Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly at http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.The citations below are (generally) to be found in standard email format. Thus, * = emphasis or emphases and _ = italics. This has been done to make it easier for you to spread these quotations around the world by email in letters to friends, discussions groups, bulletin boards, in debates, etc. ************************* TOPICAL INDEX Against Independency Against Anabaptists Attainments Being/well being distinction Close Communion Open Communion Confessions (subscription) Contradictory Oaths Covenanting -perpetual obligation -intrinsic obligation (superadded obligation) -covenant renewal Covenanted Reformation Civil Government Eschatology Extraordinary Ordination Extraordinary Acts False Ministers False Worship Headcovering Holy Days -- Christmas, Easter etc. Historical Testimony Lord's Supper Marks of the True Church Martyrs Moral Person -- the church Musical Instruments Occasional Hearing Orthodoxy -- Heresy Partaking in the Sins of Others Regulative Principle Revolution Church Separation from Corrupt Churches Settled vs. Broken State of the Church Subordinate Standards -- Implicit Faith Terms of Communion Toleration Unity of the Church ************************* Against Independency ************************* Nevertheless, we also very sensible of the great and imminent dangers into which this common cause of religion is now brought by the growing and spreading of most dangerous errors in England to the obstructing and hindering of the begun Reformation, as namely (beside many others) Socinianisme, Arminianisme, Anabaptisme, Antinomianisme, Brownisme, Erastianism, Independency, and that which is called (by abuse of the word) Liberty of Conscience, being indeed Liberty of Error, Scandal, Schisme, Heresy, dishonouring God, opposing the Truth, hindering Reformation; and seducing others (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, [1638–1649 inclusive_], p. 333). Our unanimous judgment and uniform practice, is, that according to the order of the Reformed Kirks, and the ordinance of God in his Word, not only the solemn execution of Ecclesiastical power and authority, but the whole acts and exercise thereof, do properly belong unto the Officers of the Kirk; yet so that in matters of chiefest importance, the tacit consent of the Congregation be had, before their decrees and sentences receive final execution, and that the Officers of a particular Congregation, may not exercise this power independently, but with subordination unto greater Presbyteries and Synods, Provincial and National: Which as they are representative of the particular Kirks conjoined together in one under their government; so their determination, when they proceed orderly, whether in causes common to all, or many of the Kirks, or in causes brought before them by appelations or references from the inferior, in the case of aberration of the inferior, *is to the several Congregations authoritative and obligatory and not consultatory only* (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, [1638–1649 inclusive_], p. 108, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). ************************* Anabaptist ************************* "the covert nature of the Anabaptists' methodology... Knox regard(ed) the Anabaptists as more dangerous than Papists... The 'horrible and absurd' opinions of the Anabaptists are 'rotten heresies' and 'damnable errors.' The adherents to such teachings are 'blasphemers' and vile slaves of proud Lucifer.' In the _First Books of Discipline_, the Anabaptists are classed among the 'enemies to the Christian religion.' The _Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva_ speaks of the Anabaptists as 'limbs of Antichrist'" (Kevin Reed's Introduction to John Knox, _A Warning Against the Anabaptists_, reprinted 1984, pp. 13,16 -- On the PHP CD under "REED, KEVIN" at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). ************************* Attainments ************************* James Kerr, on the Sabbath, June 20th, 1880, in a sermon preached in Greyfriar's Churchyard, in Edinburgh, titled "A Third Reformation Necessary: or, the Piety, Principles, and Patriotism of Scotland's Covenanted Martyrs; With Application to the Present Times," makes the same point concerning the monumental character of the international transactions that transpired during the Covenanters' combat with the forces of antichrist. While also giving us great insight into some of the most important battles of Second Reformation warfare, Kerr proclaims, regarding the combat of these faithful witnesses, They stood for the Supreme Authority of the Holy Scriptures; for the Exclusive Headship of the Lord Jesus over the Church; for the Church's independent spiritual jurisdiction and power; for the Divine right of Presbytery; for the purity of worship in the Church and the Church's freedom from all unauthorized rites and ceremonies. They stood for every pin of the tabernacle, for every item of truth to which they had attained... 'Whose faith follow.' Let us embrace those doctrines affecting the Church's existence, privileges and prosperity, for which the martyrs suffered, and let us imitate their fidelity to the high attainments of a preceding period. The great Scriptural doctrines for which they were honoured to contend and which constituted the Church's glory, are still more or less lightly esteemed by even many professing Christians and ecclesiastical denominations... (A)rminianism is making rapid strides to popularity. Dishonour is done to the royal prerogative of Christ as Zion's King by those Churches that appeal to or base the claim of rights upon the Revolution Settlement -- a Settlement that proceeded upon Erastian principles and left many of the attainments for which the martyrs suffered in the oblivion to which the Stuarts had consigned them... The doctrine of Christ's Exclusive Headship over His own Church, and of the freedom of the Church under her exclusive head, requires to be vindicated and testified for against all modern departures therefrom. There is need to maintain and propagate the doctrine of the Divine right of the Presbyterian form of Church government, for at the present time only two of the Churches -- and these among the smallest -- hold this doctrine in all its Scriptural completeness. There is a need to maintain the high scriptural doctrine concerning the modes of worship in the Church, that no rite or ceremony is to be introduced into the forms of worship for which an express prescription, direct or indirect, cannot be produced from God's Own Word. The additions to the Church's worship of forms of human invention, and called for in order to the gratification of mere religious fashion, constitute one of the saddest signs of the present time. 'As though God has been defective,' as Charnock writes with reference to such innovators, 'in providing for His own honour in His institutions, and modelling His own service, but stood in need of our directions and the *caprichios* of our brains. In this they do not seem to climb above God, yet they set themselves on the throne of God, and would grasp one end of His sceptre in their own hands. They do not attempt to take the crown from God's head but discover a bold ambition to shuffle their hairy scalps under it, and wear a part of it upon their own.' **By the unflinching maintenance and profession of these doctrines, then, we are to prove ourselves the legitimate descendants of Scotland's Covenanted Martyrs.** This duty may draw down upon us reproach and shame, but, as the doctrines are Scriptural, the shame, like that of the martyrs, is transformed into glory. These doctrines are not now popular nor fashionable; still they are in advance of this age and prevailing ecclesiastical opinions, and they shall be popular and fashionable in the Church everywhere when 'God shall help her, and that at the breaking of the morning.' They shall have a resurrection with power, when Zion shall be set upon the mountains, and when the glory of her King shall array her, they shall be triumphant when the whole banner for the truth shall wave upon the battlements of the Millennial Church of Jesus" (Cited in _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ [1880 ed., SWRB reprint 1996], pp. 32-35, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). The Covenants are an important attainment, no lasting and binding agreement is attained without establishing them first. Session 23, 1648, A declaration and Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their brethen of England And considering of what importance the Solemn League and Covenant is unto all the interests of both kingdoms concerning their religion,liberties and peace. To make an agreement without establishing of it were not only to rob these Nations of the blessings they have already attained by it, but to open the door to let in all the corruptions that have been formerly in the kirks of God in their lands and all the abuses and usurpations that have been in the civil government, and again to divide these two kingdoms that are so happily united and conjoined. Therefore as we wish that all misunderstanding between the Nations and between the King and People may be removed, so that there may be a happy and lasting peace, so that there may be no agreement without establishing and enjoining the Covenant in all these three kingdoms...(_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_. p. 410, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). In short, while, on the ground and in the language of our reforming ancestors, we hold that our Covenants are a *norma recta--a right rule*, with which other symbols of our profession should harmonize; we also hold that the Scriptures are *norma recti, the rule of right*, TO REGULATE ALL (_The Reformation Advocate_ magazine, 1874, Vol. 1:1, pp. 6, 7, emphases added). It is in vain for them to palliate or shelter their covenant-breaking with appealing from the covenant to the Scripture, for subordianta non pugnant. The covenant is norma recta,– a right rule, though the Scripture alone be norma recti,–the rule of right. If they hold the covenant to be unlawful, or to have anything in it contrary to the word of God, let them speak out. But to profess the breach of the covenant to be a grievous and great fault, and worthy of a severe censure, and yet to decline the charge and proofs thereof, is a most horrible scandal; yea, be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and give ear, O earth! how small regard is had to the oath of God by men professing the name of God (George Gillespie, _The Works of George Gillespie_, "Male Audis", 1646, reprinted in 1991 [SWRB] from the 1846 edition, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, p. 13, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/G.htm). [This is--GB] *a tenet looked upon by the reformed churches as proper to those that are inspired with the ghost of Arminius*; for the remonstrants, both at and after the Synod of Dort, did cry down the obligation of all national covenants and oaths, &c., in matters of religion, under the color of *taking the Scripture only for a rule*. Well, we see the charge declined as nothing (George Gillespie, _The Works of George Gillespie_, "Male Audis", 1646, reprinted in 1991 [SWRB] from the 1846 edition, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, p.13, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/G.htm). ************************* "Being" -- "Wellbeing" Distinction ************************* We recognize this distinction every day in regard to a Christian man; and it is no less to be recognized in its application to Christian society. There is many a doctrine and truth of revelation, in regard to which a man may err without ceasing on that account to be a Christian man; and there may be many a duty recognized in Scripture as binding upon all, in which he may be totally deficient without forfeiting his Christianity. In other words, there is much in doctrine and duty, in faith and practice, necessary to the perfection of a believer, which is not necessary to the existence of a believer as such; and so it is with a Christian Church. What is essential to its *existence* as a Church is something very different from what is essential to its *perfection* as a church.... This distinction is of considerable value, and not difficult, under the teaching of Scripture, to be applied. We read in Scripture that the Christian Church is, "the pillar and ground of the truth," and that, "for this cause the Son of God himself came, that he might bear witness to the truth." In other words, we learn that the very object for which the Church of Christ was established on the earth was to declare and uphold the truth.... *Judging then by this first test, we are warranted in saying, that to hold and to preach the true faith or doctrine of Christ is the only sure and infallible note or mark of the Christian Church, because this is the one thing for the sake of which a Church of Christ has been instituted on earth. A true faith makes a true church and a corrupt faith a corrupt church: and should it at any time apostatize from the true faith altogether, it would by the very act, cease to be a Church of Christ in any sense at all. The Church was established for the sake of the truth and not the truth for the sake of the church*.... For this thing then the Church of Christ was instituted; and this thing, or the declaration of the truth, must therefore be, in its nature and importance, paramount to the church itself. Again we read in Scripture that Christ," gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." In other words we learn that ordinances and office bearers have been established for the object of promoting the *well–being* and edification of the Church. These things then [the ordinances and the ministry--GB], unlike the former [the truth--GB], were instituted for the sake of the Church and not the Church for the sake of them; and these things [the ordinances and the ministry--GB] therefore, must be, in their nature and importance, subordinate to the Church (James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Vol. 1, 1869, SWRB reprint, 1991, pp. 56–59, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/B.htm). In the second place, what are those things which, unlike the truth, have been instituted for the sake of the Church, and not the church for the sake of them? Such, unquestionably, are those ordinances, office bearers, and discipline which have been established within the Christian society. These being instituted for the advantage and edification of the Church, are, from their very nature, subordinate and secondary to the truth, for the holding and publication of which both they and the Church itself exist. They may be necessary, and are necessary, for the *perfection* of the Church, but they are not necessary for its *existence* (James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_, 1869 Vol. 1, SWRB reprint, 1991, p. 59, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/B.htm). I have already mentioned the important distinction between a true church [being--GB] and a pure church [well–being--GB]. A church may retain the principal doctrines and ordinances of the Christian religion in her profession, in such a measure, that she may be called a true church; and yet she may as an ecclesiastical body, have such errors in doctrine; such human inventions as integral parts of her worship; such unscriptural officers and usages in her government; or may be chargeable from such defection from reformation, formerly attained, that we cannot be faithful to the cause of Christ, which, in these respects, is opposed; nor to the catholic [universal--GB] church, for whose true interest we are bound to use our best endeavours; nor to the souls of men, which are deeply injured by such evils; without withdrawing from her communion. A particular church, in this case, though she ceases to be a pure church, may still be called a true church of Christ, on account of the measure, in which she retains the profession of his truths and ordinances. (John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, 1862, p. 77, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/A.htm). But join to the possession of the true faith the administration of the outward ordinances, as necessary to constitute a Christian Church--and you assign to outward ordinances a rank and value which are not justly theirs, and make them primary, and not, as they truly are of secondary importance (James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_, 1869, SWRB reprint, 1991, Vol. 1, p. 61, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/B.htm). The name of God is indeed called indiscriminately on all, who are deemed his people. As it was formerly given to the whole seed of Abraham, so it is at this day conferred on all who are consecrated to his name by holy baptism, and who boast themselves to be Christians and the sons of the Church; and this belongs even to the Papists (_Calvin's Commentaries_, Vol. 9, p. 285, Baker Book House, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). The Church of Rome can be regarded under a twofold view (schesei); either as it is Christian, with regard to the profession of Christianity and of Gospel truth which it retains; or Papal, with regard to subjection to the pope, and corruptions and capital errors (in faith as well as morals) which she has mingled with and built upon those truths besides and contrary to the Word of God. We can speak of it in different ways. In the former respect, we do not deny that there is some truth in it; but in the latter (under which it is regarded here) we deny it can be called Christian and Apostolic, but Antichristian and Apostate (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, p. 121, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/T.htm). However when we categorically deny to the papists the *title* of the church [as to its well–being--GB], we do not for this reason impugn the *existence* of churches among them [as to their being--GB]. Rather we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine (John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). In the same way if anyone recognizes the present congregations-- contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and ungodly doctrine--as churches (in full communion of which a Christian man must stand--even to the point of agreeing in doctrine), he will gravely err. For if they are churches the power of the keys is in their hands; but the keys have an indissoluble bond with the Word, which has been destroyed among them. Again if they are churches, Christ's promise prevails among them; Whatever you bind,"etc [Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 23:20]. But on the contrary, they disown from their communion all that genuinely profess themselves servants of Christ. Accordingly either Christ's promise is vain, or they are not, at least in this regard, churches. Finally instead of the ministry of the Word, they have schools of ungodliness and a sink of all kinds of errors. Consequently, by this reckoning either they are not churches or no mark will remain to distinguish the lawful congregation of believers from the assemblies of Turks (_Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.10, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). To sum up, I call them churches [esse--GB] to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered--and to the extent that some marks of the church remain--especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devils wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church [bene esse--GB] (_Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). A visible profession of the Truth and Doctrine of godliness, is that which essentially constitutes a visible church, and every member of the visible church." (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, SWRB bound photocopy, p. 251, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). That which is unseen is the form and essence of an invisible church, and that which is visible must be the essential form of a visible church (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, SWRB bound photocopy, p. 242, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). And whereas our Divines say, that the church is invisible, because faith which is the specific and constitutive form of the Church is invisible, and known only to God the searcher of hearts (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 418, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). There are degrees of necessity; *some things are absolutely necessary to the being of a church*, as matter and form, viz., visible saints, and a due profession of faith, and obedience to Christ, according to the gospel. *Thus it is possible a church may be, and yet want both deacons, elders, and pastors too, yea, and word and sacraments for a time: some things are only respectively necessary to the well–being of a church*; thus officers are necessary, yet some more than others, without which the church is lame, defective, and miserably imperfect (_The Divine Right of Church Government_, p. 121 Jus Divinum Regiminus Ecclesiastici, ed. by Thos. Henderson, published in 1844, see also Naphtali Press edition, p. 123, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/S.htm). Abraham called with his house to leave idolatry, obeyed the calling, building an altar to the Lord (Gen 12:1–18) professes and teaches as a Prophet the doctrine of the covenant, and God appearing revealed the Gospel unto him (Gen 12:1–3, Gen 15:4–7) and so he and his house are a visible church, when, not while many years after and until he was ninety and nine, the seal of circumcision was ordained and given to him and his house, Gen 17:1–3. (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 17, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). *...and the church is a true visible church in the wilderness... which yet wanted [lacked--GB] circumcision and the passover forty years in the wilderness* (Josh 5:5–7), this proves that there is a true visible church, where Christ is, and yet wanteth the ordinary seals, Baptism and the Lord's Supper (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 17, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). *But a church may retain the essence and being of a visible church, and yet have no discipline in actual use, or little*, and though want [lack--GB] of discipline do leaven a church, yet it does not (as Robinson says) evert the nature thereof, and turn it into Babylon and a den of dragons (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, p. 288, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). Any sort of profession, whether by an avowing of that Gospel to one another, or suffering for it, even when the shepherds are smitten and the flock is scattered is a very practical and speaking mark that such a company is a true church (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 16, SWRB photocopy, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). And yet if these may be, to wit, hearing and professed receiving, here is an essential mark by which persons before they receive seals are made members and visible disciples, and societies visible and Churches essentially differenced, 1. From all the false churches visible upon earth, who have not the sound of the word preached and professedly heard and visibly received and 2. from all civil societies 3. from all Pagan and heathen societies on earth. Ergo they were a distinct Christian society, differenced essentially, and if they should all die before they had been baptized or had received the seals they have been true visible church members; and if killed for the truth they had died visible professing martyrs, and the called Church of Christ (Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline _, 1658, p. 17, SWRB photocopy, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). These have a ministry *essentially* entire who have power under Christ to preach the Gospel and Administer the Sacraments, Matthew 28:19. The Romish priests have this, and are called to this by the church (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, p. 240, 1644, SWRB photocopy, emphasis added). John Robinson, Rutherford's Independent opponent from New England, objects, How can England forsake the church of Rome and forsake the ministry within the church, as in the subject, especially, seeing you teach that a true ministry makes a true church (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, SWRB photocopy, p. 240, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm). Rutherford responds, England may well separate from Rome everting the fundamental parts of faith and not separate from Rome's baptism or ministry, in so far as they *essentially* be the ordinances of Christ. (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, p. 240, SWRB photocopy, emphasis added). However when we categorically deny to the papists the *title* of the church, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them. Rather *we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which are signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine* (John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book 4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm). ************************* Close Communion ************************* If there be no lawful refusing of sacramental communion, with a particular church, then there can be no lawful separation from it, till it be unchurched. But the latter is absurd; and therefore the former. I think it manifestly absurd to say that we are not to separate from a partucular church, however degenerate and corrupt in doctrine, worship, discipline and government; till it is no church of Christ at all ; for this would be to suppose that, though Christ has provided the censures of the church as a means of preserving her from the danger arising from the offenses of one or a few members, has provided no means of her preservation from the far greater danger of utter ruin by the prevailing influence of a corrupt majority. When such a majority is found incorrigibly obstinate in their opposition to any steps towards a thorough reformation, it is evident, that there is no remedy but secession. By such a majority, one great end of church communion, which is, that the truths and institutions of the Lord Jesus may be preserved pure and entire, is avowedly and obstinately opposed; and therefore, in this case, the Lord Jesus, is saying to his people, as in 2 Corinth. vi.17, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate." Many limit such calls to our departure from the communion of Pagans and Papists. But they are applicable to our secession from any prevailing party, even though they should bear the name of Christians, of Protestants and Presbyterians, who, in their united capacity, or as a professing body, are going on in obstinate opposition to any of the truths and institutions of Jesus Christ; so that none can continue in their church communion, without being involved in the guilt of that opposition. From such Christ is calling his people to separate. It is not meant, however, that degenerate Protestants and Presbyterians are upon a level with Heathens and Papists; for there may be a just cause of separation from the former, though not so great as from the latter. A warrantable secession from a particular church of Christ, is a most serious and important step. It is the result of assiduity in searching the scriptures, of much prayer and fasting, of long struggling with a prevailing party, obstinate in a course of defection. When a warrantable secession has been made; and, while the ground of it continues, there is the highest moral necessity of adhering to it. The Lord Jesus is saying to those, who have taken such a step: Whatever profession or practice ye have attained of the truths and ordinances delivered in my word, "hold fast till I come:" and with respect to particular churches, that persist in the evils which have occasioned a necessary secession, his direction is plain. "Let them return unto you, but return ye not unto them." But when we have sacramental communion with any church from which we have separated, we do return to them: for, in our act of communicating with any church, we declare our agreement with that church in its peculiar and distinguishing profession of the christian religion: we own the profession of that church to be right, and to be so in preference to every different and contrary profession. This is a direct contradiction of the profession we make in our separate communion. According to this scheme, we may in our sacramental communion, one Sabbath profess, that all true believers shall certainly persevere in a state of grace unto the end; that the infants of church members ought to be baptised; that we have in the book of Psalms a system of psalmody sufficient for the exercise of singing in public worship; and that no hymns of human composure ought to be used in that exercise; or that the testimony, maintained by the Secession church, ought to be cordially embraced, as the testimony which Christ is calling his people to maintain at this day; and yet, on the very next Sabbath, we may, in our sacramental communion, profess directly contrary to our former profession, that true believers may fall away from their state of grace totally and finally; that infant baptism is no baptism; that the songs in the Book of Psalms are not sufficient for the exercise of singing in public and solemn worship, various hymns of human composure being thought more proper to be sung in New Testament worship; or that adherence to what is called the Secession Testimony is unwarrantable. Must we thus say, yea and nay; must we lie and prevaricate with God and man, in order to avoid the charge of unchurching and excommunicating the churches, from which we are justly separated. (John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, p. 77-79, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/A.htm). Anderson writes: "The catholic church comprehends all that profess the true religion. There is a lawful and necessary division of it into sections in respect of local situation. But when a number of people, bearing the Christian name, combine together as a distinct society, for the purpose of maintaining and propagating doctrines and practices, which, instead of belonging to the true religion, are contrary to it; they ought not, considered as such a combination, to be called a lawful section of the catholic church (i.e. constitutionally, according to their public character and profession--RB). It is not denied, that they belong to the catholic church (in as far as they, as individuals, profess the truth--RB); but it is denied, that there ought to be any such section or division in it. Thus, there ought to be no section of the catholic church, having for the peculiar end of its distinct subsistence, the support of episcopal hierarchy, unknown in the Scripture, of the propagation of antipaedobaptism, or of anti-scriptural doctrine, in opposition to that of God's election, redemption, effectual calling and the conservation of his people, as delivered in the scripture; or for the support of ways and means of divine worship not found in Scripture. If the catholic visible church were brought to a suitable discharge of her duty, she would abolish all such sections. But no society ought to be called such an unlawful section, while it can be shown that it subsists as a separate society for no other end, than for the maintaining of something in the doctrine, worship or government of the church which belongs to the Christian religion as delivered in the word of God, or for exhibiting a testimony against prevailing errors and corruptions which the scripture requires the catholic church to condemn. Such a profession of any party of Christians is no sectarian profession; and a union with them is not a sectarian, but properly a Christian union; and, being cordial and sincere, is a union in Christ; and communion upon the ground of this union is truly Christian communion. On the other hand, however much of our holy religion any body of Christians hold in common with others, and however many of them we may charitably judge to be saints, yet while their distinguishing profession is contrary to the word of God, communion with them, as a body so distinguished, *is sectarian communion*; as it implies a union with them in that which ought to be rejected by the whole catholic church" (pp. 10-11, emphasis added). T.H.L. Parker writes, "Since the evangelical faith had only recently been preached in the city, and there were still many Romanists, the ministers also urged excommunication on the grounds of failure to confess the faith. _The Confession of faith, which all the citizens and inhabitants of Geneva... must promise to keep and to hold_ had been presented to the Council on 10 November 1536. Let the members of the Council be the first to subscribe and then the citizens, 'in order to recognize those in harmony with the Gospel and those loving rather to be of the kingdom of the pope than of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.' Those who would not subscribe were to be excommunicated" (_John Calvin: A Biography_, p. 63, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/P.htm). 12 November 1537. It was reported that yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did not do so. No one came from the German quarter. It was decided that they should be commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation" (Johnston, Pamela, and Bob Scribner. 1993. _The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland_, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,p. 138, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/S.htm). John Anderson states, "The term sectarian, the favorite watch-word of this author, tends to divert the attention from the matter in dispute. The question is, whether a church's refusing to have sacramental communion with such as openly avow their opposition to one or more articles of her scriptural profession has such effects as are now mentioned? Does this refusal break up the unity of the church at large? By no means. The truths of God's word constitute the bond of unity in the catholic church; so far as they are publicly professed and preserved in the doctrine, worship, and government of the several particular churches. Hence it is evident, that what breaks up the peace of the catholic church, is not the faithfulness of particular churches in refusing, but their laxness in granting sacramental communion to the avowed opposers of undoubted truths of God's word, as exhibited in the public profession of any of the churches, every instance of this laxness tending to weaken the bond of their union. Does refusing sacramental communion with the avowed opposers of the truths of God, publicly professed by a particular church, chill the warmth of love to the catholic church? surely no: for it is manifestly the interest of the catholic church that every particular church should hold these truths in her public profession, and not tolerate opposition to them in her communion. Hence it must give sincere pleasure to a lover of the catholic church to see a particular church uniformly faithful in refusing church communion to open opposers of any one of the truths of God contained in her public profession... Does the faithfulness of a particular church, in refusing to have sacramental communion with the open opposers of any article of her scriptural profession, hinder her from using any means appointed in the word of God for promoting his spiritual kingdom? This is so far from being the case, that this refusal is supposed and implied in the use of several proper means for that end; such as, a church's contending for the whole truth exhibited in her public profession; the judicial assertion of the truths of God's word, and the judicial condemnation of the contrary errors; committing the word to faithful men, who will teach others the whole truth and nothing but the truth, according to the public profession or testimony of the church, in due subordination to the holy scriptures; recognising the solemn engagements, which the church has come under to preserve whatever measure of reformation has been attained. These means, which are certainly appointed in the word of God, cannot be sincerely used by any particular church, unless she be careful, that such as are avowed and obstinate opposers of any article of her scriptural profession, may not be received into, or continued in her communion. Whilst these means, of our Lord's appointment, are willfully neglected, we have little ground to expect the Divine blessing on such other means as men may pretend, to use for the advancement of his spiritual kingdom" (pp. 92-93). To see how closely this mirrors Calvin's teaching, see pages 126 to 135 in _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_ (Presbyterian Heritage Publications' edition, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm, on the PHP CD under "REED, KEVIN"). ************************* Open Communion (the sin of) ************************* In the first place, it is a sectarian communion. Its existence supposes that there are sects and parties in the catholic [i.e. universal--GB] church; and that the variety of men's opinions, habits and feelings, is sufficient to justify the continuance of them. Scriptural, sacramental communion [close communion--GB] admits of no sects; requiring all partakers of it to be one bread, one body; perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. In the second place, it is an unfaithful and dishonest scheme. It is unfaithful to the Lord Jesus; for under the pretext of expressing love to him at his table, it regards the denial of some of his truths or institutions, however openly or obstinately persisted in, as a trivial matter, deserving no church censure. When the advocates for this scheme represent the truths and institutions of Christ, that are publicly opposed by corrupt churches as sectarian and local peculiarities, they are chargeable with great unfaithfulness to the Lord Christ, to these churches and to the whole catholic church. They are chargeable with attempting to heal the wound of God's people slightly, saying peace, peace while there is no peace. Thirdly, it is a backsliding scheme. There is nothing more incumbent on a particular church than steadfastness in maintaining all the articles of Divine truth stated in her confession and testimony. But as soon as the practice obtains in any particular church of having sacramental communion with the open and obstinate opposers of any of these articles, that church, thereby, falls from her steadfastness, and *is chargeable, in some measure, with apostasy * (John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, 1862, pp. 93–94, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/A.htm). Mournful as the divisions of the Church are, and anxious as all its genuine friends must be to see them cured, it is their duty to examine carefully the plans which may be proposed for attaining this desirable end. *We must not do evil that good may come; and there are sacrifices too costly to be made for the procuring of peace with fellow Christians*. Is it necessary to remind you, that unity and peace are not always good, nor a sure and infallible mark of a true and pure church? We know that there is a church which has long boasted of her catholic unity notwithstanding all the corruptions which pollute her communion; and that within her pale the whole world called Christian once enjoyed a profound repose, and it could be said, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language" (Gen. 11:6). It was a union and peace founded in ignorance, delusion, implicit faith, and a base subjection to human authority; and supported by the arts of compulsion and terror. But there are other methods by which Christians may be deceived, and the interests of religion deeply injured, under the pretext or with the view of uniting its friends. Among these I know none more imposing, nor from which greater danger is to be apprehended in the present time, than that which proceeds on the scheme of principles usually styled latitudinarian. *It has obtained this name because it proclaims an undue latitude in matters of religion, which persons may take to themselves or give to others. Its abettors make light of the differences which subsist among religious parties, and propose to unite them on the common principles on which they are already agreed, in the way of burying the rest in silence, or of stipulating mutual forbearance and charity with respect to everything about which they may differ in opinion or in practice.* Some plead for this on the ground that the several professions of religion differ very little from one another, and are all conducive to the happiness of mankind and the honor of God, who is pleased with the various diversified modes in which men profess their regard to him, provided only they are sincere in their professions--a principle of difformity which, however *congenial to the system of polytheism, is utterly eversive of a religion founded on the unity of the divine nature and will*, and on a revelation which teaches us what we are to believe concerning God and what duty he requires of us. But the ground on which this plan is ordinarily made to rest is a distinction made among the articles of religion. Some of these are called essential, or fundamental, or necessary, or principal; others circumstantial, or non– fundamental, or unnecessary, or less important. The former, it is pleaded, are embraced by all true Christians; the latter form the subjects of difference among them, and ought not to enter into the terms of ecclesiastical fellowship. On this principle some of them would conciliate and unite all the Christian denominations, not excepting Papists, Arians, and Socinians; while others restrict their plan to those called evangelical, who differ mainly in their views and practice as to the worship, order, and discipline of the Church. The distinction on which this scheme rests is itself liable to objections which appear insuperable. It is not warranted by the Word of God; and the most acute of its defenders have never been able to state it in a manner that is satisfactory, or which renders it subservient to any practical use. The Scripture, indeed, speaks of certain truths which may be called the foundation, because they are first laid, and others depend on them--first principles, or elementary truths, which are to be taught before others. But their priority or posteriority in point of order, in conception or instruction, does not determine the relative importance of doctrines, or their necessity in order to salvation. Far less does it determine the propriety of their being made to enter into the religious profession of Christians and Christian churches. There are doctrines, too, which intrinsically, and on different accounts, may be said to have a peculiar and superior degree of importance; and this, so far as known, may properly be urged as a motive for our giving the more earnest heed to them. It is not, however, their comparative importance or utility, but their truth and the authority of him who has revealed them, which is the formal and proper reason of our receiving, professing, and maintaining them. And this applies equally to all the contents of a divine revelation. The relations of truths, especially those of a supernatural kind, are manifold and incomprehensible to us; it is not our part to pronounce a judgment on them; and if we could see them as God does, in all their extent and at once, we would behold the lesser joined to the greater, the most remote connected with the primary, by necessary and indissoluble links, and all together conspiring to form one beautiful and harmonious and indivisible whole. Whatever God has revealed we are bound to receive and hold fast; whatever he has enjoined we are bound to obey; and the liberty which we dare not arrogate to ourselves we cannot give to others. It is not, indeed, necessary that the confession or testimony of the Church (meaning by this that which is explicitly made by her, as distinguished from her declared adherence to the whole Word of God) should contain all truths. But then any of them may come to be included in it, when opposed and endangered; and it is no sufficient reason for excluding any of them that they are less important than others, or that they have been doubted and denied by good and learned men. Whatever forbearance may be exercised to persons, "the Word of the Lord," in all its extent, "must have free course and be glorified" (cf. 2 Thess. 3:1). *And any act of men--call it forbearance or what you will--which serves as a screen and protection to error or sin, and prevents it from being opposed and removed by any proper means, is contrary to the divine law, and consequently is destitute of all intrinsic force and validity*. There are truths also which are more immediately connected with salvation. But who will pretend to fix those propositions which are absolutely necessary to be known in order to salvation, by all persons, of all capacities, and in all situations; or say how low a God of grace and salvation may descend in dealing with particular individuals? Or, if we could determine this extreme point, who would say that it ought to fix the rule of our dealing with others, or the extent of a church's profession of faith? Is nothing else to be kept in view in settling articles of faith and fellowship, but what may be necessary to the salvation of sinners? Do we not owe a paramount regard to the glory of God in the highest, to the edifying of the body of Christ, to the advancing of the general interests of religion, and to the preserving, in purity, of those external means, by which, in the economy of providence and grace, the salvation of men, both initial and progressive, may be promoted to an incalculable extent from age to age? In fine, there is reason for complaining that the criteria or marks given for determining these fundamental or necessary articles are uncertain or contradictory. It is alleged that "they are clearly taught in Scripture?" This is true of the others also. "That they are few and simple?" This is contradicted by their own attempts to state them. "That they are such as the Scripture has declared to be necessary?" Why then have we not yet been furnished with a catalogue of them? "That they are such as embraced by all true Christians?" Have they a secret tact by which they are able to discover such characters? If not, can they avoid running into a vicious circle in reasoning, by first determining who are true Christians by their embracing certain doctrines, and then determining that these doctrines are fundamental because they are embraced by persons of that description? Many who have contributed to give currency to this scheme have been actuated, I have no doubt, by motives which are in themselves highly commendable. They wished to fix the attention of men on matters confessedly of great importance, and were anxious to put an end to the dissensions of Christians by discovering a mean point in which the views of all might harmoniously meet. But surely those who cherish a supreme regard for divine authority will be afraid of contemning or of teaching others to think lightly of anything which bears its sacred impress. They will be disposed carefully to reconsider an opinion, or an interpretation of any part of Scripture, which seems to imply in it that God has given men a power to dispense with some of his own laws. And they will be cautious of originating or countenancing plans of communion that may involve a principle of such a complexion. These plans are more or less dangerous according to the extent to which they are carried, and the errors or abuses which may prevail among the parties which they embrace. But however limited they may be, they set an example which may be carried to any extent. *So far as it is agreed and stipulated that any truth or duty shall be sacrificed or neglected, and that any error or sin shall be treated as indifferent or trivial, the essence of latitudinarianism is adopted, room is made for further advancements, and the way is prepared for ascending, through successive generations, to the very highest degree in the scale*. Another plan of communion, apparently opposite to the former, but proceeding on the same general principle, has been zealously recommended, and in some instances reduced to practice, in the present day. According to it, the several religious parties are allowed to remain separate, and to preserve their distinct constitution and peculiarities, while a species of partial or occasional communion is established among them. This plan is liable to all the objections which lie against the former, with the addition of another that is peculiar to itself. It is inconsistent and self– contradictory. *It strikes against the radical principles of the unity of the Church, and confirms schism by law: while it provides that the parties shall remain separate, at the same time that it proceeds on the supposition that there is no scriptural or conscientious ground of difference between them*. [Note that this is Mr. Bacon's plan of communion--GB] By defending such occasional conformity, English Dissenters at a former period contradicted the reasons of their dissent from the establishment, and exposed themselves to their opponents: for where communion is lawful, *it will not be easy to vindicate separation from the charge of schism. The world has for some time beheld annually the spectacle of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, and Seceders, sitting down together at the Lord's Table, and then going away and maintaining communion, through the remainder of the year, on their own separate and contradictory professions*. Nay, it has of late become the practice to keep, in the same church, an open communion table for Christians of different denominations on one part of the day, and a close one for those of a particular sect on the other part of the day; while the same ministers officiate, and many individuals communicate, on both these occasions. And all this is cried up as a proof of liberality, and a mind that has freed itself from the trammels of party. *It is difficult to say which of these plans is most objectionable. By the former, that church which is most faithful, and has made the greatest progress in reformation, must always be the loser, without having the satisfaction to think that she has conveyed any benefit to her new associates*. It behoves her profession and managements to yield, and be reduced to the standard of those societies which are defective and less reformed. And thus, by a process opposite to that mentioned by the Apostle, those who have built on the foundation "gold, silver, precious stones," are the persons who shall "suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:12, 15). *By the latter, all the good effects which might be expected from warrantable and necessary separations are lost, without the compensation of a rational and effective conjunction; purity of communion is endangered; persons are encouraged to continue in connection with the most corrupt churches; and a faithful testimony against errors and abuses, with all consistent attempts to have them removed or prevented, is held up to odium and reproach, as dictated by bigotry, and as tending to revive old dissensions, and to defeat the delightful prospect of those halcyon days of peace which are anticipated under the reign of mutual forbearance and charity* (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp.106–118, or free on Still Waters Revival Books web page at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Unity_00.htm, emphases added). ************************* Confessions (subscription to) ************************* However, two things can be asked about these confessions: first, their necessity; then, their authority. As to the necessity, *we say that it is not absolute*, as if the church could not do without them. For there was a time when she was without them, being content with ecumenical creeds alone or even without these, content with the formula of Scripture alone; but hypothetical on the hypothesis of a divine command and of the condition of the church, from the time when heresies, the danger of contagion, the calumnies of adversaries and intestine discords in religion began to disturb her, that the necessity and justice of our secession from the church might be manifested, that they might be held together in one body and so all distractions, dangerous dissents and schisms, wounding the truth and unity of the church, might be shunned. Their authority ought indeed to be great with the pious in the churches, but still sinking below the authority of the Scripture. For the latter is a rule, they the thing ruled. It [the Scripture--GB] alone is self–credible (autopistos) with respect to words as well as to things, divine and infallible; they, as divine in things, still in words and manner of treatment are human writings. Faith is immediately and absolutely due to it [the Scripture--GB]; to them an examination is due and that having been made, if they agree with the word, faith. It [the Scripture--GB] is the constant and immutable canon of faith; while they are subject to revision and new examination, in which it is right not only to explain and amplify them, but also to correct whatever fault should be found in them and reform according to the rule of the word. Hence it is evident that they err here in excess who hold such confessions as the rule of the truth itself and make them equal to the Word of God. *They are at best secondary rules, not of truth, but of the doctrine received in any church, since from them can be seen and decided what agrees with or what differs from the doctrine of the church*. *Therefore, their true authority consists in this--that they are obligatory upon those who are subject to them in the court of external communion because they were written by the churches or in the name of the churches, to which individual members in the external communion are responsible* (1 Cor. 14:32). Hence if they think they observe anything in them worthy of correction, they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly (ataktos) and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother (which schismatics do), but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgment or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgment. *Thus they cannot bind in the inner court of conscience, except inasmuch as they are found to agree with the Word of God (which alone has power to bind the conscience)*. Therefore, they err in defect who acknowledge no authority or a very slight authority in confessions; such are the neutrals and Libertines, who, to consult their own interests, profess nothing certain and determinate, but amid the conflicts of contradictions are undecided and fluctuate and, falling in with the winds of fortune, bend their sails to their influence. Their religion, consequently, you would properly call (if they have any) a monthly faith; nay, even a daily (hemerobion) or hourly. Unorthodox persons and heretics are such who, seeing that they are checked by such formulas as by a bridle that they may not scatter their errors to the winds, endeavor in every way, either openly, or secretly and by cunning, to destroy their authority. *As was done by the Arminians, who frequently* (in considerationibus suis in Confess. et Catech. Belgi. +) *have calumniously charged us with ascribing to these formulas an authority canonical and equal to the Scriptures, when they were read and explained in the public assembly, as if they were considered as the very Word of God. But the groundlessness of this accusation appears from the acknowledged difference between confessions and the Word of God* (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, pp. 284, 285, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/T.htm). But while the matter, as well as the ground, of the church's profession is properly speaking divine, the acts and modes of professing and maintaining it are necessarily human. When false and corrupt views of Christianity become general, it is necessary that confessions of the truth in opposition to them be embodied in formal and written documents, which may be known and read by all men. Vox emissa perit: litera scripta manet (a voice sent forth disappears: a written letter remains). It is not enough that Christians confess their faith individually: to comply with divine commands, to answer to their character as church members, and the better to gain the ends in view, it is requisite that they make a joint and common confession. When the truths contained in the Word of God have been explicitly stated and declared, in opposition to existing errors, by the proper authority in a church, an approbation of such statements and declarations may be required as a test of soundness in the faith and Christian fidelity, without any unwarrantable imposition on conscience, or the most distant reflection on the perfection of Scripture. *The same arguments which justify the use of creeds and confessions will also justify particular declarations or testimonies directed against errors and corruptions prevailing in churches which still retain scriptural formularies. Those who allow the former cannot consistently condemn the latter*. It is not sufficient to entitle persons to the character of faithful witnesses of Christ, that they profess a general adherence to the Bible or a sound confession of faith, provided they refuse or decline to direct and apply these seasonably against present evils. It might as well be said that the soldier has acquitted himself well in a battle, because he had excellent armor lying in a magazine, or a sword hanging by his side, although he never brought forth the armor nor drew his sword from is scabbard. The means alluded to are the unsheathing of the sword and the wielding of the armor of the Church. So far from setting aside the authority of Scripture, they are necessary for keeping a sense of it alive on the spirits of men, and for declaring the joint views and animating the combined endeavors of those who adhere to it. *By explaining and applying a rule, we do not add to it, nor do we detract from its authority* (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp. 135–137, emphases added, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/R.htm, on the PHP CD under "REED, KEVIN"). _Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_ (this book is at http://www.swrb.com/catalog/C.htm, under "COVENANTED GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND") On Subscription to Church Standards, 1. Full Subscription to Church Standards Required December 8, Session 16, 1638 (Book of Discipline) In the Assembly held 1590 when the Confession of Faith was subscribed universally (de novo) a ratification of the liberties of the Kirk, in her jurisdiction, discipline, Presbyteries, Synods, and General assemblies, and an abrogation of all things contrary thereunto; was ordained to be sought in Council and in Parliament. In the next session it was ordained that the Book of Discipline, specially the controverted heads should be subscribed by all ministers that bear or hereafter were to bear office in this Kirk and that they be charged by the Presbyteries under pain of excommunication; seeing the Word of God cannot be kept in sincerity unless the holy discipline be preserved. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 33. December 10, Session 17, 1638. (Confession of Faith) And findeth that first in general : In the Confession of Faith we profess, we willingly agree in our consciences to the form of religion of a long time openly professed by the Kings Majesty, and whole body of this realm, in all points, as unto Gods undoubted truth and verity grounded only upon His written word, and therefore abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 37. Act Ordaining the subscription of the Confession of Faith and the Covenant (1639) We by our Act and Constitution ecclesiastical do approve the foresaid Covenant in all the heads and clauses thereof and ordains of new, under all ecclesiastical censure, the the masters of universities, colleges, and schools, all scholars at the passing of their degrees, all persons suspect of papistry or any other errors; and finally all the members of this Kirk and Kingdom, subscribe the same..... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 87. 2. Those who speak or write against these standards or those who wrote them are to be censured as sectarian. March 26, Session 7, 1638. The assembly alloweth this article. Whereas the Confession of Faith in this Kirk concerning both doctrine and discipline so often called in question by the corrupt judgement and tyrannous authority of the pretended Prelats, is now clearly explained, and by this whole Kirk represented by this General Assembly concluded, ordained also to be subscribed by all sorts of persons within this said Kirk and Kingdom : The Assembly constitutes and ordains that from henceforth no sort of person of whatsoever quality or degree be permitted to speak or write against the said Confession, this Assembly or any Act of this Assembly, and that under the pain of incurring the censures of this Kirk. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 51 Aug 1, Session 5, 1640 The Assembly ordains, that such as have subscribed the Covenant and speaks against the same, if he be a Minister, shall be deprived: And if he continue so, being deprived, shall be excommunicate: And if he be any other man, shall be dealt with as perjured and satisfy publicly for his perjury. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 93 July, Session 21, 1648. Whosoever brings in any opinion or practise in this Kirk contrary to the Confession of Faith, Directory for Worship or Presbyterian Government may be justly esteemed to be opening the door to schism and sects: And therefore all depravers and misconstructors of the proceedings of the Kirk judicatiries, especially the General Assembly would take heed lest making a breach upon the walls of Jerusalem they make a patent way for Sectaries to enter. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 396. 1. Only the Word of God is the principal and formal ground of our faith. Eph. 2:20–22; 2 Tim. 3:16; Lk. 24:25. 2. A confession of faith containing all fundamental points is so far forth the Word of God as it agrees with the Word of God and *obligeth as a rule secondary, which we believe with subjection to God, speaking in His own word, and to this platform we may lawfully swear* (Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right of Presbyteries_, 1644, p. 132, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added). Contradictory Oaths Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland on Contradictory Oaths 1. The Confession of Faith interpreted to a contrary meaning and subscribed to is a contradictory oath which is sinful and censurable. December 20, Session 26, 1638. Concerning the subscribing of the Confession of Faith lately subscribed by his Majesties Commissioner , and urged to be subscribed by others. And in the mean time, lest any should fall under the danger of a contradictory oath, and bring the wrath of God upon themselves and the land, for the abuse of His name and Covenant; The Assembly by their ecclesiastical authority, prohibits and discharges, that no member of this Kirk swear or subscribe the said Confession so far wrested to a contrary meaning, under pain of all ecclesiastical censure. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 63 2. Oaths and Bands contradicting the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant are sinful and censurable. July 28, Session 18, 1648 Act and declaration against the Act of Parliament and Committee of Estates ordained to be subscribed the 10th and 12th of June, and against all new Oaths or Bands in the common cause imposed without the consent of the Church. And therefore the General Assembly professing in all tender respect to the high and Honourable Court of Parliament and Committee of Estates, but finding a straighter tie of God lying upon their consciences, that they be not found unfaithful watchmen, and betrayers of the souls of these committed to their charge, Do unanimously declare the foresaid subscription to be unlawful and sinful. And do warn, and in the name of the Lord charge all the members of this Kirk, to forbear the subscribing of the said Act and Declaration, much more the urging of the subscription thereof, as they would not incur the wrath of God, and the Censures of the Kirk. And considering how necessary it is that according to the eight desire of the Commissioners of the Assembly to the Parliament, the Kirk might have the same interest in any new Oaths in this cause, as they had in the Solemn League and Covenant, and what dangers of contradictory Oaths, perjuries and snares to mens consciences may fall out otherwise: Therefore they likewise enjoin all the members of this Kirk, to forbear the swearing, subscribing or pressing of any new Oaths or Bands in this cause, without advise and concurrence of the Kirk, especially any negative Oaths or Bands, which may in any way limit or restrain them in the duties whereunto they are obliged, by National or Solemn League and Covenant, and that with certification as aforesaid. And such as have already pressed or subscribed the foresaid Act and Declaration, The General Assembly doth hereby exhort then most earnestly in the bowels of Christ, to repent of that defection. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p.378-379 July, Session 21, 1648. That they beware of all things which may ensnare their consciences, as evil council, evil company, false information, rash promises, and especially that they beware taking any Oaths, subscribing any Bonds, which may relate to the Covenant and cause of God unless such Oaths and Bonds be approved by the General Assembly or their Commissioners for the public affairs of the Kirk. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p.399 3. An example of excommunication for obstinate maintaining of oaths contradictory to the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. June 13, Session 10, 1646. Ordinance for Excommunication of the Earl of Seafort The General Assembly having taken to their serious consideration that perfidious band made and contrived lately in the North under the name of A Humble Remonstrance , against our National Covenant, and the League and Covenant of the three kingdoms; which tends to the making of division and fomenting of jealousy within this and between both kingdoms, to the prolonging of these unnatural wars, to the impeding of the intended uniformity of religion, and to the subversion of all the happy ends of our Covenants. And finding that George Earle of Seafort has not only most perfidiously himself subscribed the said wicked band, contrary to his solemn oath sin in the Covenants aforesaid... Therefore the Assembly moved with the zeal of God, do without a contrary voice discern and ordain the said George Earle of Seafort to be summarily excommunicate and declared to be one whom Christ commanded to be held by all and everyone of the faithful as an ethnic and a publican. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 303-304. ************************* Covenanting ************************* I shall leave every man to his Judge, and shall judge nothing before the time; and I wish every man to consider sadly and seriously, by what spirit and principles he is led, and whether he be seeking the things of Christ, or his own things; whether he be pleasing Christ; whether sin be more shamed and holiness more advanced, this way or that way; which way is the most agreeable to the Word of God, to the example of the best reformed churches, and so to the _Solemn League and Covenant_. The controversy is now hot: every faithful servant of Christ will be careful to deliver his own soul by his faithfulness, and let the Lord do what seemeth him good. The cause is not ours, but Christ's; it stands him upon his honour, his crown, his laws, his kingdom. Our eyes are towards the Lord, and we will wait for a divine decision of the business: "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, he will save us" (George Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 78, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/G.htm). Yes, unto them which believe Christ is precious; and *I never question that he is so to multitudes who never heard of the British Covenants*; but I grieve when these are lightly called the "old covenants" by those under the obligation of them... (David Steele, Reminiscences, 1883, p. 262, emphases added). Arminians [argue--GB]--A confession [Covenant--GB] is not a rule of faith it hath not the lowest place in the Church. *The Covenant written and sealed in Nehemiah's time was a secondary rule of faith* [in the same sense as the PRCE's fourth term of communion--GB], *and a rule in so far as it agreed with the Law of Moses*, for they enter in a curse and an oath to walk in God's law, not to give their sons and daughters in marriage to the heathen, not to buy victuals from the heathen on the Sabbath, to charge themselves to give money to maintain the service of God.(Nehemiah 9:38, 10:1–3, 29–32). *Which written Covenant was not Scripture; and Acts 15, the decrees of the Synod was not formally Scripture, yet to be observed as a secondary rule*. (Samuel Rutherford, _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_, 1649, SWRB bound photocopy, p. 25). The only plausible objection offered by opponents to the doctrine and practice of public social covenanting is taken from the assumption, that it is superceded by the sacraments, especially the Lord's Supper. The assumption has never been proved, and is utterly groundless, as will at once appear to any unbiased mind, by considering that God instituted all three forms of taking hold of his covenant. If it be so that baptism and the Lord's Supper are substantially the same seals of the covenant as circumcision and the passover; then the consequence is inevitable, that as the whole people of Israel were taken and engaged to God at Sinai, he judged the two preceding forms incomplete. And since the privileges of God's covenant people are enlarged--not abridged, under the New Testament dispensation, and that public covenanting was a matter of frequent prediction and promise under the Old dispensation; it follows that this instrumentality is to be continued and exemplified (David Steele, _The Two Witnesses_, 1859, p. 27) Calvin's first objective was to obtain, at a meeting attended by the whole city, an oath forcing the entire population to abjure the papacy and adhere to the Christian religion and its discipline, as comprehended under a few headings (Johnston, _The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland_, p. 138, emphases added). Register of the Council of 24 12 November 1537. It was reported that yesterday the people who had not yet made their oath to the reformation were asked to do so, street by street; whilst many came, many others did not do so. No one came from the German quarter. It was decided that they should be commanded to leave the city if they did not wish to swear to the reformation. 26 November 1537. Some people have been reported to have said that it was perjury to swear to a confession which had been dictated to them in writing . . . [Farel or Calvin] replied that if the contents of the written confession were studied carefully it would be seen that this was not so, but that it was a confession made according to God. Examples from holy Scripture (in Nehemia and Jeremiah) proved that the people should all be assembled to swear to keep faith with God and observe his commandments (cited by Johnson, _The Reformation in Germany and Switzerland_, p. 138, emphases added). To swear to the true religion, the defence and maintenance thereof is a lawful oath; as to swear to any thing that is lawful, and to lay a new band on our souls to perform holy duties, where we fear a breach, and find by experience there hath been a breach, is also a duty of moral and perpetual equity; therefore such a sworn covenant is lawful (Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_, p. 134, emphases added). Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland on Covenanting and Covenants 1. The Blessing of God upon Covenanting January 23, Session 2, 1645 And when we consider how the Lord hath carried on His work here at the first taking of the Covenant, and since, against much learning and contradiction, against much policy, power, and all sorts of opposition (such as reformation useth to encounter) we are ravished with admiration at the right hand of the Almighty. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p.249 2. The Perpetual Obligation of the Covenant July, Session 21, 1648 To remember that as the violation of the Covenant by some in England doth not set us free from the observation thereof, and as no laws nor authority on earth can absolve us from so solemn an obligation to the most high God (which not only has been professed by this Kirk but in a petition in the city of London, and in public testimonies of many of the Ministry in England) So we are not acquitted and assoiled from the obligation of our solemn Covenant, because of the troubles and confusions of the times; But that in the worst of times all those duties,whereunto by Covenant we oblige ourselves, do still lie upon us, for we have sworn (and must perform it) concerning that Cause and Covenant wherein we solemnly engaged. That we shall all the days of our lives zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promove the same according to our power against all lets and impediments whatsoever. And if against all lets and impediments whatsoever, then the altering of the way of opposition, or of the kind of impediments doth not alter the nature or tie of the Covenant, but we are obliged to all the duties therein contained The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p.399 August 6, 1649 Although there were none in the one kingdom who did adhere to the Covenant, yet thereby were not the other kingdom nor any person in either of them absolved from the bond thereof, since in it we have not only sworn by the Lord, but also covenanted with Him. It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve the other from their duty or tie to Him: Besides, the duties therein contained, being in themselves lawful, and the grounds of our tie thereunto moral, though the other do forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us from that obligation which lies upon us by the Covenant in our places and stations. And the Covenant being intended and entered into by these kingdoms, as one of the best means of steadfastness, for guarding against declining times: It were strange to say that the backsliding of any should absolve others from the tie thereof, especially seeing our engagement therein is not only National, but also personal, everyone with uplifted hands swearing by himself, as it is evident by the tenor of the Covenant. From these and other important reasons, it may appear that all these kingdoms joining together to abolish that oath by law, yet could they not dispense therewith; Much less can any one of them, or any part in either of them do the same. The dispensing with oaths have hitherto been abhorred as Antichristian, and never practised and avowed by any but by that man of sin; therefore those who take the same upon them, as they join with him in his sin, so must they expect to partake of his plagues. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. pp. 474-475 July 27, Session 27, 1649 Albeit the League and Covenant be despised by the prevailing party in England, and the work of Uniformity through retardments and obstructions that have come in the way, be almost forgotten in these kingdoms, yet the obligation of that Covenant is perpetual, and all the duties contained therein are constantly to be minded, and prosecuted by every one of us and our posterity. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 460 3. Covenant Subscription a Term of Communion August 8,Session 6, 1643 The General Assembly considering the good and pious advice of the commissioners of the last Assembly, upon the 22 of September, 1642 recommending to presbyteries, to have copies of the Covenant to be subscribed by every Minister at his admission, doth therefore ratify and approve the same. And further ordains that the Covenant be reprinted , with this ordinance prefixed thereto, and that every Synod, Presbytery and Parish, have one of them bound in quatro, with some blank paper, whereupon every person may be obliged to subscribe: And that the Covenants of the Synod and Presbytery be keeped by their Moderator respective, of Universities by their principals, of Parishes by their Ministers, with all carefulness. And that particular account of obedience to this Act, be required hereafter in all visitations of Parishes, Universities, and Prebyteries, and all trials of Presbyteries and Synod books. The General Assembly considering that the Act of the Assembly at Edinburgh 1639. August 30. enjoining all persons to subscribe the Covenant, under all Ecclesiastical censure, hath not been obeyed: Therefore ordains all Ministers to make intimation of the said Act in their Kirks, and thereafter to proceed with the censures of the Kirk against such as shall refuse to subscribe the Covenant. And that exact account be taken of every Ministers diligence herein by their Presbyteries and Synods, as they will answer to the General Assembly. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 162. August 5, Session 10, 1640 The Assembly ordains, that if any Expectant [minister-GB] shall refuse to subscribe the Covenant, he shall be declared incapable of Pedagogy, teaching in a school, reading at a Kirk, preaching within a presbytery, and shall not have liberty of residing within a Burgh, university or College: and if they continue obstinate to be processed. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 94 Aug 1, Session 5, 1640 The Assembly ordains, that such as have subscribed the Covenant and speaks against the same, if he be a Minister, shall be deprived: And if he continue so, being deprived, shall be excommunicate: And if he be any other man, shall be dealt with as perjured and satisfy publicly for his perjury. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 93 Act Against Secret Disaffecters of the Covenant (1644) The General Assembly understanding that diverse persons disaffected to the National Covenant of this Kirk, and to the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, do escape their just censure, either by private and inconstant abode in any one congregation, or by secret conveyance of their malignant speeches and practises; Therefore ordains all ministers to take notice when any such person shall come into their parishes, and so soon as they shall know the same, that without delay they cause them to appear before the Presbyteries within which their parish lies......And the assembly ordains the said commissioners not only to proceed to trial and censure of such disaffected persons but also to take a special account of the diligence of the Ministers, Elders, and Presyteries herein respective. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. pp. 220-221 August 20,Session 15, 1647 And if by the declaration of both kingdoms [Scotland and England-GB] joined in arms, Anno 1643, such as would not take the Covenant were declared to be public enemies to their Religion and Country and that they be censured and punished as professed adversaries and malignant. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 335. Act for Taking the Covenant at the first receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The General Assembly according to former recommendations, Doth ordain that all young students take the Covenant at their first entry into colleges; and that hereafter all persons whatsoever take the Covenant at their first receiving of the Lords Supper: Requiring hereby Provincial Assemblies, Presbyteries and Universities to be careful that this Act be observed, an account thereof taken in the visitation of Universities and particular Kirks, and in the trial of Presbyteries. The Acts of General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 422 see also p. 368 That all students of Philosophy at their first entry and at their lawreation, be holden to subscribe the League and Covenant and be urged thereto, and all other persons as they come to age and discretion before their first receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 4. The Covenants are an important attainment, no lasting and binding agreement is attained without establishing them first. Session 23, 1648, A declaration and Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their brethen of England And considering of what importance the Solemn League and Covenant is unto all the interests of both kingdoms concerning their religion,liberties and peace. To make an agreement without establishing of it were not only to rob these Nations of the blessings they have already attained by it, but to open the door to let in all the corruptions that have been formerly in the kirks of God in their lands and all the abuses and usurpations that have been in the civil government, and again to divide these two kingdoms that are so happily united and conjoined. Therefore as we wish that all misunderstanding between the Nations and between the King and People may be removed, so that there may be a happy and lasting peace, so that there may be no agreement without establishing and enjoining the Covenant in all these three kingdoms... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 410 5. Covenant Breaking a Heinous Sin August 20, Session 15, 1647 A declaration and Exhortation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to their brethen of England Yet we should betray our own sense and betray the truth if we should not resent so great a sin and danger as is the breach of a solemn Covenant, sworn with hands lifted up to the most high God: which breach however varnished over with some colorful and handsome pretexts, one whereof is the Liberty and Common Right of the free people of England, as once Saul brake a Covenant with the Gibeonite in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah. Yet God could not then, and cannot now be mocked; Yea it is too apparent and undeniable, that among those who did take the Covenant of the three kingdoms, as there are many who have given themselve to a detestable indifferency or neutrality, so there is a generation which has made defection on the contrary part; persecuting as far as they could that true reformed religion, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, which by the Covenant they ought to preserve against the common enemies; hindering and resisting the Reformation and Uniformity, which by the Covenant ought to be endeavored; preserving and tolerating those cursed things which by the Covenant ought to be extirpated ... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland. p. 334. One would have to be almost totally spiritually blind not to recognize that we have nationally "provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger." The result is that our cities are burned with fire, our land is devoured by strangers (covenant breakers, antichristian and pagan) and that "the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city." But the Lord has left us a remnant for "the work of the restoring of the ruined temple of the Covenanted Reformation, and thereby the effecting of a third Reformation" (James Kerr, as cited in _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ by the Covenanted Ministers of Scotland, p. 47). 6. Opposers and slanderers of the Covenant considered Enemies to the Cause of God. July , Session 21,1648 But remember that the foulest actions have not wanted specious pretences; And if they who killed the Apostles did both pretend and intend to do God good service, what marvel that they who engage against the Covenant pretend to engage for it. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 397. The second sort of enemies, from which our present dangers arise, are secret malignants and dis-covenanters who may be know by these and like characters: Their slighting or censuring of the public resolutions of this Kirk and State. Their consulting and labouring to raise jealousies and divisions to retard or hinder the execution of what is ordered by public judicatories. Their slandering the Covenant of the three kingdoms and expedition into England, as not necessary for the good of religion.... The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 280 ************************* Some Quotes from Archibald Mason's book entitled-- _Observations on the Public Covenants_ ************************* The public covenants betwixt God and the church contain his gracious engaging himself to be their God, and to bless them; and their dutiful obliging themselves to be his people, and to serve him. This is the nature of all religious covenants with God. If they are considered in any other light, they are misunderstood; and if they are held up to men in any other point of view, they are misrepresented. p. 9 An individual Christian in a personal, or a body of them in a public capacity, entering into a covenant with God, do it not with a view to obtain an interest in in him as their God, to regain his favor, or to aquire a title to his salvation; but, having received Christ by faith, and taken hold of the covenant of which he is the mediator for these purposes, they, in their covenanting with God, solemnly devote themselves unto him, and vow or swear, in the strength of this grace, to glorify and serve him with their bodies and spirits which are his. p. 9 Those who oppose that truth, for which we are now arguing, must hold it to be an immoral and unlawful thing, for a Christian people to avouch the Lord to be their God, and to serve him; that they have no warrant in the word of God to resolve, promise, vow, or swear that they shall to the uttermost of their power maintain his gospel, cleave unto his ordinances, obey his laws, support the interests of his glory in the world, and oppose whatever is contrary thereunto; and that it is a criminal and unlawful thing for them to join themselves unto the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten p. 23 In response to those who think we can only bind our conscience to the scriptures, Mason says: If this opinion were true, the house of Israel and the house of Judah could not be charged with breaking the covenant; they might be charged with breaking the Lord‚s law; but he could not have said, they have broken my covenant. p. 40 If it is lawful and necessary for the Christian, in his personal capacity to bind himself to all duty; must it not be equally lawful and necessary for the church to comprehend duties of every class; in their public and solemn engagements to the Lord? Since it would be dishonoring for the believer to come under a partial obligation to duty, it must be still more provoking in the eyes of his holiness, to see his professing church partial in the law. p. 67 That it is NOT the duty of Christians to bring themselves under solemn and voluntary obligations to serve their God, will never be believed by those who have had their senses duly exercised to discern between good and evil. That comprehensive duty which Christ requires of them, who have come to him, and have found rest in him, Take my yoke upon you Matt. 11:29, plainly includes this important exercise. p. 89 Whenever a person comes to be savingly enlightened in the knowledge of the law, and of its obligation upon him, he immediately resolves upon obeying it. His obedience to the law commences with that act, whereby he resolves that whatever others do, as for him, he will serve the Lord. The Christian cannot thus determine or resolve without bringing himself under a voluntary obligation to obey. It is therefore evident, that both the discovery of the original divine obligation of the law, and the Christian's willing engagement to fulfill it, are absolutely necessary unto all acceptable obedience. If these may be formed in the mind, they may be expressed in words unto the Lord. Of this we have innumerable instances in the scriptures. If they may be expressed in words, they may be uttered in the form of a promise, vow, or oath unto the Lord. If these things may be done by an individual, they may be done by a company, consisting of few or many, even by a whole nation. It is therefore, an important and necessary duty belongiing to Christians, either in their personal or collective capacities, to come under voluntary obligations unto the service of the Lord. The evil of opposing the duty of public covenanting with God, is evident from this subject. p. 90 The great evil of this opposition to our covenants consists in its being a fighting against God, a contempt of his ordinance, an injury done to his church, a striking against pure and undefiled religion, and an endeavor to harden the generation in their sin. p. 92 In the same visions with which John was favored, the martyrs of Jesus are said to be slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held Rev. vi. 9. The word of God is one thing, and the church's testimony for the truths of that word is another thing; and it was for their attachment unto the word of God, and for the faithful witness which they bare unto the truths of it, that they were put to death by their cruel persecutors. p. 103
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.************************* Covenants -- John Brown of Haddington ************************* Brown (of Haddington), in his book _The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration..._ (1803), points out (on page 161) that Westminster Assembly considered the SL&C an "everlasting covenant." That the body of the English nation also swore the Solemn League and Covenant, is manifest. The Westminster Assembly and English Parliament, affirm, "The honourable house of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines, the renowned city of London, and multitudes of other persons of all ranks and quality in this nation, and the whole body of Scotland, have all sworn it, rejoicing at the oath so graciously seconded from heaven. God will, doubtless, stand by all those, who with singleness of heart shall now enter into an ***everlasting covenant*** with the Lord." p.161, The footnote tells us that the section Brown was quoting was taken from "Exhortation to take the Covenant, February, 1644." Furthermore, Brown annihilates Richard Bacon's novel view of covenanting throughout the last third of this book (pages 114-189). "The intrinsic obligation of promises, oaths, vows, and covenants which constitutes their very essence or essential form, ***is totally and manifestly distinct from the obligation of the law of God in many respects***." (Emphasis added) ************************* Perpetual Obligation of Covenants ************************* That by this new subscription [which Charles I was proposing--GB] our late Covenant [of 1638 --GB], and Confession may be quite absorbed and buried in oblivion, *that where it was intended and sworn to be an everlasting Covenant never to be forgotten*, it shall never more be remembered, the one shall be cryed up, and the other drowned in the noise thereof (Records of the Church of Scotland, p. 86, "The Protestation of the Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burrowes, Ministers, and Commons" [after reading the proclamation dated September 9, 1638], emphases added). That the body of the English nation also swore the Solemn League and Covenant, is manifest. The Westminster Assembly and English Parliament, affirm, "The honourable house of Parliament, the Assembly of Divines, the renowned city of London, and multitudes of other persons of all ranks and quality in this nation, and the whole body of Scotland, have all sworn it, rejoicing at the oath so graciously seconded from heaven. God will, doubtless, stand by all those, *who with singleness of heart shall now enter into an everlasting covenant with the Lord*" (_The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration_, 1803, p. 161, emphases added). Go on in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, against all opposition, without fear of whatsoever dangers, to purge the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches thereof, to set up all his ordinances in their full beauty and perfection, to the uttermost of your power, according to the pattern of the Word of God and zeal of the best Reformed Kirks. And let these two kingdoms be knit together as one man in maintaining and promoting the truth of the Gospel. *Let us enter in a perpetual Covenant for ourselves and our posterity* to endeavour that all things may be done in the House of God according to his own will, and let the Lord do with us as seems good in his eyes (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive], p. 205, emphases added). That the obligation of religious vows and oaths extends to posterity is evident also, from the names which the Scriptures bestow upon the church's covenants with God. They are called an everlasting covenant, The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant (Isaiah 24:5, AV), and a perpetual covenant, They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten (Jeremiah 50:5, AV). *These covenants are called an everlasting covenant, and a perpetual covenant, because their obligation is durable and permanent, and extends to future generations*. If the obligation of these covenants perished at the decease of the actual covenanters, they would be temporary, fleeting and transient in their nature indeed, and could have no title to these honourable appelations bestowed upon them by the Spirit of God. (Archibald Mason, Observations on Public Covenanting, 1821, p. 45, cited from _The Fall of Babylon the Great_, emphases added). *But these three lands are one party, and the God of heaven is the other party*; therefore, though England should break, should Scotland also break the Covenant? It is not after this tenor:--We will endeavour reformation in these lands, but if you break, we will break also. *No; it is each man swearing for himself that he shall, in his place and station, endeavour reformation, so that if it were left all to one man, he must endeavour reformation*. For, consider the last words of the article. Each of them for himself did lift up his hands to the Most High; and so these three lands are one party, and *the other party is the God of heaven*. Consider seriously upon it, for it is the thing that you must either suffer for or sin, ere it be long, without remedy. Whatever England and Ireland have done in breaking the covenant, we say they justly must smart for it, according to the Word of God, if God in mercy prevent it not. Nevertheless, as long as there are in these lands any who keep the covenant, we are bound to keep it; and suppose there are many who had rather suffer for it than sin, as witness the many scattered flocks and shepherds in these lands--and supposing this were not, though both England and Ireland should quit it, yet Scotland is bound to it (John Howie, _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_, 1880, p. 668). Now, a word to that which I mentioned before. What shall we do since these lands have broken covenant with God? I tell you that Scotland is bound to keep it, although England and Ireland have broken it; and although Scotland break it, yet Ireland and England are bound to stand to it. "Though thou Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend;" that is to say, As for you at this present time, though England and Ireland have broken, yet let not Scotland so do too. Suppose there were but one family in these lands that would stand to it, and if all that family should turn their back upon it except one person, truly that person is bound to stand to it. "Choose you whom you will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Here is but a family, so that if all the kingdom should forswear the covenant, yet so long as I am master of a family, I must serve the Lord. I must not serve other gods, that is to say, we should not serve Popes nor Prelates, &c. But what if it come to this, that there be no man to bide by it at all but one man? That man is bound to keep it according to Scripture. "I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only am left." From these words I conclude, though England has forsaken yet Scotland is bound; and though Scotland should forsake yet England is bound; and though both forsake yet one family is bound to stand to it. Therefore study to know your duty lest the wrath of God come upon you and your posterity. Believe these things, for our king and princes, nobles and ministers, and all the people, and our posterity, are bound to it. So I leave it to you with this: Happy is that man that shall be steadfast in the covenant, though all the rest should forsake it. But as to the persons who shall continue steadfast, God has reserved that to Himself as a piece of His sovereignty. Again, we hear not tell of a public covenant ever sworn and broken but God visibly plagued the breakers thereof (John Howie, _Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_, 1880, pp. 673– 674). If there is any truth in the statements that have now been made, the question respecting the obligation of the British covenants is deeply interesting to the present generation. The identity of a nation, as existing through different ages, is, in all moral respects, as real as the identity of an individual through the whole period of his life. The individuals that compose it, like the particles of matter in the human body, pass away and are succeeded by others; but the body politic continues essentially the same. If Britain contracted a moral obligation, in virtue of a solemn national covenant, for religion and reformation, that obligation must attach to her until it has been discharged. Have the pledges given by the nation been yet redeemed? Do not the principle stipulations in the covenant remain unfulfilled unto this day? Are we not as a people still bound by that engagement to see these things done? *Has the lapse of time cancelled the bond? Or, will a change of sentiments and views set us free from its tie? Is it not the duty of all friends of reformation to endeavour to keep alive a sense of this obligation on the public mind? But although all ranks and classes in the nation should lose impressions of it, and although there should not be a single religious denomination, nor even a single individual, in the land, to remind them of it, will it not be held in remembrance by One, with whom, "a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years"* (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 200, 1821, reprinted 1989, emphases added). The principle of continued or transmissible federal obligation is not liable to the objections that have been urged against it, and is no novelty. We do not make our ancestors a sort of federal head as Adam was to the human family, when we allege that our posterity are bound by their engagements. This is altogether a misrepresentation of the argument on the subject. *The descending obligation of the public covenants rests upon the essential character of organised society. It is the same party in different stages of its existence that is bound to moral obedience*; and the obligation rests in all its plenitude upon the community as the same moral agent, until the whole matter of the engagement be fulfilled (Thomas Houston, _A Memorial of Covenanting_, 1857, p. 35, emphases added). August 6, 1649. Although there were none in the one kingdom who did adhere to the Covenant, yet thereby were not the other kingdom nor any person in either of them absolved from the bond thereof, *since in it we have not only sworn by the Lord, but also covenanted with Him*. It is not the failing of one or more that can absolve the other from their duty or tie to Him: *Besides, the duties therein contained, being in themselves lawful, and the grounds of our tie thereunto moral, though the other do forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us from that obligation which lies upon us by the Covenant in our places and stations*. And the Covenant being intended and entered into by these kingdoms, as one of the best means of steadfastness, for guarding against declining times: *It were strange to say that the backsliding of any should absolve others from the tie thereof*, especially seeing our engagement therein is not only National, but also personal, everyone with uplifted hands swearing by himself, as it is evident by the tenor of the Covenant. From these and other important reasons, it may appear that all these kingdoms joining together to abolish that oath by law, yet could they not dispense therewith; Much less can any one of them, or any part in either of them do the same. *The dispensing with oaths have hitherto been abhorred as Antichristian, and never practised and avowed by any but by that man of sin*; therefore those who take the same upon them, as they join with him in his sin, so must they expect to partake of his plagues (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive], pp. 474–475, emphases added). The permanent obligation of the Solemn League results from the permanency of its nature and design, and of the parties entering into it, taken in connection with the public capacity in which it was established... *the emergency which led to the formation of the covenant is one thing, and the obligation of the covenant is quite another; the former might quickly pass away, while the latter may be permanent and perpetual*. Nor is the obligation of the covenant to be determined by the temporary or changeable nature of its subordinate and accessory articles. Whatever may be said of some of the things engaged to in the Solemn League there cannot be a doubt that in its great design and leading articles it was not temporary but permanent. Though the objects immediately contemplated by it--religious reformation and uniformity--had been accomplished, it would still have continued to oblige those who were under its bond to adhere to and maintain these attainments. But unhappily there is no need of having recourse to this line of argument; its grand stipulations remain to this day unfulfilled (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 195, emphases added). Albeit the League and Covenant be despised by the prevailing party in England, and the work of Uniformity through retardments and obstructions that have come in the way, be almost forgotten in these kingdoms, yet the obligation of that Covenant is perpetual, and all the duties contained therein are constantly to be minded, and prosecuted by every one of us and our posterity. (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive] p. 460). It is no small grief to us that the Gospel and Government of Jesus Christ are so despised in the land, that faithful preachers are persecuted and cried down, that toleration is established by law and maintained by military power and that the Covenant is abolished and buried in oblivion. All which proceedings cannot but be looked upon as directly contrary to the Oath of God lying upon us and therefore we cannot eschew his wrath when he shall come in judgment to be a swift witness against those who falsely swear against His name (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive], pp. 472–473). ************************* Intrinsic Obligation of Covenants ************************* Some of the principles on which it has been attempted to loose this sacred tie are so opposite to the common sentiments of mankind, that it is not necessary to refute them: *such as, that covenants, vows and oaths, cannot superadd any obligation to that which we are previously under by the law of God*; and, that their obligation on posterity consists merely in the influence of example (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 197). The lax and prevailing sentiment by which this truth [of solemn covenant obligations--GB] is opposed, is the following. Religious covenants are not formally, but only materially [or morally--GB] binding. They have no real obligation in themselves, but we are bound to the duties therein, because these duties are required in the moral law. *[Is this not Mr. Bacon's exact argument?--GB] *This dangerous opinion appears to be imbibed by many professed witnesses for the Covenanted Reformation, by the influence of which, they seem to be precipitated into the gulf of *public apostasy from these principles*, which they formerly espoused. It is impossible for a person to believe it, without entertaining a secret contempt of religious vows, oaths and covenants; and it is impossible for him to act upon it, without being involved in a practical opposition to them. . . . If this opinion were true, the house of Israel and the house of Judah could not be charged with breaking the covenant: they might be charged with breaking the Lord's law; but he could not have said, they have broken my covenant. If Israel's covenant with God did not bind them, by an intrinsic obligation, their iniquity could not be a breach of the covenant, but only a transgression of the law; nor could it be any way criminal from the relation it had to the covenant, but only from the reference it had to the law. We may easily know what to think of an opinion, which necessarily renders the charges the Lord brings against His backsliding people, absurd and unjust--Were this opinion true, there could be no such thing among the children of men, as the sins of perfidy [i.e. breach of promise--GB], covenant–breaking or perjury. Though we may pledge our veracity, by religious promises and vows unto God, if there is no [formal--GB] obligation in them, there can be no perfidy, or breach of faith in our disregarding them. Though we may join ourselves to the Lord in a solemn covenant, if that deed brings us under no obligation to fulfil it, the sin of covenant– breaking can have no existence. Though we should enter into an oath to walk in the Lord's law, if this oath is not binding in itself, how can the sin of perjury, or despising the oath of God, be charged upon us. We are certain that these sins are mentioned in the Word of God, and that they are committed by men; but this opinion destroys them forever--Were this sentiment right, then all the solemn acts of believers as individuals, and of the church as a body, are rendered void and useless to all intents and purposes. *Of what use are promises, vows, oaths and covenants, if there is no obligation in them? If obligation to performance is refused to them, their very essence is destroyed*. The mind cannot think on any of those transactions without considering an obligation to do as we have said, vowed or sworn as essential to their being. *Promises, without an obligation to fulfil them, vows, without an obligation to pay them, oaths, without an obligation to perform them, and covenants, without an obligation to keep them, are monsters both in divinity, and in morals, which are created by this more monstrous opinion*--It is also the native import of this doctrine, that Christians are under no other obligation to duty, after they have promised, vowed and sworn unto the Lord, or covenanted with him, than they were before they engaged in these solemn and holy transactions. The man who [like Mr. Bacon--GB] can believe this, there is great reason to fear, is actuated by a desire to break the bands of the Lord and His anointed, and to cast away their cords from him. These things both show the gross error of this sentiment, and serve to confirm the truth of the contrary doctrine (Archibald Mason, "Observations On The Public Covenants", 1821, pp. 40, 41, an appendix in _The Fall of Babylon the Great_, emphases added). To lay bands of promises and oaths upon a back–sliding heart, is commanded in the third Command, and is not Judiacal, Gen. 14:22. Gen. 28:20. Psal. 132:2. Psal. 76:22. And this is sinful omission of a morally obliging duty, and morally obliging one man: so it obligeth a Nation, as affirmative precepts do: *and this smells of Anabaptism to cry down all Gospel–vows* (Samuel Rutherford, _A Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline_, 1658, p. 482, emphases added). The grand and fundamental ground of a religious covenant is the moral law. *The law of God alone can bind the conscience*. No oath or bond is of any force that is opposed to it.... *The obligation of the law of God is primary and cannot be increased--that of a voluntary oath or engagement is only secondary and subordinate*. By the Divine law, we are obliged to the performance of duty whether we choose it or not--by covenants we voluntarily bind ourselves.... where the vows made respect duties enjoined by the law of God, they have a intrinsic obligation of the highest and most constraining kind (Thomas Houston, D.D., _A Memorial of Covenanting_, 1857, p. 29, emphases added). *But, moreover, religious covenants have an obligation distinct and peculiar. Although the authority of God, expressed in his law and speaking through his word, is supreme and cannot possibly be increased, there may be a superadded obligation on a man's conscience to respect and obey His authority, arising from his own voluntary oath or engagement.* This is easily illustrated. We are bound at all times to speak the truth, and to fulfil our promises and federal engagements. If an oath is taken to declare the truth, this adds nothing, it is true, to the authority of the law; but it brings the person swearing under an additional obligation to speak the truth. This does not increase the original obligation; and yet it may be properly regarded as a new and different obligation. An oath is enjoined by Divine authority, and cannot therefore be useless. When properly taken, it is important and valuable. *Before the oath was taken, if a person deviated from the truth, he was simply guilty of lying--but afterward, if he speaks falsely, he has added to his sin the crime of perjury. In the former case, he rebelled against the authority of God--in the latter, he violates both the authority of God and repugns the obligation of his oath.* The usages of all civil society confirms the doctrine of superadded obligation, arising from oaths and voluntary engagements; and regards perjured persons and covenant breakers as aggravated criminals. It has been justly observed, that a, *"Covenant does not bind to anything additional to what the law of God contains, but it additionally binds."* (William Symington, _Nature and Obligation of Public Vowing_, p. 22). This superadded obligation of vows oaths and covenants is plainly recognized in Scripture, (See Numbers xxx. 2; Deut. xxiii. 21; Eccles. v. 4,5). Divine threatenings distinctly specify, as a separate ground of punishment, breach of covenant, in addition to the transgression of God's law. (Thomas Houston, A Memorial of Covenanting, 1857, pp. 29, 30, emphases added). The intrinsic obligation of promises, oaths, vows, and covenants which constitutes their very essence or essential form, is totally and manifestly distinct from the obligation of the law of God in many respects. 1. In his law, God, by the declaration of his will as our supreme Ruler, binds us, Deut. xii. 32. *In promises, vows, covenants, and promissory oaths, we, as his deputy–governors over ourselves, by a declaration of our will, bind ourselves with a bond, bind our souls with our own bond, our own vow*, Num.. xxx. Psalm lxvi. 13.15. & cxix. 106. &c. 2. *The obligation of our promises, oaths and covenants is always subject to examination by the standard, of God's law, as to both its matter and manner, I Thess. v. 12. But it would be presumption, blasphemous presumption, to examine, Whether, what we know to be the law of God be right and obligatory, or not,* James iv. 11,12. Isa.. viii. 20. Deut. v. 32. 3. The law of God necessarily binds all men to the most absolute perfection in holiness, be they as incapable of it as they will, Matth. v.48. I Pet. i. 15, 16. No man can, without mocking and tempting of God, bind himself by vow or oath to any thing, but what he is able to perform. No man may vow to do anything which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise of ability from God. But, no mere man since the fall is able, in this life either in himself or by any grace received form God, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, Eccl. vii. 23. James iii.2. While God remains God, his law can demand no less than absolute perfection in holiness. While his word remains true, no mere man since the fall, in this life, can possibly attain to it; and therefore ought never to promise or vow it. The least imperfection in holiness, however involuntary, breaks the law of God, and is even contrary to the duty of our relative stations of husbands, parents, masters, magistrates, ministers, wives, children, servants or people, I John iii. 4. Rom.. vii. 14, 23, 24. *But it is only by that which is, in some respect, voluntary sinfulness, that we break our lawful vows, Psal. xliv. 47. Nothing can more clearly mark the distinction of the two obligations, than this particular. There is no evading the force of it, but either by adopting the Arminian new law of sincere obedience, or by adopting the Popish perfection of saints in this life*. 4. The law of God binds all men forever, whether in heaven or hell, Psal.. cxi. 7, 8. No human law or self–engagement binds men, but only in this life, in which they remain imperfect, and are encompassed with temptations to seduce them from their duty. In heaven they have no need of such helps to duty, and in hell they cannot be profited by them. The obligation of lawful promises, oaths, vows and covenants, as well as of human laws, respecting moral duties, however distinct is no more separable from the obligation of God's law, than Christ's two distinct natures are separable, the one from the other, but closely connected in manifold respects. *In binding ourselves to necessary duties, and to other things so long and so far as is conducive thereto, God's law as the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him, is made the rule of our engagement. Our vow is no new rule of duty, but a new bond to make the law of God our rule.* Even Adam's engagement to perfect obedience in the covenant of works was nothing else. His fallibility in his estate of innocence, made it proper, that he should be bound by his own consent or engagement, as well as by the authority of God. Our imperfection in this life, and the temptations which surround us, make it needful, that we, in like manner, should be bound to the same rule, both by the authority of God, and our own engagements. It is in the law of God, that all our deputed authority to command others, or to bind ourselves is allotted to us. The requirement of moral duties by the law of God obligeth us to use all lawful means to promote the performance of them; and hence requires human laws and self–engagements, and the observance of them as conducive to it. Nay they are also expressly required in his law, as his ordinances for helping and hedging us in to our duty. In making lawful vows, as well as in making human laws we exert the deputed authority of God, the supreme Lawgiver, granted to us in his law, in the manner which his law prescribes, and in obedience to its prescription. In forming our vows as an instituted ordinance of God's worship, which he hath required us to receive, observe, and keep pure and entire, Psal.. lxxvi. 11. & cxix. 106. & lvi. 12. Isa.. xix. 18, 21. & xlv. 23, 24. & xliv. 5. Jer. l. 5, 2 Cor. viii.5,--we act precisely according to the direction of his law, and in obedience to his authority in it, --binding ourselves with a bond, binding our soul with a bond, Num. xxx. 2–11--binding ourselves by that which we utter with our lips ver. 2, 6, 12, --binding ourselves with a binding oath,--binding ourselves--binding our soul by our own vow--our own bond, ver. 4,7,14. In forming our vow, we, according to the prescription of his own law, solemnly constitute God, who is the supreme Lawgiver and Lord of the conscience,--the witness of our self–engagement, and the Guarantee, graciously to reward our evangelical fulfilment of it, and justly to punish our perfidious violation of it. The more punctual and faithful observation of God's law, notwithstanding our manifold infirmities and temptations, and the more effectual promotion of his glory therein, is the end of our self–engagements, as well as of human laws of authority. And by a due regard to their binding force, as above stated, is this end promoted,--as hereby the obligation of God's law is the more deeply impressed on our minds, and we are shut up to obedience to it, and deterred from transgressing it.-- In consequence of our formation of our vow, with respect to its matter, manner, and end, as prescribed by God, He doth, and necessarily must ratify it in all its awful solemnities, requiring us by his law, to pay it as a bond of debt,--to perform and fulfil it as an engagement to duties, and an obligation which stands upon or against us, Num. xxx. 5, 7, 9, 11. with Deut. xxiii. 21–23. Psalm lxxvi. 11. & 1. 14. Eccl. v.4, 5. Mat. v. 33. In obedience to this divine requirement, and considering our vow, in that precise form, in which God in his law, adopts and ratifies it, and requires it to be fulfilled, we pay, perform, and fulfil it as a bond, wherewith we, in obedience to Him, have bound ourselves, to endeavour universal obedience to his law, as our only rule of faith and manners. Whoever doth not, in his attempts to obey human laws or to fulfil self– engagements, consider them as having that binding force which the law of God allows them; he pours contempt on them, as ordinances of God, and on the law of God for allowing them a binding force. *Thus, through maintaining the superadded but subordinate obligation of human laws, and of self–engagements to moral duties, we do not make void, but establish the obligation of God's law.* The obligation of a vow, by which we engage ourselves to necessary duties commanded by the law of God, must therefore be inexpressibly solemn. Not only are we required by the law of God before our vow was made; but we are bound in that performance, to fulfil our vow, as an engagement or obligation founded in the supreme authority of his law warranting us to make it. We are bound to fulfil it as a mean of further impressing his authority manifested in his law, upon our own consciences,-- as a bond securing and promoting a faithful obedience to all his commandments. We are bound to fulfil it, in obedience to that divine authority, by derived power from which, we as governors of ourselves made it to promote his honour. In those or like respects, our fulfilment of our vows is a direct obedience to his whole law. We are moreover bound to fulfil it, as a solemn ordinance of God's worship, the essential form of which lies in self–obligation, and must be received, observed, kept pure and entire, and holily and reverently used, and so in obedience to Command I. II. III. We are bound to fulfil it, as an ordinance of God, in which we have pledged our own truth, sincerity and faithfulness and so in obedience to Command IX. I. II. III. We are bound to fulfil it, as a solemn deed or grant, in which we have made over our persons, property, and service to the Lord and his Church; and so in obedience to Command I. II. VIII. nay, in obedience to the whole law of love and equity, Mat. xxii. 37, 39. & vii. 12. We are bound to fulfil it from regard to the declarative glory of God, as the witness of our making of it, that he may appear to have been called to attest nothing, but sincerity and truth; and so in obedience to Command I. III. IX. We are bound to fulfil it from a regard to truth, honesty, and reverence of God, as things not only commanded by his law, but good in themselves, agreeable to his very nature, and therefore necessarily commanded by him,-- and from a detestation of falsehood, injustice, and contempt of God, as things intrinsically evil, contrary to his nature, and therefore necessarily forbidden in his law; and thus in regard to his authority in his whole law, as necessarily holy, just and good. We are bound to fulfil it, from a regard to the holiness, justice, faithfulness, majesty, and other perfections of God, as the Guarantee of it, into whose hand we have committed the determination and execution of its awful sanction,--as the gracious rewarder of our fidelity, or just revenger of our perfidy,--and hence in regard to our own happiness, as concerned in that sanction. In fine, we are bound to fulfil it in obedience to that command of God, which adopts and ratifies it, requiring us to pay, fulfil, or perform our vow, oath or covenant, Psal. L. 14. & lxxvi. 11. Eccl. v. 4. Deut. xxiii. 21, 23. Mat. v. 33. *In violating such a vow, We do not merely transgress the law of God, as requiring the duties engaged, before the vow was made. But we also rebel against, and profane that divine warrant, which we had to make our vow. We profane that authority over ourselves in the exercise of which we made the vow, and consequentially that supreme authority in God, from which ours was derived; and so strike against the foundation of the whole law.* We manifest a contempt of that law, which regulated the matter and manner of our vow. We profane the vow, as an ordinance of God's worship, appointed in his law. By trampling on a noted mean of promoting obedience to all the commands of God, we mark our hatred of them, and prepare ourselves to transgress them, and endeavour to remove the awe of God's authority and terror of his judgments from our consciences. We blasphemously represent the Most High as a willing witness to our treachery and fraud. We pour contempt on him, as the Guarantee of our engagements, as if he inclined not, or durst not avenge our villainy. Contrary to the truth and faithfulness required in his law, and pledged in our vow, we plunge ourselves into the most criminal deceit and falsehood. Contrary to equity, we rob God and his Church of that which we had solemnly devoted to their service. Contrary to devotion, we banish the serious impression of God's adorable perfections. Contrary to good neighbourhood, we render ourselves a plague and curse, and encourage others to the most enormous wickedness. Contrary to the design of our creation and preservation, we reject the glory of God, and obedience to his law from being our end. Meanwhile, we trample on the ratification of our vow, by the divine law in all its awful solemnities, and manifold connections with itself,--and requirement to pay it. *It is manifest, that our covenanting ancestors understood their vows in the manner above represented. They never represent them as mere acknowledgments of the obligation of God's law, or as placing themselves in some new relation to God's law, or more directly under any command of it.* But declare that a man binds himself by a promissory oath to what is good and just. It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance. *By a vow we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties.* And, in expressions almost innumerable, they represent the obligation of their vows as distinct and different, though not separable from the law of God. They no less plainly declared, that no man may bind himself by oath to any thing, but what he is able and resolved to perform; --no man may vow any thing which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise of ability from God. And in their several forms of covenant, they never once pretend to engage performing of duties in that absolute perfection which is required by the law of God,--*but sincerely, really, and constantly to endeavour the performance of them* (John Brown of Haddinton, _The Absurdity and Perfidy of all Authoritative Toleration_, 1803, pp. 120–127, emphases added).
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.
*************************
Covenant Renewal
*************************
In his sermon upon Psalm 110:3, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of
Thy power, in the beauty of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou
hast the dew of Thy youth," Henderson proclaims:
And indeed ye have just reason to be willing now.
Because it is God's cause ye have in hand, and it is no new cause to us. *It
is almost sixty years old; it is no less since this same Confession of Faith
was first subscribed and sworn to [1580–81--GB]. And it has been still in
use yearly to be subscribed and sworn to in some parts, among those in
this land, to this day.* And I think it would have been so in all parts of the
land if men had dreamed of what was coming upon us. Whatever is added
to it at this time, it is nothing but an interpretation of the former part; and
if men will be willing to see the right, that they may see that there is
nothing in the latter part but that which may be deduced from the first.
And in the keeping of a Covenant we are not found to keep only these
same words that were before, *but we must renew it; and in the renewing
thereof we must apply it to the present time when it is renewed, as we
have done, renewed it against the present ills* (Alexander Henderson,
_Sermons, Prayers, and Pulpit Addresses_, 1638, p. 21, SWRB bound
photocopy, emphases added).
Now is there any of you but ye are obliged to be holy? Ye say that ye are
the people of the Lord. If so be, then ye must have your inward man
purged of sin, and ye must stand at the stave's end against the corruption
of the time, and ye must devote yourselves only to serve and honor God.
And your Covenant, that ye are to swear to this day obliges you to this;
and it requires nothing of you but that which ye are bound to perform.
And therefore, seeing this is required of you, purge yourselves within, flee
the corruptions at the same time, eschew the society of those whom you
see to be corrupt, and devote yourselves only to the Lord. Yet this is not
that we would oblige you to perform everything punctually that the Lord
requires of you; there is none who can do that, but promise to the Lord to
do so, tell him that ye have a desire to do so, and say to him, Lord, I shall
earnestly endeavour to do as far as I can. And, indeed there is no more in
our covenant but this, that we shall endeavour to keep ourselves within
the bounds of our Christian liberty; *and albeit, none of you would swear
to this, ye are bound to it [the National Covenant--GB] by your baptism.*
And therefore, think not that we are precisians (or these who have set
down this Covenant), *seeing all of you are bound to do it* (Alexander
Henderson, _Sermons, Prayers, and Pulpit Addresses, 1638, p. 23, SWRB
bound photocopy, emphases added).
*************************
Covenanted Reformation
*************************
These modern pigmies are too far dwarfed in intellectual stature to
measure the altitude, of our glorious Covenanted Reformation--a
Reformation which, imbedded in the law and the covenant of God, has
already brought civil and ecclesiastical freedom to many millions; and
*which is doubtless destined to be laid in the foundation of reconstructed
society in the millennial period of the world* (The Reformed Presbytery,
_A Short Vindication of Our Covenanted Reformation, 1879, SWRB bound
photocopy, p. 4, emphases added).
*************************
Civil Government
*************************
The view of the Reformers
(1) Civil government is an ordinance of God established for
God's glory and and the welfare of man. To that end God has entrusted
into the hands of the lawful magistrate the sword. It is lawful for
Christians to serve as magistrates in a lawful government and in even in
an unlawful government (provided no oath of allegiance to an evil
constitution is required), to exercise capital punishment, just wars and
judicial recompense to the guilty, and for a Christian to exercise self-
defence.
(2) It is the duty of the civil magistrate to suppress all
false religion and to establish the true reformed religion (in doctrine, worship,
and government) by law within his realm.
Wherefore we condemn the Anabaptists, and all those troublesome spirits,
which do reject higher powers and magistrates, overthrow all laws and
judgments, make all goods common, and, to conclude, do abolish and
confound all those orders and degrees, which God hath appointed among
men for honesty's sake (Belgic Confession, Article 36).
Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among
men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound
doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to adjust our life to the
society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to
reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and
tranquility (Calvin, Institutes, IV, XX, 2, p.1487, emphases added).
Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly
and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion
appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for
maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and
superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and
others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied (_The
Scottish Confession of Faith_, Chapter 24, emphases added).
The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly acknowledge, that
every lawful magistrate, being by God himself constituted the keeper and
defender of both tables of the law, may and ought first and chiefly to take
care of God's glory, and (according to his place, or in his manner and way)
to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and
corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
and synods, as likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violators of justice and civil
peace (Gillespie, _Works_, 1:12, emphases added).
*************************
Eschatology
*************************
Daniel [Dan.9:27] and Paul [2 Thess. 2:4] foretold that Antichrist would sit
in the Temple of God. With us it is the Roman Pontiff we make the leader
and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. The fact that
his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that his reign was not such
as to wipe out either the name of Christ or of the Church. From this it
therefore is evident that we by no means deny that churches under his
tyranny remain churches... (_Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book
4.2.12, Translated by Ford Lewis Battles).
The coming of Christ to reign here on earth a thousand years is, if not a
groundless opinion, yet so dubious and uncertain as not to be admitted a
place in the analogy of faith to regulate our interpretation of Scripture in
places that may fairly admit of another interpretation (Owen, _Works_, 20:
154).
The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their
souls, (which neither die nor sleep,) having an immortal subsistence,
immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous,
being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens,
where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full
redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell,
where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the
judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for souls separated
from their bodies, the scripture acknowledgeth none (_Westminster
Confession of Faith_, 32:1).
*************************
Extraordinary Ordination
*************************
George Gillespie states,
We plainly say, that in extraordinary cases, when ordination cannot be
had, and when there are none who have commisssion and authority from
Christ to ordain, then and there, an inward call from God, enlarging the
heart, stirring up, and assisting with the good-will and consent of a people
whom God makes willing, can make a minister authorized to ministerial
acts. Suppose this to have been the case at the first coming out from
Popery, yet here was a seed for more churches and more ministers. At the
first plantation of churches ordination may be wanting without making
void the ministry, because ordination cannot be had; but in constituted
churches, the want of ordination doth make a minister, no minister." _Misc.
Questions, Ch. 3, sec .3_ (see Kevin Reeds _Presbyterian Government in
Extraordinary Times_).
*************************
Extraordinary Acts
*************************
Both quotes below from "The Life of Mr. John Welch" in John Howie's _Biographia Scoticana or Scots Worthies_ (1781 edition, http://www.swrb.com/catalog/h.htm).
"He was sometime prisoner in Edinburgh castle before he went into exile, where one night sitting at supper with the Lord Ochiltry, who was uncle to Mr. Welch's wife, as his manner was, he entertained the company with godly and edifying discourse, which was well received by all the company, except a debauched popish young gentleman, who sometimes laughed, and sometimes mocked and made wry faces; whereupon Mr. Welch brake out into a sad abrupt charge upon all the company to be silent, and observe the work of the Lord upon that profane mocker, which they should presently behold; upon which the profane wretch sunk down and died beneath the table, to the great astonishment of all the company" (p. 143).
"There was in his house, amongst many others who boarded with him for good education, a young gentleman of great quality, and suitable expectations, and this was the heir of Lord Ochiltry, captain of the castle of Edinburgh. This young nobleman, after he had gained very much upon Mr. Welch's affections, fell ill of a grievous sickness, and after he had been long wasted with it, closed his eyes, and expired, to the apprehension of all spectators, and was therefore taken out of his bed, and laid on a pallet on the floor, that his body might be the more conveniently dressed. This was to Mr. Welch a very great grief, and therefore he stayed with the dead body full three hours, lamenting over him with great tenderness. After twelve hours, the friends brought in a coffin, whereinto they desired the corpse to be put, as the custom is; but Mr. Welch desired, that for the satisfaction of his affections, they would forbear it for a time, which they granted, and returned not till twenty-four hours after his death were expired; then they desired, with great importunity, that the corpse might be coffined, and speedily buried, the weather being extremely hot; yet he persisted in his request, earnestly begging them to excuse him once more; so they left the corpse upon the pallet for full thirty-six hours; but even after all that, though he was urged, not only with great earnestness, but displeasure, they were constrained to forbear for twelve hours more. After forty-eight hours were passed, Mr. Welch still held out against them, and then his friends perceiving that he believed the young man was not really dead, but under some apoplectic fit, proposed to him, for his satisfaction, that trial should be made upon his body by doctors and chirurgeons, if possibly any spark of life might be found in him, and with this he was content. -- So the physicians are set to work, who pinched him with pincers in the fleshy parts of his body, and twisted a bow-string about his head with great force, but no sign of life appearing in him, the physicians pronounced him stark dead, and then there was no more delay to be made; yet Mr. Welch begged of them once more, that they would but step into the next room for an hour or two, and leave him with the dead youth; and this they granted. Then Mr. Welch fell down before the pallet, and cried to the Lord with all his might, and sometimes looked upon the dead body, continuing in wrestling with the Lord, till at length the dead youth opened his eyes, and cried out to Mr. Welch, whom he distinctly knew, O Sir, I am all whole, but my head and legs; and these were the places they had fore hurt with their pinching.
"When Mr. Welch perceived this, he called upon his friends, and shewed them the dead young man restored to life again, to their great astonishment. And this young nobleman, though he lost the estate of Ochiltry, lived to acquire a great estate in Ireland, and was Lord Castle-Stuart, and a man of such excellent parts, that he was courted by the earl of Stafford to be a counsellor in Ireland; which he refused to be, until the godly silenced Scottish ministers, who suffered under the bishops in the north of Ireland, were restored to the exercise of their ministry, and then he engaged, and continued so for all his life, not only in honour and power, but in the profession and practice of godliness, to the great comfort of the country where he lived. This story the nobleman himself communicated to his friends in Ireland" (pp. 146-147).
Also see the FREE book, _A Reformation Discussion of Extraordinary Predictive Prophecy Subsequent to The Closing of the Canon of Scripture_ by the Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, under "Church Writings" at
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/.
*************************
False Ministers
*************************
Act for censuring Ministers for their silence, and not speaking to the
corruption of the time. August 3, 1648. Ante Meridiem. Session 26.
The General Assembly, taking to their serious consideration, the great
scandals which have lately increased, partly through some Ministers their
reserving and not declaring of themselves against the prevalent sins of the
times, partly through the spite, Malignity, and insolency of others against
such Ministers as have faithfully and freely reproved the Sins of the times
without respect of persons, Do therefore for preventing and removing such
scandals hereafter, Appoint and Ordain, that every Minister do by the
word of Wisdom apply his Doctrine faithfully against the publick Sins and
Corruptions of these times, and particularly against the Sins and Scandals
in the Congregation wherein he lives, according to the Act of the General
Assembly 1596, revived by the Assembly at Glasgow 1638. *Appointing
that such as shall be found not applying their Doctrine to corruptions,
which is the Pastoral gift, cold, and wanting of Spiritual zeal, flatterers and
dissembling of publick sins, and especially of great Personages in their
Congregations, that all such persons be censured according to the degree of
their faults and continuing therein be deprived; And according to the Act
of General Assembly 1646, Sess. 10, That beside all other scandals, silence,
or ambiguous speaking in the public cause, much more detracting and
disaffected speeches be seasonably censured* (_The Records of the Church
of Scotland_, p. 509, emphases added).
Here the Spirit signifies that the false prophets should be subject to the
greatest ridicule, when they shall be convicted by the event, and their lies
shall be proved by clear proof. Hence, also, we may gather the utility of the
doctrine which Paul teaches, that we must stand bravely when God gives
the reins to impostors to disturb or disperse the Church (_Calvin's
Commentaries_, Vol. 12, p. 21, Baker Book House).
Because the Churches take not care, that Ministers be savoury and
gracious; from Steermen all Apostasie and rottenness begin. O if the Lord
would arise and purge his House in Scotland! As for Church–members, they
ought to be holy; and though all baptized be actu primo members, yet such
as remain habitually ignorant after admonition, are to be cast out, and
though they be not cast out certainly, as paralytick or rottened members
cannot discharge the functions of life: *So those that are scandalous,
ignorant, malignant, unsound in faith, lose their rights of Suffrages in
election of Officers, and are to be debarred from the Seals.* Nor can we
defend our sinful practise in this: it were our wisdom to repent of our
taking in the Malignant party, who shed the blood of the people of God,
and obstructed the work of God, into places of Trust in the Church State,
and the Army, contrary to our Covenants, they continuing still Enemies.
(Samuel Rutherford, A Survey of the Survey of the Summe of Church
Discipline, 1658, p. 373, emphases added).
All who reject history from their conditions of fellowship, and yet claim
kindred with the Reformed Covenanted Church, are "deceiving and being
deceived." In this matter they are false witnesses; but "we wot that
through ignorance they do it" (_The Original Covenanter_ magazine, Vol. 2,
No. 12, December 1879, pp. 353–357).
Teachers who discharge their duties honestly and sincerely are like
builders, who, if they see a breach in a wall, instantly and carefully repair
it.... For God, indeed, offers us peace, and invites us to reconciliation by his
own prophets; but on this condition, that they make war with their own
lusts. This then, is one way of being at peace with God by becoming
enemies to ourselves, and fighting earnestly against the depraved and
vicious desires of the flesh. *But how do false prophets preach peace?
Why! so that miserable and abandoned men may sleep in the midst of
their sins.* We must diligently attend, then, to this difference, that we may
safely embrace the peace which is offered us by true prophets, and be on
guard against the snares of those who fallaciously flatter us with peace,
because under promise of reconciliation they foment hostilities between
God and ourselves (_Calvin's Commentaries_, Vol. 12, pp. 20, 21, Baker
Book House, emphases added)
... for if the saying of God speed to a false teacher, make us partakers of his
evil deed, 2 John 10, how much more doth the admitting of such or the like
scandalous sinners to the Lord's Table, make (I say not all who
communicate then and there, but) all who consent to their admission, to be
partakers of their evil deeds (George Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_,
1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 53).
Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and
there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with
untempered morter: Say unto them which daub it with untempered
morter, that it shall fall: there shall be an overflowing shower; and ye, O
great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend it (Ezekiel 13:
10,11, AV).
John Calvin judiciously comments upon this passage:
Here the Spirit signifies that the false prophets should be subject to the
greatest ridicule, when they shall be convicted by the event, and their lies
shall be proved by clear proof. Hence, also, we may gather the utility of the
doctrine which Paul teaches, that we must stand bravely when God gives
the reins to impostors to disturb or disperse the Church (_Calvin's
Commentaries_, Vol. 12, p. 21, Baker Book House).
*************************
False Worship
*************************
The nearer a false worship approaches to a true one, the more dangerous it
is. Israel came nearer to the true worship of God than the heathens: now
the prophet saith not, Though the heathens be idolators, yet let not Judah
be so too; but, 'Though Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend.'
There was more danger that Judah should be drawn aside by Israel, than
that they should be drawn aside by any of the heathen. And so there is
more danger that we, at this day, should be drawn aside by those that join
with us in many things that are right, than by papists, who are hateful to
us, and whose ways we see to be abominable. There is not so much danger,
especially for those that profess godliness, of being drawn aside by those
who grossly violate the laws of God, as by brethren that join with us in
many things that are right, and come very near to the true worship of God...
We must not approach places calculated to draw us into sin, especially to false
worship... It is dangerous to indulge curiosity in visiting places of idolatry..."
("Comments on Hosea 4:15 by Jeremiah Burroughs [1599-1646]" cited in
_The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness_ magazine [vol. 1, #19, Sept.
10/93, pp. 416-417])
*************************
Headcovering
*************************
Theodore Beza's Notes in the Geneva Bible (1 Cor. 11:3) state :
11:4 {3} Every {b} man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.
Beza's Notes in the Geneva Bible On 1 Cor. 11:3 says:
{3} By this he [Paul-GB] gathers that if men do either pray or preach in
public assemblies having their heads covered (*which was then a sign of
subjection*), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's
ordinance.
{b} *It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the
circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these
our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of
subjection.*
Although certain ordinations of the Apostles (which referred to the rites
and circumstances of divine worship) were *variable and instituted only
for a time* (as the sanction of not eating blood and of things strangled
(Acts 15:20); *concerning the woman's head being covered and the mans
being uncovered when they prophesy [1Cor. 11:4, 5])* because this was a
special cause and reason for them and this ceasing the institution itself
*ought to cease* also... (_The Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, Vol. 2, p. 95).
*Uncovering the head, seemeth to be little older then Pauls Epistles to the
Corinthians. The learned Salmasius, thinketh it but a National sign of
honour, no ways universally received*: but certainly is not Adoration:
*Though therefore we receive the supper of the Lord uncovered*, no man
can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements, as we shall here for
all bodily worship or expression of our affection to means of graces (
though these means be but creatures) is not Adoration properly either of
God, or of these means, it is Lawful to tremble at the word, and for Josiah
to weep before the book of the Law read, and for the Martyrs to kiss the
stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth:
all these things being Ojectam quo, and means by which they conveyed
their worship to the true God, and natural and Lawful expressions of their
affection to God: *For uncovering the head, it is a sort of veneration or
reverence*, not adoration; and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith
(1Cor 11:14) Everyman praying and prophesying having his head covered
dishonoreth his head: *But it is not his meaning that he dishonoreth God.
The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of
honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour. If therefore
the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lords Supper, and
Pray and Prophesy with covered heads , men would judge it no
dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the ordinances of God:
Though Paul having regard to National custom in Corinth, did so esteem it*
(Samuel Rutherford, _The Divine Right of Church Government_, p. 89, 90).
Though this last ( the last point (7) of Raphael de la Torres was about
uncovering the head--GB) be not adoration ,[unreadable word--GB] sign of
reverence, and is not everywhere adoration; yet Abulensis saith, *the Jews
did pray and sacrifice with covered heads; So saith Virgil, and (d) [Lod.
Vives --Lod Vives com.in August. de civit. dei lib. 15, c. 2--GB]* Therefore
the Corinthians had this from the Grecians as a civil sign of gravity, which
should not be banished from Gods Worship; and if it [Adoration-GB] be
appropriate to an Idol, it should in that case be made Veneration : But no
reverence at all is due to an Idol (Samuel Rutherford, _The Divine Right of
Church Government_, p. 144).
Confession Argentinensi (1530):
"In the Confession presented to the emperor Charles the Fifth, by the
ambassadors of the cities of Argentor, Memmingen, Constance and Lindau,
in 1530, we have the following passages: 'The human traditions, which the
churches consider as condemned in scripture, are those only which they
find inconsistent with the law of God; such as those binding men's
conscience to the observation of certain meat, drink, or times; or forbidding to
marry. But those which are consonant to scripture and good morals, and are for
the benefit of men, and which though they are not expressed in so many
words in scripture, yet flow from the law of love which enjoins all things to
be done decently , may be reckoned rather Divine than human. Such are
these traditions of Paul: that the women should not pray in the church with
their heads uncovered; nor the men with their heads covered; that when
they were going to communicate, they should wait for one another; that no
one should speak in an unkown tongue in the public assemblies without an
interpreter; that the prophets should speak in order without interrupting
one another'" (Cited in Alexander and Rufus, John Anderson, p.143,
emphases added).
In his _Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_ p. 247, George Gillespie
states:
There are three sorts of signs to be distinguished.
1. Natural signs.
2. Customable Signs; and *so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a
sign of preeminence, has, through custom, become a sign of subjection*.
[Notice here Gillespie agrees with Calvin, Beza, Turretin, and Rutherford
when he asserts that time and custom can change the meaning of the
headcovering from preeminence to subjection--GB]
3. Voluntary Signs.
In his explanation on page 248 he says:
Secondly, customary signs have likewise place in divine service; *for so a
man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he sees
the hearers covered, he knows by this customary sign that sermon has
begun.*
On page 254 he says:
As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst
they are praying ( that is in their hearts following the public and common
prayer), or prophesying (that is singing,1 Sam. 10:10;1 Chron.25:1), they
are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this
example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. *This
covering was a moral sign* for that comely and orderly distinction of men
and women *which civil decency required in all their meetings;* wherefore
that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comeliness in
their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle will have them, for
the same decency and comeliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies.
And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that
nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or
subjection of the woman (vs. 3,8,9; for *covering was then a sign of
subjection*), and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (v. 25);
where he would have the artificial covering to be fashioned in imitation of
the natural. What need we any more? Let us see nature's institution, or
the Apostle's recommendation, for the controverted ceremonies (as we
have seen them for women's veils), and we yield the argument.
Again Matthew Henry states in his commentary on 1 Cor 11, p. 561, states:
The thing he reprehends is the womans praying or prophesying uncovered
or the mans doing either covered. To understand this it must be observed
that *it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be
veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours,
where the being bare headed betokens subjection and being covered
superiority and dominion. *And this will help us better to understand.
[Notice that Henry clearly affirms that the meaning of the headcovering in
his land is contrary to that of the Eastern countries. He undoubtedly held
the position that national culture affected what the church ought to do in
this circumstance. If he believed that the meaning of headcovering was
unalterable this particular comment would be unintelligible--GB]
On 1 Cor 11: 3, p. 561, Henry says:
She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws of the token of her
subjection. She might with equal decency, *cut her hair short or cut it close,
which was the custom of the man in that age.... It was doing a thing which
in that age of the world betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim
of what did not belong to them but the other sex.*
On 1 Cor 11: 4, p. 562, Henry says:
Now because evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies,
*therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and
subjection, which in that age and country was a veil.*
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.************************* Other Examples of headcovering practice ************************* Speaking of the practice of the congregation of Balmagie in the time of of faithful John Macmillan (1701), Rev. H. M. R. Reid writes: The dress of the people was on par with their homes and fare. *A Galloway man wore constantly, even in the church, his broad blue bonnet, made in Kilmarnock.* Young girls at home wore no headcovering, but snooded their locks with a piece of string or ribbon. At fair or church, they wore white linen mutches, slightly plaited above the brow. The farmers' wives covered their heads with coarse white linen toys when they went a-visiting (_A Cameronian Apostle_, p. 52 - original source Nicholson's History, II. p. 332-339). At 11 A.M. on Sunday, those who wished could hear the Scriptures read by an Elder or other person, within the church. At noon, the minister came forth from the manse hard by, and the people flocked noisily into the house of prayer, *where they still wore their blue bonnets while the psalm was sung. But at the first words of prayer, all stood up bare headed, and so kept the dies dominica in the most ancient form* (_A Cameronian Apostle_, p. 54). [It is difficult to tell why the Scots would keep their headcovering on for singing but not for prayer but the fact that the men did sing psalms in public on the Lord's day with heads covered shows that their practice is distinctly different than ours--GB] From _The Reformation in Scotland_ by David Hay Fleming (p. 301, 302) we read that: As penitent sinners of various kinds were ordered to sit in the church" bare -heidit all the time of the sermons (quoted from the Booke of the Universal Kirk, ii. p. 692)," it would appear that the members of the congregation kept their hats on during that time. This is also implied by Knox's statement that the Earl of Huntley pulled down his bonnet over his eyes when the preacher denounced certain vices (Laings Knox, ii., p. 362). [This would indicate that the men, in the days of John Knox, wore headcoverings while the sermon was being preached--GB] Thomas Kirk, an Englishman, who visited Dundee in 1677, says, " we heard a sermon at the greatest church; they first sing a psalm, and then the minister begins his prayer, and as soon as he has taken on his text they all put on their hats" (_Kirk and Thorsby's Tours of Scotland_, p.19). In England, during part of the seventeenth century, it was customary for the people to sit in church with their hats on, and to take them off when they sang the Psalms (Brands Popular Antiquities, Bohn's ed. ii. p. 323). [Whereas the Scots would take of their hats for prayer it appears the English would remove them for singing. Evidently, there was no universally agreed upon practice among the churches of the seventeenth century--unless one wishes to assert that this description is some sort of anomaly--GB] Some lifted them [headcoverings-GB] at the name of Jesus. (Marsden's _Early Puritans_, 1853, p. 347) By the beginning of the eighteenth century many Scottish Presbyterians uncovered their heads during sermon. ( An Examination of Three Prelatical Pamphlets, 1703 p. 18) The custom survived in the Scottish Church at Rotterdam until at least the last quarter of the nineteenth century. At one time the ministers of Scotland may have kept their hats on while preaching, as French and Dutch Protestant preachers did (_The Reformation in Scotland_, p. 302). He [i.e.Alix] was bold and brisk in the pulpit, and when he had read his text, he cocked his hat: but Claud, when he put on his hat, slipped it on, and drew down the sides of it (Wodrow's Analectica, ii. 273). "The ministers" of the Church of Holland "are covered in the time of sermon" (Lieut- Col. Erskine of Wodrow in 1728, Edinburgh Christian Instructor, xxvii.,p. 265). Although the English Independent Mr. Phillip Nye was no friend to true Presbyterian reformation it is nevertheless interesting to hear how he thought headcovering should be practiced. It should be noted that prior describing Mr. Nye's judgment, Robert Ballie was listing ways in which he thought the Independents were irreverent in their way of celebrating the Lords Supper. Since Mr. Nye was an Independent it is difficult to tell whether his opinion was widespread, or simply independent upon the subject of headcovering. Mr. Nye [ Phillip Nye] told us in private judgment , that in preaching he thinks the minister should be covered, and the people discovered: but in the Sacrament, the minister should be discovered, as a servant, and all the guests covered (Laing's _Baillies Letters_, ii. p. 149). Free book on headcoverings, _The Practice Of Headcoverings In Public Worship_ by the Reformed Presbytery In North America, at: http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html ************************* Holydays ************************* Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland on Festival Days 1. Festival days not commanded nor warranted by scripture. General Assembly seeks total abolition not reformation of abuses only December 10, Session 17, 1638. And next in particular, concerning festival days findeth that in the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline it was thought good that the feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, with the feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs and Virgin Mary be utterly abolished because they are neither commanded nor warranted by Scripture and that such a observe them be punished by Civil Magistrates. Here utter abolition is craved and not reformation of abuses only and that because the observation of such feasts have no warrant from the word of God. In the General Assembly held at Edinburgh Anno 1556 the large confession of Helvetia was approved but with special exception against the same five days which are now urged upon us. It was not then the Popish observation only, with the Popish opinion of worship and merit, which was disallowed; (for so the reformed Kirk in Helvetia did not observe them) but simpliciter all observation. For this end was read a letter in Latin, sent at that time by some of our divines to certain divines in these parts to this purpose. In the Assembly holden 15 5. in August, complaint was made against the Ministers and Readers beside Aberdeen; because they assembled the people to preaching and prayers upon certain festival days: So that preaching and prayers upon festival days was judged rebukable. It was ordained likewise, that complaint be made to the Regent, upon the town of Drumfreis, for urging and convoying a Reader to the Kirk with Cabrfet and Whistle, to read Prayers, all the holy days of Christmas, upon the refusal of their own Reader. Among the articles directed by this Assembly to the Regent: It was craved that all holy days hereto-fore keeped holy, beside the Lords day, such as Yooleday, and Saints days, and such others may be abolished, and a certain penalty appointed for banqueting, playing, feasting upon these days. In the Assembly held in April, Anno 1577. It was ordained that the visitors with the advice of the Synodal Assembly, should admonish Ministers, preaching or administrating the Communion at Easter, or Christmas, or other like superstitious times, or Readers reading, to desist, under the pain of deprivation. In the ninth head of the first book of Discipline, the reason is set down against Easter Communion. Your honours are not ignorant how superstitiously the people run to that action at Pascheven; as if the time gave virtue to the Sacrament, and how the rest of the whole year, they are careless and negligent as if it appertained not to them, but at that time only. And for this reason, other times were appointed by that book, for that holy action. In the Assembly holden 1596, begun in March 1595, at which time the Covenant was renewed, superstition and idolatry breaking forth in observing festival days; setting out of bonfires, singing carols, are reckoned amongst the corruptions which were to be amended: And the pulpits did sound from time to time, against all show of observing any festival day whatsoever, except the Lords day. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p.37-38 2. Observation if Festival days are contrary to the Confession of Faith August 22, Session 18, 1639. A second cause [of great evils in this Kirk and Kingdom-GB] was the Articles of Perth, viz. the observation of festival days, kneeling at communion, administration of the Sacrament in private places which are brought in by a null Assembly and are contrary to the Confession of Faith as it was meant and subscribed Anno 1580 and divers times since and to the order and constitutions of this Kirk. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p.75. 3. Observation of festival days censurable February 13, 1645. Act for Censuring the Observers of Yule- day and other superstitious days especially if they be scholars. The General Assembly taking to their consideration the manifold abuses, profanity, and superstitions committed on Yule-day and some other superstitious days following have unanimously concluded and hereby ordains; That whatsoever person or persons hereafter shall be found guilty in keeping of the foresaid superstitious days shall be proceeded against by Kirk censures and shall make their public repentance therefore in the face of the congregation where the offence is committed. And that Presbyteries and Provincial Synods take particular notice how Ministers try and censure delinquents of this kind within the several parishes. And because scholars and students give great scandal offence in this, That they (being found guilty) be severely disciplined and chastised before their Masters. And in case the Masters of Schools or Colleges be accessory to the said superstitious profanity, by their connivance, granting of liberty of vacancy to their Scholars at that time, or any time thereafter, in compensation thereof, That the Masters be summoned by the Ministers of the place to compear before the next ensuing General Assembly, there to be censured according to their trespass; And if Scholars (being guilty) refuse to subject themselves to correction, or be fugitives from discipline, That they be not received in any other school or college within the kingdom. The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, p. 285-286 The National Covenant ....do condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such other superstitious and Papistical rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great error among the people; and ordains the users of them to be punished for the second fault, as idolaters, Act 104, Parl.7, King James VI. ************************* Historical Testimony ************************* *Even our doctrinal standards we received from our fathers through history alone.* Now, I desire the reader to see with his own mental eye, that our faith in the genuineness of these doctrinal standards rests solely on human testimony: that is, we believe on the evidence of the generations who have lived before us, that our Confessions, Covenants, etc., are true copies of those documents. But our belief so far is not saving faith-- "the faith of God's elect." Having these documents handed down to us through history alone, then we compare them with the Bible. Can we perceive their agreement or disagreement without reasoning? No, surely. Well now, if two persons at first sight take different views of any doctrine, will they not at once enter into discussion, and their future agreement result from honest argument; yet neither their agreement in believing the symbols of their profession to be true copies; no, nor even their belief that a certain doctrine is scriptural, constitutes "the faith of God's elect;" but it does constitute that kind of faith or agreement by which they can "walk together." I hope the reader can now perceive that "the faith of God's elect" is not the condition of fellowship in the visible church, and that the visible is distinct from the invisible church. There are few delusions more prevalent and popular than the old error revived, that "assurance of grace and salvation is essential to saving faith;" and that it is, or ought to be one of the terms, or in fact the only condition of fellowship in the visible church. The first judicial Testimony sanctioned by the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in 1761, at Ploughlandhead, Scotland, is the only one that has the formal nature and possesses the essential parts of such a document. These parts are three: history to supply facts, arguments to test the character of the facts, and doctrinal statement as the rule of trial. Is it not the function of a witness to state facts? Yes, certainly. *And what is history but a statement of facts?* These may be true or false. The character and competence of the witness is to be considered. *The function of the judge is to state and apply the law*, and in the application of the law he is assisted by others called jurors or associates. *Arguments are addressed,* by advocates, to judge and jury. Now, I hope the reader will see that the greatest, the most important cause in the universe, the conflict between truth and error, between righteousness and unrighteousness, between Christ and Belial, which has been on trial since the time of Cain and Abel, *cannot be conducted without history, argument and doctrinal declaration. All testimony–bearing which lacks any of these three cardinal and essential elements is not merely defective, but decidedly pretentious and unfaithful* ( David Steele, _Reminiscences_, 1883, pp. 202–205, emphases added). Furthermore, Pastor Steele adds: History is a record of past events, and to deserve the name of history the events recorded must be authentic, for "cunningly devised fables" are not history. Authentic history is of the essential nature of testimony. A witness on the stand gives a statement of facts, evidence, testimony. So true is it that not only minor matters of litigation, but even "death and life are in the power of the tongue"(Prov. 18:21). A very large portion of the Bible is historical. The first words in it announce one of the most important of historical facts: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," The great importance of this statement appears from the speculations of heathen philosophers, and self–styled scientists in our own age. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water (2 Peter 3:5, AV). Also many of the Psalms are historical, epitomizing the previous facts recorded in the Old Testament, that these might be more indelibly impressed upon the mind and heart of God's people, and that they "might not forget his works;" for then they "forget God their Saviour" (Ps. 16:13,21). Moreover, the origin and progress of the visible church in the world, under different dispensations of mercy, is matter of historical record. She is on earth the only immortal corporation; and since the canon of inspired Scripture closed, she has had no one infallible historian. Many, indeed, have undertaken "to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among the disciples of Christ;" but "their witness agreed not together" (Luke 1:1; Mark 14:56). Those who take as guides in searching the history of the church, Mosheim, Milner, or many others, are following false guides, whose delineations portray the features of the "scarlet lady" rather than the "Lamb's wife." In this historical fact--the almost universal misrepresentations of the spouse of Christ, the intelligent reader may discover the reason for a select class, whom the Lord Jesus expressly distinguishes from all others as "his witnesses," (Rev. 11:3), and the necessity for their testimony. These and these only are "children that will not lie" (Isa. 63:8); "and in their mouth is found no guile" (Rev.14:5). Hence, the necessity of historical testimony. Again, history interprets prophecy, which is an ever increasing evidence that the Holy Scriptures are from God. *How could it be known when the canon was settled but mainly by history? Or how can antichrist be identified, or the witnesses themselves but by history?* For the doctrines, the worship, government and discipline of the church have all been misrepresented, counterfeited, and even the church herself (Rev. 17:18)! Thus it is apparent that the only way by which the witnesses can identify the true church is by comparing doctrine and order with the alone infallible rule, the Bible; and this comparing involves reasoning--argument; history and argument do, therefore, constitute the church's testimony and supply her *Terms of Communion*, by which she is distinguished from the "flocks of the companions." Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the *flocks of thy companions* (Song of Solomon 1:7, AV, emphases added)? Reader, where did you get all the subordinate standards of your published faith, your confession, catechisms, &c.? You will probably say--from Westminster, England, and from Scotland; but how do you know? For about forty–six years ago, had you been a member in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, this question might have puzzled you. About that time we received new light on that matter, when the following startling statements were first published by professing Covenanters: "Even the fact of the existence of the Westminster Assembly has been for several generations a matter merely of human history. . . . Such a faith" (in the existence of the Westminster Assembly) "could not be the faith of God's elect." Again, "That such covenants were ever entered into has no other evidence than mere historical record, and consequently ought not to be made an article of the believer's faith"--a term of communion. We have often said, and we now repeat, that there are two kinds of faith by which society is held together. Faith and belief are convertible terms. The *kind* of testimony in any case determines the *kind* of faith. *Divine faith is founded and rests on divine testimony alone; whereas human faith needs as a foundation only human testimony.* All human relations in this world are grounded on human evidence--testimony. Does a husband identify his wife, or the wife her husband by divine testimony? Can the parents know their child, or the child the parents by the Bible? We insist upon this point, "giving precept upon precept," simple though it be; because we know with absolute certainty that even learned divines, including many theological professors, *Doctors of Divinity even, of the Covenanting name, have forsaken the covenant cause of Christ through their sinful and shameful ignorance of this matter.* Our reformed ancestors thoroughly understood this point before there ever was a D.D. known among them. *Why did they attach the word infallible to the first Term of Communion? Because it, and it alone, demands divine faith; all the rest requiring human faith only, because they are fallible–subordinate to the first term. Did our truly learned and godly progenitors stultify themselves by contradicting their own Confession? * All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both (_Westminster Confession of Faith_, 31:4). To make this topic in theology and faithful testimony–bearing so plain that "he may run that readeth it," and to render those who prefer to continue "willingly ignorant" inexcusable, we give an illustration adapted, we hope, to the capacity of even babes in Christ:-- Question,--Do you believe there is such a place as Scotland? Answer,--I think I do, for it is laid down on the school–atlas, and whoever made the atlas must have believed in its existence. Q.--Do you find Scotland named in the Bible? A.--No. Q.--Do you believe that Richard Cameron, Donald Cargill, James Renwick, and many others associated with them, lived in Scotland in the latter half of the seventeenth century? A.--I do, for I have both heard and read about those ministers. Q.--But you do not read of them in the Bible, do you? A.--No. Q.- -Well, have you read of the principles they held, and how they applied their principles? A.--Yes, I know the principles they propagated, and also the way they applied them. Q.--Now, were they malefactors, as most of their countrymen charged, or were they indeed martyrs of Jesus Christ? A.--I believe they were martyrs. So you believe in human testimony, that there is such a place on the earth as Scotland; that Richard Cameron, &c. once lived in Scotland; that they taught certain doctrines and applied them, and for such teaching and practice they suffered a violent death, martyrdom; and yet you find nothing of this in the Bible. *"Human records" alone supply these facts, from which, comparing them with the Word of God, you argue and conclude with certainty that those people were witnesses for Christ. Now, if you reject the history of their principles, practice and sufferings, how can you honestly or rationally claim identity with them?* You thereby sever the only link of connection. You may be pious--a Christian, but not a Covenanted Presbyterian. And if your supreme end is your own salvation, you have mistaken the end of your being (Rev. 4:11), and come short of that type of patriotism which the example of the martyrs supplies. Hence-- 1. The British Covenants are manifestly historical documents. 2. The peculiarity of the National Covenant, that it was framed, sworn, and often renewed in Scotland, does not destroy its moral character, or affect the permanency of its obligation; and the same is true of the Solemn League and Covenant. 3. The very names of these covenants--yes, and the principles incorporated in them, which have given Christian liberty and liberty of conscience to many millions, come to us through the medium of history alone. 4. All who have adhered to these covenants have been known for centuries by historic names, and can be identified in no other way; as "Cameronians, Cargillites, Society People, Mountain–men, Covenanters," &c. And by near and necessary consequence-- If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents (Song of Solomon 1:8, AV). 5. All who reject history from their conditions of fellowship, and yet claim kindred with the Reformed Covenanted Church, are "deceiving and being deceived." In this matter they are false witnesses; but "we wot that through ignorance they do it" (_The Original Covenanter_ magazine, Vol. 2, No. 12, December 1879, pp. 353–357). 1. The Bible, both Old and New Testament, is largely historical--the books of Genesis and Matthew beginning with narrative, the wonderful works of God. It is thus adapted to the rational nature of man, and equally to the spiritual nature of the new man (_Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery_, Sept. 30, 1875, _The Reformation Advocate_ magazine, p. 250). For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: That they might set their hope in God, *and not forget the works of God*, but keep his commandments: And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not steadfast with God. (Psalms 78:5–8, AV, Scripture proof added, emphases added). 2. [Without the use of uninspired history--GB] The church cannot ascertain the fulfilment of prophecy--the cumulating external evidence of its divine original: especially can Christ's witnesses no otherwise than by history identify her confederated enemies--the man of sin and son of perdition, his paramour--the well favoured harlot, and her harlot daughters--the off– spring of her fornication with the kings of the earth (_Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery_, Sept. 30, 1875, _The Reformation Advocate_, p. 250). Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. *And it shall turn to you for a testimony.* Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer (Luke 21:10–14, AV, Scripture proof added, emphases added). 3. The present cannot in faith confess the sins, or express thanks to God for the mercies, of a former generation, except on the credibility of human history (_Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery_, Sept. 30, 1875, _The Reformation Advocate_, p. 250). And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and *confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers* (Nehemiah 9:2, AV, Scripture proof added, emphases added). 4. No otherwise can a Christian know the time or place of his birth, or the persons whom God commands him to honour as his father and mother, than by uninspired testimony; and the same is true of his covenant obligation, if baptized in infancy. Against all who ignorantly or recklessly reject or oppose history as a bond of fellowship, in the family, in the state, but especially in the church, we thus enter our solemn and uncompromising protest (_Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery_, Sept. 30, 1875, _The Reformation Advocate_, p. 250). My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother (Proverbs 1:8, AV, Scripture proof added). But whether I have reason to deny what is so confidently asserted, let the following Testimony be considered, that it may decide. Great Mr. Welch in his letter to Mr. Bruce writes thus, "What my Mind is (saith he) concerning the Root of these Branches, the Bearer will show you more fully. They are no more to be accounted ORTHODOX, but APOSTATES. They have fallen from their CALLINGS, by receiving an Antichristian, and bringing in of Idolatry, to make the Kingdom culpable, and to expose it to fearful judgments, for such an high Perfidy, against an Oath so solemnly exacted and given; and are no more to be accounted Christians; but Strangers and Apostates and Persecuters; and therefore not to be heard any more either in Publick or in Consistories, Colleges, or Synods. For what Fellowship hath Light with Darkness? &c. Calderwood's Hist: Page 743. Now, Sir, here is not only a Testimony of one of the greatest Lights that ever shined in our Church, directly contradicting what you assert; but *considering, how carefully this History was Revised by our General Assembly, we are to look upon it as the Judgment of our whole Church*; that Letter being therein insert, as a Commendation and Vindication of that eminent Man of God (Robert McWard, _Earnest Contendings for the Faith_, p. 127, emphases added) The Assembly constitutes and ordains that *from henceforth no sort of person of whatsoever quality or degree be permitted to speak or write against the said Confession, this Assembly or any Act of this Assembly, and that under the pain of incurring the censures of this Kirk* (_The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland_, [1638–1649 inclusive], p. 51, emphases added)? And likewise *in case they acknowledge not this Assembly, reverence not the constitutions thereof, and obey not the sentence*, and make not their repentance, conform to the order prescribed in this Assembly, *ordains them to be excommunicated* and declared to be of these whom Christ commanded to be holden by all and everyone of the faithful as Ethnics and Publicans (_The Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland_, p. 22, emphases added). Whether in the light of God's word, history and argument are to be inseparably joined with doctrine in the Testimony of the church, is the question. The affirmative we maintain,--the negative is asserted in the "Preface" to _Reformation Principles Exhibited_ [formerly the "Testimony" of the RPCNA--GB], and urged by the Covenanter [the magazine--GB]. "What saith Scripture?" The case of Stephen the protomartyr under the Christian dispensation, will serve for both proof and illustration, (Acts 7:1, etc). This witness begins his testimony with history, commencing with the call of Abraham, and ending at his own time. From the 51st to the 53rd verse, he applies the facts of history and doctrines declared to the case in hand; and this he does in argumentative form. Take the case of the blind man restored to sight, (John 9:13–34). The former of these witnesses was stoned to death [i.e. Stephen--GB]; the latter excommunicated [i.e. the blind man restored--GB], for stating facts, and arguing from them. These two examples are deemed sufficient at present for proof and illustration. But it may be said--"These are inspired records--scriptural examples." True, and just because they are inspired instances of testimony–bearing we adduce them, to establish and illustrate our position, which they irrefragably do. "But what has this to do with uninspired, mere human history, as a part of testimony?" "Much every way," chiefly with reference to Covenanting. Their very designation, COVENANTERS, one would suppose sufficient, if received in its historical import, to establish the truth of our position. But we waive that for the present. *There are two kinds of faith--distinct, but inseparable; and, as already stated, the kind of faith is determined by the kind of testimony, while both are required by God's word and by the condition of human society. The one, for the sake of a distinction, is called divine faith; the other, human*. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater," I John 5:9. Christ said to the Pharisees--"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true," John 8:17. See also Matt. 18:16. Now it is obvious that facts, rather than principles, constitute testimony. And it is undeniable that the holy Scriptures sustain the credibility of human testimony, though uninspired. Still, "the witness (testimony) of God is greater." Hence I reason thus--The Lord Jesus, whose name is the Word of God, the faithful and true Witness, having it in charge to reveal and execute the purposes of God; and the devil, the father of lies, who sinneth from the beginning, being assiduously engaged in falsifying the revealed will, and resisting the execution of the purposes of Jehovah, (Rev. 5:9; 12:7); both these leaders are accompanied by their respective partisans of the human family. Protestants generally agree that Popery is a diabolical organization against Christ and truth. That Christ is a divine person, is a doctrine of Scripture, (John 1:1); but this is questioned by the devil, (Matt. 4:6), though admitted by the church of Rome. Christ, being divine, is the object of worship. To this Popery assents. But Christ is also Mediator between God and man. Well, Popery admits this also, and resists only the exclusive mediation of Christ; which office the Romish church distributes among Christ, Mary, angels, etc. And we know both the errors and idolatries as FACTS in the history of Popery. True, we may and ought to try both by God's word. On the other hand, we know that Christ is the Son of God, and that we ought to "honor the Son, even as we honor the Father,"--we know these things, I say, not only as doctrinally declared, but also as exemplified in the faith and practice of the church of God in all ages. Of the three men who visited Abraham, (Gen. 18:2), the patriarch worships one only (v. 22). The unbelieving Jews claim Abraham as their father, but refused to do the works of Abraham, and so falsified their claim, (John 8:33,39). We claim to be the seed of Christ's covenanted witnesses in Britain and Ireland; but unless we "walk in the steps of their faith," our professed attachment to that faith will avail us nothing. But it may be said, Who denies all this, or what has this to do with the matter of a testimony? Everything. That many of our former brethren are aiming to copy their "noble example," including the Covenanter, is matter of our joy and thanksgiving to God. But how? As individuals?--as congregations?--as judicatories? If so, it is all right, so far as they followed Christ. Still Christ enjoins it upon us to "go forth by the footsteps of the flock," (Song 1:8). These footsteps are Christian practices; that is, they are the application of principle, scriptural principle, to individual and social life. Let it be noticed that Christ counsels inquirers to follow the footsteps of the flock; thus making those footsteps at once directive and authoritative. *We can know the footsteps, the Christian and social practice of our Covenanted fathers, only by HISTORY; and through the same medium alone do we come to ascertain the very arguments by which they defended both their faith and practice.* *My faith may be designated human; or, if you will, even Popish; still I am not ashamed to own that the practice of Cameron, Cargill, Renwick, and those with whom the martyrs were associated, is directive to me and authoritative also! Indeed, I am bound to bring even their principles and arguments to the "law and to the testimony," but history alone will supply me with these; which, that it may do, I must have it in an authenticated form. In this matter the Lord Jesus will not allow us to walk at random. "Go thy way... by the footsteps of the flock." The great outlines of the Mediator's special providence, and of the church's faithful contendings must ever be before her children, sanctioned by her authority in a judicial form, that posterity may see how she has walked with God in the wilderness; as also wherein she may have acted perfidiously in view of her solemn covenant engagement* (_The Covenanter_, May 1856, p. 303, emphases added).
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.************************* Lord's Supper ************************* (Admission to) *I dare say divers thousands have been kept off from the sacrament in Scotland, as unworthy to be admitted. Where I myself have excercised my ministry there have been some hundreds kept off; partly for ignorance, and partly for scandal.* The order of the Church of Scotland, and the Acts of General Assemblies, are for keeping off all scandalous persons; which every godly and faithful minister doth conscientiously and effectually endeavour. And if, here or there, it be too much neglected by some Archippus, who takes not heed to fulfil the ministry which he hath received of the Lord, let him and his eldership bear the blame and answer for it (George Gillespie, _The Works of George Gillespie, Nihil Respodes_, 1642, reprinted in 1991 [SWRB] from the 1846 edition, Vol. 1, p.12, emphases added). The customary hour of public worship was now come [the Lord's Day, September 3, 1553--GB]. The great bell Clemence had tolled its summons. The throng of worshippers on their way to the cathedral had rolled past, and now the streets, which had resounded with their tread, were empty and silent. Over city, plain, and lake there brooded a deep stillness. It was around the pulpit of St. Peter's, and the man with pale face, commanding eye, and kingly brow who occupied it, that the heart of Geneva palpitated. The church was filled with an uneasy crowd. On the benches of the Consistory sat, unmoved, the pastors and elders, resolved to bear the greatest violence rather than not do their duty. A confused noise was heard within the temple. The congregation opened with difficulty, and a numerous band of men, of all ranks, their hands upon their sword–hilts, force their way in presence of the holy table. The elite of the Libertines had decided to communicate. Berthier did not appear as yet. He reserved himself till the last moment. Calvin, calm as ever, rose to begin the service. He could not but see the Libertines in the vast congregation before him but he seemed as if he saw them not. He preached on the state of mind with which the Lord's Supper ought to be received. At the close, raising his voice, he said, "As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since he hath given me fortitude, and I have relieved it from him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master's rule, which is to me clear and well known. As we are now to receive the Holy Supper of the Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be." When the liturgies were concluded, Calvin came down from the pulpit and took his stand before the table. Lifting up the white napkin he displayed the symbols of Christ's body and blood, the food destined for believing souls. Having blessed the bread and the wine, he was about to distribute them to the congregation. At that moment their was a movement among the Libertines as if they would seize the bread and the cup. The Reformer, covering the sacred symbols with his hands, exclaimed in a voice that rang through the edifice, *"These hands you may crush; and these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God."* These words broke like a thunder peal over the Libertines. As if an invisible power had flung back the ungodly host, they slunk away unabashed, the congregation opening a passage for their retreat. A deep calm succeeded and the, "sacred ordinance," says Beza, "was celebrated with profound silence, and under a solemn awe in all present, as if the Deity himself had been visible among them (J. A. Wylie, _The History of Protestantism_,1878, Vol. 2, p. 327, emphases added). ************************* Moral Person -- of the church ************************* 1. Ecclesiastical and national societies are moral persons. By a moral person I mean that each of these kinds of society has an understanding and a will of its own, by which it perceives, deliberates, determines and acts. An individual person, is one that has the power of understanding and willing; the name moral person is therefore applied to a society, having an understanding and a will common to the whole body, by which, though made up of a vast number of individuals, it possesses the power of knowing, deliberating, determining, and acting. A moral person may enter into contracts and covenant obligations; and these are as valid when entered into, as the covenant obligations of individual persons. Being moral persons, churches and nations are capable of entering into covenant with God; and that it is their duty to do so, I have demonstrated in the preceding section. *Such obligation, when constituted agreeably to the will of God, are necessarily perpetual; for it is not the individuals merely of which the society consists, but the society itself, as a moral person, that covenants. In the case of personal covenanting, no one will question that the covenant obligation extends throughout the whole life of the individual; the same principle prevails in relation to social covenanting: the obligation extends throughout the duration of the moral person.* 2. The church is a permanently existing body. It has undergone, indeed, several changes in its external administration, but it is the same now that it was when first constituted. The church in the wilderness of Sinai is identical with the church in the days of Adam and Eve, and continues still the same moral person in the nineteenth century. The removal by death of individual members, does not destroy the identity of the moral person, which remains unaffected by the removal of a thousand generations. Covenant obligation entered into by the church, in any given period, continues of perpetual obligation throughout all succeeding generations, and that too, on the recognized principle that the church continues the same moral person. 3. National society does not possess an undying constitution like that of the church, it may be dissolved; and history presents a vast number of instances of the entire dissolution of nations. But the obligation created by national covenanting, extends throughout the duration of the society, because it is a moral person; and if the perpetuity of the obligation may be limited, it is limited only by the moral person ceasing to exist (David Scott, Distinctive Principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, pp. 61–63, 1841, emphases added). The principle of continued or transmissible federal obligation is not liable to the objections that have been urged against it, and is no novelty. We do not make our ancestors a sort of federal head as Adam was to the human family, when we allege that our posterity are bound by their engagements. This is altogether a misrepresentation of the argument on the subject. *The descending obligation of the public covenants rests upon the essential character of organised society. It is the same party in different stages of its existence that is bound to moral obedience*; and the obligation rests in all its plenitude upon the community as the same moral agent, until the whole matter of the engagement be fulfilled (Thomas Houston, _A Memorial of Covenanting_, 1857, p. 35, emphases added). We adhere to the Renovation of the National Covenants at Auchensaugh, 1712, as comprising the same grand Scriptural principles with the original deeds, and preserving the identity of the moral person, which became more visible in 1761 by a Judicial Testimony. Re–exhibited in 1858 and 1876. We repudiate the Renovation at Dervock, 1853, as being inadequate, defective, and unfaithful--part of the document couched in abstract and evasive and equivocal language. Also we condemn and reject the Pittsburgh Bond [the present bond of the RPCNA--GB] as ambiguous, self contradictory and treacherous-- "a snare on Mizpah" (The Reformed Presbytery of America, _Act of Adherence to our Covenants, National and Solemn League; *as adapted to the present time*_, emphases added). ************************* Marks of the True Church ************************* The notes, therefore, of the true kirk of God we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, into the which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed unto the word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts; last, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed, and virtue nourished. Wheresoever then these former notes are seen, and of any time continue (be the number [*of persons*--GB] never so few, about two or three) there, without all doubt, is the true kirk of Christ: who, according to his promise is in the midst of them: *not that universal [kirk-- GB]* (of which we have before spoken) but particular [kirks--GB]; such as were in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and other places in which the ministry was planted by Paul, and were of himself named the kirks of God (_The Scottish Confession of Faith_, 1560, chapter 18, Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 29, emphases added). 'That there is an universal Church, that there has been, from the beginning of the world, and will be even to the end, we all acknowledge. *The appearance by which it may be recognised is the question.* We place it in the word of God, or, (if any one would so put it,) since Christ is her head, we maintain that, as a man is recognised by his face, so she is to be beheld in Christ: as it is written, "Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together," (Matth. xxiv. 28.) Again,"There will be one sheepfold, and one Shepherd," (John x. 16.) But as the pure preaching of the gospel is not always exhibited, neither is the face of Christ always conspicuous, (1 Cor. xi. 19). *Thence we infer that the Church is not always discernible by the eyes of men, as the example of many ages testify. For in the time of the prophets, the multitude of the wicked so prevailed, that the true Church was oppressed; so also in the time of Christ, we see that the little flock of God was hidden from men, while the ungodly usurped to themselves the name of Church. But what will those, who have eyes so clear that they boast the Church is always visible to them, make of Elijah, who thought the he alone remained of the Church? (1 Kings xix. 10.) * In this, indeed, he was mistaken, but it is a proof that the Church of God may be equally concealed from us, especially since we know, from the prophecy of Paul, that defection was predicted, (2 Thess. ii. 3.) Let us hold, then, that the Church is seen where Christ appears, and where his word is heard; as it is written, "My sheep hear my voice," (John x. 27;) *but that at the instant when the true doctrine was buried, the Church vanished from the eyes of men.* This Church, we acknowledge with Paul, to be the pillar and ground of the truth, (1 Tim. iii.,) because she is the guardian of sound doctrine, and by her ministry propagates it to posterity, that it may not perish from the world. For, seeing she is the spouse of Christ, it is meet that she be subject to him. And, as Paul declares, (Eph. v. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 2,3,) her chastity consists in not being led away from the simplicity of Christ. She errs not, because she follows the truth of God for her rule; but if she recedes from this truth, she ceases to be a spouse, and becomes an adulteress. _Articles agreed upon by The Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris, in Reference to Matters of Faith at Present Controverted with The Antidote, Calvins Selected Works_ Vol. 1, Tracts Part 1, pp. 102-103 ************************* Martyrs ************************* The Fathers have not been forgotten; yea they are still highly esteemed for their heroic struggle, by which every son and daughter has a birthright to the richest inheritance of Christian liberty on earth. The persecution lasted twenty eight years, with few "blinks" to take the chill of horror out of the air. During this time, 18,000 persons, it is said, suffered death, or utmost hardships, for their faith in Jesus Christ. Of this number, 7,000 went into voluntary banishment; 2500 were shipped to distant lands; 800 were outlawed; 680 were killed in battle, or died of their wounds; 500 were murdered in cold blood; 362 were, by form of law executed. We have no account of the number that perished in shipwrecks, or succumbed to the horrors of transportation; nor of hundreds that were shot at sight by the soldiers who ravaged the country for years; nor of the thousands who wasted away through cold, hunger, and exposure in the mountains and moors. Gloomy caves, dripping moss hags, and unmarked graves, were asylums of mercy to multitudes, who are without any earthly record; but their names are written in heaven. Truly Scotland has been consecrated to the Lord. The blood of the martyrs has watered her heather, crimsoned her streams, stained her streets, and bedewed her fields. Scotland is the Lord's. *The blood means much* (J. C. McFeeters, _Sketches of the Covenanters_, 1913, pp. 395–396, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added). The blood of the martyrs imposes obligations upon posterity from generation to generation. The martyrs deeply felt their responsibility for the Church, her purity, her doctrines, discipline, membership; for her loyalty to Christ, her separation from the world, and her administration in the Holy Spirit. Their zeal for the house of God brought them to the front; their passionate love for Jesus Christ placed them on the firing line. There they met every attack made upon Christ and His House; there they stood for the royal rights of Jesus and the honour of His kingdom; there they fell under the murderous fire, giving place to their successors. These soldiers of Jesus knew how to die, but not how to retreat. They did their work well and necessarily left it unfinished. The victory was assured, though not in sight. The death stricken hands reached the bloodstained banner out to another to be carried forward. This war still rages. The supremacy of Jesus Christ is yet disputed; His royal rights are yet usurped by mortals; His Bride the Church, still halts amid many opinions; the ordinances of grace are unblushingly corrupted; the teachings of the Gospel are adroitly doctored. The attacking forces are active, determined, and numerous, as in the days of the martyrs. The tactics differ, but the fight goes on. *Heavy, heavy are the moral obligations, that fall to the successors of those who gave their lives for the truth. To recede would be cowardice, desertion from the ranks, perjury within the Covenant, treason against Jesus Christ.* Is this too strong? Listen, "If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Surely the times call for Christian Soldiers; yea heroes; possibly, martyrs. Do Covenanters feel their obligation to the Lord? (J. C. McFeeters, Sketches of the Covenanters, 1913, pp. 402–403, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added). ...he [Richard Cameron--GB] went over to Holland in the year of 1678, not knowing what work the Lord had for him there; where he conversed with Mr. M'Ward [Robert McWard--GB] and others of the banished Worthies. In his private conversation and exercise in families, but especially by his public sermon in the Scots Kirk at Rotterdam, he was most refreshing unto many souls. He dwelt mostly upon conversion work, from that text, Matt. 11:28: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest;" which was most satisfying and agreeable to Mr. M'Ward and Mr. Brown [John Brown of Wamphray--GB], and others who had been informed by the Indulged, and those of their persuasion, that he could preach nothing but babble against the Indulgence, cess paying, etc. Here he touched upon none of these things, except in prayer when lamenting over the deplorable case of Scotland by means of defection and tyranny. About this time Mr. M'Ward said to him, "Richard the public standard has now fallen in Scotland; and, if I know anything of the mind of the Lord, ye are called to undergo your trials [ordination exam--GB] before us, to go home, and lift the fallen standard, and display it publicly before the whole world. But before you put your hand to it, ye shall go to as many field ministers as ye can find, and give them your hearty invitation to go with you; and if they will not go, go alone, and the Lord will go with you." Accordingly he was ordained by Mr. M'Ward, Mr. Brown, and Roleman, a famous Dutch divine. When their hands were lifted up from his [Richard Cameron's--GB] head, Mr. M'Ward continued this still and cried out, "Behold all ye beholders, here is the head of a faithful minister and servant of Jesus Christ, *who shall lose the same for his master's interest*, and it shall be set up before sun and moon, in the view of the world." (John Howie, _The Scots Worthies_, 1781, p. 423, emphases added). On July 22, 1680, faithful Richard Cameron was martyred in Airsmoss. His head and hands cut off and taken to Edinburgh, just as Robert M'Ward had spoken. Before his murderers committed the barbarous act of publicly displaying his head and hands upon the Netherbow Port, they first had one further act of antichristian cruelty to enact. His father being in prison for the same cause, they carried them [Cameron's head and hands--GB] to him, to add grief unto his former sorrow, and inquired at him if he knew them. Taking his son's head and hands which were very fair--being a man of fair complexion like himself--he kissed them, and said, "I know--I know them; they are my son's--my own dear son's. It is the Lord--good is the will of the Lord, who cannot wrong me nor mine, but hath made goodness and mercy to follow us all our days." After which, by order of the Council, *his head was fixed upon the Netherbow Port, and his hands beside it with the fingers upward*. (John Howie, _The Scots Worthies_, 1781, pp. 428–429, emphases added). Consider the testimony for which the faithful and honorable martyr James Renwick suffered and died (and note the similarity between his dying testimony and our terms of communion) and ask yourself--Has Mr. Bacon faithfully represented Renwick's position? Dear Friends, I die a Presbyterian Protestant; I own the Word of God as the rule of faith and manners; I own the Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Sum of Saving Knowledge, Directory for Public and Family Worship, Covenants, National and Solemn League, Acts of General Assemblies, and all the faithful contendings that have been for the Covenanted Reformation. I leave my testimony approving the preaching in the field, and defending the same by arms. I adjoin my testimony against Popery, Prelacy, Erastianism, against all profanity, and everything contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness; particular against all usurpation and encroachments made upon Christ's right, the Prince of the kings of this earth, who alone must bear the glory of ruling his own kingdom the Church; and in particular against the absolute power affected by his usurper, that belongs to no mortal, but is the incommunicable prerogative of Jehovah, and against his Toleration flowing from his absolute power (John Howie, _The Scots Worthies_, 1781, p. 547).
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.
*************************
Musical Instruments
*************************
Dabney warns that those who reject the classical Protestant position on
the regulative principle also reject "that vital truth which no
Presbyterian can discard without a square desertion of our
principles." A second shot is fired when he compounds his
warning in this cautionary beacon, proclaiming that those who do not
adhere to what Wilson falsely calls "strict regulativism" have -- in
Dabney's own words -- "**set out at once for Rome**?"
"As we cannot but admire the good hand of GOD in the great things done
already, particularly; That the Covenant (the foundation of the whole
Work) is taken; Prelacie and the whole train thereof, extirpated; The
Service-Book in many places forsaken, plain and powerful preaching set
up; Many Colledges in Cambridge provided with such Ministers, as are
most zealous of the best Reformation; Altars removed; The Communion in
some places given at the Table with sitting; The great Organs at Pauls and
of Peters in Westminster taken down; Images and many other Monuments
of Idolatry defaced and abolished; The Chappel-royal at Whitehal purged
and reformed; and all by authority in a quiet manner at noon day, without
tumult" ("The Letter from the Commissioners at London to the General
Assembly", 4 June 1644, Session 7, _The Acts Of The General Assemblies Of
The Church Of Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_, p.
228, emphases added and original spelling retained).
Nay, there are some ecclesiastical officers in the Church of England, who,
for their very profession and employment (i.e. of musical instruments in
the public worship-RB), ***would have been kept from the communion of
the Church***, except they desisted from it. So we are informed by the
_Apostolic Constitutions_, "If any come to the mystery of godliness, being a
player upon a Pipe, a Lute, or an Harp; let him leave it off, or be rejected."
... nor would they be retained among the Lutherans, unless they had
forsaken their own Luther; who, by the confession of Eckard, reckoned
**"Organs among the ensigns of Baal.**" That they still continue in some of
the Dutch Churches, is against the minds of the Pastors. For in the National
Synods at Middleburg, in the year 1581, and in the Synod of Holland and
Zealand, in the year 1594, it was resolved: "That they would endeavour to
obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of Organs, and the singing with
them in the Churches, even out of the time of worship, either before or
after the sermon: so far are those Synods from bearing with them in the
worship itself." (Cited in James Peirce, _A Vindication of the Dissenters_)
*************************
Occasional Hearing
*************************
Acts of General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Occasional Hearing
and Keeping Familiar Company with Malignant,Sectarian and
Excommunicated Persons
1. The assembly alloweth this article.
Anent frequenting with excommunicated persons (1638)
The Assembly ordaineth that the Act of Edinburgh, March 5,1569 session
10 to wit, That these who will not forbear the company of excommunicated
persons after due admonition, be excommunicated themselves.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 51
2.August 4, Session 10, 1641. Act against Impiety and Schism.
... Doth charge all the Ministers and members of this Kirk whom they do
represent, that according to their several places and vocations, they
endeavour to suppress all impiety and mocking of religious exercises,
especially of such as put foul aspertions, and factious and odius names
upon the godly. And upon the other part, that in fear of God they beware
and spiritually wise, that under the name and pretext of religious
exercises, otherways lawful and necessary, they fall not into the foresaid
abuses; especially, that they eschew all meetings which are apt to breed
Error,Scandal, Schism, neglect of duties or particular callings, and such
other evils as are the works, not of the spirit, but of the flesh, and are
contrary to truth and peace; and that the Presbyteries and Synods have a
care to take order with such as transgress the one way or the other.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 101.
3. July 25, Session 14, 1648.
... it was necessary that the Popish, Prelatical and Malignant party, be
declared enemies to the cause upon the one hand, a well as Sectaries upon
the other, and that all associations, either in forces or councils with the
former as well as the latter be avoided.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 374.
4. July, Session 21,1648.
Whosoever brings in any opinion or practise in this Kirk contrary to the
Confession of Faith, Directory for Worship or Presbyterian Government
may be justly esteemed to be opening the door to schism and sects: And
therefore all depravers and misconstructors of the proceedings of the Kirk
judicatiries, especially the General Assembly would take heed lest making
a breach upon the walls of Jerusalem they make a patent way for Sectaries
to enter.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 396.
5 July, Session 21,1648.
Besides the former these are also marks of a Sectary.
If any commend or recommend to others, or spread and divulge the
erroneous books of Sectaries. If any allow, avow or use Conventicles
or private meetings forbidden by the Acts of General Assembly 1641 and
1647 last past. If any be unwilling and decline to reckon Sectaries among
the Enemies of the Covenant from whom danger is to be apprehended.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 396.
6. July, Session 21,1648.
That they beware of all things which may ensnare their consciences, as evil
counsel, evil company, false informations...
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 399.
7. August 10, Session 38, 1648.
Let the Presbyteries take special notice of Ministers who do converse
frequently and familiarly with malignants, and with scandalous and
prophane persons, especially such as belong to other parishes.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 427.
8. Overtures concerning Papists, their Children, and Excommunicate
Persons (1648)
Because persons addicted to Idolatry will use all means for their own
hardening in their superstitious and idolatrous way, even within the
country; Therefore all known Papists or persons suspect of popery upon
probable grounds are to find caution before their Presbyteries, for their
abstinence from Mass, and from the company of all Jesuits and Preists
according to The Second Overture Against Papists made Anno 1642.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 431.
9. July 27, Session 27, 1649.
But it is without controversy that that Spirit which has acted in the courses
and councils of these who have retarded and obstructed the work of the
Covenant, forced the parliament, murdered the King, changed the civil
government, and established a vast toleration in religion cannot be the
Spirit of Righteousness and Holiness, because it teaches not men to live
godly and righteously but draws them aside into error and makes them to
bring forth the bitter fruits of impiety and iniquity and therefore ought to
be avoided. And not only are such of our Nation as travel in our neighbour
land, to take heed unto themselves, but these also who live at home,
especially in those places where Sectaries, upon pretext of merchandise,
and other civil employments, ordinarily traffic and converse.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 453.
10. July 27, Session 27, 1649.
Yet it cannot be unseasonable to warn them to take heed of temptations,
and to beware of snares that they benot drawn to indifference or
neutrality in the Cause of God, much less unto connivance at, or compliance
with the courses and designs of Malignants or Sectaries, but to stick closely
by the same and to be zealous against all the enemies and adversaries
thereof...
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 463.
11. July 27, Session 27, 1649.
...And it is unto us a sure word of promise, that whosover shall associate
themselves, or take counsel together, or gird themselves against God and
His work, shall be broken in pieces.
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland 1638-1649,
p. 459.
Presbyterianism
The visible church consists of all those who profess the true religion
together with their children. Within the membership of the visible church
are both regenerate and unregenerate. God addeth such as should be
saved to the visible Church by baptism, because the adjoining to a visible
Church is a way to salvation, but it followeth not that all whom God addeth
to the visible Church are saved ones, for then the visible Church should
consist only of believers, which only Anabaptists teach (Rutherford, The
Due Right Of Presbyteries, p. 261, emphases added).
It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed
by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical
[presbyterial-GB], and synodical . . . . It is lawful, and agreeable to the
word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational,
classical, provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the
church (The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government emitted by the
Westminster Assembly).
And it so obligatory to all persons, states and degrees, that none ought to
be exempted from that Church-government which is jure divino [by
divine right-GB], nor to be tolerated in another Church-government, which
is but jure humano [by human right-GB]; nor ought any Christian to seek
after, or content himself with any such Exemption or Toleration. For in so
doing, inventions of men are [would be] preferred before the ordinances of
God; our own wisdom, will, authority [would be] before the wisdom, will,
[and-GB] authority of Christ. . . . That the Law of God
holds forth a subordination of a particular Church to greater Assemblies,
consisting of several choice members, taken out of several single
Congregations, which Assemblies have authoritative power and
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over that particular Church by way of sentencing
in and deciding of Ecclesiastical causes (The Divine Right of Church-Government
originally asserted by the Ministers of Sion College, London, December
1646, pp.7,8,238, emphases are in the original text).
*************************
Orthodoxy -- Heresy
*************************
I find the most Learned Orthodox Divines hold, That there are substantial
Articles of Faith, that are not so great Articles, as the Author's
Fundamentals; And yet the maintaining and teaching Errors contrary to
any of these substantial Articles, is HERESY, and brings Damnation, as the
Learned *Mr. Rutherford* in his Examen. Arminianismi Page 12. says Tho'
an Article of Faith be but suprafundamental, that is, by evident necessary
Consequence Deduced from the Fundamental, as a Doctrine from a Text, an
Error that is maintained and taught contrary to this consequential Article
of Faith; is Damnable. i.e. brings Damnation; *because whoever denieth the
evident necessary Consequent, by the same Reason he denys the
Antecedent, which is a Fundamental Article beyond all Controversie.* And
Turretin holds the same, in Theolog. Elenct. Part 1. Page 56: in arguing
against Papists. *Mr. Gillespie* in his Miscellany Questions Chap. 9. Page:
111, 112. saith, Heresy is not so far to be taken at large, as to be extended
to every Error which may be confuted by Scripture; altho' happily such an
Error to be too tenaciously maintained: Nor yet is it to be so far restricted,
as that no Error shall be accounted Heretical; but that which is Destructive
to some Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith; If by Fundamental
Article you understand a Truth, without the Knowledge and Faith whereof
'tis impossible to get Salvation: But if you understand by Fundamental
Truths, all the chief Substantial Truths. *I mean not, saith he, the A. B. C. of
a Catechism [this most likely is a reference to The A. B. C. or A Catechism
for Young Children appointed by the Act of the Church and Council of
Scotland to be learned in all families and Lector Schools in the said
Kingdom, 1644--GB) which we first of all put to New Beginners; but I mean
all such Truths as are commonly put in the Confessions of Faith, and in the
more full and large Catechisms of the Reformed Churches, or all such
Truths as all and every one who live in a true Christian Reformed Church,
are commanded and required to learn and know, as they expect in the
ordinary Dispensation of GOD to be saved, in this sense I may yield, says
he, that Heresie is always contrary to some Fundamental Truth:* And in
the 112 Page he Cites *Wallaeus*, Tom. 1. Page 57. Calvin: Institute: Lib. 4.
cap. 2. Sect. 5. and Peter Martyr, Loc. commun: Class 2.cap. 4. Sect. 60. who
all hold the same. And *Augustin and Cyprian* did thus understand
Heresy, as Calvin in his Institutions Lib. 4 cap. 2. Observes. And Learned
*Ravanel* in his Bibliotheca Sacra, Part 1. Page 702. Saith, An Heretick is
one who having been instructed in the Principles of Faith, not only erreth
in some Article or Head of true Faith, but also pertinaciously insists in his
Error, breaks the Peace of the Church, and produceth Scandals against the
Doctrine we have learned, and is to be avoided, Rom. 16:17. Thus he. *By
all which it is plain, both by Scripture and the Judgment of Orthodox
Divines; That Men who teach and pertinaciously maintain an Error,
contrary to any Substantial Article of true Faith, are Hereticks to be
avoided, and shunned as Wolves among Christ's Sheep* (_Protestors
Vindicated_, 1716, p. 105, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added).
*************************
Partaking in the Sins of Others
*************************
... for if the saying of God speed to a false teacher, make us partakers of his
evil deed, 2 John 10, how much more doth the admitting of such or the like
scandalous sinners to the Lord's Table, make (I say not all who
communicate then and there, but) all who consent to their admission, to be
partakers of their evil deeds (George Gillespie, _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_,
1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1985, p. 53).
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.************************* Regulative Principle ************************* "If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: this is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the sacraments and the government of the church..." (_The Necessity of Reforming the Church_ [Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1544, reprinted 1995], p. 15). So let us hold to this rule, that all human inventions which are set up to corrupt the simple purity of the word of God, and to undo the worship which he demands and approves, are true sacrileges, in which the Christian man cannot participate without blaspheming God, and trampling his honour underfoot (Calvin, "The First Sermon, On Psalm 16:4", cited in _Come Out From Among Them-The 'Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin_, Reed, ed. , p. 141, emphases added). Now, if you will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith, and do please God, you must prove that God in expressed words has commanded them; or else you shall never prove that they proceed from faith, nor yet that they please God; but they are sin, and do displease him, according to the words of the apostle, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Knox, _Works_, I:195-196, emphases added). But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visble representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (_Westminster Confession of Faith_, 21:1, emphases added). But what Augustine says is true, that no one can sing things worthy of God, unless he has received them from Himself [i.e. from God-GLP]. Therefore, after we have sought on every side, searching here and there, we shall find no songs better and more suitable for our purpose than the Psalms of David, dictated to him and made for him by the Holy Spirit. . . . it should accustom itself hereafter to sing these divine and heavenly songs with good King David (Calvin, _Opera_, VI:171, cited in Bushell, _Songs of Zion_, pp.181,182, emphases added). The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary worship of God (_Westminster Confession of Faith_, 21:5, emphases added). It is the duty of Christians to praise God publicly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation (_The Directory For The Publick Worship Of God_, "Of Singing of Psalms" emitted by the Westminster Assembly, emphases added). MARTIN LUTHER, ROMANISM, AND PSALM SINGING "When the Lord brought the testimony of his witnesses out of obscurity in Piedmont, Bohemio, &c., by the ministry of Luther, his contemporaries and successors; then the psalms were restored to their place in the churches of the Reformation. Luther was skilled in music, himself composed many hymns; but he carefully distinguished between the Psalms and his hymns. An old lady in eastern Pennsylvania is said to have in her possession 'a German Psalm-book, published by Luther himself.' The book closes with a collection of Luther's hymns; but the old lady says that in her young days in Germany, 'its directions were rigidlyobeyed, and in public worship they sang only the Psalms of David.' The same order, as is well known,prevailed in all the other reformed churches of Europe and the British Isles." Cited in: David Steele, "Psalms and Hymns," The Original Covenanter Magazine (Vol. 3:1-3:16, March 1881 to Dec. 1884), p. 41.
"To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery," says Calvin, "unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures, but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving."1 He says again: "With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments until the coming of Christ. But now, when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time."2 He further observes: "We are to remember that the worship of God was never understood to consist in such outward services, which were only necessary to help forward a people as yet weak and rude in knowledge in the spiritual worship of God. A difference is to be observed in this respect between his people under the Old and under the New Testament; for now that Christ has appeared, and the church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the gospel should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation. From this it appears that the Papists, as I shall have occasion to show elsewhere, in employing instrumental music cannot be said so much to imitate the practice of God's ancient people as to ape it in a senseless and absurd manner, exhibiting a silly delight in that worship of the Old Testament which was figurative and terminated with the gospel."3
ENDNOTES:
1. On Ps. lxxi. 22.
2. On Ps. lxxxi. 3.
3. On Ps. xcii. 1.
*************************
Revolution Church
*************************
Now let it be considered, that this retrograde Settlement [1690--GB], or
this Act of Parliament unto which this church fled back and founded on the
late Revolution, was before the Church had been reformed from several
abuses, viz., Before she had got the heavy yoke of the King's Erastian
Supremacy and Patronages shaken of, and long before she had
Ecclesiastically asserted, and practically maintained her scriptural Claim of
Right, viz., the Divine Right of Presbytery, and intrinsic power of the
church, the two prime branches of Christ's headship in and over his own
House and before the National Covenant was explained as condemning
Prelacy, together with the Five Articles of Perth, and the civil places and
power of Kirk–men; and before the Solemn League and Covenant was
made, and before the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms Larger
and Shorter, Directory for Public Worship, Form of Presbyterian Church
Government, were made and established, as parts of the Covenanted
Uniformity in Religion between the Churches of Christ in the three
kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland; and exceeding far short of that
blessed, attained, Covenanted Reformation so happily established in this
church in 1649: I say, the accepting of, and going into this way of settling,
thereby deserting and shamefully disregarding so many excellent and
truly valuable pieces of Reformation, privileges and liberties sworn to, in
our sacred and solemn Covenants, attained between 1637 and 1650, seems
to be a plain yielding to them, who deny Presbyterian government to be of
Divine Right though often clearly proven, and judicially asserted by the
Church, and legally established in her purer and better times; yea, this
amounts to such a Step of Defection and apostasy, as seems without
parallel in sacred or profane history and withal too shrewdly discovers this
Revolution Church to be upon another footing, and to be called by another
name, than the successors of the true and genuine Reformed Covenanted
Church of Christ in Scotland; namely Changelings, yea, Backsliders (Andrew
Clarkson, _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting_, 1731, pp. 14–15).
There was one thing in which it proved practically disastrous, but which at
the time there seemed to be no way of evading. This was the receiving
without very rigid test of the "curate" as they were called into the
Presbyterian ministry. *There were at that this period about 900 parishes
in Scotland, and these were occupied by men who had conformed to
Prelacy. Of the ejected ministers only about 90 survived. Even after room,
therefore, had been made for them, there remained many charges which
would have been left unoccupied if the former incumbents had not been
employed. That they were ready to change their colours to suit the fashion
of the hour did not say very much for their strength of principle; and that
before that they had approved themselves to a government whose hands
were red with the blood of martyrs was not a point in their history from
which very favourable conclusions could be drawn a to their personal
piety.*... They were incorporated into the church accordingly; and we shall
see how their presence came to complexion after its history. In point of
fact they became the founders of the moderate party--that party to whose
spirit and policy may be ascribed a good many of the misfortunes of the
church of Scotland (Our Church Heritage, cited from _Treasury of the
Scottish Covenant_, p. 151–152, emphases added).
*************************
Separation
*************************
Now upon this very comprehensive ground, *we withdraw not only from
gross heretics*, and sectarians, and malignant prelatists.... *But in this
broken and declining state, even from many Presbyterian Ministers who
have overturned a great part of our testimony*... which has been signally
sealed by the blood of many Martyrs who laying down their lives for this
Testimony have been singularly countenanced of the Lord: yet we say, by
many of our ministers this in a great measure has been deserted and
perverted, by their condemning the Martyrs that died for it, as well as us
who have desired to witness for it... (James Renwick, _An Informatory
Vindication_, 1687, p. 75–76, emphases added).
Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD (Psalms
83:16, AV).
Separation from corrupt churches
We are expressly commanded to note such Schismatics and mark such
causes of divisions and offences which they effectuate both by their
practice and by their words, crying up their own party, and informing
against the more pure and faithful remnant (James Renwick, _An
Informatory Vindication_, 1687, p. 85).
We judge Schismatic and Pragmatic dividers of the church, and wideners of
the breaches thereof, already broken and divided, and those who sow
discord among brethren and promote their contentions by individious
reproaches or other ways, are to be withdrawn from (James Renwick, _An
Informatory Vindication_, 1687, p. 85).
"As for the babblers who ridicule us, wondering if one cannot get to
paradise except by way of Geneva, I answer: would to God they had the
courage to gather in the name of Jesus Christ wherever they are, and set
up some sort of church, either in their houses or in those of their
neighbors*, to do in their place what we do here in our temples! . . . And,
whoever has no means of being in the Christian church, where God is
worshipped purely, let him at least groan night and day, 'Thine altars,
Lord; it is only thine altars that I desire, my God, my king!'" (John Calvin,
_The Third Sermon_, On Psalm 27:4_, pp. 192,193).
_Come Out From Among Them--The 'Anti-Nicodemite' Writings of John
Calvin_ (a forthcoming book published by Protestant Heritage Press).
Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a
believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon *where he may not
worship God purely*, but is forced by the common practice to
accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave [i.e.
relocate--GLP] if he could. . . . If someone has no way to depart, I would
counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain
from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward
God in both body and soul. Then let him worship God *in private*, praying
him to restore his poor church to its right estate" (John Calvin, _A Short
Teatise_, pp.93,94).
When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from the Truth, the
lesser part remaining sound, the greatest part is the Church of Separatists
(Samuel Rutherford, _The Due Right Of Presbyteries_, p. 255, emphases
added).
Because the Churches take not care, that Ministers be savoury and
gracious; from Steermen all Apostasie and rottenness begin. O if the Lord
would arise and purge his House in Scotland! As for Church-members, they
ought to be holy; and though all baptized be *actu primo* members, yet
such as remain habitually ignorant after admonition, are to be cast out, and
though they be not cast out certainly, as paralytick or rottened members
cannot discharge the functions of life: So those that are scandalous,
ignorant, malignant, unsound in faith, lose their rights of Suffrages in
election of Officers, and are to be debarred from the Seals. Nor can we
defend our sinful practise in this: it were our wisdom to repent of our
taking in the Malignant party, who shed the blood of the people of God,
and obstructed the work of God, into places of Trust in the Church State,
and the Army, contrary to our Covenants, they continuing still Enemies" (
Samuel Rutherford, _Survey of the Survey..._, p. 373).
For although no one denies that we ought to hold in great esteem the
pastors and faithful ministers of God who watch for our souls and that we
ought to obey them according to the direction of Paul (Heb.13:17); still it is
certain that that obedience and dependency is not absolute and unlimited
(which belongs to God and Christ alone), but circumscribed within certain
limits (i.e., as far as it promotes the glory of God and our safety and as far
as it can consist with the fidelity and obedience due to Christ) (Frances
Turretin, _Institutes_,3:244, emphases added).
Christ alone has a right over the conscience, as the supreme and
_anypeuthynos_ ("beyond human accountability") ruler. Pastors are
ministers and interpreters of his will; therefore, the dependence and
submission due to them rests wholly upon the dependence due to Christ by
them (which is the rule and cause of that). Therefore, as long as pastors
show themselves to be true ministers of God, believers ought to depend
upon them on account of Christ;**but if it happens that they act like lords,
not as ministers, and lead away from Christ and do not lead them to him;
if, in order to depend upon them, the dependence and obedience due to
Christ has to be violated, who will deny that we ought most justly (nay,
indispensably) to secede from them in order that our union with Christ
may remain safe and unimpaired ( Frances Turretin, _Institutes_, 3:245,
emphases added).
But in affairs of conscience which have reference to faith, piety and the
worship of God, no one can usurp dominion over the conscience; nor are we
bound to obey anyone, because otherwise we would be bound to error and
impiety and thus we would incur eternal punishment and our consciences
would be stained with vices without criminality because we would be
bound to obey superiors absolutely (Frances Turretin, _Institutes_, 3:287,
emphases added).
The obedience which he [i.e. Christ-GLP] wishes to be rendered to teachers
must always be understood with the condition--in as far as the teachers do
not prescribe to us another thing than what Christ gave to us in his
commands (which they do not do, who arrogate to themselves the right of
making new laws) (Frances Turretin, _Institutes_, 3:288, emphases added).
From Heb.13:17 nothing else can be garthered than that obedience is due
to teachers, as long as they hear Christ themselves and speak the words of
God. Otherwise if they lead us away from Christ, they ought to be
anathema to us (Frances Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 3:289,
emphases added).
The subordinate judgment, which I call private, is the judgment of
discretion whereby **every Christian**, for the certain information of his
own mind, and the satisfaction of his own conscience, may and ought to try
and examine, as well the decrees of councils as the doctrine of particular
pastors, and in so far to receive and believe the same, as he understands
them to agree with the Scriptures. Gillespie, _A Dispute Against The English
Popish Ceremonies_, pp.364-365, emphases added.
Howbeit, even in such cases, when the consent of the church cannot be had
to the execution of this discipline [i.e. excommunication-GLP], faithful
pastors and professors [i.e. professing Christians-GLP] must, **every one
for his own part**, take heed that he have no fellowship with the
unfruitful works of darkness, but even reprove them. Yea, they ought, _in
sensu negativo_[in a negative sense], excommunicate those who should be
(but are not) excommunicated postively, which negative excommunication
is not an ecclesiastical censure, but either a bare punishment, or a cautel
[caution] and animadversion [warning]. And so says the Archbishop of
Spalato, not only one brother may refuse to communicate with another, but
a people, also, may refuse to communicate with their pastor, which he
confirms by certain examples. But the public censure of positive
excommunication should not be inflicted without the church's consent, for
the reasons foresaid (George Gillespie, _A Dispute Against The English
Popish Ceremonies_, p.382, emphases added).
However, when we categorically deny to the papists the title of the church,
we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them.
Rather, we are only contending about the true and lawful constitution of
the church, required in the communion not only of the sacraments (which
are the signs of profession) but also especially of doctrine. . . . To sum up, I
call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in
them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered,
and to the extent that some marks of the church remain-especially those
marks whose effectiveness neither the devil's wiles nor human depravity
can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have
been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I
say that everyo one of their congregations and their whole body lack the
lawful form of the church (Calvin, _Institutes_, IV,II,12, pp.1052,1053,
emphases added).
Calvin goes on to speak of Antichrist saying:
The fact that his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that his reign
was not such as to wipe out either the name of Christ or of the Church.
From this it therefore is evident that we by no means deny that churches
under his tyranny remain churches....
_Institutes_ Book 4:2.12
Further on Calvin states:
To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully
preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed
and scattered - and to the extent that some marks of the church remain -
especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devils wiles nor
human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them
those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in
this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole
body *lack the lawful form of the church.*
_Institutes_ Book 4:2.12
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.************************* Settled vs. Broken State of the Church ************************* We distinguish between a Church in a Reformed and *settled state* and confirmed with the constitutions of General Assemblies and the civil sanctions of Parliament; and a church in a *broken and disturbed state*. In the former, abuses and disorders can be orderly redressed and removed by church judicatories, but not so in the latter. Wherefore the most lawful, expedient and conduceable mean, for maintaining the attained unto Reformation, is to be followed in the time of such confusions and disturbances, and that is, (as we think) abstraction and withdrawing from such disorders in ministers which we cannot get otherways rectified (James Renwick, _An Informatory Vindication_, 1687, p. 61, emphases added) We distinguish between a Reformed Church enjoying her privileges and judicatories and a Reformed church denuded of her privileges and deprived of her judicatories. *In the former*, people are to address themselves unto Church judicatories and not to withdraw from their ministers (especially for ordinary scandals); *But in the latter*, when ministers are really scandalous (though not juridically declared so) and duly censurable according to the Word of God, and their own church's constitutions and censures cannot be inflicted through the want of church judicatories, and yet they still persist in their offensive courses, people may do what is competent to them and testify their sense of the justness of the censure to be inflicted, *by withdrawing from such ministers even without the Presbyterial sentence* (James Renwick, _An Informatory Vindication_, 1687, pp. 61, 62, emphases added). We hold, that Schism, or disowning and rejecting of, or groundless and unwarrantable separating from, true and faithful ministers, to be a very heinous, hateful, and hurtful sin; yet this doth not hinder, but that it may be duty, *in a broken state of the Church*, to withdraw from Ministers chargeable with defection. For, seeing this Church hath attained to such a high degree of Reformation; and seeing, by Solemn Covenants to the Almighty, we have bound ourselves to maintain and defend the same; Seeing by reason of the enemy's subtilty and cruelty, and the fainting, falling and failing of Ministers, so many dreadful defections have been introduced, embraced, and countenanced; Seeing, in these times of distempering confusions, *we are now deprived of the remedy of settled Judicatories, where unto we might recur for rectifying of disorders*; And seeing we are bound to witness against these Complying and backsliding Courses, whereby the wrath of God is so much kindled against the Land: Therefore we hold it as our duty, that when a backsliding or defection is embraced, avowed, and obstinately defended, in such things as have been Reformed, either expressly or equivalently, especially being witnessed against doctrinally, and further confirmed by other testimonies; We judge it lawful, reasonable, and necessary; *in a declining, backsliding, and troubled state of the Church*, to leave that part of the Church which hath made such defection, whether Ministers or Professors, as to a joint concurrence in carrying on the public work (according as it is given in Command to Jeremiah 15:19, let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them) and to adhere unto the other part of the Church, Ministers and Professors, whether more or fewer, who are standing steadfastly to the Defense of the Reformation, witnessing against others who have turned aside and declined therefrom; *until the defections of the backsliding party be confessed, mourned over and forsaken* This is no separation from the Church of Scotland, but only a departing and going forth from her sins, backslidings, and defections, as we are commanded by the Lord (James Renwick, _An Informatory Vindication_, 1687, pp. 36, 37, emphases added). *In a constitute and settled case of the church*, enjoying her privileges and judicatories, corruptions may be forborne, and the offended are not to withdraw, before recourse to the judicatories for an orderly redress; *but in a broken and disturbed state*, when there is no access to these courts of Christ; then people, though they must not usurp a power of judicial censuring these corruptions, yet they may claim and exercise a discretive power over their own practice; and by their withdrawing from such ministers as are guilty of them, signify their sense of the moral equity of these censures that have been legally enacted against these and the equivalent corruptions, and when they should be legally inflicted. As we do upon this ground withdraw from the prelatic curates, and likewise from some of our covenanted brethren, upon the account of their being chargeable with such corruptions and defections from our reformation, as we cannot but show our dislike of (Alexander Shields, _A Hind Let Loose_, 1797, p. 266, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added). ************************* Subordinate Standards -- Implicit Faith ************************* Convinced of the self–evidencing power, intrinsic worth, and divine excellencies of the Holy Scriptures, *we ever wish them to be considered as a complete and sufficient rule in themselves, independent of oral law, tradition of the fathers, or any human invention whatever; and in opposition to that absurd notion,"That the true sense depends upon the church*." [Can it be stated more clearly than this?--GB] At the same time, in our practical application of the inspired Oracles, we consider them to be a rule, as consistently understood, and properly applied. For though they be an absolutely perfect and sufficient rule in themselves, yet it is possible to mistake their true meaning; but this we endeavour to guard against the conduct of those who, while they pretend to believe in the divine authority of the Scriptures, do, meanwhile, evidently wrest them, imposing glosses which make one part of the Sacred Volume to contradict another, and which lead us away from the true scope and design of the whole (Reformed Presbytery, _An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion_, 1801, p. 161, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added). It is only after mature deliberation, *carefully comparing them with the Word of God*, and receiving full conviction in our own minds of their *being wholly founded upon it*, that we consider the Confession and Catechisms, or any other human composure whatever, as properly entitled to our belief, and deserving to be ranked amongst the subordinate standards of our church. *But after being convinced of their agreeableness to the infallible rule, we cheerfully receive them. It is not with the remotest intention of supplying a defect in the Oracles of truth, which we ever consider a complete rule in themselves; nor is it at all in the view of putting either the Confession, or any other book in the world, on a level with the Bible, that we adopt these explanatory standards; but purely to ascertain the true meaning of Scripture*, help us to understand one another in our church–fellowship, and, through these mediums, to transmit a faithful testimony for truth from generation to generation (Reformed Presbytery, _An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion_, 1801, p. 161, SWRB bound photocopy, emphases added). The reader may be assured that neither we nor the Reformed Presbytery, whose committee we are, *claim Papal infallibility or Christian perfection; nor do we ask implicit faith in our documents.* But we sincerely believe ourselves that the Auchensaugh Renovation and the Bond, to which the foregoing statements are prefixed, *will be found on examination to be sound*, faithful and in nothing, "contrary to the Word of God"(Preface to the _Auschensagh Renovation_, emphases added). *Beware of acting implicit faith. It is long since the error falsely imputed to us*, was broached among professing Covenanters. For example--we heard from the mouth of a minister in that body, more than a quarter of a century ago, the declaration in the pulpit: "The first [term of communion-- GB] is the only proper term of communion in the church, and the time is not distant, we trust, when she will have no more:" that is, when all the displays of a covenant God's justice, mercy, faithfulness, etc., in dealing with the Church and her Antichristian opposers, shall have passed into oblivion--an unbelieving and ungrateful hope, or desire. The Protestant world is so denominated because simply of a solemn protest against Rome's impious claim to infallibility and cognate invasions of Messiah's prerogatives. *Attach the attribute of infallibility to any of the subordinate standards of our Christian profession, and we are instantly deprived of them all, as a near and necessary consequence*. We sincerely hope the Covenanter [James M. Willson] will arrive at clearer light on the general subject of creeds and confessions; and, if so, we are sure he will come to a better temper. It is part of the known character of the two witnesses that they contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, as the nearest and surest way to victory. Again, we would say to the reader, *beware of exercising implicit faith in human authority as well as testimony; and hold in dread all assumptions of infallibility by Pope, Prelate or Presbyterian; and especially Reformed Presbyterian, standing by the exclusive supremacy of Zion's King* (David Steele, _The Two Witnesses_, 1859, p. 41, emphases added). Let no one imagine that I defend symbols of faith from force of habit, or because they are old, perfect, immutable, or infallible; for I have for many years repeatedly said the contrary: that no document framed by wisdom, learning, or piety of any uninspired man, or body of such, is either perfect or immutable, and much less infallible.... No, I plead not for immutability, but for the faithfulness of subordinate standards, both of doctrine and practice (David Steele, _Reminiscences_, 1883, pp. 135, 136). Concerning these covenants, some have proposed the query, "In what sense can they be said, as they are in our Testimony, to be of divine authority or obligation?" We reply, The divine authority of heaven's great Sovereign is, evidently, interposed, in requiring us to enter into such covenants, "Vow unto the Lord your God." And when once we have entered into them, the same divine authority binds us to performance, "Pay that which thou hast vowed." Add to these, that the great and dreadful name, THE LORD OUR GOD is invoked in the solemn transaction, while his declarative glory among men is deeply concerned in the faithful fulfilment of our engagements. So that, besides the intrinsic obligation of the covenants, viewed simply as human deeds, whereby men bind their souls, there is, in all such covenants, an obligation of divine authority, requiring first to make, and then to perform our covenants; from the invocation of the divine name, considering JEHOVAH as witness and avenger, and from the interfering with the divine glory, in the keeping or violating of our oath. Hence, in the Scripture, the same oath is, in one respect, considered as the covenant of the man giving his hand; and, in another respect, as the Lord's covenant, whose glory is concerned in it [cf. Ezek. 17: 11–21--GB]. *Our Testimony, if properly attended to, explains itself; telling us, the covenants "are of divine authority, or obligation, as having their foundation upon the Word of God*" (Reformed Presbytery, _An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion_, p. 161, emphases added). Even the doctrinal propositions of our Confessions and Catechisms are received, *not because they are inspired or infallible; but simply because they are in the apprehension of the Christian, "agreeable to the holy Scriptures." Much more does this obviously apply to our solemn covenants as embodying the heroic achievements of our martyred and witnessing fathers*. Add to these, all the real attainments of those who survived the overthrow of the "Second Reformation" (Pastor Steele's Printed Communications with the Editor of the Covenanter [James M. Willson], appended to _Notes on the Apocalypse_, in the forthcoming edition from Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing, pp. 400, 401, emphases added). *No symbols of faith and order framed by uninspired men are faultless-- much less infallible, either in substance or form*: otherwise they would not be subordinate. Divine truth is the sole ground of saving faith, and is not to be confounded with Terms of Communion, as ignorance and presumption commonly do [and as Mr. Bacon has overtly done--GB]. Again, the testimony of Christ's witnesses in all its integral parts, is always and necessarily progressive until it shall have been finished. Even their statements of doctrine, their abstract and distinctive principles may, and often must be restated in diversified language, to meet the ever shifting position and subtile sophisms of adversaries. Also our Covenants, National and Solemn League may and ought to be renewed--not that they have become old, as many say; but that they are to be owned as obligatory upon us, and a sense of their permanent obligation deepened upon our own souls, and exhibited to others by the solemnity of an Oath (The Reformed Presbytery, _A Short Vindication of the Covenanted Reformation_, 1879, SWRB bound photocopy, p. 19, emphases added). Consider the number of these witnesses; they are two, as this is the smallest number that can establish truth, Deut.17:6; 19:15. The Lawgiver himself, addressing the Jews, says: "It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true," John 8:17. Not that we are to receive the testimony of every two men. The experience of all men is that "a false witness will utter lies;" and it is sometimes found that two may "agree together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord," Acts 5:9. But on the supposition that the witnesses are competent and credible; then it is the decision of Christ, endorsed by the common sentiment of mankind, that "we receive the witness of such men," 1 John 5:9. And although "the witness of God is greater" than that of any number of men; *still, human witnesses do not need to be inspired to render their testimony credible; for then [if the witnesses are inspired--GB], as the reader will perceive, the testimony is that of God, and of course ceases to be human testimony. This point is of the greatest moment, since not one word uttered by these two witnesses is inspired in the proper and formal sense of inspiration! This is too great an honour to confer upon the very chiefest of our covenanted confessors or martyrs. It savours too much of Rome* (David Steele, _The Two Witnesses_, 1859, p. 7, emphases added). Meanwhile, in exhibiting our testimony, *we make no pretensions to infallibility or perfection*. Our design, we hope, is good, but we are very sensible that human weakness and infirmity must always be discernible in our best performances. We do not assert, either with respect to our own, or the other testimonies which we approve, that there are no incautious expressions in these compositions. Considering the time, and the peculiarly trying circumstances, in which the compilers of them existed, and considering that they were men of like passions with others, it would, perhaps, be rather unreasonable to expect so much. But if none of the precious truths, stated and vindicated in these testimonies, be given up; if none of the errors or immoralities which they condemn be countenanced; or, in other words, if the whole substance be conscientiously retained; we mean not to differ with those who may plead that some particular modes of expression might be altered for the better. Let it also be carefully observed here, that, with regard to the Deeds of which we speak [the Scriptural testimonies and earnest contendings of Christ's faithful witnesses--GB], we wish to be understood in the same sense as before, concerning the Confession of Faith and the Covenants. *It is only after diligently perusing, pondering, and comparing these testimonies with the Word of God, and after finding them to be founded upon, and agreeable unto it, that we mean to rank them among the subordinate standards of our church.* But, as two, or more, cannot consistently walk together in church–fellowship, unless they be agreed in sentiment concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church, and concerning the proper way of glorifying God upon earth, *we reckon it exceedingly requisite that this agreement should be properly ascertained*. For that important purpose, amongst others, these testimonies seem to be very much calculated. *And it is only to such of them as truly deserve the characteristic epithets of SCRIPTURAL AND FAITHFUL, that we require the assent of our church members.* If any are disposed to question the propriety of applying these designations, either to our own, or to the rest which we approve, we are always ready, as opportunity offers, to reason the matter with them. If we can agree, it is well; "Let us strive together for the faith of the Gospel, and continue steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." If we cannot agree, we must part in peace. *For we never entertained the remotest thought that these matters were to be adjusted by any other weapons than those of Scripture and reason, under the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit* (The Reformed Presbytery, _An Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion_, pp. 188–189, emphases added). It is vain to say that the confession of a particular church is a human thing: for, candidly interpreted, it may be found to contain nothing but the undoubted truth of God's word. It is either possible for men to express these truths in their own words or it is not. If it is not possible, then his words cannot be understood: and all attempts to state, explain, illustrate or apply them, as in public preaching or writing, are vain; a supposition grossly absurd. But if it be possible for men to express the truths of scripture in their own words, then the doctrines or instructions contained in a confession, may be no other than the truths of God's word; and if they are actually no other, *then a church may warrantably require of her members, and of such as desire admission to her communion, a public assent to her whole confession, nor can that assent be refused without impiety*. No church has a right to require her members to receive any of the doctrines or commandments of men; but her Divine Head authorises her to exact of her members an adherence to all his truths and institutions. In this case he is saying, "he that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me" (John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, 1862, p. 36, emphases added). Among consistent Reformed Presbyterians, *unity in the faith, and uniformity in its application*, have ever been the terms of their fellowship. And this unity and uniformity are mutually pledged, not only as required by the Word of God, but as the subordinate standards of both their faith and practice, "were received by the Church of Scotland." Of course the avowed faith--that is, the principles of our covenant fathers, and their Christian practice--are known to us only by evidence of uninspired history; and *while we view neither their system of faith nor their known practice as infallible, we nevertheless own their principle and engage to follow their footsteps*--and both, if need be, with all the solemnity of the oath of God. All this is implied and carried out in covenant renovation (Pastor Steele's Printed Communications with the Editor of the Covenanter [James M. Willson], appended to _Notes on the Apocalypse_, in the forthcoming edition from Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing, p. 413, emphases added). Francis Turretin adds: As we have said before, this is the natural right of all well–regulated societies--that they can separate from their own flock unfit and injurious men and the impurities, disgraces and cancers of their assembly. For the same power by which they have the right of gathering themselves together gives to them the authority to make laws and constitutions for the preservation of the body and for the expulsions of those who will not obey those laws and who, by their rebellion, could taint or corrupt the whole body. And it is a necessity of such a kind that without it no society can long exist. *Now if this is granted to other societies, far more ought it to belong to the church, which is both holier and better regulated.* Nor can they with whom we now argue deny this, who acknowledge (the magistrate not being a believer or neglecting his duty in restraining and punishing the wicked) that each assembly by associated discipline and mutual covenant can assume for itself a certain power of the magistrate, reduce the disorderly (ataktous) to order, drive the impious and unbelievers from itself (and cause them to keep by themselves), and provide for other things conducing to its own conservation. Now it makes little difference whether this is called a right of nature or authority flowing from Christ, since the right of nature is derived from no other source than God himself. Nay, since the church is a sacred and religious society instituted by Christ, no one can deny that she has received from Christ himself whatever power she has, as all other things. For the same one who wished to establish her in the world furnished her also with all things which are necessary for her conservation (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, p. 296, emphases added). 2. Distinguish between the visible Church and the Church invisible. Saving faith, or the ground of saving faith, is the bond of communion in the invisible church; not so in the visible church, otherwise hypocrites could not be there. *The doctrines, arguments and history of the visible church are all her own deductions from Scripture. None of these has the attribute of infallibility, because the church is not infallible.* An effect cannot be greater than its cause--the stream rise higher than its source (David Steele, _The Two Witnesses_, 1859, p. 40, emphases added). Whatsoever reverence or dignity is by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures given, whether to the Priests, or Prophets, or Apostles, or their Successors, all of it is given, not properly to Men themselves, but to the Ministry wherewith they are clothed, or to speak more expeditly, the Ministry whereof is committed unto them, Exod. 3:4. and 14: 31. Deut. 17: 9,10. Mal 2: 4,6. Ezek. 3:17. Jer. 23:28. and 1:6. Matth. 28:19. Acts.15:10. 2ndly, That as their Authority is founded upon, and wholly derived from the Word of God; so in the Administration and Exercise thereof, they are in all things to walk according to this Rule, Isa. 8:19, 20. Mal. 2:6,7. Matth. 28:19. 3rdly, That Church–power is not a Lordly and Magistratical Power, but a lowly and Ministerial Power, and not an absolute Autocratorick, but a limited and hyperetick Power; and that Church Decrees and Sentences are all of the REGULAE REGULATAE, Rules that are Subordinated, and do not bind but in the Lord, and so far as they are conform to that first inflexible and unerring Rule prescribed by himself, Luke 22:25,26,27. 1 Pet. 5:2,3. 2 Tim. 3:15, 16, 17. 1 Thess. 5:12. Eph. 6:1. (and Pag. 96). 4thly. That all Church Judicatures whether Congregational Elderships, or Presbyteries or Synods, Provincial, National or Ecumenical, being constituted of Men, that are weak frail and ignorant in Part, are in their Determinations fallible and subject to Error, Isa. 40:6,7,8. Rom. 3:4 1 Cor. 13:9,12. 5thly. That in so far as any of these do actually err and decline they do in so far act without Power and Authority from Jesus Christ, they may do nothing by his Commission against the Truth, but for the Truth, 2 Cor. 13:8. The power that he hath given is to Edification and not to Destruction. 6thly. That sad Experience almost in every Generation doth teach us, That church Guides and Church Judicatures do often times decline from the straight Ways of the LORD and decree unrighteous Decrees, and write grievous things, which they have prescribed, Isa. 9:15,16. Jer 8:8,9. Mal 2:8,9. Jer 2:8. And that whilest they are boasting of the Authority given to them of GOD, and of their Skill in the Law, and professing to walk according thereto, they are perverting the precious Truths of GOD, and persecuting these who adhere thereto, Jer 18:18. Isa 66:5. Job 7:48, 49. 7thly. (in Pag. 97) The same LORD who hath commanded us not to despise Prophesying, 1Thess 5:19. hath also commanded us, to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good. Ver. 20. And not to believe every Spirit, but to try the Spirits whether they be of God, because many false Prophets are gone forth into the World. Job 4:1. And that whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin, Rom 14:15. And that we ought not to be Servants of Men. 1 Cor 7:23. That is, to do things, especially in the Matters of GOD, for which we have no other Warrant, but the mere pleasure and Will of Men, which the Apostle calls living to the Lusts of Men, and not to the Will of God, 1 Pet. 4:2. *And it is therefore both the Duty and privilege of every Church Member to examine by the Judgment of Discretion every thing that the Church Judicatory injoineth, whether it be agreeable or repugnant to the Rule or the Word; and if, after a diligent and impartial Search, it be found repugnant, they are not to bring their Conscience in Bondage thereto. Protestant Divines, (de Judice Controversiarum), have shewed us, That this doth not make a private Man, or an inferior, Judge of the Sentences of his Superiors, but only of his own Actions *(Pag. 98.99) (_Protesters no Subverters_, p. 95, cited from _Protestors Vindicated_, 1716, pp. 93–95, emphases added).
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.
*************************
Terms of Communion
*************************
*Ministers who sought popularity affected the favour of the unlearned, by
representing the testimony as too profound for the comprehension of the
common people. It was, moreover, too prolix [lengthy--GB]; so that few
could find time to examine it thoroughly.* But the greatest objection was,
that it was too severe against other churches; and this last objection is, in
truth, the only one. Aspiring ministers felt ashamed of "sackcloth;" they
longed to get out of the "wilderness" and get nearer to "king's palaces"
(_The Reformation Advocate_, March 1876, Vol.1, p. 260, emphases
added).
We treat here of the first part or the power concerning articles of faith....
This power is properly to be attended to in the judgment which the church
ought to make concerning doctrine; also in the creeds and confessions
*which she ought to compose for the conservation of doctrine and the bond
of ecclesiastical communion* (Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic
Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, p. 282, emphases added).
This power [of preserving and vindicating articles of faith--GB] is properly
to be attended to in the judgment which the church ought to make
concerning doctrine; also in the creeds and confessions *which she ought to
compose for the conservation of doctrine and the bond of ecclesiastical
communion... their true authority consists in this--that they are obligatory
upon those who are subject to them in the court of external communion
because they were written by the churches or in the name of the churches,
to which individual members in the external communion are responsible*
(Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 1696, Vol. 3, pp. 284,
285, emphases added).
The truth does not change. But the Church's understanding of the truth
enlarges. And hence the creed of the fourth century will not meet the
wants of the nineteenth century, any more than the coat worn by the boy
of six years, will fit a full grown man (Rev. J. M. Foster, _Distinctive
Principles of the Covenanters_, 1892, p. 4).
*As the primary object of terms of communion in the church is to exhibit
the law and covenant of God, and then agreement of persons in their
apprehension of these, together with their joint and declared resolution to
walk accordingly; it would appear that they are a rational expedient to
reach the proposed end.* Those who oppose creeds, etc., are apt to forget
that the acknowledgment of the Holy Scriptures does not itself secure
union of sentiment and concert in action. Besides, the witnesses of Christ,
in preserving the integrity of their testimony, and their own moral
identity, are necessitated to know and expose the errors and ungodliness
which prevail under the name of religion. Hence they are obliged so to
direct their testimony as to meet the ever–shifting forms and phases of
error and immorality. And as their testimony thus progresses toward its
consummation, there is a correspondent bearing given to her terms of
communion. In case of defection she must ascertain from history, the
footsteps of the flock whereto she attained in time past; that she may obey
the divine direction, "walk by the same rule and mind the same thing"
(David Steele, _The Two Witnesses_, 1859, Appendix Note C, appended to
_Notes on the Apocalypse_, in the forthcoming edition from Covenanted
Reformed Presbyterian Publishing, pp. 388–389, emphases added).
1. Terms of communion pertain to the external communion of the visible
church and not to the internal communion of the invisible church.
2. Terms of communion are intended to exhibit the law and covenant of
God, so that members of Christ's visible body can determine whether or
not they walk together in unity and uniformity. They are an aid to
promoting, preserving and maintaining the peace and purity of the Church,
and are based solely upon the infallible Word of God.
3. Terms of communion are composed of abstract doctrinal statements such
as creeds and confessions, forms and directories. Though agreeable to God's
word, these standards are all deduced from the Word of God and thus
understood to be historical and fallible.
4. Terms of communion also include intrinsically and perpetually binding
Covenants. Faith without works is dead, as is abstract doctrine without
covenanted obligation. Covenants are deduced from God's word and thus
are subordinate and fallible.
5. Terms of communion include facts of history judged by the Word of God
according to the argument of faithful witnesses and judicatories. Historical
acts of General Assemblies, governments, and notable individuals are
identified and judged according to the principles of God's Word. Faithful
contendings are separated from unfaithful contendings and martyrs are
remembered and honoured for their "faithful works created in Christ Jesus
from the foundation of the world." These Acts of General Assembly--
judging history according to scripture--are all fallible and subordinate to
the Word of God.
6. All of these terms are progressive and may be restated (by qualified
Assemblies) to meet the ever shifting forms and phases of error and
immorality. Consequently, a standing testimony is not sufficient due to the
fact that it does not testify against the current sins and the errors of the
times. (Greg Barrow, _Covenanted Reformation Defended_, p. 112)
*************************
Toleration
*************************
A vague and erratic charity, which soars above fixed principles of belief,
looks down with neglect on external ordinances, and spurns the restraint
of ordinary rules, whether it seeks to include all Christians within its
catholic embrace, or confines itself to those of a favorite class, is a very
feeble and precarious bond of union. True Christian charity is the daughter
of truth, and fixes her objects "for the truth's sake which dwells in them"
(cf. 2 John 2). (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in
1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 25).
The doctrine of modern forbearance among persons of opposite belief,
inducing them to form a compromise in which they mutually agree to
differ, and never more to mention discording tenets, leads, in its native
tendency, to the suppression of the truth, and the lasting concealment of so
many articles of faith, as the jarring sentiments may happen to hinge upon.
And what is the amount of this, but to banish forever from the faith of the
Church, a great number of precious truths contained in the Word of God,
and designed by him for the spiritual comfort and edification of the
people? And all this to obtain a Catholic union amongst professing
Christians, at the expense of losing sacred truth. An agreement to divide, in
matter of faith and practice, sounds ill with the injunction, "be perfectly
joined together in the same mind" (The Reformed Presbytery, _An
Explanation and Defense of the Terms of Communion_, p. 152).
I dare not be silent, nor conceal my thoughts of any sinful and dangerous
course in the public proceedings... I cannot but discharge my conscience in
giving a testimony against all such compliance (with the malignants--GB)...
Yea, all that hear of it (the covenant breaking compliance--GB) might justly
stand amazed at us, and look on us as a people infatuated, that can take in
our bosom the fiery serpents that have stung us so sore ("To the Right
Reverend the Commission of the General Assembly" in Gillespie's _Works_
volume 2, p. 1).
"In this age of boasted charity, but really 'detestable neutrality and
indifferency,' it is an irksome and painful task, but a duty, thus to bear
testimony against churches, in which are to be found, no doubt, many
precious sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. But personal piety
never was, nor possibly can be, the condition of fellowship in the visible
church. To think so, and say so, is one of the most popular delusions of the
present day. It puts the supposed pious man, speaking his experience, in
the place of God, speaking his sovereign will in the Bible. This is the
height of impiety," declared the Reformed Presbytery in their _Act,
Declaration, and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_
in 1876.
That which is not only sinful in itself, but a great dishonor to God, a great
scandal to the church, and withal a disobedience to the lawful ordinance of
authority, may and ought to be punished by this Christian and reforming
parliament. *But their offence which still refuse to take the covenant is not
only sinful in itself, but a great dishonor to God, a great scandal to the
church [therefore a term of communion--GB] and withal a disobedience to
the lawful ordinance of authority.* Therefore the offense of those who still
refuse to take the covenant, may and ought to be punished by this
Christian and reforming parliament.
It is no tyranny over men's consciences to punish a great and scandalous
sin (such as the refusing and opposing of the covenant or a dividing from
it), although the offender in his conscience believe it to be no sin, yea,
peradventure, believe it to be a duty, otherwise it had been tyranny over
the conscience to punish those who killed the Apostles, because they
thought they were doing God service, John 16:2–3 (George Gillespie, _The
Works of George Gillespie, A Treatise of Micellany Questions_, 1642, Vol. 2,
p. 87, cf. pp. 80–81, emphases added).
Wylie writes,
"Obj. 13. 'Your principles lead to persecution, and are cruel and unmerciful.'
Ans. The church of Christ never persecuted. If our principles lead to it,
they are certainly wrong.
But what is persecution? Does it consist in executing God's law? If it does,
he must be the author of it. Does it not rather consist in injuring men in
their characters, property, or persons, for their tenacious and steadfast
adherence to his divine commandments? If this is not persecution,
then the martyrs have suffered, not for the cause and testimony of Jesus,
but for their obstinate rebellion against it. How does this correspond with
the character of those souls whom John saw lying under the altar, "who
were slain for the word of God, and for the Testimony which they held!"
Rev 6:9. Whatsoever the law of God commands to be punished, ought to be
punished with the penalties therein made and provided; but God has
commanded gross heretics, blasphemers, and idolaters, to be punished
with certain specific penalties. Therefore, such ought to be punished.
These commands could not belong to the ceremonial law, for then they
would have flowed entirely from the arbitrary will of God, and been mere
signs between him and Israel. Who would dare to think so of gross heresy,
&c.?
Neither could they belong to that part of the judicial law which respected
the Jews peculiarly. Who would dare to say that none but the Jews were,
or are, under obligation to worship God in purity, or abstain from
blaspheming his nature and dignity? They must, therefore, belong to the
moral law, and flow from the moral nature of Jehovah, who has declared
he will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images.
Thus we find the first, second, and third precepts of the moral law
pointedly prohibiting these things, and requiring the contrary duties. All
the precepts and threatenings which are to be found respecting these,
scattered up and down the Bible, are only elucidations of those
commandments.
I would leave this particular, with proposing one question, which the
judicious reader will easily solve. Was Elijah a persecutor when he caused
the law of God to be executed upon the prophets of Baal?"
_The Two Sons of Oil; or, the Faithful Witness for Magistracy and Ministry
Upon a Scriptural Basis_ (1850 ed., reprinted 1995 by Covenanted
Reformed Presbyterian Publishing), pp. 60-61.
[The magistrate's duty to enforce the Judicial law].
"The Adversary brings several exceptions against this Argument which we
shall propone and take off. The first Exception is, say they, Those were
Judicial Laws, and so now are expired with their Common-wealth: Answer,
This is a common refuge to sectaries where any practice is brought from
the Old Testament against them, presently they cast at it upon this account
as not binding to us under the New: Therefore we shall speak so much the
more unto this point: By a Judicial Law is meaned a Civil Law, so the force
of their Argument is this: The Civil Law of one Kingdom is not binding to
another, but these were Civil Laws belonging to that Kingdom, Therefore,
they are not binding to us. To this we Answer, First, That they cannot say
this of all the Laws instanced, particularly of that Law of the fourth
Command: It is a Moral Law binding to all. Secondly, we answer, *the rest
of these Laws are Moral and binding to all Magistrates*, yea and that for
these reasons: Because First, **Abraham, and Jacob, and other Magistrates
that were among the Jews did practice these Laws even before the Judicial
Law was given out by Moses**; and so they behooved to be Moral. Yea
Heathen Kings that were not under the Judicial Law of Moses, as not being
Members of their Commonwealth, when they came to the knowledge of
God, they made use of their *Power to suppress* Idolatry, *which certainly
was through virtue of the Moral Law*, commanding them so to do: Not the
Judicial Law, that they were not under. A Third Answer we give, that
though what is said were true.viz. That these Laws were Judicial: Yet it
does not follow that they were not now binding to Magistrates. To
understand this, there were two things in their Judicial Laws, as in our
Civil Laws. Yet, there was somewhat that concerned the Kingdom in
particular as that law, that Servants should be freed from their service at
the seven years end. And the Law of inheritance to be Kept within the
Tribe, and this part of the Law did fall with their Common-wealth. But
there was another thing in their Judicial Laws. and that is somewhat of
**Common Equity belonging unto all, such as Laws for punishing sins done
against the Moral Law**; and in this far the Judicial Law is binding to us:
because there is not a syllable in the New Testament for abrogating of it,
and so must bind, being given by God. And Jesus Christ and his Apostles
Reason from this Judicial Law; as in 1 Corinth:9.9. It is written in the Law
of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the
corn. And in several other places: so is it in the civil Laws in other
Kingdoms: as for example, That Witches should be punished by death, and
burnt to ashes, is a Civil Law in Scotland: Now there is somewhat there of
Common Equity, to wit, that they should be punished by death; but the
particular way of putting them to death, to wit whither by strangling
drowning &c. or the burning of their Bodies to Ashes, is not of Common
Equity: Other Kingdoms may use another way of execution, as pleaseth
them best. There is a second Exception they bring against this argument,
say they: If their Laws were binding to us, then they would be binding
according to all their circumstances: and if so, then all persons, whole
Cities, yea beasts behoved to be stoned to death: For so is the Command
Deut:13. Now say they, what Massacring would this be. To take off this
exception, we Answer: There are two things in a Law, there is first, The
substance of the Law, Secondly, the Circumstances of it: *Now a Law may
hold according to the main substance*, and yet not according to these
circumstances: We shall clear it in an Example, the Law of Hospitality binds
all nations as to the substance of the things commanded by it, but there
were some circumstances joined with this Law, according to the nature of
the people to whom it was given; such as the washing of feet, and kisses of
Charity; and according to these it is not binding; And so that command,
That false worship should be punished, is substantial and binding unto all;
*but that is should so be punished* as to put Children, Women, Beasts,
young and old to death, was suited according unto the temper of that
People unto whom it was given, being so naturally prone to idolatry, and
therefore were by more fearful punishments to be scarred from it, and *so
in that respect is not binding unto others*. We may add where this Law is
repeated, as Exod:22.18. Deut:17.2.5 and cap:18 20. It is only repeated in
the substance of it, and the way and manner is not mentioned. Secondly,
**we find that Jacob and other Magistrates who were before the Law did
not Execute according to their Circumstances**; Yea and the Jewish
Magistrates as Moses and Josiah Exod:31. and 2 King 23, **Did not tie
themselves precisely to Execute the Law according to all these
Circumstances**; ***And so it remains that though these Circumstances do
not bind the Magistrate yet the Law according to its substance is yet
binding***." (James Fergusson, _A Brief Refutation Of The Errors Of
Toleration, Erastianism, Independency And Separation_. 1692., pp. 63-66.
Emphasis added. Here is clear proof that by Common Equity the
Covenanters referred to the circumstances of the mode of punishments and
not the actual punishment itself... Fergusson's influence at the 1647
General Assembly [which adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith],
makes his viewpoint especially significant. Cited in _Theonomy and the
Westminster Confession_, compiled by M. Foulner, Marpet Press, 1997, pp.
29-30, emphases added.)
Here is another interesting quote on the law:
James Fergusson 1621-1667
The magistrate's right to punish idolatry etc
"The main question then is, concerning State Toleration.
Concerning which some do affirm, That whatever the Church may do in
inflicting Church censures on Heriticks, Maintainers of Heterodox Opinions:
Yet, Say they, no civil Punishment, such as Death, Imprisonment, Mulcts, or
fines, should be inflicted on any Error or Blasphemy whatsoever; providing
the Maintainers of them carry themselves peaceably, do not trouble the
State, or do evil against the Commonwealth in civil Things: We again on the
contrary do hold, that it is the duty of the Civil Magistrate to suppress
Error, Heresies, and every sin against the First Table, as well as it is his
Duty to suppress Adultery, Fornication, Sedition, and other sins against the
Second Table: And that he is not only bound to suppress Errors and
Blasphemies, that are contrary to fundamental Truths, or the Light of
Nature; but all Error contrary to other points of Truth." (James Fergusson,
_A Brief Refutation Of The Errors Of Toleration, Erastianism, Independency
And Separation_. 1692. pp. 51-52. These sermons were originally
preached in 1652 but published posthumously by his son. Cited in
_Theonomy and the Westminster Confession_, compiled by M. Foulner,
Marpet Press, 1997, p.28).
*************************
Unity and Uniformity
*************************
The exercise of authority and government is necessary as a bond of union
and a basis of stability, in all societies. By means of it, the largest
communities, and even many nations, may be made to coalesce and
become one, under the same political government. And can any good
reason be assigned for supposing that the Church of Christ should be
destitute of this bond, or that it should not be necessary to her union as a
visible society? If every family has its economy and discipline, if every
kingdom has its form of government and laws, shall we suppose that the
most perfect of all societies, "the house of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:15), and
"the kingdom of heaven," should be left by her divine Head without that
which so evidently tends to the maintenance of her faith, the purity and
regularity of her administrations, and the order, subordination, unity, and
peace which ought to reign among all her members? Whatever is
necessary to her government, and the preserving of her order and purity,
either is expressly enjoined in Scripture, or may be deduced, by native
inference, from the general rules and the particular examples which are
recorded in it (Thomas M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in
1989 by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, p. 24)
*The catholic church comprehends all that profess the true religion.* There
is a lawful and necessary division of it into sections in respect of local
situation. *But when a number of people, bearing the Christian name,
combine together as a distinct society, for the purpose of maintaining and
propagating doctrines and practices, which, instead of belonging to the true
religion, are contrary to it; they ought not, considered as such a
combination, to be called a lawful section of the catholic church. It is not
denied, that they belong to the catholic church; but it is denied, that there
ought to be any such section or division in it.* Thus, there ought to be no
section of the catholic church, having for the peculiar end of its distinct
subsistence, the support of episcopal hierarchy, unknown in the Scripture,
of the propagation of antipaedobaptism, or of anti–scriptural doctrine, in
opposition to that of God's election, redemption, effectual calling and the
conservation of his people, as delivered in the scripture; or for the support
of ways and means of divine worship not found in scripture. If the catholic
visible church were brought to a suitable discharge of her duty, she would
abolish all such sections. But no society ought to be called such an unlawful
section, while it can be shown that it subsists as a separate society for no
other end, than for the maintaining of something in the doctrine, worship
or government of the church which belongs to the Christian religion as
delivered in the Word of God, or for exhibiting a testimony against
prevailing errors and corruptions which the scripture requires the catholic
church to condemn. Such a profession of any party of Christians is no
sectarian profession; and a union with them is not a sectarian, but properly
a Christian union; and, being cordial and sincere, is a union in Christ; and
communion upon the ground of this union is truly Christian communion. On
the other hand, however much of our holy religion any body of Christians
hold in common with others, and however many of them we may
charitably judge to be saints, *yet while their distinguishing profession is
contrary to the Word of God, communion with them, as a body so
distinguished, is sectarian communion; as it implies a union with them in
that which ought to be rejected by the whole catholic church* (John
Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, 1862, pp. 10, 11, emphases added).
Besides, the martyrs held the great desirableness of union and uniformity
in the profession of religion. They testified against sectarianism, or the
violation of the unity of the church, by cutting or dividing it into insulated
sections. God is one; religion, as a principle in the heart, is one; the word of
God is one; Christ is one; and his law is one. The law of Christ is not an
undeterminate thing; it is definite, and is distinguished by a universality
and simplicity adapted to the situation of the church in every
circumstance, and providing for its visible unity. The reformers were
unionist upon principle, and on the largest scale too. They sought union
upon the basis of truth. They held the doctrine of the unity of the church,
and endeavoured its exemplification. They wished, also, by good laws and
scripturally qualified rulers, the union and prosperity of the kingdom. And
it is not to be denied that, without making any compromise of the
authority and freedom of either, they sought a harmonious co-operation
and reciprocation between Church and State, in subserviency to godliness
and honesty. Nor were their pious wishes confined to their own loved
country. They looked abroad. They sought the enlargement of the kingdom
of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of all Christian kingdoms and
commonwealths; the Christianization and union of all the nations of the
earth. But they would not sacrifice truth for union; nor did they stumble at
the impossibility of obtaining uniformity in the profession of religion. The
event showed that they were premature in their expectations. Their aim,
however, was excellent; and predictions assure us that the evil of division
will be healed in the arrival of a day in which "there shall be one Lord and
his name One."
The martyrs also held covenanting to be a fit and divinely authorized
means of consolidating union in a church and a nation, and of giving
security to the interests of religion in both. They found confederation in
the transactions of mankind; they viewed it to be based on the moral law;
they saw it largely exemplified in the history of the Jews; they read
prophetic intimations of the practice; and they had before them the
example of the reformed churches. Besides, they were, in a measure,
driven into covenanting by the plottings of their enemies. At the period of
the first reformation, the National Covenant of Scotland had been prepared
and gone into, when the jealousy of the nation had been awakened by the
interception of letters from Rome, granting a dispensation to the Roman
Catholics to profess the reformed tenets for a time; with a view, no doubt,
to the ultimate overthrow of the reformed cause. The covenant united the
country, and proved a means of preserving the reformed religion from the
peril to which it was exposed, from the machinations of enemies. At a
subsequent period, this covenant was again sworn as applying to Prelacy
as well as Popery; and a Solemn League and Covenant was subsequently
framed to preserve the reformed religion in Scotland, and extend it in
"England and Ireland." These deeds formed, in those days, the Magna
Charta of civil and religious liberty; and were held in the highest
veneration by those who contended against the overthrow of the
reformation. The offence in which these deeds were held by the enemies of
the reformation, may be learned from the public odium, attempted to be
thrown upon them by their condemnation and burning. But the martyrs
held fast their obligation, because of that scriptural reformation which they
embraced, and which they had been the means, so seasonably and
efficiently, under God, of preserving (Andrew Symington, cited from a short
article entitled "Religious Principles of the Scottish Martyrs")
Are there any who, when they hear of the future of uniting all Christians
in profession, affection, and practice, are disposed to receive the intimation
with a smile of incredulity, to treat the prospect as visionary, and to
exclaim, "How can these things be? Will God create a new race on the
earth? Will he give new structure to the minds of men? Will they not
continue to think and act about religion as they have done from the
beginning until now?"
Hear the Word of the Lord, you scornful men: Is it a small matter for you
to weary men, will you weary my God also? Has he not said, "I will give
them one heart and one way, that they may fear me?" (Jer. 32:29). And
will he not do it? Let God be true, and every man a liar (cf. Rom. 3:4).
When the time comes, the time which he has set for accomplishing his
promise, he shall arise, and every difficulty and every obstruction shall
give way before him and vanish at his approach.
Do you ask a sign? Do you ask it in the heaven above? It is he that "binds
the sweet influences of Pleiades, and looses the "frozen" bands of Orion,
and guides Arcturus with his sons" (cf. Job 38:31). Do you ask it in the
earth beneath? "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fattling
together; and a little child shall lead them ... for the earth shall be full of
the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11:6, 9).
The Infinite One has, in his faithful Word, pledged all his perfections for
the accomplishment of this work. What resistance can be opposed to
infinite power, put in motion by infinite love, and guided by infinite
wisdom? He can raise up instruments properly qualified and disposed for
promoting his design, guide their counsels, animate them to constancy and
perseverance, and, finally crown all their exertions with the wished–for
success. He has the hearts of all men in his hand, and can turn them like
the waters in an aqueduct. He can rebuke the spirit of error and delusion,
"cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land" (Zech.
13:2), and remove and abolish all things that offend in his kingdom. He can
subdue the most stubborn and inveterate prejudices, allay the fiercest
heats and animosities, convert jealousies into confidence and hatred into
love, and having "made the wrath of man to praise him" by accomplishing
his purposes, can "restrain the remainder thereof" (cf. Ps. 76:10).
Who is among you that fears the Lord, and obeys the voice of his servant,
who walks in darkness and has no light as to the removal or abatement of
the melancholy divisions of the Church? Let him plant his faith firmly on
the promises of Jehovah, and stay himself on his perfections. Say with the
Prophet Jeremiah, in a similar case, "Ah, Lord God! behold, thou hast made
the heaven and the earth by thy great power ... and there is nothing too
hard for thee ... The Great, the Mighty God, the Lord of Hosts, is his name,
Great in counsel, and mighty in work" (Jer. 32:17–19).
*Place yourself in spirit in the midst of the emblematical valley into which
Ezekiel was carried, and say, "God who raises the dead can easily do this"*
(Ezek. 37:1–14; cf. 2 Cor. 1:9). Rivers, deep and broad, seas, noisy and
tempestuous, "on which no galley with oars can go, neither gallant ship
ride" (cf. Isa. 33:21), have disparted the territories which the God of
heaven has given to his Son, and prevented the intercourse of his subjects.
But he "shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his
mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in
the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. And there shall be an
highway for the remnant of his people ... like as it was to Israel in the day
that he came out of the land of Egypt" (Isa. 11:15–16).
Brazen "mountains of separation" may stand in the way of the desirable
event. But the resistance which they oppose to it shall be overcome, *not
according to the confused plan of modern projectors, by throwing a
scaffolding over them, by which those who have reared altars on their tops
may hold occasional intercourse and partial communion*; but in a way
becoming the New Testament Zerubbabel, the Disperser of Confusion.
When he rends the heavens and comes down to do things which we looked
not for, "the mountains shall flow down at his presence" (cf. Isa. 64:1).
Those separations which have been of most ancient date, and which
threatened to last forever, shall yield to his power: "The everlasting
mountains shall be scattered, the perpetual hills shall bow," before him
whose "ways are everlasting" (cf. Hab. 3:6). If there shall be one that has
reared its head above all the rest, and makes a more formidable resistance,
it also shall crumble down and disappear: "Who art thou, O great
mountain? Before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain" (Zech. 4:7). Then
shall the mountain on which the house of God is built be established on the
top of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow
to it. And he will rebuke and repress the envious risings of its proudest
rival. "A hill of God is the hill of Bashan, a high hill of Bashan. But why lift
ye up yourselves, ye high hills? This (Zion) is the hill which God desireth to
dwell in; yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever" (cf. Ps. 68:15–16). May God
fulfil these promises in due time; and unto him be glory in the Church by
Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Thomas
M'Crie, _Unity of the Church_, 1821, reprinted in 1989 by Presbyterian
Heritage Publications, pp. 130–134, emphases added).
Accomodation and peace
We declare our esteem of and love for all the godly in these lands, who
have the root of the matter in them, and love our Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity, who are studying godliness and have sad hearts for the tokens of
God's sad displeasure, and the sins and abominations procuring the same,
*notwithstanding of their not being of the same sentiments and mind with
us as to some parts of our testimony and practice* (Matthew Hutchison,
_The Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland_, 1893, p. 175, emphases
added).
I wish it could be brought about, that men of learning and dignity from the
principal churches might have a meeting; and, after a careful discussion of
the several points of faith, might hand down to posterity the doctrine of
the scripture, settled by their common judgment. But amongst the greatest
evils of our age, this also is to be reckoned, that our churches are so
distracted one from another, that human society [fellowship--GB] scarcely
flourishes amongst us; much less that holy communion of the members of
Christ, which all profess in words, and few sincerely cultivate in fact. Thus
it happens, that the body of the church, by the dissipation of its members,
lies torn and mangled. As to myself, were I like to be of any service, I
should not hesitate to cross the seas for that purpose. . . . Now, when the
object is to obtain such an agreement of learned men upon strict scriptural
principles, as may accomplish a union of churches in other respects widely
asunder, I do not think it lawful for me to decline any labours or troubles
(John Anderson, _Alexander and Rufus_, 1862, p. 151).
I have often and heartily wished that I might not be distracted by, nor
engaged into, polemic writings, of which the world is too full already, and
from which many more learned and idoneous [i.e. suitable--GB] have
abstained; and I did, accordingly, resolve that in this controversial age, I
should be slow to write, swift to read and learn (George Gillespie, _Aaron's
Rod Blossoming_, 1646, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1985, p. xv).
"We pray for the coming of his Kingdom, and praise him that the number
of those that seek the Lord in Scotland are not diminished, but grow even
under evil shepherds and lazy feeders; which is the lilly among the thorns,
though we go under the name of Protesters, separatists, hypocrites,
unpeaceable, implacable spirits, are made as the filth of the world, and the
off-scourings of all things: yea, troubled on every side (in the streets,
pulpits, in divers Synods, Presbyteries, &c.
more than under Prelacy) yet not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair;
persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed" (Samuel
Rutherford, "Preface", _A Survey Of The Survey Of That Summe Of Church-
Discipline_).
In like manner do we hear the words of that eminent minister and Scottish
commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, Alexander Henderson as he
pleads for a uniformity in the truth:
Nothing so powerful to divide the hearts of people as division in religion;
nothing so strong to unite them as unity in religion: and the greater zeal in
different religions the greater division; but the more zeal in one religion
the more firm union. In the paradise of nature the diversity of flowers
and herbs is pleasant and useful; but in the paradise of the Church
different and contrary religions are unpleasant and hurtful. It is therefore
to be wished that there were one Confession of Faith, one form of
Catechism, one Directory for all the parts of the public worship of God, and
for prayer, preaching, administration of sacraments, &c., and one form of
Church government, in all the Churches of his majesty's dominions (cited in
Hetherington's _History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_, p.373).
From Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:33 (_Calvin's
Commentaries_, Vol. XX, p. 466) note his emphasis upon truth being the
bond that unites churches:
Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that, in judging as to the servants of Christ,
this mark must be kept in view--whether or not they aim at peace and
concord, and by conducting themselves peaceably, avoid contentions to the
utmost of their power, provided, however, we understand by this a peace
of which the truth of God is the bond. For if we are called to contend
against wicked doctrines, even though heaven and earth should come
together, we must, nevertheless, persevere in the contest. We must,
indeed, in the first place, make it our aim, that the truth of God may,
without contention, maintain its ground; but if the wicked resist, we must
set our face against them, and have no fear, lest the blame of the
disturbances should be laid to our charge. For accursed is that peace of
which revolt from God is that bond, and blessed are those contentions by
which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.
Many of the quotations below are excerpted from _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ which is FREE under "Church Writings" at:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html or directly from http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm; for sale at: http://www.swrb.com/catalog/b.htm; or FREE on all the Reformation Bookshelf CDs at: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm and some of the Puritan Bookshelf CDs at http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm. Most other books noted below are available from Still Waters Revival Books for FREE and/or at great discounts, at: http://www.swrb.com.************************* International Unity ************************* THE ASSEMBLY'S LETTER TO THE KIRKS IN THE NETHERLANDS. (Translated from Latin, for the first time [in 1997], by Dr. Stephen Westcott) Most worshipful brothers in the Lord, The letter that was sent to us last year in the name of the Churches of Zealand, and your kindness shown to us by so many great services, assures us that we must interpret them as strong witnesses of the goodwill with the whole of your Belgic Churches towards us. This opinion has been abundantly confirmed in those things which that most distinguished knight Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, assessor in the supreme Assembly, not long since informed us of from London. Reporting the order of affairs in both kingdom and Church he related, in that same National Synod, of your extraordinary zeal towards us, and especially with what great faith, with what solicitous diligence you have promoted, and even now continue busy to promote, our cause (or rather that of the Lord Jesus Christ) as it is now being persued in London. In which business those delegates, whose names are not all unknown to you, have happily undertaken the scheme for conciliating a union of the Britannic Churches. May they, by your help and diligence, soon achieve a result, of which we have already received by no means obscure indications. There are these so illustrious testimonies of your kindness, open to such an extent in the eyes of all good people that no forgetfulness could ever destroy the memory of them. No one will ever repent of labors undertaken now, and labor that may be undertaken hereafter, to happily compose and decide the controversies arising in the London Synod. From the fruit which we have already seen (through the divine blessing) it is reasonable to hope for all the best for the future. To add to this so honourable remembrance of your kindnesses made by Warriston we have also received a letter from parts of Northern Ireland signed with many autographs, which makes mention of the remarkable grace poured out on that church by divine influence, from the time that they were admitted into the covenant of these kingdoms. Of this divine blessing we have recently had most ample testimony in the outstanding generosity the saints in Belgium have showed to them though unknown and foreign, most loving, and as pricked by a very tender sense of their evils. For they relieved them in the nick of time, being a very few survivors of the sword and about to soon die of hunger, being surrounded by all kinds of difficulties. Not only did they strengthened their inner courage by consoling discourses for their consolation, urging that proceeding humbly they should wait for God as their liberator (who is not accustomed to hid His face from the house of Jacob except for a little while) but they also amply warmed them into life with generous aid in addition, with corn and other things fit for their easement and necessary relief, in so great straits. When they strove so much as suppliants to obtain munificence from God, and you were His agents, so He will pay it back into your bosoms sevenfold. So we humbly and repeatedly crave, in recognition of such kindness , that you give our thanks to all the Belgic Churches. This duty do, for if indeed we failed in our duty we should sin against ourselves, and most grievously against them. We acknowledge, therefore, the most illustrious and most powerful and outstanding kindness of Holland, Zealand and of the other Belgic classes. With whom not only not turning the blind eye but supplying provisions (which in itself cannot be considered an ordinary kindness), but also that your authors wrote with method and reason, so that, leading by example, collections made throughout your Churches were soon sent to the relief our Irish brothers. We acknowledge such ready good will and generosity of the devout in the same Belgic Churches. We acknowledge that such great kindness has been conferred, not less than our brothers themselves do, in their own persons speaking on their behalf. And we wish that you, Reverend brothers, as we will always be prompt to all the actions of a grateful mind, that you will use your diligence to pass on thanks to your most prayerful Classes in our name, as is most reasonable to be done. And that you might demonstrate, moreover, to the people committed to your Christian care, first to all publicly, next to individuals privately, as the occasion may turn out, how respectfully we feel almost at one with them, and how much worth we place on their so outstanding goodwill and charity with which they revived our flesh and blood, in their consolation of the Irish Churches. What, moreover, have you been in the past, dearest brothers! With what devout zeal and toil, with what constant diligence have you carried forward the seed of charity until the sprouting corn waxed at length into the ripe harvest! We both willingly acknowledge this, whilst the event speaks for itself, as the excellent harvest fruit bears witness. Most especially, however, (which is the chief point) we, together with the Irish Churches, praise and celebrate the Author and Bestower of such great grace through you, praying that He may pour out His Spirit on you all in great abundance, and on all the Churches committed to you by the Lord, in your most illustrious Classes in Belgium and in your Republic. Making defence against a most potent enemy, and being endangered in the midst of so many difficulties, you are protected by the light of the uncontaminated truth of the Gospel in your Churches against the gates of hell. Then, being defended the more widely by the immense power of God watching over you has caused His manifold wisdom and understanding kindness to be celebrated at this time throughout the entire world. So may the same fount of all goodness continue to keep you in Him and in all good things, so that your Federal Republic may daily be more eminent, to the murmuring of the enemies of our religion and liberty. May the exercise of your wisdom and best arts as well as your arms and triumphs over the most eminent nations, make the Church may shine forth by the purity of a holy people, to the evident splendor of heavenly truth. And may your most prudent and wholesome designs turn out all the more successful for you; plans by which you may be assured you are creating an advantage for the common happiness. Nor have you consulted only your own interests, but you are concerned also about neighbouring Churches as to how, by your diligence and providential use of your resources, you may support and strengthen them all. As if looking out from a watch-tower you give warning to them all, averting dangers and forearming against all the downfalls treacherously plotted by the enemy. You warned us of your letter sent from Zealand last year, how impostors, impudently counterfeiting the name of Jesus, and other henchmen of the Antichrist, have the more securely brought many onto their side, in a nation fascinated by Papal errors, with a design no less than to cut out, root and branch all the pure Churches of Christ. As they have bound themselves together in this by a close conspiracy to perpetrate such infamous plans, so all the Reformed Churches, as if at a given alarm signal, should join their minds and strength, united, as it were in the middle, so that they may turn the ruin intended for them back upon the heads of their enemies. Unless we can do so we will lack, in the eyes of posterity, any excuse for our shameless cowardice. We willingly acknowledged that your plan and advice was not less provident than trustworthy, not less happy than wholesome, and we again approve of it, as we see its outworking. Firstly, however, in order to achieve this, it seems necessary that without delay we all fly to our most merciful God, who has, after so long suffering the so-little reformed character of the Reformed Churches began many years ago first to brandish the rod, and then at length the unsheathed sword, and now for a long time has loosed the sword, red and dripping, nay, streaming and foaming with blood, and that the blood of His own people throughout many regions. Finally it is now stretched over we who are left, warning us to come to our right minds quickly and unite our ranks more closely against the common enemy, to purge and further cleanse His house, to more highly esteem the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, to see that the institutions of God concerning His worship, and concerning sanctification of His Sabbath be observed more religiously (from which things we have, alas, averted our eyes all too much), and concerning morals being rectified by the rule of true piety more thoroughly than has hitherto been done, and establishing ourselves as the people of God under pious governors, as they that lived under Nehemiah, Joshua and other such godly magistrates. Being bound to God by a solemn religious Covenant, struck as the very firmest of bonds, we seek that God might avert His wrath (now steaming and threatening over our heads); wrath which our very many and very great sins have provoked and inflamed against us. Not sooner had we offered ourselves, than we began to taste those fruits which a covenanted people receive from their God, fruits well worthy of the vows which have been so solemnly and openly announced, so that it may be pleasing to you to place our example before you. What we have experienced, however, concerning the grace of God towards us, what gratitude to God His glory requires of us we dare not conceal, whatever our own merits may be in the sight of God and of men. Certainly from that day on which we first thought of entering upon a religious Covenant with God and among ourselves, we began to be called back from the gates of hell, and all our affairs, thus necessarily thrown onto our God, began to work out for the better, and so far with the most happy success. But if it seems good to your providence to think of entering into further religious society by a Covenant of this kind (which can be done to the advantage of purging and stabilising your affairs, as has been the case in our Britain from the Covenant recently entered upon), and from the interest of those whose business it is to deliberate and to deal with the other Reformed churches, (by the influence of that grace by which you are so strong among them all), so that many may enter upon the same plan of action with you, then there is no doubt that, through the grace of our most kind Lord and God Jesus Christ towards his Churches, it will be the case that not only will you maintain a most sure defence against the impending evils mentioned in your letter sent from Zealand last year, but that the Reformed Churches may unite amongst themselves by a new bond and closer association, invigorating and strengthening each other against all the attempts and assaults of the enemy. Thus might even the dislodged stones of the house of God throughout Germany be lifted from the debris and ruins and be replaced into the building, and the glorious Temple of our Lord be restored in that same place whilst the professors of a pure religion in those Churches may be purified by the renewing of a right Spirit towards Him who had seen fit to strike them and, being returned by a pact which never can grow old, be united and joined with us in the Lord, and at length relieved of the evils under which they have been groaning for so many years. In that day, so longed for and desired. (if it ever dawns, through the grace of God), a course of action may be worked out concerning the inter communion of the councils and Synods of the Reformed churches (by means of delegates and letters). By this means heresies may be crushed, schisms avoided and a peace provided for with God and amongst ourselves, whilst the glorious work of the Lord may be provided for in propagating the Gospel throughout the world and so the kingdom of Antichrist be overthrown. This we commend as being worthy to be desired and hoped for in your devout and prudent meditations, like a good seed in a most fertile soil. Edinburgh, 4th June, 1644. Pledged to your worthinesses, most fraternally, by the Pastors and Elders of the National Synod of Scotland, in the name and by the mandate of them all. To the Churches of God which are in the United Provinces of Holland, Zealand, and the Federated Provinces of Belgium.
Westminster Confession of Faith Super Sale
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/westminster-confession.htm
Puritan Bookshelf CD Series Super Sale
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm
Back to Full Book Listing (A-Z by Author)
http://www.swrb.com/pcopy/photoc.htm
Back to swrb home page
http://www.swrb.com/
Still Waters Revival Books
Christian books at great discounts by mail!
E-mail for orders or a FREE catalogue
Web:
http://www.swrb.com • Email: swrb@swrb.comMail: 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: (780) 450-3730 or Fax (for orders only): (780) 465- 0237