Yes, all the questions you want can be asked, and whether we have answers or not remains to be seen. Well, good morning. I'm going to stick pretty close to my notes for the time that we have, and I think that'll keep me from digressing on things that I will want to digress on. I'll get excited about something and I will find myself on a 15-minute rabbit trail somewhere and then stuck on page 4. And so I will try to stick close to my notes and that will hopefully save us some time as well for the end. May 17, 1733. In the west of England, a group of ministers representing 18 congregations gathered together at the invitation of the pastors of the Broadmead Church in Bristol. They gathered for the purpose of reestablishing their respective assemblies in an association of particular Baptist churches known as the Western Association. Chosen that day to address them from the scripture was a good friend of the Broadmead leadership, a man by the name of Joseph Stennett, one of the most prominent men in the Baptist ministry. Stennett, seeking to call his fellow ministers to confessional faithfulness to the truth of the gospel, offered this sobering caution to the brothers. Stennett noted, the most grievous wounds the gospel has received have been in the house of its pretended friends. And a little reflection will convince us that the absurd and blasphemous reasonings of the deists did but little execution comparatively till a set of men arose among ourselves who paved the way for that amazing success which these sworn enemies of Christ Jesus have of late years obtained. It is, indeed, most shocking to consider that some, under the character of Christian ministers, instead of contending earnestly for the faith of Christ, are industriously sapping the fundamental principles of it. For what else are they doing, who labor to rob the great author of it of the glory of his divine nature, and to deprive men of the advantage of his incarnation? by denying his atonement for sin and the very thing as well as the sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit, who is only able to make us partakers of the salvation Christ has purchased. Thus, these men, under a pretense of securing the morals of Christianity, make a wicked surrender of the faith of it, and to add one contradiction to another, even while they pretend to take upon them the public defense of divine revelation, basely betray it into the hands of its most implacable enemies. Conduct, Stennett says, that can hardly be accounted for, but by suspecting it, is into the hands of such as they are about to join. Dreadful case. Lord, if the eyes of these men be not soon opened, what will their end be? These days in England in the early 18th century were challenging days for nonconformity, and the Baptists of the Western regions of England were feeling the weight pressing in around them. Compromise was in the air, and only the fresh influx of and commitment to the truth once for all delivered to the saints would bring back the freshness of the spring air of the former days of their forefathers and provide the necessary safeguards to guard against the pretenders who had crept in among them to introduce their destructive heresies. In the rallying of the particular Baptist churches, though Stennett would play an important and establishing role, none would play the part of decisive intervention more than the man whom Stennett referred to that great day, Bernard Foskett, the pastor of the Broadmead Church in Bristol. In fact, in the words of Baptist historian Roger Hayden, it is almost impossible to overestimate the influence of Bernard Foskett on the development of Baptist life in the 18th century. And this would be especially true in the West, where he was most at home. That's my intention today to set forward the labors of English particular Baptist pastor Bernard Foskett, especially taking note of his strategic work in combating the rising tide of Arianism in 18th century nonconformist Baptist circles in the west of England. In similar fashion to the efforts of Athanasius and the Nicenian faithful of the fourth century, Foskett pulls a page from the playbook of Athanasius and insists that as a safeguard to historically orthodox Nicene Trinitarianism, scriptural truths needed to be stated in, hear this, non-scriptural terms by way of creedal and confessional formulations. Furthermore, it was Foskett's conviction that those stated truths, by way of necessity, be clearly and publicly subscribed to by the churches of the Western Association. In seeking to consider Foskett's work among the Baptists, our approach here today is three-pronged. First, we will begin with a journey far back in time to the fourth century to set the necessary backdrop regarding Athanasius and the Niceneans. And here, a special note will be made of Athanasius' defense of the formulation and use of Credo formulations in combating the rising tide of Arianism in that period in a work known as De Decretis. Second, a quick move will be made forward across time to the 18th century, where we find that the heresy of Arianism never fully died out. They just get recycled, don't they, over and over and over. Arianism was raising its head against the Baptists, in particular, in the West, in those nonconformist circles. And third, and finally, our attention this morning will turn to Bernard Foskett himself, who I would refer to as the Athanasius of the West, though others have been called that as well. And here we find both Foskett and his fellow Baptists of the Western Association engaged in a battle against the old but still vigorous heresy of Arianism making its intrusions into the surrounding non-conformist churches of the land. So we begin with the Athanasian backdrop. With a starting point in Bristol on the western edge of England and traveling due east across the country to London, southeast across the English Channel, continuing around the Vosges Mountains range in eastern France, across Germany's Rhine, through the heart of Austria and the realms of southern Europe, we eventually arrive at the Bosphorus Strait. And when it is crossed, we find ourselves in the realm of modern-day Turkey. And once within the Turkish borders, one is now within the same geographical boundaries in which occurred one of the most significant ecclesiastical meetings the church has ever known. Just a few miles from Turkey's western border lies the ancient city of Nicaea, the site of the Nicene Council in 325. Though roughly over 2,000 miles of geography separate the two extremities, and 15 centuries stand between the days of Athanasius and Fauscet, neither space nor time are effective inhibitors of heresy. This is due to the fact that the sinful nature of man, which, as Calvin notes, is a perpetual factory of idols, is not bound by location. Furthermore, because heresies travel freely from age to age, and there is nothing new under the sun. the Nicene Council, and the Creed. Having faithfully traveled with his Bishop Alexander, the Bishop of the Egyptian Church of Alexandria, a young man by the name of Athanasius made an appearance at the Council. Athanasius, being only a deacon at the time of the convocation of the bishops by Constantine, was in no way himself responsible for the theological formulations of Nicaea. Deacons didn't have a place at the table. It was only for the bishops to speak. For all practical purposes, Athanasius was present as an observer only. However, this watcher would soon become one of the greatest witnesses for Nicene Orthodoxy that the world had ever seen. That Athanasius personally owned the credo formulations of the council should not be in doubt. Within just a few years, in 328 specifically, his bishop, would be taken to glory and Athanasius would find himself now the Bishop of Alexandria, leading the church against the rising and at times unstoppable tide of Arianism. Central to Athanasius in his battle against the Arians of the day was a document which history has come to call the Nicene Creed. This creedal formulation has come down to us in various forms, especially with emendations made to it at the Council of Constantinople in 381, but the original document of 325, employing the truths for which Athanasius would devote the remaining years of his life, reads as follows. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth, who, this is probably the line that you might remember the most, for us men and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead and in the Holy Ghost. Amen. Athanasius' De Decretus. Sometime during the fifth decade of the fourth century, Athanasius received a letter from a friend who, in disputing with Arians, was posed by their objections to the use of non-scriptural terms in the Nicene definition. Why can't you just stick to the Bible? Well, it is this issue of the council's choice to make use of non-scriptural language in making their case against the Aryans, which proves of primary importance at this point, this being the very objection raised by the Aryans of the 18th century in England against their confessional opponents. Archibald Robertson, once Bishop of Exeter, just south of the area of Bristol, an editor of some of the works of Athanasius, sums up the frustrating opposition of the Arians at the council. He writes, the Alexandrians and conservatives confronted the Arians with the traditional scriptural phrases which appeared to leave no doubt as the eternal godhood, godhead of the sun. But to their surprise, they were met with perfect acquiescence. Only as each test was propounded, it was observed that the suspected party whispered and gesticulated to one another, evidently hinting that each could be safely accepted since it admitted of evasion. If their assent was asked to the formula, quote, like the father in all things, it was given with the reservation that man as such is the image and glory of God. Or the phrase, the power of God, elicited the whispered explanation that the host of Israel was spoken as dunamis curio, the power of the Lord. And that even the locusts and caterpillar are called the power of God. The eternity of the sun was countered by the text, 2 Corinthians 4.11, we that live are always. The fathers were baffled, and the test of homoousion, that Christ is of the same substance with the father, with which the minority had been ready from the first, was being forced upon the majority by the evasions of the Arians. The use of non-scriptural language was not the original design of the council. As Robertson notes, the use of non-scriptural language had been forced upon them by the Arians. And Athanasius himself notes in De Decretis his defense of the Nicene Creed. But this was necessary on account that the Aryans, quote, he says, are as variable and fickle in their sentiments as chameleons in their colors. And when exposed, they look confused. And when questioned, they hesitate. And then they lose shame and betake themselves to evasions, end quote. In short, we might say, heretics are slippery. Thus being evaded by the Aryans time and time again, the council was forced to come to the truth by another approach. They sought, in making use of non-scriptural terminology, to come to the sense of scripture by other means. Athanasius, in trying to help his friend answer his Arian opponents, answers this way in De Decretus. He says, the council, wishing to do away with the irreligious phrases of the Arians, and to use instead the acknowledged words of the scriptures, that the sun is not from nothing, but from God, and is word and wisdom, and not creature or work, but a proper offspring from the Father, Eusebius and his fellows." And that's the way Arius refers to the Arians. Eusebius was the bishop of Nicomedia, which was very near Nicaea, and his little buddies that kind of come along with him, referred to kind of tongue-in-cheek by Athanasius as Eusebius and his fellows. That's like a side note. I could talk about that for a while. I just love that little dig he kind of gives there. He mentions it over and over again. You just kind of have to get a little tone in your voice when you say Eusebius and his fellows. That by their inveterate heterodoxy, understood the phrase, from God, as belonging to us, as if in respect to it the word of God differed nothing from us, and that because it is written, there is one God from whom all things, and again, old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new, and all things are from God. But the fathers, perceiving their craft and the cunning of their irreligion, were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words from God. Athanasius recounts that the bishops had hoped in this to make a clear representation of the truth. At first they had intended to make use of the tokens of the truth, which are more exact as drawn from scripture than from other sources. However, due to the ill disposition of the versatile and crafty irreligion of, here it is again, Eusebius and his fellows, the council was compelled to publish more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion in the hopes of conveying the orthodox sense of the written word. As RPC Hansen has helpfully noted, theologians of the Christian church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language. Because the questions are about the meaning of the biblical language itself. Try just quoting Bible verses to the Mormon that comes to your door. And he'll say, like Eusebius and his fellows, yea and amen. Part two, moving forward and to the west. By the time the fourth century ended, neither the approach of the church utilizing non-scriptural language to safeguard the orthodox sense and communicate the meaning of biblical language, nor the challenge of the opposition to this polemical approach had seen their end. The battle, in all reality, raged on for years to come. And in fact, the battle specifically, as it related to the challenge to orthodoxy from Arianism, found Arianism itself at a point of culmination in 18th century England. At this point, we come to the second division of this three-pronged approach. And unpacking our thesis here of the rising tide of Arianism in the 18th century specifically, in non-conformist circles in England. Arianism had received what we might call a new lease on life within the established Church of England in the late 17th and early 18th centuries in the teaching of scientist theologians Isaac Newton, William Whiston, and Samuel Clark. In fact, the prevalence of Arianism was so widespread in English society by the early 18th century that its influence was strongly felt in non-conformist circles as well. This influence must be traced and will eventually lead to the Baptists of the West and the work of Foskett in shoring up the faithful against it. A storm rises in Exeter. English-Aryan scholar J. Hay Colligan notes that the date of the breakup of theological opinion among Protestant dissenters was 1712. Though perhaps slightly overstated, as if all dissenting theology was monolithic up to that point, that the jest of his point is certain will be substantiated, I think, in what follows. Mentioned earlier was the influence of the theology of Samuel Clark. Samuel Clark published in 1712 a work that Colligan says was the, quote, most memorable work in the history of the Arian movement, end quote. Note the title to Clark's work, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. Sounds so good, doesn't it? It was Clark's work that made its way into nonconformist hands in the west of England in the village of Exeter in Devon. There it was read by a man named James Pierce. It was Pierce, around whose head, according to the non-conformist historian Alan P. F. Sell, the storm broke. That is the storm which rose up in Exeter when Pierce, having read Clark, came to deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together comprised the one God. Pierce was one of several ministers who were imbibing and regurgitating the theology of Clark and causing a stir in the three Presbyterian churches in Exeter. Not only was Pierce minister of one of the Presbyterian congregations in Exeter, he also served as one of the tutors in a local dissenting academy run by Joseph Hallett III. Now both Hallett and Pierce had previous connections with William Whiston, challenger of, quote, traditional Trinitarian doctrines, end quote. And though they were careful to disclose their views, Hallett, along with Pierce, and other members of the staff and students at the academy held reservations about the nature of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. As suspicions grew the leadership of the churches in Exeter, a committee of 13 laymen was forced to take action. Dissenting scholar Michael Watts writes that in September 1718, this is six years after Clark has published his book on the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. In September 1718, the Devon and Cornwall Association of Ministers, the Exeter Assembly, demanded that every member should declare his position on the Trinity, which Pierce did by stating that he believed the Son and the Holy Ghost to be divine persons, but subordinate to the Father. Ours is not the first generation to deal with the subordinationism doctrines. Jerome Murch, Presbyterian and Baptist historian, provides Pierce's response. Peirce says, I am not of the opinion of Sibelius, Arius, Sosinius, or Sherlock. I believe there is but one God and can be no more. I believe the Son and the Holy Ghost to be divine persons, but subordinate to the Father. And the unity of God is, I think, to be resolved into the Father's being the fountain of the divinity of the Son and Spirit. The subordinationism of Pierce was clear. Here it parrots the work of Clark, demonstrating with clarity the influence of the latter on the former. With this, the ministers sought resolution once more to the following. And obtaining no satisfaction from three of its four ministers, and at a loss to know what to do next, they appealed to the Presbyterian ministers in London for advice. This was a common thing in these days for the country ministers to do their best, if you will. But if we can't figure it out, we're going to go to mom. We're going to go to London. We're going to see what they say there. This brings us to a synod held at a place known as Salters Hall. Country ministers seeking advice from their counterparts in the larger cities, especially London, was a normal course once all other solutions had been sought. The Orthodox ministers at Exeter were not the only ones in communication with London, however. Pierce himself had friends in the city, and he too appealed to sympathizers in London. You might say that Pierce could read the handwriting on the wall, and he knew what was about to happen, and he sought help as well. In response to the pleas for assistance from the West, the ministers of London, who had formed themselves into a group of ministers known as the Three Denominations, consisting of ministers from Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist denominations, called themselves together at a location known as Salters Hall. These ministers representing their respective denominations met for three meetings together, February 19th, 24th, and March 3rd. During these meetings, division arose, and instead of standing as three distinct denominations, they divided along two distinct lines of thought. Colligan remarks that this division or controversy is the most critical event which has ever occurred in the history of nonconformity. Sell also notes, while the subject of discussion was ostensibly the Trinity, it became clear that the really divisive question was whether formal subscription to the doctrine of the Trinity should be required of dissenting ministers. As the meetings progressed and the division deepened, the two opposing parties became known as the subscribers and the non-subscribers. theological issues driving the division. History here tells us the sobering story of three groups of men who had, since the days of the antinomian controversy and the challenge of deism in the final decade of the 17th and early 18th centuries, existed in friendly cooperation on behalf of what their political supporters called the dissenting interests. These co-opting bodies were now, however, being rent asunder, resulting in a breach which was never to be repaired. Seeking to get at the heart of the division is like seeking an answer to the age-old question posited by James when he asked the soul-searching question, what causes quarrels? What causes fights among you? This followed by the soul-convicting answer, is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? Though the study of history seldom affords the historian the privilege of examining the motives of the heart, it does often yield greater clarity by examining stated motivations. In reading the documents that have been preserved for us, there are two factors that seem to have been driving the actions of the men involved in the subscriptionist conflict. Number one, the sufficiency of scripture. And number two, the issue of Christian liberty. Now these two issues are, I think, so, so important and so fundamental for us to keep in mind. Generally speaking, both groups were in agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity. And furthermore, it should be kept in mind that it does not seem to have been the intention of the non-subscribing party to encourage heresy. It doesn't seem to be their intention. The result was much different. The issue, rather, for the non-subscribers was their insistence on, quote, the Protestant principle that the Bible is the only and perfect rule of faith. And moreover, they took the position that they would not condemn any man upon the authority of human decision or because he consents not to human forms and phrases. In other words, for the non-subscriber, the stated words of Scripture alone were deemed sufficient to arbitrate in matters of doctrine and no man was to be held accountable to any human formulations. Furthermore, congregational historian R. W. Dale notes, the non-subscribers were concerned that if such demands were complied with, i.e., to subscribe, if we comply with that, no one could ever tell where it would stop. In the words of historian Peter Toon, the majority of those non-subscribers who had signed the letter to Exeter had done so because they believed it was in the interest of religious liberty and the right of private judgment. But in regard to the subscriber who also held to the sufficiency of scripture and who also held to the doctrine of Christian liberty, the exact opposite was the response that was found. He, that is the subscriber, He believed, based on Scripture, that a formal confession of faith was not only permissible, but necessary. Furthermore, he believed that Christian liberty was liberty to affirm the truths of Scripture as well, the very Scripture that demanded confessional formulation. Thus, in the affirmation of these two theological positions, there was agreement. But in the application, in the application of them, there was not agreement to be found. And as we move further to the west toward Bristol, we will find Foskett, numbered among this latter group, affirming both the sufficiency of scripture and the subscription, excuse me, affirming both the sufficiency of scripture and subscription to its confessional formulation, as well as embracing true Christian liberty, bound to the truths of the word of God alone. Well, this brings us to part three. Foskett's Athanasian response. Our story of the Western Association picks up the narrative thread in 1719 at their annual meeting in the Wilshire village of Trowbridge. The Aryan controversy occurring in Exeter the preceding years with Pierce and company had caught the attention not only of the London Presbyterians, but the Western Baptists as well. Therefore, when the Baptists to the north of Exeter, it's just about an hour or so to the north of Exeter where Bristol is, when the Baptists heard about this, They decided to move into action. A.G. Fuller has written a helpful little book, it's hard to find, known as The History of the Western Association. And he notes there that though the controversy originated with the Presbyterians, it could not be expected to be viewed with indifference by the neighboring ministers of other denominations. And such was the interest excited among the churches of the Western Association that Brother Sharp of Fromm was deputed to attend the conference in London. John Sharp, a brother from the particular Baptist church in Fromm, in neighboring Somerset, was sent to represent and report the Western Association in regard to the events of the meetings of the three denominations at Salters Hall. That the meeting of the London ministers was of great concern to the Baptists of the West is to be perceived in the sobering words of Sharp himself. I think of all the comments that are made here in this presentation, these words from Sharp have just stuck with me for years now. Sharp writes back and says, the eyes of all the West of England were upon the ministers of London to see what they would do in this juncture. That he waited with concern for the result of the debates and that if they broke up without coming to a declaration of their faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, it would be the greatest blow imaginable to the dissenting interests in the West country. It was at London that Sharp, representing the interests of the Western Association, joined his name with the subscriptionist, affirming the first article of the Church of England and the answers to the fifth and sixth questions of the assembly's catechisms as to what we believe to be the doctrine of the blessed Trinity revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Now I digress just for a moment because I want you to know what those documents say. They agreed to the first article of the Church of England. which reads, there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible, and in unity of this Godhead there are, be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Sharp puts his name to that. They also agree to the fifth and sixth questions of the assembly's catechism. Question five, are there more gods than one? Answer, there is but one only, the living and true God. Question six, how many persons are there in the Godhead? Answer, there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. Because they believe that those statements adequately and sufficiently captured the teaching of scripture. Sharp had no qualms about putting his pen to such a document. nor should we. Upon Sharpe's return and the ensuing meeting of the association at Trowbridge, the following word of encouragement was sent to the churches in the yearly associational letter. We have great cause to rejoice that though it is a perilous day, wherein many other denominations depart from the faith once for all delivered to the saints, particularly in that great article of Christian religion, the deity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, denying or calling into question his eternal Godhead, suggesting it is not of the same nature with the Father, that he is not supreme God, but a might glorious creature in his divine nature, super angelical. Though it is thus with others, we rejoice that none of the churches or ministers belonging to this association hold any such pernicious doctrine. However, even embracing this positive statement, all was not to remain well for long. For as Baptist historian W.T. Whitley has rightly observed, Over the ensuing 14 years, the Western Association was in a storm. The years of 1719 to 1733 would prove troublesome and trying for the churches of the Western Association. And to that story, we need to turn. The revival of the Western Association. Problematic for the Western churches by Hayden's careful evaluation was found in the fact that the associating churches were not required to affirm an agreed statement of faith as a basis for their individual and inter-church fellowship. The so-called preliminaries carried no doctrinal affirmation. Preliminaries were in some sense foundational principles by which an organization such as an association of churches would operate. And thus the Western association of churches had no agreed upon doctrinal basis for their life together. To such was left to assumption. This had not always been the case, either in the Baptist work of the Western churches or the Baptist churches of England considered as a whole. Confessional subscription was deep in the history and embedded in the bloodstream of the Baptists of England, both general and particular. Under the leadership of the venerable Bernard Foskett, a recommitment to confessionalism would turn once again in the West. With the arrival of Foskett, the breath of fresh air long awaited to return the West to the days of their forefathers began to blow once again over the land. The reorientation of the Western Association. The reorientation of the Western Association toward the doctrinal foundation of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith would remain among Foskett's highest priorities from his arrival at the Broadmead Church in 1720 to the final adoption of it in the associational meeting in Bristol mentioned earlier, May 17, 1733, the date at which our presentation began. The doctrinal ambiguity of the Western Association was first addressed publicly by Floskett in 1723, when in the Broadmead Associational Letter, he called for the following to be added to the preliminaries. Remember, those preliminaries are like headers, brief doctrinal statements at the beginning of a letter. But they're, again, they're very brief. So Foskett wants to add something to the preliminaries, the preliminaries that were agreed upon in 1722. And here is what they say, that seeing many errors have been broached and ancient heresies revived of late. He's referring primarily to the rise of Arianism. They have been revived of late in the world. No messenger shall be received from any church whose letter don't every year express, either in the preamble or body of it, that they of the church do approve the confession of faith put forth by above 100 Baptist churches. And the edition he was referring to here is the 1699 edition. But it's our confession. And do maintain the principles contained therein, such letter being signed at the church meeting in the name by the consent of the whole church. You can't be a part of the association unless you subscribe to this confession. This is what Foskett wants. This is not what Foskett gets. Over the course of the next 10 years, Foskett would labor tirelessly to gain a positive response from the Association to his proposal to adopt the Second London Confession. Thus, in 1724, the Broadmead Church again would reiterate their recommendation to the article they formerly proposed that it should be added to the preliminaries. This appeal, as well, was rejected. The records, and we depend much upon the records of A.G. Fuller here, the records give little detail of the years 1725 and 26, and no records, according to Fuller, are preserved for the years 27 to 29. We have every reason to believe that Foskett's resolve for the establishment of the Association upon the bedrock of confessionalism remained undaunted. Records are moderate for 1730, but in 1731 things look as they would have seen it Or things took, rather, as they would have seen it, a clearly providential turn. This is a fascinating thing that happens in 1731. The meeting was set for Taunton in 1731. But before the meeting occurs, there is a fire in the town which prevented the meeting being held that year at all. And for some reason unknown, the association did not meet the following year, 1732, either. This left things somewhat dormant for a period of two years. What this does is it opens the door for the need for the reorganization and the reviving of the work of the association in 1733. In 1732, there was a call for the reestablishment of their associational labors, and it came from none other than the pastors of the Broadmead Church, Bernard Foskett and, at that time, Hugh Evans. In their letter, they openly and boldly declared these words. An agreement and judgment and practice concerning baptism has been always thought necessary for our comfortable walking together. And we are still of opinion with our forefathers that harmony in the other great doctrines of the gospel is of no less consequence than this. You cannot, we believe, be insensible to the revival and growth of the dangerous errors of Arius and Arminius and others. And are we not therefore obliged in conscience at this juncture to make a public stand against them and for the most sacred and important truths of the gospel? And for that end, we declare our hearty amen with the confession of faith put forth by the elders and brethren of our denomination, the third edition, 1699, Thus, we propose a revival of the Assembly in agreement with that confession. Isn't that cool? That's just exciting. So here he is. It's like two, you know, plus years that nothing's happened and nobody's doing anything. And this is like Foskett's door of opportunity to reiterate again and say, will you come? Will you come to our meeting and will you join yourself with us in this endeavor on this confession of faith? This was indeed a clarion call, in Athanasian fashion, to take a stand on and subscribe to a confessional affirmation of biblical truth. Most interestingly, against the rising tide of, and among other things, a contemporary manifestation of, Arianism. This call was heard, and a positive response was made to it on May 17, 1733. when 24 churches were recorded for all posterity to see, for all posterity to know, that they found the Second London Confession of Faith of 1689 as agreeable to the scriptures. The reasons for this strong position on subscription to a confessional document offered in non-scriptural terminology become all the more clear as we turn to our fourth and final segment of this presentation, the labors of Foskett and the Western Association. Appointed in 1733 to pin the associational letter was none other than Joseph Stennett, who since 1721 had been the pastor of the particular Baptist church, and of all places, Exeter, the heart of the Aryan controversy. Stennett was officially given this responsibility to write the annual letter, and the records of the Western Association read, the general letter was drawn up by Brother Stennett, in which the association upon a plan of confession is defended. Included in this defense of the association's use of the confession of faith and the call to its churches to subscribe to it are seven points of clarification or defense as to the reasons why, quote, the bottom of the association is now fixed, end quote, upon the confession. Time prohibits us from listing all seven, but a few points of observation regarding them in general may be beneficial. First, it was Stennett's intention to demonstrate in his defense of the confession that the sufficiency of Scripture itself argues for confessional subscription. This was one of the issues, if you recall, at the Salters Hall meeting. The call for the formulation of doctrine in the words of scripture only as a way of arguing for the sufficiency of the Bible had been made time and time again from the Nicene Council, with the objection of Eusebius and his fellows to the Clarkians of the 18th century. But Stennett would allow none of this. He clearly stated that in adopting the confession, we think we act according to the divine rule declared in the word of God, which teaches us to speak all the same things, that there be no division among us, but that we be perfectly joined of the same mind and in the same judgment. And how shall we answer that rule without declaring our harmony? We cannot tell. Moreover, as the apostles sent to know the faith of the Thessalonians, so we think we should always be ready to give the reason for the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear, not only to the saints, but even to the enemies of Christ, and to all that require it of us. Thus, the need of the hour was for the church to be able to speak of their agreement regarding scriptural truth, and this required for Stennett the formulation of that agreement and confessional statements according to the divine rule declared in the word. It was essential for him that they, in forming their confessional statements, declare our harmony of opinion with respect to the sense of the sacred writings on the great points of the gospel. He further cautioned, sounding a bit Athanasian, that, quote, a subscription to the letter of the scriptures would be no bar to hinder the greatest heretics of the world from journeying with us who own the scriptures but rest them to their own corrupt sense. Second, Stennett made clear that he believed that the ancient practice of the church argued for confessional subscriptionism. He saw the formulation of their beliefs as establishing no novelty, but rather than in doing so, they were following the example of almost all religious societies in the world who have from time to time distinguished themselves by their declarations. The doctrines contained in this confession were considered by Stennett as part and parcel of that ancient faith given to the church. Third, Stennett viewed true Christian liberty as arguing for confessionalism. He sees the confession as forcing no man's conscience and that many men make crafty arguments under the suspicious pretext of Christian liberty that are dubbed so falsely. And this, he says, that men are simply, quote, endeavoring to prevent all that holy and earnest contention for the faith which the scriptures so often recommend, and thus open up a way of introduction of every kind of error amongst us, end quote. Christian liberty is never to be liberty to move away from or evade the truth of scripture, the very thing the confession is designed to prevent. In conclusion, it has been stated that the intention of this presentation is to set forward Bernard Foskett, the Athanasius of the West, and his labors of combating the rising tide of Arianism in the 18th century nonconformist Baptist circles in the West of England. We have set forward a comparison. of his efforts with those of the fourth century church father Athanasius and the Nicene and faithful of the fourth century in which they insisted as a safeguard to orthodoxy the statement of scriptural truths in non-scriptural terms and the employment of credo-confessional formulations to present the sense of the truths of the word of God. It was Foskett's conviction, like that of Athanasius before him, that those stated truths of Scripture by way of necessity be clearly and publicly held by the churches. In doing so, I've also set forward Foskett as a man of decisive intervention, and I would humbly submit that though it is left for you to finally decide whether this has been achieved or not, that Foskett was not alone in this great noble effort should be abundantly clear. The Lord raised up many men. confessional men, men of scripture, men of truth, to stand beside him and join their hands to the plow with his, men like his bosom friend, John Beddum. You wondered how Beddum would find his way in here. John Beddum is Benjamin Beddum's father, the lifelong best friend of Bernard Foskett. And that's a whole other story. Maybe later. One man who I would refer to as Bernard Foskett's mirror image is Joseph Stennett. The Stennett family had a long tradition in Baptist circles in the 17th and 18th century, and actually Stennett, the Stennett family, all the Stennetts, were Seventh-day Baptists. Everything but the day of the Sabbath, Stennett and Foskett agreed upon in regard to the confession. But all the Stennetts from the 17th into the 18th, almost the very end of the 18th century, were all Seventh-day guys. And they were all confessional guys up to that one So I suppose if they had an exception clause, it was for that. And I actually have a photograph here of the actual record book made in 1733 showing all the names of the signatories, and they give that one little caveat at the bottom, except the day. Not that I'm advocating for that at all, but it's what they did. And, you know, with the Aryans and the Arminians and the Sosinians and everybody else beating down the door, I think they didn't want to throw Stennett off the ship. And he was such a good friend of the Baptists, being a Baptist himself. But I close with another selection from the associational records. And this is the associational letter from 1736. It is expressive of the heart, I believe, of Foskett. It's written by the pen of Stennett. But it is a precious word, I think, to end on. Stennett says, take courage, therefore, dear brethren, and be not terrified with the prophecies of some and the wishes of many more. What you have most to fear from these men and what we have and what we must therefore press you to guard against is the danger that arises from the attempts made by flattery and lest the specious pretenses of charity and a Catholic spirit lead you away from your steadfastness. We therefore most earnestly entreat you that you would compare the good confession, referring to the second London, that you would compare the good confession we plead for with the sacred scriptures of the doctrines of which it is a summary. Compare it with the experience of your own souls. See the names of your worthy pastors now with God on the front of it. And he's referring to the signers. of the confession when it was put forth by all those assemblies, and you can turn to the back of your copy that you have, it has name after name after name. These were their pastors of the previous generation. Your worthy pastors, now with God, are at the front of it. As representatives of the Western churches in their greatest purity, consider the flood of Arian, Sassanian, Pelagian, and Arminian corruption that has overspread the land and broke in upon our churches. Then say whether the revival of these public declarations for the sacred truths of the ever-blessed gospel be not seasonable. Behold how the men of modern wisdom have treated the faith delivered in the scriptures and honorably maintained by the founders of our churches. Behold how the engrossers of modern charity have abounded in the exercise of it towards those who have dared maintain the principles of truth. Behold with what consistency these pretenders to Christian liberty and admirers of private judgment have treated those who have ventured to assert their liberty of separating them and their corruptions and the right way of judging for themselves with whom and on what foundation they should associate. Behold, brethren, and consider these things well. And judge whether the high pretenses of these men make to Christian charity and love of liberty are not mere pretension. And draw us from contending for the truth that by degrees we may lose it and at last be shackled to their corruptions. Sometimes we hope the snare is broken and we are escaped. but we can never be too much upon our guard. We therefore, in the fear of God, earnestly warn you to watch over these attempts. May our brethren in the ministry see they preach Christ purely, and oh, that the gospel holiness, which flows from the doctrines of grace, may so appear in all our lives as to put those to shame who would bring these doctrines into contempt.