginning to see how this 
is a two-sided view of the covenant. Chapter 16, of good works. Who 
does the good works? Well, believers do them. Once 
again, by the Spirit dwelling in them, but they are our works 
empowered by God's Spirit. of the perseverance of the saints. 
It's interesting that the Puritans don't title this of the preservation 
of the saints, which they confess elsewhere. To speak about preservation 
would be to say, this is what the Lord does to make certain 
that we come to the eternal state, we enter into his presence in 
the heavenly world. But perseverance turns attention 
to us and says, by God's grace, by the accompanying power of 
the Holy Spirit, pursue holiness. Persevere in the faith, keep 
on until the end. And then chapter 18 of assurance. 
Who experiences assurance? Well, you and I do. It's a gift 
of God. The chapter clearly lays out 
for us how the Lord works this in our lives, but we experience 
it, we get to enjoy it. In fact, the Westminster Puritans 
and the Baptists along with them speak about an infallible assurance. Not experientially, but infallible 
because it's based upon the promise of God that everyone who believes 
in Jesus Christ certainly will be received into his kingdom. 
They will receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life is granted 
to them. So again, its focus is on the 
blessings that come to us. So when you see chapters 10 through 
18, you have to think in terms of one covenant of grace viewed 
from two angles, what God does and then in response to what 
the Lord does, the things that believers are to experience, 
to enjoy because of his grace. Chapter 19 deals with the law 
of God and it lays it out for us in a wonderful statement. 
Then the Baptists following the Congregationalists and the Savoy 
Declaration add a 20th chapter on the Gospel and the spread 
of the Gospel in the world. And they argue, the Congregationalists 
do, that by the time they published their Confession, it was necessary 
for them, for a variety of reasons, to incorporate into the Confession 
a specific statement on the Gospel and why it goes out into the 
world. There are a couple of reasons. The primary one is because 
there had been a growth in a heretical sect called Socinians, who denied 
the spread of the gospel in the world. Then you come to chapters, 
what is in the Baptist Confession, 21 through 30. Here in the Westminster 
Confession, it's 20 through 29. And this is the doctrine of Christian 
liberty. I think that we don't, frequently 
we don't, I won't accuse you of this, but frequently we don't 
value the doctrine of Christian liberty in the way that we should. 
John Calvin said that the doctrine of Christian liberty is the necessary 
appendix to the doctrine of justification by faith. He says if you don't 
understand justification properly, you won't understand Christian 
liberty, and if you don't understand Christian liberty, you don't 
understand justification by faith. Samuel Bolton said, the Lord 
has left to us two great gifts. Faith, and what he means by that 
is both the subjective experience of faith and the objective body 
of truth in scripture, and Christian freedom. He has given that to 
us as a gift. John Owen called Christian liberty 
the second principle of the Reformation. I don't think many times we value 
that doctrine as much as we ought to, but we have a long section 
here that lays out for us the nature of Christian liberty. 
Chapter 20 gives us the doctrine, and then the following chapters 
work out the matters for us. So, religious worship and the 
Sabbath day. You probably have heard of the 
regulative principle of worship. That was developed in order to 
protect the liberty of Christians from intrusions upon the worship 
of God, having things imposed upon the worship that God didn't 
command. That's protection of your liberty. Of lawful oaths and vows. When 
may we make an oath? When we may we make a vow and 
how should we understand those things? Chapter 23, which has 
been very important for us or 24 for the Baptist in the last 
four or five years of the civil magistrate. What do we owe to 
those who have been placed over us in the Lord? We owe obedience 
to them in some things, and there are areas that they must not 
intrude upon. And we saw them intruding upon 
Christian values and Christian activities, didn't we? Well, 
the confession of faith helps us to see through those things. 
And then of marriage and divorce. Who am I free to marry and not? Who can I not marry? It's a matter 
of liberty. If I marry in the Lord a woman 
who loves Christ, I'm free to marry any of them. My wife has 
two sisters. I could have married any one of those three girls. 
I'm glad I didn't. I'm glad I married the one I 
have. She's the best. But really, they're all professing 
Christians. Before I was married, it could 
have been any one of the three or any of the other young ladies 
in our church. It's freedom. But there are certain 
limits, and so we have to recognize the limits Chapter 26 of the 
church in Westminster is 25. What is the doctrine of the church 
about? Ultimately, it's about the lordship of Christ and what 
we owe to him and where we are free, where we're bound and where 
we are free. Chapter 26 or 27 of the communion 
of saints, what do you owe to each other? How do you need to 
take care of each other? It's a very practical chapter. 
It's a wonderful chapter, frequently overlooked, that gives us information 
about how we are to relate to one another. And then of baptism 
and the Lord's Supper, the next three chapters which deal with 
how we are to view the ordinances or the sacraments that Christ 
has left to us, what baptism is, what the Lord's Supper is. 
And then the Baptists don't have these chapters on church censures, 
synods and councils, but they conclude with the final ones 
here of the state of man after death and of the resurrection 
of the dead and of the last judgment. They lay out for us personal 
eschatology, what happens to us as individuals, and cosmic 
eschatology, what the purpose of God for the world, the universe, 
is all about. That's a very rapid summary of 
what we find in these Puritan confessions of faith. But you 
know what, it's comprehensive, it makes sense, and it provides 
to us as Christian believers, all three of these confessions, 
whether you're a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, or a particular 
Baptist, it provides to us a means by which we may understand what 
God has revealed to us in the scripture and how we may glorify 
him by believing these things. And it gives parents a simple 
doctrine by which they are able to teach their children the truths 
of this confession. Now, in 1693, they published 
a version of the Westminster Shorter Catechism that we call 
the Baptist Catechism. Only 18 questions are different, 
and they're not all about baptism. There's some other things, some 
other reasons that they changed some of the early questions. 
But that was intended also as a means by which families might 
be able to have some time at home, parents may teach their 
children teach them the catechism questions, explain to them what 
they're hearing when they come to worship with God and listen 
to their pastors preach the word to them. Well, my time has run 
out. I've gone a minute over. Let 
me summarize. What does the Confession of Faith 
does? It serves as a means of provision of solid orthodoxy, 
instruction for churches, instruction for families, It serves as a 
means of protection against various groups like the Quakers, or Thomas 
Collier, or Matthew Caffin. For us, it can serve as a means 
of protection against Roman Catholics, against the cults, against Greek 
Orthodox Christians, against secularism that's coming in upon 
us. And then finally, it serves as 
a means of proclamation. By which we may demonstrate the 
faith to others people can look and they can say this is what 
that church believes This is what those people believe Well, 
thank you for your time. Let's pray together Oh lord, we ask you to make us 
christians who understand your holy word and believe all the 
doctrines that it teaches We thank you for those who have 
gone before, for the members of the Westminster Assembly, 
for the congregational theologians, and for our own particular Baptist 
forefathers, for the careful thought that they gave into putting 
together their confession of faith. We're glad that it unifies 
us, that it brings us together, and that we're able to say in 
one voice, we believe these things to the glory of God. We give 
you thanks, in Jesus' name, amen. and we'll convene back here when 
you hear the music begin playing.