Well, it's wonderful to be here again today. You should all have an outline of the lecture this morning. You probably figured out from yesterday that my outlines are not designed so much to add clarity to my presentation as they are to give you some hope that it will end. So you should be able to track. You should be able to use it for that purpose. I was also asked to issue a full retraction for my comments about Delta's seats. The crew were wonderful. I must say, of all the times I've been asked to speak about the Westminster Assembly or the Westminster Confession of Faith, this has been one of the best in that I've been given this wonderful assignment to reflect out loud about the person and work of Christ, and it's a glorious subject. In this second lecture, I want to briefly state five points In five points, I want to restate the Westminster Assembly's description of our redemption as it was accomplished by Christ. Then I'll make five observations that tether the work of Christ to the person of Christ. And finally, I'll mention six features that the Westminster Assembly thought should characterize the person and work of one who preaches Christ. So 16 points in 45 minutes. I thought that was a very Puritan idea. A handful of paragraphs in Chapter 8 outline a doctrine of the person of Christ It's paragraph four that actually describes the work of Christ, the accomplishment of our redemption, this discharging of our debt. The first thing that paragraph four states is that Christ was eager to help those who could not help themselves. Although he was called to be our mediator, this was an office that our Lord Jesus Christ most willingly undertook. As our Lord Himself explained to His disciples, it wasn't His power to lay down His life, it was in His power to take it up again. It was the Father's will, even His commandment, but the Son Himself was ready to do such things for us. It was Christ's loving eagerness that the author of the letter to the Hebrews noted as he reflected on the meaning of Psalm 40. He points out that just after the psalmist dismissed the sufficiency and the true efficacy of temple sacrifices and offerings in verse 6, a person suddenly appears on the scene in verses 8 to 9 who says he's coming, that he delights to do God's will and to obey God's law. And who else could that be? The author to the Hebrews' reasons, but Christ himself. He would serve as the true intermediary and he would keep God's law and become obedient to the point of death, even to death on a cross. And so it was that when God sent forth his son, born of a woman, that he was obedient. that he was born under the law. The second person of the Trinity placed himself under all the obligations of the moral law, designed from eternity to reflect his own character. The one whose wisdom itself accepted the tutelage of the ceremonial law. The one who was life itself committed himself to the horror and the curse of the sacrificial law, seeing it in the temple and ending it on his cross. Our gracious Savior perfectly fulfilled God's law from the time that he stood in the Jordan with water pouring over his head to the moment when he fulfilled the law and the prophets and could say with authority, it is finished. And he did so as our mediator. This humble law keeping is a reminder that although Christ's work is glorious, In its plan, in its details, and in its effects, it was not glorious in its appearances. There's little glory to be seen in the execution of much of that work. To that point, as our mediator, Christ endured the most grievous torments. And the Westminster Assembly, after much debate, insisted on discussing that too. They insist on discussing a suffering that's not only exhibited in his anguish as he awaited and then experienced, the brutal pain of scourging and his humiliation and his crucifixion as if that were some small thing. No, Jesus also endured much more than that. For as he entered Gethsemane, he began to groan under an invisible pressure greater than the fear and threat of death. Christians have long recognized that before his tormentors could begin their dirty work, Jesus had already discovered in the garden the agonizing pangs of a penalty reserved properly for sinners. John Calvin called this Christ's descent into hell, borrowing a phrase in the Apostles' Creed to make his point. It was on the cross that Jesus finally cried out in anguish, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? But it was in the garden that the hell of eternity entered time already, as God punished the sinless Savior with the punishment that our sins deserve. This agony in his soul must have been the worst that Jesus endured. But it wasn't the most obvious. The pain that all could see was the suffering in his body, at the hands of the priests and the Jewish leaders and the Roman soldiers, before Pilate, before Herod, and before the crowd. And there he was, crucified, like a runaway slave, hanging between heaven and earth in shame and pain. And he died. So often I think of Christ dying. The confession's quite right to remind us that Christ was also dead. That's why it's worth remembering that Jesus was actually buried, that he remained under the dreadful dominion of death for a time. And even though his body did not remain so long in the grave as to rot away, his living body really had become a lifeless corpse. Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, a lifeless corpse. Thankfully, our Savior did not remain in the grave. As Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 15, it is not only a matter of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, it's also a matter of first importance that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. The father was pleased with his son's work. All that was necessary for our salvation was accomplished. And so he raised his son with pleasure on the third day. He raised him from the dead and provided witnesses for this astonishing event. He also provided a doubting Thomas who wondered if Jesus really had risen in his own physical body, a reality about which Jesus insisted with all his disciples. Here in this work of Christ, we find something not only glorious for us, but glorious for him. Here we see humiliation turn to exaltation, as we'll hear more of this evening. It was in that same body that Jesus also ascended from a hilltop in Bethany. Even in heaven, Christ remains. As was said last night, glorified dust on the throne of heaven. Even in heaven, Christ remains our embodied mediator. For Jesus did not stop caring for his people on that hill near Bethany. He did not stop working on the day that he ascended. He cleared a pathway to heaven and in a very real way, he continues to prepare us for heaven just as he prepared heaven for us. He's been busy gathering his church from around the world, giving her all the gifts and graces that she needs to last and to thrive until he returns. He's been defending her from her enemies, guiding her in truth and holiness. And as we're reminded in the letter to the Romans, Christ makes intercession for us. This is a glorious set of promises, wonderful things to bring to our mind as we consider the glory of Christ's work in spite of our daily failings, in spite of the accusations of our enemies and one enemy above all. Christ is there to quiet our consciences, to encourage our prayers, and to accept us and our services as chapter 16 of the confession, paragraph six says. That idea that in Christ, both we and our services are accepted as Christians, that has been a marvelous encouragement to me in my ministry. on those rare occasions where I go home and think, that was actually a decent sermon. Knowing that all that I do is accepted in Christ alone, that not only myself, but also my ministry is accepted and made useful only in Christ, that's helpful in guarding me from pride. It's also helpful for those moments of humiliation, where I preach a sermon and I'm just like, dear me. You just want to go to the church bathroom and just dump garbage on your head? That's the modern equivalent of sackcloth and ashes. Again, just the thought that my Savior, that in Him, not only me, but also my services are accepted in God's sight. That is a glorious comfort. Well, there's so much more to say. He's our advocate. His very appearance in the presence of God. His scarred body in that perfect place fully pleads our desperate cause. He is able to silently silence our accuser, for in heaven it's a known fact that there's no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. And Christ Jesus ever lives to make this intercession for us, but there will come a day when he will return to judge men and angels, and this too, like his resurrection and ascension in session is part of Christ's glorious work. The day that Jesus returns, that will be the most splendid of all days for God's people. and the most dire of days for all others. A whole chapter of the confession is devoted to this subject. For now, I think it's enough for us to remember the assuring words of that pair of angels that stood beside those dumbfounded disciples who had just witnessed the ascension. This Jesus, whom was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven. The second coming will in turn, of course, be followed by yet another stage in Christ's exaltation, the judgment of all human beings and angels at the end of the world. The Bible tells us that many rebellious angels are already reserved in judgment, already reserved in everlasting chains, waiting in darkness for the assessment of that great day. The same is true, no doubt, for rebellious people. The main point is that we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. And this should teach us not to busy ourselves judging one another. The Lord will do that for us. And this should also teach us to prepare ourselves for that day. For the only way to do so is to consider Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became man and willingly undertook the office of mediator. This is, A great summary that the Westminster Confession of Faith offers for us, noting just those few high points of his humiliation and exaltation. So having considered with you the person of Christ yesterday and glanced with you at the work of Christ, I want to reflect on how the two intersect. No doubt you've already seen that one reason why the Westminster Assembly focused on Christ as incarnate mediator is that the glory of Christ's person comes into an especially clear focus when we consider his work. This, by the way, is the answer to how we're to preach Christology. We highlight some aspect of the mystery of his person, and then we show how this impacts and gives weight and meaning to Christ's work, how it's essential for his work. For it's not only the case that Christ as mediator is God and man, it's also the case that we need him to be such for our salvation. This is a point that the Westminster Standards make with great care. In fact, both in their lament of our demerits and in their praise of Christ's merits, our Standards describe a consistent relationship between the person of Christ and the efficacy of his work on our behalf. The thing that makes Christ's work worthy of divine approval can be summarized usefully, I think, under five headings. For it appears from our confessional standards that a properly meritorious work must be free, perfect, personal, profitable, and proportional. Now I understand it would give more authority to my outline if I could make all five of those alliterate, but I couldn't find a synonym for free that begins with a P, so don't spend the rest of our time together thinking through what that might be, but if you do come to it, give it to me and I'll improve this outline and it'll be more persuasive for pastors. The first aspect of a properly meritorious work, a work deserving of a reward, is that it be free. If one must perform a work as a matter of debt, he or she can hardly request a reward for that work when completed. Under this heading, as in every aspect of a discussion of merit, we encounter a contrast between ourselves and our Savior. such as our debt to the one who's made us and rules over us, such as the relationship of man to his maker, that as reasoning creatures, we owe obedience unto God our creator, as chapter seven states. Indeed, quite apart from the fact that we're guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby have become debtors to the justice of God, Every one of us knows that we owe whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he's pleased to require of us. Who are we? Who we are impacts what we can and must do. Our person impacts our work. Well, if this is sadly true of us, it's gloriously true of Christ. Jesus Christ is no mere creature, and he owed no obedience to the creator. This was a subject about which the assembly debated at length, and thus the gathering statement that the incarnate Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake his work as mediator should be read as a deliberate and not an accidental or incidental comment on his meritorious work. His actions were performed freely, is the point, and not as a matter of debt. His work was meritorious because it was free. The second aspect of proper merit is that it be perfect. There must be nothing lacking in the performance of the work that would make it unworthy of reward. Unsurprisingly, the standards discussion of sin clarifies that as fallen persons and even as redeemed, our best works fall short of God's standard for obedience. Echoing the pronouncements of the word of God, we're told that in Adam and by our own sin, we have also forfeited our rights to all the outward blessings of this life. Something that is apparently true in any post-lapsarian and pre-eschatological placement of humanity. The most that we can do is to offer what is sincere and accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. which is diametrically opposed to offering work that is unblameable and unapprovable in God's sight. The whole of chapter six of the confession precludes the possibility of making a beneficial covenant of works in substance with fallen man. Thankfully, that chapter also underscores what we've already underlined, that God provided a mediator who is himself perfect, who was made under the law, and who can offer perfect obedience in our place. His work was meritorious because it was faultless. And that perfection in his work is inseparable from the perfection of his person. The third property of a work properly deserving of reward is that it be personal. If we are to claim a work as our own, we must not be borrowing the efforts of others. Here, too, we fall short. Outside of Christ, our personal works cannot be accepted at all, for the reasons mentioned above or a moment ago. They may be things which God commands, they may be things of good use in themselves and others, yet because they proceed from a heart purified by faith, excuse me, because they do not proceed from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the word, nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful and cannot please God. That's what's true outside of Christ. Conversely, Works that we do united to Christ are still, as I mentioned a few moments ago, only accepted through Christ. They are accepted through Christ, that's glorious, but they're only accepted through Christ. Our Father's pleased to accept and reward what we do because he looks upon them in his Son, chapter 16 tells us. If we do have works that are good, they're good as they proceed from his Spirit. We are completely, in other words, dependent on the triune God, acting on our behalf, not least the mediator anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, to whom all power has been given on our behalf. And so, we are far from standing on our own soteriological two feet, so far from that that we lean wholly on Jesus' name. His work is meritorious because it was personal, because the person who did that work is the glorious Son of God. In the fourth place, a properly effective and meritorious work is profitable. It gets its reward and is guaranteed to do so. It has purchasing power. Admittedly, this is but a logical conclusion of that which proceeds. This is a logical conclusion. of what I've just said. It's another facet of the same truth, and yet it's usefully and commonly discussed in theological literature as a category worthy of discussion in itself, and it's obviously presented as such in our confessional standards. In fact, it's presented in the starkest of terms in chapter 16, paragraph five. There we are reminded that we cannot, by our best works, merit pardon of sin or eternal life at the hand of God. Indeed, quoting Christ's comment in Luke chapter 17, we're told that when we've done all we can, we've but done our duty and are unprofitable servants. That's the key word. God is a just master and we cannot endure the severity of God's judgment. Indeed, we cannot even do anything to make ourselves acceptable candidates to receive grace from God. But again, the Lord Jesus could do more because of who he is. Our Savior found all of his work profitable. He could procure the Lord's favor. He could purchase a peculiar people, as question 38 of the larger catechism puts it. As mediator, he purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all whom the Father had given unto him. Christ purchased liberty for believers. He's bought for us freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law. and deliverance from this present evil world, bondage to Satan and to the dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation. And it is he who has won it for us, who has won for us this free access to God. His work was meritorious because it was profitable in a way that our work cannot be. Finally, a properly meritorious work will be proportional to its reward. This is perhaps the most important point of all. A day's pay for an hour's work is a matter of grace, not works. And so how are we to consider a reward consisting of an eternity of joyful fellowship with God? It can hardly be surprising that the confession insists. on a great disproportion that's between the works of the redeemed and the glory to come. The eschatological advancement offered in the scriptures is way out of proportion to even the best of our works, even if they were offered freely, perfectly, and personally. The chasm between what we deserve and what we inherit can only be bridged by a beneficent covenantal agreement. Furthermore, not only is there a great disproportion between the works of the redeemed and the glory to come, but even more basically, an infinite distance that's between us and God. Even pre-fall merit is thus excluded in any proportional sense because of the ontological difference between the creator and the creature. Adam had a capacity for perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. But the value of that obedience was far less than the promised reward. Quite apart from the problem of sin, ably discussed in many places, but not least with respect to our reward again in chapter 16. It seems there is no possibility of Adam or his descendants accelerating an eschatological or glorified state by means of any real merit of his own. He could only do so through a covenantal arrangement, where God, in his benevolent freedom, would reward his obedience with a gift beyond that which Adam could earn. Thus, in Adam's case, in discussion of merit pre-fall, theologians face a fork in the road. On the one hand, theologians can shy away from applying merit categories altogether since it's inappropriate to speak of a real merit even for Adam in his pre-lapsarian state. On the other hand, some argue that there's merit in a kind of covenantal sense for a prelapsarian Adam, an arrangement of works and reward that God determines can legitimately be described in terms of merit. And Reformed and post-Reformation theologians have been divided on this question, and this is not the time nor the place to get into these discussions, and hopefully not the time or the place for really hard questions on the subject. For now, it's enough to observe, I think, that confessional statements about disproportionality are significant in themselves, but they also tee up, once again, a discussion about our Savior. little wonder that the Confession of Faith and the larger catechism argue that our mediator must be God, must be full of the Spirit, and must be perfectly obedient. All three of those elements are non-negotiable aspects of the system of doctrine in our standards, not merely that all of this obtained in the person and life of Christ, but that they must obtain in order for our Lord Jesus to freely, perfectly, personally, and for us profitably grant all of his people such a reward. What else could be proportional to so great a gift than the divine savior himself as Anselm of Canterbury reasoned a long time ago? Only he could, only he has fully satisfied the justice of his father, as our Reformed fathers have so clearly explained, and has purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, again, for all those for whom the Father has given it to him. Perhaps nowhere, perhaps nowhere is it more clear than in a discussion of proportionality, that the glory of Christ's work is inseparable from the glory of Christ's person. This is doctrine that preaches, brother. This is how you get from Christology to a rich proclamation of the work of Christ. Of course, it's also true, and must be emphasized again, that in order to save us, the Messiah could not be the Son of God only. He needed to be the Son of God incarnate. He needed to be a man, to be born of a woman, to be placed under the law. He needed to come as the last Adam. But what I want you to see here is that there is this other accent in our standards. Chapter 8, paragraph 3 emphasizes that the divine person of the mediator and ontological matter and the indwelling of the spirit and economic reality are necessary for the removal of demerit. Similarly, paragraphs 4, 5, and larger catechism question 38 emphasize that the divine person of Christ is necessary for the provision of merit, for his work to be effective and useful for us. In the words of question 38, or answer 38, it was requisite that the mediator should be God to give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession, as well as to satisfy God's justice. Or as Cornelius Burgess put it, why should not Christ's merit be of infinite value by suffering his flesh since that God suffered? We can speak of an efficacy to the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ. His work was meritorious because it was proportional. And this brings us back to where this discussion began a few moments ago, with an insistence on something real, on a person who is truly God. on real rather than nominal categories, if that makes sense to you, in defining biblical conceptions of merit as articulated in our confession. This is why the confession speaks of Christ by his obedience and death, fully discharging debt and making, these are very important words, proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice. Well, we've considered what the Westminster Assembly has to say about the person and work of Christ, however briefly, which includes the person in the work of Christ. Let me end by listening to what the Westminster Assembly had to say about the kind of person who's supposed to be at work in preaching Christ. For this, we need to turn to a section in the directory for public worship entitled, Of the Preaching of the Word, from which we can see that the assembly expected the one who preaches to be a scholar, a worshiper, an orator, an apologist, a pastor, and a servant. Even before he enters the pulpit, a preacher is called to be a scholar. Referring readers back to the directory for ordination also written by the assembly, the gathering explained that according to the rules of ordination, a minister must in some good measure be gifted for so weighty a service. I think this seems plausible given the weighty subject we've just been discussing. If we're to explain this to our people, we need to be gifted for it. He used to have skill in the original languages and in such arts and sciences as our handmaids to divinity. He used to have knowledge in the whole body of theology, but most of all in the holy scriptures. He used to be able to understand and summarize the scripture. to analyze and divide texts, to ensure that the truths he expounds are contained in or grounded on that text he preaches, and to chiefly insist upon those doctrines which are principally intended in the passages that he addresses. Nonetheless, he's to be the kind of scholar whose teaching is expressed in plain terms because he is a scholar whose work is for the benefit of others and not just for himself or his peers. He's a scholar who's not just discussing any topic, he's discussing a glorious Savior for the benefit of the Savior's people and for those who still need to come to know him. In the paragraphs most clearly emphasizing a preacher's scholarly ability, the assembly also underscores that he's a worshiper. In fact, immediately after stressing that a preacher is to be a student of truth and an expert in the Bible, the directory states that the preacher must have his senses and heart exercised in them above the common sort of believers. He is to trust in the illumination of God's spirit and other gifts of edification. in reading and studying of the word and in seeking God by prayer and a humble heart, the preacher is always to be resolving to admit and receive any truth not yet attained whenever God shall make it known unto him. Assembly members considered preparation for preaching as an act of piety, a sanctifying experience of personal worship, And thus, he is to make use of and improve on his private preparations before he deliver in public what he has studied. That is to say, he is to be persuaded in his own heart that all that he teaches is the truth of Christ. And earnestly, both in private and in public, recommending his labors to the blessing of God, and watchfully looking to himself and the flock whereof the Lord has made him overseer. He's a worshiper. Preachers are not merely professionals paid to study topics and prepare sermons. Nonetheless, they are to be what I might call orators, men able to construct and deliver addresses that are organized and persuasive. The assembly expected sermons to have introductions, well-ordered arguments, and illustrations that engender spiritual delight. The directory directs the preacher to exhort and dehort. That's a great word. to dissuade, to explicate, and to insist. The liability of the label orator is that it could suggest that preaching is just but a type of rhetoric. This, the assembly would reject. The subdirectory for preaching insists that the minister communicate in a manner that the meanest may understand. delivering the truth not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, lest the cross of Christ be made of none effect." Familiar words. The preacher's gestures, voice, and expression were to be appropriate to his ministry. The minister must abstain also from an unprofitable use of unknown tongues, strange phrases, and cadences of sounds and words, sparingly citing sentences of ecclesiastical or other human writers, ancient or modern, be they never so elegant. It was not elegance that the assembly was after. while they knew preaching would be a work of great difficulty, requiring much prudence, zeal, and meditation. What the assembly really wanted were men who could preach in such a way that auditors may feel the word of God to be quick and powerful. to discover the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And if any unbeliever or ignorant person be present, he may have the secrets of his heart made manifest and give glory to God." The directory also insists that a preacher is to be aware of and respond to error, that there is an apologetic dimension to his work. Interestingly, even in the 17th century, there was no assumption on the part of the directory, the people who come to worship will believe whatever the preacher says. That is why the sermon is to employ places of scripture, confirming the doctrine, and why these places are rather to be plain and pertinent than many. the preachers to offer arguments or reasons that are solid and as much as may be convincing. What is more, if any doubt obvious from scripture, reason or prejudice of the hearers seem to arrive, it is very requisite to remove it by reconciling the seeming differences, answering the reasons and discovering and taking away the causes of prejudice and mistake. Obviously that requires ministers to know their Bibles and to know their people. if they're going to be effective apologists. Of course, there are preachers who have made it their hobby to refute heresy. And so the assembly also added, quite sensibly, that it's not fit to detain the hearers with propounding or answering vain or wicked cavils, which, as they are endless, so the propounding and answering of them doth more hinder than promote edification. Or to put it in another way, In confutation of false doctrines, he's neither to raise an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily. But if the people be in danger of an error, he is to compute it soundly and endeavor to satisfy their judgment and consciences against all objections. Unsurprisingly, the assembly speaks to preachers in such a way as to remind them that both in a preacher's motivation and in his concerns, the preacher is a pastor. The preacher is to address the people in such a way that they sense his loving affection and his godly zeal and hearty desire to do them good. The ministry is not supposed to be only about the minister. He's to walk before his flock as an example to them, watchfully looking to himself and the flock whereof the Lord has made him overseer. And he's to be mindful of both their weaknesses and their sinfulness. His sermons are not to be too complicated. He's neither to burden the memory of the hearers in the beginning with too many members of division, like 16 points, nor to trouble their minds with obscure terms of art. His concern is for their souls. In his preaching, he will make most for the edification of his hearers. A good preacher not only calls them to do their duties, but helps them to see how to get there. He's to point out the misery and danger of sin, to offer comfort against temptations, troubles, and terrors. He is to answer the objections that troubled hearts will likely raise against his preaching. And through his residence and conversing with his flock, he will select the best uses and applications of texts and doctrines, such as may most draw their souls to Christ, the fountain of light, holiness, and comfort. Above all, the preacher is a servant or minister. And while preaching is one of the greatest and most excellent works, it remains work. The preacher is a workman, one who hopes not to be ashamed in his master's assessment of his labors. He is a minister of Christ, but he's also a servant to God's people. He's to work hard to make sure that his sermon isn't a burden for others. The assembly here mentions that it's not to be a burden for the memory of hearers to bear or trouble for their minds. And he's to have in view their edification and benefit. He's to offer a kind of removal service or moving service for doubts, taking away the causes of prejudices and mistakes or whatever else might hinder the progress of his congregation. As a servant, he must not rest with easy applications, but give something that will truly be useful, even if it proves a work of great difficulty to himself. The preacher as servant is the subdirectory on preaching's major motif, and it ends with a stirring call to faithful labor. The servant of Christ whatever his method be, is to perform his whole ministry painfully, not doing the work of the Lord negligently. He is to serve on behalf of the meanest of his listeners. Echoing Jesus' parables about laborers, the preacher is told by the assembly to be ever looking at the honor of Christ and the conversion and edification and salvation of the people, not at his own gain or glory, keeping nothing back which may promote those holy ends. as a servant he is to be wise, grave, and loving, that the people may see all coming from his godly zeal and hearty desire to do them good, and in the end, he is to recommend his labors to the blessing of God. So shall the doctrine of truth be preserved uncorrupt, many souls converted and built up, and himself received many full comforts of his labors, even in this life. And afterward, the crown of glory laid up for him and the world to come. But wasn't it Samuel Rutherford, a commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, who reminded us that when Jesus does return and calls us to give an account of our ministries, or when he calls us home, that we will not be gazing at glory in the abstract, but on the King of grace. We will not be dizzied by the beauty of our crowns, but we'll be looking again at his pierced head and hands. For the lamb, his person and work, are not only the focus of all of our proclamation, but also the glory of Emmanuel's land. Praise be to God. Where are we with the clock? 25 minutes. We don't have to take it all. OK. This is great. I have a question for you. Would someone mind getting me a water bottle? There's a number of used ones here, but I just don't know you all well enough to try them. Any questions or comments? John. John thinks that because I've studied, I'm rephrasing his question, that I've studied the Westminster divines that I'm now equipped to comment on everybody else's preaching as well. I don't feel that sense of calling. But I'm opinionated, so I'll speak to the question anyways. So I think. that there's just a handful of problems that I see. I used to teach preaching at our seminary, for better or for worse. One of the things that I see men doing is avoiding the sticky bits of a passage. You know, if it's a paragraph long and there's a hard part, they just skip right over it, as if their congregation couldn't possibly see it for themselves. And in fact, In churches where the scripture reading is found in the bulletin and where members are encouraged to read the bulletin rather than the Bible, they'll often actually give us a little ellipsis or a little, they'll deliberately skip the hard parts as if members will never read the Bible at home and encounter them themselves. So that's a problem. We need to be willing to do the hard work of knowing our people well enough to anticipate what they might see as a question. We need to know the Bible well enough to be willing to grapple with these things. And of course, we also need to be willing to say sometimes, I'm not sure what to do with this. This is hard. I'm not sure what to do. Could be this, this, or that. and admit our own deficiencies. There's all kinds of ways of dealing with the problem, but it's a problem that people avoid this. I think another thing that I see and hear in preaching, and you all would probably have more interesting things to say, but here we are, people, brothers preach generic sermons that could come from virtually any text of the Bible. The assembly insisted that we teach what's principally in that place, that the sermon come from that text. Often we read a text, we announce a couple points, probably three, not closely tethering it to the passage. People can't quite see how it connects to what we just read. And that's a problem because there's two problems. First of all, If our sermons are not closely connected to the passage we're preaching, it requires us to be endlessly creative. You see, there's lots of variety in the text of scripture itself. But if we're not gonna follow that text closely, then we need to provide all that creative nuance and difference and freshness each week, which is already in the Bible, but we're not really preaching that anyway. So it requires very talented people. We're not all that talented. The other problem is it divests our sermons of most of, it divests them of their true authority. The authority comes from the pastor, from his office, from your love for him, from the fact he visited you in the hospital. That's all okay, but when a passage clearly informs your preaching, then people hear the authority of the Word of God. So that's my second complaint, since I'm allowed to complain in public. The third major issue would be, would be sermons that do come from the passage. You know, Matthew chapter one, the sermons on incarnation, everybody gets it. But by the time the people walk home, they understand the incarnation better, they understand the doctrine better, but they don't necessarily understand Matthew chapter one any better. That's a problem, and I think that's maybe the biggest problem in reformed churches, that we, that we don't preach sermons that let people understand their Bibles better. They understand doctrine better, but not necessarily their Bibles better. And they don't learn how to interpret it themselves. And so they remain impoverished. So I think the assembly in its directory, and in what I even just mentioned in passing, deals with all those issues. And I find that very refreshing. Yeah. Yes, sir. Often I hear, when I'm preaching, I sometimes see there are two groups in the congregation. There's a large group who feel if the sermon leaves me even, or if I leave the church feeling uncomfortable after the sermon, it's a bad sermon, it must be legalistic. Then there's other Christians that are more prevalent in some parts of the country than others, who basically took that sermon by don't leave church, don't take my salvation. Yeah, yeah. And the purely interesting way of preaching around, when I, two of the first books I read in the reformed days were a late, sure document, a long document, and then a lifting up of the blind man after that, chapter one, then chapter the other, kind of. What advice do you think the Westminster Divide would give to young preachers in our age regarding preaching the word, applying the word, and helping people come to a well-rounded church? Yeah, it's a great question. So what advice coming from the assembly would help us give people a well-grounded doctrine of assurance? How can we do that in our preaching? First of all, it has to be said that the divines are not all equal here. Some of them I don't think get this right. But those who do, I think, direct people to the sufficiency of Christ. And they preach sin with a care and a thoroughness that lets people know they really do have a problem. So that's an important step. I mean, a lot of preaching today never gets to the problem of assurance. because it never really gets to conviction. So the gospel is just saccharine. It's just sweet and sugary. It's not food, because no one's hungry. It's not rescuing anyone, because no one's lost. So the best of the Westminster divines preach the law thoroughly. or sometimes preach the glory of God so beautifully that we see our deficiency. Either way, they're showing us the problem. And then they preach the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. But there's this last step. How do you apply this? I think that a lot of Puritans, although not the best ones, often had a fairly pat kind of application when it came to, boy, I'm being hard on the Puritans here. I think too many of them had a kind of pat application where you would state some duty of the law or some glory of Christ and you would say, you don't do that, do you? You don't appreciate that, do you? We always forget this. The application is almost always the same. It's just a kind of vanilla pronouncement of our forgetfulness or our deficiency. People can see it coming a mile away. As soon as the pastor's done talking about how wonderful something is, he's going to say, and you don't really appreciate that. Or as soon as he talks about the rigors of the law, he's going to say, and you fail here. And that's about the depth of the application. It seems to me that a lot of modern ministers who are trying to learn from Puritan preaching will sometimes have that same very predictable kind of convicting application. I think some people are just bored of it, and other people are devastated by it. But there's another kind of Puritan who preaches the sweetness of the gospel so much that you long for it. that has creative and concrete ways of illustrating our failings that we can identify with. Not just an announcement that we forget these things and shouldn't, that makes us bad, but actually describing a scenario of our failure such that you just say, yeah, that's me. where you can kind of imagine yourself in the kitchen actually saying the certain words. And so there's a concreteness there rather than a kind of abstraction that lends conviction. And then they circle back around and show the sufficiency of Christ. They don't leave you hanging, waiting for next week. Jeremiah Burroughs, again, there's just such a diversity here. Jeremiah Burroughs would preach sort of like for a year on the law. He'd kind of convict the congregation for about a year, then he'd flip around and then give them the gospel for another year. You had perfectly balanced ministry. You just needed to be in it for the long haul. Others thought you should pretty much button that up every sermon. And so there's just a lot of variety there. Yeah, David. Coming back on those comments there, would you give us a few men that you would consider to be, yourself, models of that kind of preaching, men who were servants as they preached? Yeah. So I love reading Daniel Featley. Daniel Featley's sermons, hard to get a hold of. I think you can buy these bound photocopies on Amazon. It's dreadful to read. Someone needs to. F-E-A-T-L-E-Y. Daniel Featley writes beautifully. I think William Bridge writes beautifully. Jeremiah Burroughs, on a gospel year, writes beautifully. Let me see. Obadiah Sedgwick, I think, has some wonderful sermons. But if I was on a Sunday morning, this is like pre what feels like dozens of children, had a quiet moment, I'd pull Featley off the shelf and be very edified. That's a start. Oh, Edward Reynolds. Edward Reynolds. You can't go wrong there. Yeah. I mean, avoid his episcopacy, but other than that, he's good. Yeah. Yeah, other questions? Yes, brother. Wow, that that one just came out of nowhere, didn't it? Yes, it is. It was. It was discussed by the assembly. And I think The Westminster—well, confessional standards are like different vehicles in a royal motorcade. The Apostles' Creed is like an open carriage. There's just no defense at all. It states some doctrines, it's elegant, but you could attach, someone could hold to a lot of errors and still affirm the Apostles' Creed. The Athanasian Creed is like, or the Chalcedonian formula, they're like armored cars. Maybe not eloquent, but virtually impregnable. The Westminster Confession of Faith, I think of more like a bulletproof limousine. Maybe a stretch for you all, but that was a pun. That was my only joke of the day and one person got it. This is really discouraging. So it's not as bulletproof as it could be. I mean, there's ways of kind of adding additional armor to almost every sentence. You know, extra prepositions and adverbs and defensive adjectives, you know, marched in squads of four, would help almost any paragraph. Having said that, I think it's bulletproof enough. Those who see loopholes allowing for hypothetical universalism, I think have this one fundamental, make one fundamental error, and that is that they don't read paragraphs together. Just because the paragraphs are numbered doesn't mean that the beginning of one isn't connected to the beginning of the other. So if you read chapter three, and you treat those, if you were to remove the numbering, if you will, and make it all one big paragraph, there's no way that hypothetical universalism works. Go home, read it for yourself, you'll see what I mean. So that's my, that's the short, rather cryptic answer, but I think it works. I think the center holds. So I think it excludes hypothetical universalism, yeah. Other questions? Yes, another easy one. Terry Johnson. If we could move beyond your lecture to another Westminster Assembly question, but you can refuse to answer this until I get my last question. Was there anything surprising that you learned from So surprise questions are hard for me for this reason That I did this for about 12 years and at some point. I just don't remember. What was the surprise anymore? What was I will say that I've found it rewarding to study the debates behind the Directory for Public Worship, in that it flags some issues that I might not have thought about deeply enough. Administration of Lord's Supper, there's some really interesting comments there. But there's nothing in the, oh, and one more qualification. So there are some things that I've found useful. But that's probably the one area where I need to do more work. Excuse me, there's a million areas where I need to do more work. That's one where I especially need to do more work because part of the debates on the directory for public worship were written in shorthand. And so for many of the years I was working on the minutes and papers of the assembly, I couldn't read them. until we found the one woman in the world who knew how to read that form of shorthand. She charged a good fee for that, by the way. So I feel like I need to spend more time in those debates than I've been able to do. So good work could be done there. I found reflecting on the Directory for Public Worship to be very, very useful. One little story that shows how complicated debates at the Assembly could be, and it relates to the Directory for Public Worship. In the autumn of 1643 into 1644, the Westminster Assembly was debating the possible size of the congregations in Jerusalem, or whether there was more than one of them. The Congregationalists were trying to minimize the number of converts in the Book of Acts, because if they could fit everybody into one congregation, then the references to the church, singular, in Jerusalem would uphold their theory that church, singular, refers to not multiple visible churches in a regional area, but always to a single congregation. There were various knock-on effects to this minimization of the number of converts. But one of their principal arguments was that if a congregation is, well, eventually, they ran into trouble because there were thousands of people. Jerusalem was hostile to Christianity. And so they said, well, the congregation met for worship in the temple, and then the Presbyterian said, well, what about the Lord's Supper? They said, well, one guy said, maybe they did that at night. And they're like, well, that probably wasn't a good argument. They said, for Lord's Supper, they might have met from house to house. So they meet for public worship in the temple, and then they break bread from house to house. A year or more later, when we get to the debates about the director of public worship, the Scots, want the Lord's Supper to be served in tables at the front of the congregation. So you'd sit around the Lord's table for the Lord's Supper. The Congregationalists who liked weekly communion knew that that would basically remove the possibility of weekly communion just because it would take so long. And so the Congregationalists argued that if the congregation moves, if segments of the congregation are not taking the Lord's Supper together and are going in waves to the table, you're effectively creating different congregations by not communing together. Of course, Lazarus Seaman, you know, stands up and says, now wait a minute, a year ago when you were talking about Jerusalem. So the debates are interesting to me because they're interconnected in all kinds of interesting ways. Are there huge surprises about arguments regarding liturgy, worship, and all that sort of stuff? Nothing that comes to my mind. Yes, sir? When the assembly gets around to debating the Lord's Supper, unfortunately, that is one of those areas where Whether you say things like, you know, debated the Lord's Supper today. There are differences. No one believes that the Lord's Supper is a converting ordinance. The main debates about the Lord's Supper have to do with who can go and who should be there and who shouldn't be there. What are the standards for admitting people? The Westminster Assembly actually produces a short statement. It wasn't recognized to be the assemblies until a few years ago. The assembly produced a short sort of eight point statement of what people need to believe in order to attend the Lord's Supper. It's actually a really good document. I like it. I call it the shorter confession. It's in volume five of the minutes and papers. The question, the ticklish question before the assembly is what do you do with a church where it was law that everybody had to attend the Lord's Supper at least once a year? And that law existed so that you could ferret out Roman Catholics and sectarians who didn't think the Church of England was a true church, and then you could fine them, right? So it's an income-producing measure. Now, if you're trying to move from it being a law that you have to attend as an adult to only believers should attend, how do you actually affect that revolution? Do you just effectively excommunicate the entire nation? and then have everybody come and make profession of faith? Or do you create a standard that says, you know, if people don't deny these doctrines and don't commit these heinous sins, they can keep coming. And so Presbyterians are on, You know, they don't quite agree on what's the best way of doing this. In fact, they try and avoid the subject as much as possible because they know they don't agree about it. And they certainly don't agree with Parliament on what to do. That's the major debate. And Parliament thinks that the answer is just to kind of legislate a list of possible sins, just list all the possible sins that could prohibit someone from coming to the Lord's table. And if someone commits a sin that's not on the list, all a minister needs to do is write to Parliament, and at the committee's next regular meeting, it would discuss whether it's a sin, and they would write back to the pastor, and then they could decide what to do. Very effective, pastorally sensitive system. So the debates around the Lord's Supper mainly circle around those issues. There are some members who clearly encourage people to come to the Lord's table more than others. So if you look at a single congregation, the way to track this is by looking at manuscript vestry records that have financial accounts, and you can track how much a congregation spends on wine each month. And if you look at how much they're spending monthly on wine under one pastor, and then he moves on and another pastor comes in, if that number increases or decreases dramatically, the minister's probably being more or less encouraging about his attitude towards people coming to the Lord's table. But that's time-consuming social history. It's good stuff, and someone's doing it, but I'm in the weeds now, I know that. Yes, sir? No one discusses missions. The great reformers don't really think about missions. They're sort of fighting for survival. Much of Wales, much of England, much of Scotland is un-evangelized. Not many people go to, I mean, people are in America, but not many people are in boats traveling. It's a pretty wild lifestyle. So they talk about missions, itinerant missions to places in Wales, darkest Wales, darkest Ireland. Actually, that's too scary. And so on. So, Home missions are there. The assembly talks about the practicalities of this. And individual members will write about going to see Native Americans. But a chapter on the subject, I don't know if it's just too obvious. I mean, they're doing missions already. It's just part of a minister's work. I don't know. All right.