Summary Discussion of Paragraphs 7-9 and 11-13 of Chapter 26 of the 1689 Confession.

Paragraph seven of chapter 26 highlights the independence and spiritual-giftedness of every local congregation—”To each of these churches.” Each has been given “power and authority” for executing biblically required worship and discipline. They need no interference from outside on matters of discipline, though they may request wisdom from other congregations (paragraphs 14, 15). Nor is their worship mandated from an outside source of human generation such as The Book of Common Prayer. The local congregation may carry out fully the elements of church life as required by Scripture. Every member of the body is gifted for particular functions within the body and “as each part does its work” the entire body is edified (Ephesians 4: 16).
These local congregations, when organized in a fully scriptural manner “according to the mind of Christ” will be constituted by members and officers (8). Members already have been described in paragraph 6 as “Saints by calling” who evidence their desire for holiness of life, fellowship with other believers and submission to the intent of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (described in chapters 28-30). All believers should see membership in a local body as a spiritual privilege and duty (12). Being admitted to the privileges of worship granted to the church by Christ himself, everyone who embraces membership also commits to be under the instruction, censure, and government of the church executed “according to the Rule of Christ.”
Two kinds of discipline will characterize a healthy New Testament congregation. The first is formative discipline. Each member will receive regular instruction from called and qualified teachers—normally, but not limited to, elders—in sermons preached to the whole congregation in corporate worship. In addition, special times of instruction in smaller groups may occur in ways consistent with the needs of various segments of the church’s membership “which are to be ordered according to the light of nature, and Christina prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (I. 6). Formative Discipline is the most common kind employed by the church in accordance with apostolic principle. It includes prayer, worship, giving, taking the ordinances, reading the Scripture, and learning how to detect and mortify the jealous struggles of the flesh against the working of the Spirit and truth. Paul wrote frequently to give encouragement and substantial teaching in this process of formative discipline. To the Colossians, a church that he had not visited as yet, he instructed, “Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving” (Colossians 2: 6). As he continued, Paul wrote, making specific applications of doctrine: “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Colossians 3: 12, 13). At the end of the letter Paul insisted, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, ‘See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord’” (Colossians 4: 16, 17). Such kinds of insistent apostolically-generated instruction could be multiplied greatly. This instruction, the ethical and practical application of doctrinal truth, gives godly formation to the attitudes and actions of Christians. Rescued from the power of darkness, we must now be transformed by the power of the word, the renewing of the mind, in order to be able to test and prove the will of God for a life of worship and obedience. This is formative discipline.
A second type of discipline is corrective discipline. Its first manifestation deals with private offenses that might escalate into the necessity of discipline of a more public nature. The confession refers to 1 Thessalonians 5:14 and 2 Thessalonians 3: 6, 14, 15. Both sternness and gentleness befit pastoral involvement: “Warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all.”  These Scriptures highlight the importance of apostolic teaching in saying, “But we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks not according to the tradition which he received from us.” Also, Paul reminded the church, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Both in conduct and in belief the apostolic practice and word was to govern the congregations established under apostolic missionary labors.
In cases of private offense, the rule of Matthew 18: 15-17 is to be followed. If an understanding and restoration of confidence, trust, and fellowship is achieved in the private meeting, nothing further needs to be done. If such resolution cannot be reached, it then becomes a church matter. In such a case, the person who initiated the attempt at resolution should not “disturb church order, or absent themselves from” church attendance or partaking of the ordinances. They must wait patiently on the will of Christ as executed through the “further proceeding of the church” (13). There are times when difficult circumstances in a local congregation can be aided by consultation with another congregation of like faith and order, but the final policy and action in all such cases is a matter of the authority of the local congregation itself. [Tom Hicks dealt with this in his discussion of paragraphs 14 and 15 in another issue of the Founders Journal]. Each congregation must test all counsel and advice in light of the word of God as it speaks to the particular situation under consideration.
Within the church, God has given some of whom is required the “peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power, or duty” (8). The leadership in the use of means for both formative and corrective discipline falls largely on the shoulders of those so gifted. The members of each congregation search out and call those who have been gifted as officers. The two officers of the church are bishops and deacons. These offices, “appointed by Christ,” are to execute their duties in the church, for the benefit of God’s people and the glory of God, continuing in them “to the end of the world” (8). The common suffrage in electing these officers also is extended to the practice of corrective discipline, a “punishment by the majority” (2 Corinthians 2: 6). Though elders and deacons lead, the final application of discipline is to be done “when you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus,” at which time they are to “purge the evil person from among you.” Disciplinable offenses are listed by the apostle: “anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler.” The purpose of the discipline is reclamation in light of the coming final judgment (1 Corinthians 5: 4, 5, 15). The purpose and prayer in such cases is for repentance and exuberant restoration so that the disciplined person will not be “overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” The church is to “reaffirm your love for him,” “to turn to forgive and comfort” such a one (2 Corinthians 2: 6-8).
These officers are set apart by the church. While the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are given to every member, the “laying on of hands” is reserved for those biblically-mandated and qualified leaders of the congregation—“fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit.” The words bishop, elder, and shepherd all designate a single office from different perspectives of function and character. The Savoy Platform of Polity lists “Pastors, Teachers, Elders” as separate offices. The Baptists, who depended on this statement of polity for much of their wording departed from the Congregationalists at this point.  The elder so qualified is “chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself” (9). This is a solemn, soul-shaping congregational responsibility and so should be accompanied “by fasting and prayer.” When elders are tested and elected, they are set apart for the service by laying on of hands. The confession references 1 Timothy 4: 14: “Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.”
Although God may not call them as elders to exercise authority over the flock, he gives ability and unction of proclamation to others. Both Stephen and Phillip, two of the first deacons, were gifted as preachers and evangelists and God pressed them into service. The confession points to the scattering of the church after the persecution that arose over Stephen. At that time, those who were scattered were “preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.” Others went to Antioch and engaged the Hellenists “preaching the Lord Jesus.” God blessed the effort “and a great number believed and turned to the Lord” (Acts 11: 19-21). Considering this phenomenon, the writers of the confession said, “Yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them; but that others also gifted, and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved, and called by the Church, may and ought to perform it” (11).
Christ has provided for his churches all that is needed for their knowledge of his word and their conformity to his image. The functioning of the church in accordance with the loving regulations given in Scripture under the guidance of the officers that he has set in place will cause us to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”  “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her, that he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that he might present her to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5: 25-27).

Tweet Share

The last edition of the Founders Journal gave exposition to paragraphs 1-6, 10 and 14, 15 of chapter 26, “Of the Church,” of the Second London Confession. This edition will complete our commentary on that chapter. Also, it will include commentary on chapters 27-30 on the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The editor has given attention to paragraphs 7-9 and 11-13 of Chapter 26 to bring to an end our exposition of that lengthy chapter. The two-fold provision of officers for the church designated by Christ, elders and deacons, are discussed. Also, he has discussed the issues of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as presented in chapters 28 – 30. These articles complete the confession’s statement on the distinctive ecclesiological marks of Baptist theology.
Scott Callaham has written an excellent piece on chapter 27, “On the Communion of Saints.” This is a strikingly thorough discussion, a virtual biblical theology, of that rich biblical idea. He brings to bear a comprehensive grasp of the distinctives as well as the unity of the Old and New Testaments, an excellent competency in the biblical languages, and a love for doctrine that arises from careful exegesis. This is an encouraging and spiritually edifying look at the blessing that God has given in our fellowship and union in the gospel.
Complementing these studies, Jeff Robinson provides a book review of Pastors and Their Critics: A Guide to Coping with Criticism in the Ministry (P&R, 2020) by Joel R. Beeke and Nick Thompson. Jeff brings together several qualifications in evaluating this book on pastoral ministry. He has been and is a pastor,  experiencing week by week some of the very issues dealt with in this book. He is a reader on this subject and has brought to bear his broad knowledge of this genre of pastoral theology in making his evaluations. He is a writer—I mean, more than an occasional article or book idea, but a day-by-day producer of usable material for a wide range of readers. He does this as a job, but more importantly, as a conscientious steward of the written word, a theological commitment to the perpetuity of truth through the written word.
The Lord Jesus built his church on the Father-determined, Spirit-wrought confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God. On this confession the gates of hell which enclose the whole world will be made to tremble as God’s power will bring to naught its ability to keep incarcerated even one of God’s elect. Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, its cornerstone, and his redemptive work provides its confession of truth. Christ died for his church and will bring it to himself as a bride—unspoiled, unspotted, unwrinkled, unblemished—on that day when sinless eternity begins in the presence of the one true God. We pray that this Founders Journal will help grow biblically-founded conviction of the importance of maintaining faithfulness to the purpose of Christ set forth when the Father “put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all’ (Ephesians 1: 22,  23).

Tweet Share

During the sixteenth century, German monk Martin Luther (1483–1546) stood against the authority of the Church of Rome and the pope by elevating the Word of Christ above every other authority. The Roman Catholic Church viewed itself as deter­minative over the Bible and its message. It was Luther’s redis­covery of the centrality of Christ’s righteousness in the written Word that launched a gospel reformation and revival throughout Europe and essentially threw off the shackles of Rome’s control over the Word of God.
Similarly, the global evangelical church of the twenty-first century has seemingly slipped into a self-made trap of heeding popular social ideas to interpret and apply Scripture relevantly and respectably. As Christians once languished under the theo­logical captivity of popes and councils, so we now also struggle under the pressure of our cultural captivity. We grow weary of aping the latest talking points, attempting to make the gospel fit every cultural nuance, and relinquishing theological priority and prominence to each person’s unique standpoint. These are not merely neutral cultural communication techniques for con­textualizing the gospel. This repackaging of the gospel based on identity, intersectionality, and standpoint is the effect of a brave new religion. It blurs the transcultural distinctiveness of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
The centrality of a guilt/righteousness para­digm is the standard key to unlocking the gospel for the world’s macro cultural value paradigms of shame/honor, fear/peace, bondage/free­dom, and weakness/strength. Trust alone receives Christ Himself and His benefits/blessings secured by His righteousness and atonement. Those gospel benefits/blessings are the true substance of the patterns of God’s image valued in some cultural orientations. The exchanges of Christ’s righteousness and His benefits/blessings for our unrighteous­ness and curse depend on His substitution and imputation.
The biblical gospel neither adapts nor adopts the imperfect meaning of the world’s value systems. Rather, with transcendent truth, the Bible reinterprets and fills up what is biblically defined as honor, peace, freedom, and strength, bringing clarity to them in the light of the lordship of Christ. The transcultural Word of God brings cohesion and meaning to those cultural value systems by showing how the benefits/blessings of Christ’s work depend on the redemptive center of His work: penal substitutionary atonement, the imputation of His righteousness, adoption into His family, reconciliation with God, and union with Him in His death and resurrection.
This repackaging of the gospel based on identity, intersectionality, and standpoint is the effect of a brave new religion.
The curse-tainted image of God in cultural value systems esteems the true, good, and beautiful aspects of honor, peace, freedom, and strength. Learning how cultures interpret reality and prioritize value systems is important for steering people toward the gospel’s solution to the original sin problem. And learning how cultures contextually interpret ideas and value systems is helpful for knowing how to disciple someone to con­form their thinking to the eternal gospel.
To put it another way, because of those aforementioned essential salvation doctrines that have consistently dominated the Spirit’s illumining work throughout church history, sinners who rest in Christ alone can freely enjoy the grace-filled benefits/ blessings of His active and passive obedience. These blessings include the exchange of our shame, fear, bondage, and weakness for His honor, peace, freedom, and strength—the expiation of our shameful, fearmongering, enslaving, and impoverishing guilt for the imputation of Christ’s honorable, peace-giving, liberating, and strengthening righteousness.
The spirit of the age has profoundly permeated our sensibili­ties. It seems narrow-minded and unsophisticated to suggest that the controlling framework of our theology and missiology should be the self-interpreting Word and its historical gospel doctrines. Instead, indicative of secular theology, we readily query the culture’s ecumenical priorities and multi-perspectival value systems to relevantly adapt the gospel. And this tendency is likely no more evident than in contemporary global missions. We desper­ately need a Word-centered, doctrine-driven reformation that shamelessly upholds the ancient gospel for missions. We must recover the ancient gospel. Its transcultural truths will outlast the brave new religion of this brave new world.

This is an excerpt from the forthcoming book, E.D. Burns, The Transcultural Gospel: Jesus is Enough for Sinners in Cultures of Shame, Fear, Bondage, and Weakness (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2021). You can order the book here.

Tweet Share

Recently, the practice of sermon-copying received some anecdotal examination from a professional homiletician. It was not written to justify the prominent incidents of this of recent revelation. The professor used events in the life of Spurgeon to smooth the way for a more tolerant understanding of this phenomenon. One incident mentioned concerned Spurgeon’s attendance in the worship time of another congregation and hearing his own sermon from a country pastor and benefiting from it. Spurgeon was not offended and did not reprimand but thanked the minister for ministering to his soul. Spurgeon’s humility, the common possession of the word of God, and Spurgeon’s desire to benefit from divine truth is on display there.
Another incident to which he referred concerned Spurgeon’s confronting a student with preaching Spurgeon’s sermon only to find that it was from William Jay. The student and Spurgeon had a common source, so the story goes. Martin Lloyd Jones gave the anecdote. The professor who communicated this story in a twitter thread was not familiar with William Jay of Bath. He referred to him as William J. Bath. William Jay was one of Spurgeon’s favorite preachers, a much older contemporary, and perhaps he would borrow illustrations and even outlines from him. As far as I can discern, it never rose to the level of intellectual theft, or reproducing the exact language (including illustrations and errors!) for sentence after sentence. He certainly thought Jay worth emulating. In 1856 (when Spurgeon was 21) Paxton Hood noted the influence of Jay, observing that Spurgeon had “something of Jay’s plan and method, but that is all.” (Autobiography 1:355). Hood goes on to say, “He has [that is, Spurgeon] in his speech true mental and moral independence.” Another observer of the early Spurgeon (1855), James Grant, said “Models of different styles of preaching are so numerous, that originality must be of rare occurrence; but he [Spurgeon] appears to be an original genius. To the pith of Jay, and the plainness of Rowland Hill, he adds much of the familiarity, not to say the coarseness, of the Huntingtonian order of ultra-Calvinistic preachers.” (Autobiography 1:350) The “Huntingtonians” alternated between admiration and separation in Spurgeon’s evaluation.
In another place, Grant wrote, “Mr. Spurgeon evinces much aptitude in borrowing illustrations, not only from the pages of antiquity, and from modern life and literature, but also from most familiar incidents, as well as from public events.” Grant in that observation refers to Spurgeon’s genius in being able to squeeze out pertinent and vivid illustrations—short striking images or longer narratives—from a variety of sources. His own facility in application made them fit his purpose with clarity. Spurgeon recounts going to hear Jay preach when Spurgeon was living in Cambridge. “I remember with what dignity he preached, and yet how simply.” He goes on to say, “My recollections of Jay were such as I would not like to lose. It usually happens that, when we listen to a venerable patriarch, such as he then was, there is all the greater weight in his words because of his age.” [Autobiography 1:150]. He never forgot the text or its emphases, “Ever let your conversation be as becometh the gospel of Christ.”  (Pike’s Life and Work 1:75).
It is not unthinkable that Spurgeon could have had such a vivid memory of a Jay sermon he had heard (or read), that the outline came to him in his Saturday evening work of sermon preparation. Often in these evening hours, culminating his week’s labors of unremitting writing of various sorts and a disciplined regimen of reading, Spurgeon testifies that a sermon outline and most of its argument would fall on his mind in a few moments after some lengthy time of reading through relevant volumes in his library. In his Lectures to my Students, Spurgeon used William Jay as an example of hovering over the words of a text in order to fix them plainly in the minds of the congregation: “The many are not always sufficiently capable of grasping the sense apart from the language—of gazing, so to speak, upon the truth disembodied; but when they hear the precise words reiterated again and again, and each expression dwelt upon after the manner of such preachers as Mr. Jay, of Bath, they are more edified, and the truth fixes itself more firmly upon their memories. Let your matter, then, be copious, and let it grow out of the inspired word” [Lecture 1:76].
Early in his ministry, Spurgeon opposed the distribution of sermon helps and gave negative reviews to them-such tools encouraged laziness and disingenuousness preaching. When he read the letters that Susie received from ministers applying for books from her book ministry, he himself began to write for tired minds and bodies that had labored for six days and would try to piece together a sermon in a few hours on Saturday evening. He wrote as he said, not to encourage laxness but to pour some water into the pump to generate the fresh flow of thought.
Spurgeon, especially when young, would sometimes use an outline for a sermon lifted straight from Gill’s comments. Who has not used a commentary in such a manner especially when convinced that the outline’s exegetical insight is correct? He was also influenced greatly by reading sermons from J. Edwards and certain passages in Spurgeon have clearly been influenced by Edwards’s rhetoric and images (see below). Spurgeon had the most prodigious understanding of the Puritans of any in his day and read them regularly. It is no surprise that their ideas—both theological and applicatory—appear frequently in his sermons. We would hope that similar puritanical excurses would punctuate sermons of many a modern preacher. Spurgeon could discern their peculiar talents, styles, theological contributions with great alacrity and accuracy and one would expect, in light of the common source of authority and instruction in the Bible, that they too would appear in Spurgeon sermons in ways that Spurgeon would make his own. This in fact the case.
It seems completely inconsistent, however, with Spurgeon’s manner of preparation, his homiletical style, his irrepressible genius and originality that he would simply preach another man’s sermon. I am not, however, in a position absolutely to deny that it happened. Knowing his irrepressible penchant for originality, he would avoid like the plague preaching one of the sermons of his immediate contemporaries especially. It would be interesting to know which of Williams Jay’s sermons Spurgeon preached and published as his own, if it happened. Where is it in the NPSP or the MTP? If someone knows, I would be glad to be informed. Given the manner in which the sermons were recorded by amanuenses and then edited by Spurgeon before publication, it seems almost impossible for that to have happened, though perhaps it did.
There are places where Spurgeon would imitate an emphasis, the nature of the language, a compelling manner of expression, or a peculiarly tight theological point. In the manner of his appeal to sinners, sometimes Spurgeon resembles Whitefield in passion and in brief reminiscence of Whitefield’s language and the movement from one group of his auditory to another in pleading with them. He was, after all, referred to as the “Modern Whitefield” and might have used some of Whitefield’s methods and language in the early days of his open field preaching. In a sermon on John 3:18 in giving exposition of “condemned already” Spurgeon used a series of ideas and sometimes the very language from Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
God is more angry with some of you than he is with some in hell….God’s wrath, though it come not on you yet is like a stream dammed up. Every moment it gathers force….Oh wherefore do ye stand out against him, and in this way pull down upon your heads the wrath of an angry God?” (MTP 16:681, 682).
In illustrating the fitting roles of the persons of the Trinity in the Covenant of Redemption, Spurgeon scripted a conversation between the persons concerning their common agreement to bring to completion the divine redemptive purpose (e.g. “The Gracious Lips of Jesus” MTP 54 #3081). This followed the style of John Flavel in a similar simulation of an intra-trinitarian discussion.
Yes, Spurgeon was influenced by the greatest of the preachers of the past, but that he preached another man’s sermon apart from rigorous study and preparation of his own must be proved. Spurgeon’s own testimony of the selection of a text seems to make this virtually impossible: “I confess that I frequently sit hour after hour praying and waiting for a subject, and that this is the main part of my study; much hard labour have I spent in manipulating topics, ruminating upon points of doctrine, making skeletons out of verses and the burying every bone of them in the catacombs of oblivion, sailing on and on over leagues of broken water, till I see the red lights and make sail direct to the desired haven. I believe that almost any Saturday in my life I make enough outlines of sermons, if I felt at liberty to preach them, to last me for a month, but I no more dare use them than an honest mariner would run to shore a cargo of contraband goods” [Lectures 1:88]. This does not seem like the attitude and method of a preacher who would settle for using another man’s sermon.
I am aware that the centuries have produced, by God’s kindness, a rich store of exposition, sermonic material, doctrinal discussions, and polemical engagements from which we want to benefit personally and then share with those to whom we minister. That we so benefit is, I think, an element of our stewardship of the “communion of saints.” It is an admission of our finiteness and the particular giftedness of other saints through the centuries. If a preacher is unwilling to benefit from Chrysostom, Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John A. Broadus, Charles H. Spurgeon, B. H. Carroll, J Gresham Machen, James Montgomery Boyce, or Don Carson, he is missing sources of enrichment for his own exposition. He should consider some investment of time in these pivotal thinkers, commentators, and homileticians of the past and present. But the same body of material should teach us to internalize the insights and distribute them, as they did and do, in the context of a personal pastoral stewardship of calling and obligation to the revealed word of God and the people God has given us. Paul’s concern for Timothy is true for us—“so that all may see your progress” and that we may “keep a close watch on [ourselves] and the teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:15, 16).

Tweet Share