These short "Bacon Bits"
are not meant to be a full response to the sectarians in Rowlett (who oppose
the Covenanted Reformation and uniformity found in the public subordinate
standards and covenants emitted and upheld by the Westminster Divines -- all
which are agreeable to and based upon the alone infallible standard, the Word
of God). Our full length response, The Covenanted Reformation Defended, can be accessed through "Bacon Bit #6"
below. These "Bacon Bits" merely cover some of the more obvious
blunders, poor scholarship and misrepresentations of Bacon, one of the chief
malignants of our day. It may also be interesting for the reader to note that
though we had to be informed of Bacon's attack upon our positions through a third
party, we have always responded directly Mr. Bacon. To this day Dick Bacon has
not contacted us directly in response to any of his unfounded charges.
Rutherford claims, "but it will not follow, that we may sweare a
plat-form of Divine truth framed and penned by men; but the connexion
notwithstanding of this remaineth sure, because Israel did sweare the Lord's
covenant, according to the true meaning and intent of the Holy Ghost, as it is
God's Word, and we also swear a National Covenant, not as it is man's word, or
because the church or doctors, at the churches [sic] direction, have set it
down in such and such words, such an order or method, but because it is God's
Word, so that we swear to the sense, and meaning of the plat-form of
confession, as to the words of God; now the Word of God, and sense and meaning
of the Word is all one; God's Law and the true meaning of the Law are not two
different things."
Observe how Rutherford concluded. The National Covenant (confession of
Faith) is to be sworn not because the church has required it, but because it is
an accurate representation of the sense of God's law. ***It is not, as the
Steelites claim, because the church's testimony tells us what to believe. The
church's testimony must be judged according to the word of God, and not vice
versa.***
["A Defence Departed," emphasis added -- LB]
The second Article of our Terms [of communion -- LB] requires an owning of
the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
On this, also, we shall endeavour to give unto those who ask us a reason of the
hope that is in us, with meekness and fear.
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 as 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....
The fourth article [term of communion -- LB] respects the perpetual
obligation of our solemn Covenants, and the propriety of the Renovation at
Auchensaugh, 1712....
In the fifth article of our Terms [of communion -- LB], we require an owning
of the scriptural testimonies, and earnest contendings of Christ's faithful
witnesses; and especially of our own Judicial Act and Testimony, stating and
vindicating the various reformation attainments of these lands in which we
dwell....
Let it also be carefully observed here, that, with regard to the Deeds [i.e.
the faithful testimonies of Christ's witnesses -- LB] of which we speak, 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.***"
[_An Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion_, by the Reformed
Presbytery, pp. 161; 181; 187-188; emphases added.]
For the Third Reformation,
Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ -
follow FREE BOOKS link
swrb@swrb.com 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 403 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 403 465 0237
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
This delightful dialogue, between Hans [a paleopresbyterian] and Franz [a
neo-turned-paleopresbyterian], is an easy-reading and mild-mannered dialogue
which includes an index of topics discussed and objections raised. It is *an
excellent introduction to the true Covenanter position* [i.e. the position of
the Westminster Assembly and the Church of Scotland during the Second
Reformation].
RUTHERFORD, SAMUEL
_The Due Right of Presbyteries or a Peaceable Plea for the Government of the
Church of Scotland..._ (1644) Almost 800 pages long, Rutherford here deals with
church membership, separation from the visible church (as to essence, when not
duly constituted), the civil magistrate and religion, communion among churches,
the errors of the independents (specifically in New England) and much more.
This could be considered the _Lex, Rex_ of church government -- another
exceedingly rare masterpiece of Covenanted Presbyterianism! Characterized by
Walker as sweeping "over a wider field than most. Most essential points
which Gillespie has barely touched, Rutherford carefully considers; as, for
instance, the nature of the visible church as such, and its constituent
elements. Even in the Erastian controversy he is a necessary supplement to his
great contemporary. It is something to me altogether amazing, the mass of
thinking about Church questions you have in those writings." Bannerman, in
his _Church of Christ_ calls this a "very learned and elaborate
treatise." Here is a sample of Mr. Rutherford's writing: "A private
subtraction and separation from the Ministry of a known wolf and seducer,...
this the Law of nature will warrant... as Parker saith from Saravia, 'it is
lawful to use that blameless and just defence, if the bad church-guide cannot
be deposed.' So the son may save himself by a just defence in fleeing from his
mad father, or his distracted friend coming to kill him. Now this defence is
not an authoritative act, nor [a] judicial act of authority, but a natural act
that is ****common to any private person***, yea to all without the true Church
as well as within to take that care in extreme necessity, for the safety of
their souls, that they would do for the safety of their bodies" (1642,
cited in _The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness_ magazine, emphasis
added).
(Rare bound photocopy) $199.95-87%=25.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $39.00 (US funds)
REFORMED PRESBYTERY
_An Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion, Adopted by the
Community of Dissenters, etc._
Defends the inescapable necessity of creeds and confessions, while promoting
a fully creedal church membership. Shows how the law of God obliges all
Christians "to think the same things, and to speak the same things;
holding fast the form of sound words, and keeping the ordinances as they have
been delivered to us" (Col. 3:13). After laying some basic groundwork,
this book proceeds to defend the six points of the "Terms of Ministerial
and Christian Communion Agreed Upon by the Reformed Presbytery." These six
points are the most conservative and comprehensive short statements of
consistent Presbyterianism you will likely ever see. Besides the obvious
acknowledgement of the alone infallible Scriptures, the Westminster Standards,
and the divine right of Presbyterianism, these points also maintain the
perpetual obligation of our Covenants, National and Solemn League, the
Renovation of these covenants at Auchensaugh in 1712, and the Judicial Act,
Declaration and Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery. In short, this
book defends adherence to the whole of the covenanted reformation, in both
church and state, as it has been attained by our covenanting forefathers.
(Rare bound photocopy) $9.95-60%=3.98
(Hardcover photocopy) $15.00 (US funds)
"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour
cometh and searcheth him.... Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask
diligently..." (Prov. 18:17; Deut. 13:14).
Recently, Richard Bacon, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Rowlett,
Texas, and frequent contributor to the _Blue Banner_ magazine, posted his
lengthy essay, "A Defense Departed: Being A Refutation of 'A Brief Defence
of Dissociation in the Present Circumstances'" for public view on his
church's webpage. In this treatment, as well as in his earlier
"review" of _Plain Reasons For Presbyterians Dissenting From the
Revolution Church in Scotland_, he attempts to show the allegedly schismatic
behavior of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton (PRCE) in their earlier
separation (Spring, 1996) from the Reformation Presbyterian Church (RPC; of
which Mr. Bacon's church is a member). In doing so, Mr. Bacon paints himself as
an offended, yet gracious and reasonable party, and the PRCE as unreasonable,
covenant-breaking, implacable, pharisaical, Popish, and so forth. To the reader
unfamiliar with PRCE, the writings of the second reformation and faithful
successors of the reformation, and the details of PRCE's separation from RPC
Mr. Bacon's work may appear conclusive. Based on his presentation, PRCE seems
indeed to have reached a new and almost unrivaled (among Protestants, at least)
height of arrogance, simultaneous with their nose-dive into blatant and
ridiculous Romanist errors.
As the title of this series indicates, however, Mr. Bacon has in his
endeavors only demonstrated a supreme disregard for biblical scholarship.
Instead of accurately describing the theological position and resultant actions
of PRCE, and then ably refuting these, he has chosen rather to concoct an
imaginary "Steelite" foe, with sinews of straw, brains of hay, and
integrity of weeds. This grotesque caricature is of course then ably
dismembered by Mr. Bacon's apparent biblical and reformational expertise,
leaving the little Popish faction vanquished in the dust; or, perhaps,
scattered in the wind. Straw burns readily, though, and the honest inquirer
will find that rather than the Covenanter position (the position held by PRCE)
being devoured by the flames of biblical inquiry, it is Mr. Bacon's scandalous
(mis)treatment of the doctrines, practices, and events in this controversy that
is quickly engulfed and reduced to ashes.
A thorough examination and refutation of Mr. Bacon's work (by another
author) is forthcoming (Lord willing), and this writer expects this rebuttal to
be nothing less than an annihilation. (Another important piece by a third
author is also in the works: _A Peaceable Plea for Worldwide Protestant
Unity_.) In the meantime, he deemed it profitable to present a series of
juxtaposed quotations from "A Defence Departed," and from faithful
Covenanters (sometimes called Cameronians, Steelites, etc.). These "Bacon
Bits" will readily and effectively demonstrate that the veneer of
credibility of Mr. Bacon's allegations washes off very, very easily with the
most meager counter-evidence, and will offer the public a prelude to the
aforesaid refutation. Indeed, a devastating example has already been given in
the first issue of "Bacon Bits". This series is presented with the
hope that the reader will be introduced to, or confirmed in, true second
reformation (i.e. Covenanter) teaching, and inoculated against the modern
malignancy of Mr. Bacon and any similar detractors.
Before presenting future installments, a couple of comments are in order to
help further profitably equip the unfamiliar reader. First, we must consider
Mr. Bacon's epithet, "Steelite," throughout his essay applied
disdainfully to PRCE. In a footnote to an early portion of his paper Mr. Bacon
asserts, "David
Steele was a Covenanter in the middle of the nineteenth century whose
teachings these men follow," and he later claims, "Much of the error
of the PRCE is rooted in the opinion of the nineteenth century covenanter David
Steele." These allegations require two things of Mr. Bacon: first, that he
demonstrate that PRCE has, in fact, been so influenced by Steele that he can
truthfully say PRCE's views are "rooted in the opinion... of Steele"
and that PRCE "follows his teachings"; and second, that he show that
Steele actually believed and practiced error in the points of contention. If
the contrary of either of these items can be manifested, Mr. Bacon's
distasteful designation reduces to an ad hominem fallacy; "rhetorical
terrorism" would be an appropriate title. It will be readily shown below
and in the following weeks (Lord willing) that both are in fact false, leaving
the reader with not a very auspicious or flattering evaluation of one who
claims for himself the logical high ground: "The paper written by the PRCE
session is riddled with such fallacies. I would encourage the careful reader
simply to read their Brief Defence with a logic book open at the same
time." Good advice indeed, Mr. Bacon.
In actuality, David Steele has exerted an almost negligible influence upon
PRCE. The reader is encouraged to examine the citations in the various writings
of the session and members of PRCE. An occasional reference to Steele may be
found; whereas in addition to a plethora of scripture verses, numerous
quotations from Rutherford, Gillespie, the Acts of the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, John Brown of Wamphray, and the like, will be encountered
so frequently that tallying them would become tedious. Steele wrote numerous
articles, some longer tracts, and only two full-length books. Of these, until a
few weeks ago only a few of his articles, one long tract, his written
correspondence with James M. Willson, and his _Notes On the Apocalypse_ were
available to PRCE. Furthermore, to this author's knowledge, only one of the
three elders to date has fully read his _Notes_. On the other hand, Samuel
Rutherford's works have been meticulously studied, and restudied; likewise with
George Gillespie's. Indeed, if PRCE were to be branded with any man's name, the
evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of "Rutherfordite,"
or "Gillespian". Of course, such titles would never do for they evoke
admiration, and not the desired opprobrium, among knowledgeable Presbyterian
and Reformed students.
Secondly, it should be of interest to the reader to note that although Mr.
Bacon is continually alleging the PRCE to be schismatic and factious, all of
the ministers and elders originally comprising RPC with him have (with good
reason, as will become clear in due time) dissociated from RPC, leaving only
the leadership of First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett and their congregation
as constituting that body (unless any new churches have recently been added).
Mr. Bacon begins "A Defence Departed," by noting that PRCE has
separated from other Presbyterian bodies. Elsewhere, he champions the erroneous
notion that one not joined to a body called "Presbyterian" precludes
him being truly Presbyterian. So, then, is Mr. Bacon attempting to join himself
with one of the "Presbyterian" bodies he alleges are lawfully
constituted? More than this, given his principles of ecclesiastical union, why
did he think himself justified in separating from the PCA in the first place
(cf. _The Visible Church and the Outer Darkness: A Reply Against Those Claiming
to be True Presbyterians Separating in Extraordinary Times_, 1992)? The
informed reader will discern the fallacies of poisoning the well (i.e. "let‚s
examine those 'Steelites'; you know, the wannabe Presbyterians, nothing but a
bunch of separatists"), and special pleading (i.e. it's okay for Mr. Bacon
to separate, but not others), the opened logic book clearly serving him well.
Having given a brief explanation of the scope and intent of this series, it
should be noted that there will not necessarily be any particular order to the
"Bacon Bits" chosen. Generally, each installment will stand alone in
demonstrating Mr. Bacon's disgraceful and scandalous (mis)representations,
though some topics may have to be treated in two or more issues. Lord willing,
one installment per week will be released, with no definite total number in
mind.
May God richly bless all sincere inquirers after truth, for they will not be
disappointed.
"Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for
understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid
treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the
knowledge of God.... Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and
ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall
find rest for your souls" Prov. 2:3-5; Jer. 6:16.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
Larry Birger, Jr.
August 25, 1997
For the Third Reformation,
Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ -
follow FREE BOOKS link
swrb@swrb.com 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 403 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 403 465 0237
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
An overview of the Covenanter doctrine of reformation attainments by one of
the great Covenanter theologians. Helpful in dispelling false charges of
Anabaptism and perfectionism laid at the feet of faithful Covenanters.
Includes "Nine particulars to be remembered for the right deducing and
stating the matter of fact. - The grounds and reasons of such an ordinance and
appointment may be eleven. - Four objections answered. - How this ordinance
would not be tyranny over men's consciences. - The covenant is no temporary
obligation. - If such an ordinance to the army be scandalum acceptum, then the
not making of it is scandalum datum.)
"Of
Uniformity In Religion, Worship of God, and Church Government" by George
Gillespie.
Discusses some foundational biblical truths which were sharply brought to
public notice during the covenanted Reformation of the mid seventeenth century.
Excerpted from George Gillespie's _Works_, volume 2, Chapter 15, "A
Treatise of Miscellany Questions," pp. 82-85. Gillespie was one of the
Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. He was (and is) also
considered by many as one of the most influential men in attendance at this
international gathering of renowned biblical scholars, though he was the
Assembly's youngest member. He authored many splendid and nation shaking books
including _A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_, _Wholesome Severity
Reconciled with Christian Liberty_ and _Aaron's Rod Blossoming; or, The Divine
Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated_. The last work, _Aaron's Rod
Blossoming_, being one of the all time classics on the relationship between
church and state.
This is chapter 21 from Samuel Rutherford's 1649 edition of _A Free
Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_. A number of the most
important issues [which were at the very heart of the covenanted Reformation]
taking place in England, Scotland and Ireland during the seventeenth century
are discussed here. The battle between the Presbyterians and the
"Sectaries" [Independents] is also evident throughout, while
Rutherford's views on civil government, covenanting and civil penal sanctions
all play prominent roles in this chapter. If you are interested in national [and
international] Reformation this is one of the most thoroughly thought out books
ever penned regarding Christ's absolute Kingship over the nations. It is also a
eminently anti-egalitarian treatise [just like Scripture] and it would be hard
to find a better refutation of the antichristian, democratic, tolerationist
heresies that abound in our day. If the present testimony regarding Christ's
Kingship is your concern then this is the chapter [and book] for you!
Rutherford was one of the leading Scottish Covenanters, a commissioner to the
Westminster Assembly, and already internationally respected as one of the
foremost theologians of his day by the time he penned this famous and
controversial work.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1638-1649 -The Acts of the General
Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649
Inclusive- (1682)
Exceedingly rare, these are the acts from what many consider the greatest
general assembly gatherings since the days of the apostles. The work
accomplished and ratified at these meetings has been called "the most
perfect model" of Presbyterial Church Government "as yet
attained." Sitting during the momentous days of the Covenants (National
and Solemn League) and the Westminster Assembly, this general assembly included
the likes of Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie. Judicially binding on covenanted
Presbyterians (WCF 31:3), *these Acts demonstrate how these godly leaders
officially dealt with individual, family, ecclesiastical and civil Reformation
(including national and international matters)*. Furthermore, it should not be
forgotten that these rulings had major national and international ramifications
in their day and that they still guide faithful Presbyterians at the close of
the twentieth century (as terms of ministerial and Christian communion in the
Reformed Presbyterian church). Moreover, they contain "noble examples to
be followed in testifying against all corruptions embodied in the constitutions
of either churches or states" (Reformed Presbytery, _Act, Declaration and
Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_, p. 216). Christ's Kingship
has never since been so boldly and clearly proclaimed to the nations by a duly
constituted general assembly -- neither has His rule and reign been upheld and
actually embodied into the laws of a nation (civil and ecclesiastical) as it
was during these days in Scotland. Much of this can be attributed to the work
(humanly speaking) done by the ministers present while these Acts were debated
and passed. Regarding doctrine, worship, government and discipline there are
few books that will be as helpful -- especially to elders and those advanced in
the faith. Additionally, if you want a glimpse *at the heart of the second
Reformation* this is one of the best places to look. It may also be considered
*"the eye of the Puritan storm,"* seeing that the Scottish Covenanters
exerted such a godly influence among their English Presbyterian brothers (and
the Westminster Assembly) during these days -- the two nations having
covenanted with God (in the Solemn League and Covenant) for the international
"reformation and defence of religion... the peace and safety of the three
kingdoms... the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, etc." Over 500 pages and indexed for easy
reference to all major topics.
(Rare bound photocopy) $199.95-90%=19.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $39.00 (US funds)
REFORMED PRESBYTERY
_Act, Declaration, And Testimony, For The Whole Of The Covenanted
Reformation, As Attained To, And Established In, Britain and Ireland;
Particularly Betwixt The Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive. As, Also, Against All
The Steps Of Defection From Said Reformation, Whether In Former Or Later Times,
Since The Overthrow Of That Glorious Work, Down To This Present Day_ (1876)
Upholds the original work of the Westminster Assembly and testifies to the
abiding worth and truth formulated in the Westminster family of documents.
Upholds and defends the crown rights of King Jesus in church and state,
denouncing those who would remove the crown from Christ's head by denying His
right to rule (by His law) in both the civil and ecclesiastical spheres.
Testifies to the received doctrine, government, worship, and discipline of the
Church of Scotland in her purest (reforming) periods. Applies God's Word to the
Church's corporate attainments "with a judicial approbation of the earnest
contendings and attainments of the faithful, and a strong and pointed judicial
condemnation of error and the promoters thereof" (_The Original Covenanter
and Contending Witness_, Dec. 17/93, p. 558.). Shows the church's great
historical victories (such as the National and Solemn League and Covenant, leading
to the Westminster Assembly) and exposes her enemies actions (e.g. the Prelacy
of Laud; the Independency, sectarianism, covenant breaking and ungodly
toleration set forth by the likes of Cromwell [and the Independents that
conspired with him]; the Erastianism and civil sectarianism of William of
Orange, etc.). It is not likely that you will find a more consistent working
out of the principles of Calvinism anywhere. Deals with the most important
matters relating to the individual, the family, the church and the state. Sets
forth a faithful historical testimony of God's dealings with men during some of
the most important days of church history. A basic text that should be mastered
by all Christians.
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-70%=5.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)
Mr. Bacon states the following in his _A Defence Departed_ (p. 9):
Even in PRCE's [i.e. Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton's--GLP] use of
Hewison they are somewhat selective and arbitrary. Though the Kirkcaldy
Presbytery enacted censures against those who refused to sign the National
Covenant of 1638, not all presbyteries followed suit. For example, in
Johnston's Treasure of the Covenant we learn that Zachary Boyd (1589-1653)
never signed the National Covenant of 1638.8 We do not suggest that Boyd's failure
to sign his church's Confession of Faith was commendable. It was not. Yet
significantly we see Boyd being assigned to committees (and apparently even
heading up those committees) of the General Assembly as late as 1647 and
following. We find it more than curious that not only was Boyd apparently not
censured by his presbytery (which was admittedly one of the weaker in the
entire church), the General Assembly, as the highest court in the church, not
only refrained from censuring him-- they placed him in a position of some
considerable honor.9
Footnotes
8. Rev. John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant (Edinburgh:
Andrew Elliot, 1887), p. 319.
9. A true copy of the whole printed acts of the Generall Assemblies of the
Church of Scotland microform: beginning at the assembly holden at Glasgow the
27. day of November 1638, and ending at the assembly, holden at Edinburgh the
6. day of August. 1649: diligently compared, and exactly reprinted conforme to
the foresaid printed acts / by a welwisher of the Church of Scotland, who (if
he find encouragement by which is now done) intends to publish the rest of the
acts not heretofore printed, a part of which he hath by him. (Edinburgh, 1682),
p. 354.
The paragraph above illustrates the serious problem of scholarship and
accuracy encountered throughout Mr. Bacon's _A Defence Departed_. Mr. Bacon has
obtruded upon the session of PRCE that it has a "somewhat selective and
arbitrary" use of historical documents. However, let us observe for the
sake of accuracy who has in fact been not only "selective" and
"arbitrary", but who has grossly misstated the historical document
cited and misconstrued the actual events as they occured. For the record, I
take no personal offence to objections and criticisms to the stated positions
of our church, for I do believe that such exchanges can promote our own
sanctification in the truth. However, I do take offence at the many
misrepresentations, misstatements, and misconstructions that abound in Mr.
Bacon's _A Defence Departed_. This is simply one example of the many that will
follow in weeks to come.
Mr. Bacon states, "For example, in Johnston's Treasure of the Covenant
we learn that Zachary Boyd (1589-1653) *never* signed the National Covenant of
1638" (emphasis added). Not only is Bacon's absolute statement
historically false (which calls into question his level of scholarship in this
area), but of greater concern is the fact that the source Mr. Bacon cites
(Johnston's _Treasury of the Scottish Covenant_) does not say that Zachary Boyd
*never* signed the National Covenant of 1638 (which calls into question his
accurate representation of the truth). Johnston's exact biographical remark
concerning Zachary Boyd is this: "He was one of the few ministers who
refused to take the Covenant in 1638" (John C. Johnston, _Treasury of the
Scottish Covenant_ [Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887], p. 319). Johnston's
statement is accurate. Bacon's statement is inaccurate.
It is true as Johnston notes that Zachary Boyd did refuse to take the
covenant in 1638--at least when it was first offered to the ministers of
Glasgow. Hewison observes that the influence of John Cameron, professor at the
college of Glasgow, did affect a few of the ministers in Glasgow in opposing
the National Covenant. Among these ministers was Zachary Boyd, "the poetic
pastor of the Barony Parish, whom a Committee of The Tables, including
[Robert--GLP] Baillie, in vain tried to win over to the popular side *at this
time*" (James King Hewison, _The Covenanters_ [Glasgow: John Smith and
Son, 1908], I:275, emphases added). It should be carefully noted that Hewison
limits Boyd's refusal to take the covenant by these words: "at this
time." Mr. Bacon states that Boyd *never* took the covenant. Credible
historians disagree with Mr. Bacon and indicate that Boyd refused to take the
covenant "at this time."
The National Covenant was first presented to ministers for their signature
at Greyfriars Church, Edinburgh, February 28, 1638. However, by July 22, 1638,
Zachary Boyd had indeed taken the National Covenant as indicated by Mr. Robert
Baillie's letter to his cousin, Mr. William Spang (dated July 22, 1638):
I pray you come over, if ye desire to keep your old estimation; but come
over resolute to subscribe [the National Covenant--GLP], as now all among us
inclines to do. At our townsmen's desire, Mr. Andrew Cant, and Mr. Samuel
Rutherford, were sent by the nobles to preach in the High Kirk, and receive the
oaths of that people to the Covenant; my Lord Eglintone was appointed to be a
witness. There, with many a sigh and tear by all that people, the oath was
made; Provest, James, and Mr. Archibald, held up their hands; *Mr. Zacharie
[Boyd,] and Mr. John Bell younger, has put to their hands* (Robert Baillie,
_The Letters And Journals_ [Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, 1841], I:89, emphases added
and antiquated spelling modified).
Thus, Baillie corroborates that by July 22, 1638, Zachary Boyd had put his
hand to (i.e. lifted his hand to swear to) the National Covenant. However, Mr.
Bacon erroneously states that Boyd *never* took the covenant.
This historical truth is further confirmed in the _Dictionary of Scottish
Church History & Theology_ where the following biographical account is
given concerning Mr. Zachary Boyd:
Hesitantly signing the National Covenant in 1638, he was appointed to a
commission for maintenance of Church discipline by the Glasgow Assembly
(_Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology_ , Nigel M. de S.
Cameron, ed. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd., 1993], p. 92).
A classic dictionary of Scottish history states that Boyd
"hesitantly" signed the National Covenant in 1638. Mr. Bacon makes
the unconditional statement that Boyd "never" signed the National
Covenant of 1638.
Finally, Mr. Bacon has not only misquoted his source (Mr. Johnston), not
only misrepresented the actual historical event surrounding Mr. Boyd's taking
of the covenant, but has also misrepresented the position of the faithful
Church of Scotland by alleging: "We find it more than curious that not
only was Boyd apparently not censured by his presbytery (which was admittedly
one of the weaker in the entire church), *the General Assembly, as the highest
court in the church, not only refrained from censuring him--they placed him in
a position of some considerable honor*" (p. 9, emphases added). Here we
see how from one seemingly insignificant historical inaccuracy (i.e. Boyd
"never" signed the covenant), Mr. Bacon has imposed upon the faithful
covenanted Church of Scotland a position they fully repudiated and considered
absolutely inconsistent with the view of a covenanted reformation. From the
very Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland meeting in Glasgow
(Dec. 27, 1638), we learn that it was in no way optional for ministers of the
Church to sign the National Covenant:
The Assembly considering that for the purging and preservation of religion,
for the King's Majesty's honor, and for the public peace of the Kirk and
Kingdom, the renewing of that National Covenant and oath of this Kirk and
Kingdom, in March 1638, was *most necessary* . . . The Assembly alloweth and
approveth the same in all the heads and articles thereof, And ordaineth that
*all Ministers*, Masters of Universities, Colleges, and Schools and all others
who have not already subscribed the said Confession and Covenant, shall
subscribe the same with these words prefixed to the subscription (_The Acts Of
The General Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the
Year 1649, Inclusive_, "In the Assembly at Glasgow 1638, concerning the confession
of Faith renewed in February, 1638", Session 26, December 20, 1638, pp.
61,62, emphases added and antiquated spelling modified).
Hewison also notes concerning the acts of this Assembly (1638),
"Another Act (64) ordained 'the Covenant subscribed in February last to be
now again subscribed, with the Assembly's declaration thereof, and this to be
intimated by *all ministers in their pulpits*' (James King Hewison, _The
Covenanters_ [Glasgow: John Smith and Son, 1908], I:313, emphases added).
Even the National Covenant itself is quite clear as to the perpetual
obligation that rests upon all those living at that time and all the posterity
of succeeding generations to own the moral duties contained therein as well:
"And finally, being convinced in our minds, and confessing with our
mouths, *that the present and succeeding generations in this land are bound to
keep the foresaid national oath [i.e. The National Covenant--GLP) and
subscription inviolable*" ("The National Covenant" 1638,
emphases added). The Acts of the General Assembly, historians, and even the
National Covenant unmistakably declare the official position of the Church of
Scotland to have been one of requiring the taking of the National Covenant. Mr.
Bacon has rewritten history so as to state that such was in fact not the
position of the Church of Scotland if indeed Zachary Boyd were permitted to
serve on the Assembly's Commission without having signed the National Covenant.
The reader must evaluate for himself whether such misrepresentations,
misstatements, and misconstructions on the part of Mr. Bacon (and this is one
of many which will be exposed in weeks to come) warrant the trust and
confidence of those who read _A Defence Departed_. Just as Mr. Bacon has
slanderously misrepresented the position of the General Assembly of the Church
of Scotland, I must regretfully declare he has likewise misrepresented the
position of the PRCE throughout his diatribe. Although love for this brother
compels me to grant to him a charitable judgment, neverthless, such
misrepresentations compel me (from a love for him and for the truth) to expose
his error praying for his reconciliation in the truth.
For the Third Reformation, Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ - follow FREE BOOKS link
swrb@swrb.com 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 403 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 403 465 0237
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
Brethren:
A quick point re 'Bacon Bits' 3. We read: "Thus, Baillie corroborates
that by July 22, 1638, Zachary Boyd put his hand to (i.e. lifted his hand to
swear to) the National Covenant.
The comment in parentheses is not correct. Although just prior to this we
read of Provost James and Mr. Archibald 'holding up their hands' to affirm the
Covenant, the difference in wording for Zachary Boyd is important. In
seventeenth-century writing to PUT or SET one's HAND TO something ALWAYS means
to SIGN in writing. Without chasing up the sources I this is a speculation, but
the difference MAY be that Provost James and Mr. Archibald were LAYMEN, and
Zachary Boyd and John Bell jnr were MINISTERS. However that may be, this
statement says emphatically that Boyd SIGNED the Covenant.
Yours in His bonds,
Stephen P.Westcott, Ph.D,
BRISTOL,
ENGLAND.
Dear Stephen:
Thanks for the note, the information is appreciated -- as we are always (by
God's grace) open to correction (James 3:17).
Reg
Dr. Westcott,
Though Reg thanked you already, I, too, wished to express my appreciation
for your timely and gracious clarification concerning Zachary Boyd's signing
(and not simply swearing) of the Covenant. Your assistance and demeanor are a
blessed and refreshing encouragement. May the Lord richly bless you, dear sir.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
Larry Birger, Jr.
Dr. Wescott,
I received from Reg Barrow your helpful correction concerning the accurate
meaning of "putting ones hand to the covenant." I send my personal
and sincere thanks for setting me straight in this matter so that what "I
put my hand to" in writing is (by God's grace) agreeable to the truth. God
be with you.
Sincerely,
Greg L. Price
All the Scripture you will ever need to prove that covenanting is an
ordinance of God and a moral duty for men.
Permanence
of Covenant Obligation by Omicron (1856).
Shows how Scripture teaches that covenants bind posterity.
_The National
Covenant (1638); or, Confession of Faith (of the Kirk of Scotland)_
The National Covenant, a Scottish Presbyterian document, was primarily
authored by John Craig (1580), Alexander Henderson and Archibald Johnstone of
Wariston (1638). Craig drafted the first section (also known as the King's
Confession); Johnston (a Covenanter, lawyer, Scottish representative at the
Westminster Assembly, and later a martyr for the cause of Christ) produced the
the second section, demonstrating the legal establishment of the Reformation in
Scotland; and Henderson made application to the present time in the third
section. This covenant was composed in opposition to the "policies of
Charles I. Written in the context of the riots resulting from the imposition of
'Laud's Liturgy' in 1637 and the King's refusal to receive the petitions of
supplicants for redress, the National Covenant was an appeal... to defend the
true Reformed religion, and to decline the recent innovations in worship
decreed by the King." (_Dictionary of Scottish Church History_, p. 620).
Furthermore, it was "an assertion by the Kirk of freedom from royal or
state control, a personal oath of allegiance to Jesus Christ, the only Head of
the Church, the King of kings, and a dedication of life to him. It stemmed
directly from God's covenant of grace, was in the succession of those earlier
bonds the Scots had made with God for his people's defence and deliverance, and
represented a call in the Pauline sense to 'conduct themselves a
citizens.'" (Idem.) This covenant (and the Solemn League and Covenant
described below) are still binding on all true Presbyterians (because the one
true church is viewed by a God as one moral person throughout history) and the
hearty and steadfast renewal of these faithful documents would constitute a
mighty means toward modern reformation, seeing that much of the contemporary
church and all modern states have set themselves "against the Lord, and
against his anointed" (Ps. 2:2). If you want to understand Presbyterianism
these two covenant documents (the National and the Solemn League and Covenant)
offer as much light as any others we know of. They are inextricably linked to
the Westminster standards, historical testimony and the covenanted reformation.
Some still believe that they will once again be renewed on an international
basis near the beginning of the millennium, in preparation for the days when
the "earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover
the sea" (Isa. 11:9). With this sentiment we wholeheartedly concur!
The Solemn
League & Covenant by Alexander Henderson and others
(Mid seventeenth-century reprint of a covenant between England, Scotland,
Ireland and Christ. The Westminster Divines, the parliaments and [most of] the
people of the British Isles swore to uphold this covenant, some signing it with
their own blood. CRT #21, newsletter)
(CHAPTER XVI. of "A Treatise of Miscellany Questions," pp. 85-88
from _The Works of George Gillespie_ volume 2, Still Waters Revival Books
reprint. Includes "Nine particulars to be remembered for the right
deducing and stating the matter of fact. - The grounds and reasons of such an
ordinance and appointment may be eleven. - Four objections answered. - How this
ordinance would not be tyranny over men's consciences. - The covenant is no
temporary obligation. - If such an ordinance to the army be scandalum acceptum,
then the not making of it is scandalum datum.)
_A
Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting Redivivus_ by Reg Barrow
(Here Barrow answers many specific questions regarding the permanence of
covenant obligation, national Reformation, historical testimony and many other
doctrines which were prevalent during the period of the second Reformation. A
wealth of original [Reformation] texts are cited throughout and this spirited
debate should help to generate interest in many of those biblical attainments
which were won during those glorious days in which major nations openly
covenanted themselves [as moral persons] to Christ.)
(Shows how Calvin practiced close communion and how the biblical view of
this ordinance is intended to purify the individual, church and state. Refutes
the Popish and paedocommunion heresies [regarding this sacrament], as well as all
views of open communion. Also argues that Arminians, anti-paedobaptists,
anti-regulativists, and all those who openly violate the law of God [and are
unrepentant] should be barred from the Lord's table -- as a corrective measure
ordained of God for their recovery. This is _Reformation History Notes_ number
two.)
_Paleopresbyterianism
Versus Neopresbyterianism_ by Michael Wagner
(Explains the two main differences between the "paleo" or old
Presbyterians [like the Scottish Covenanters] and the "neo" or new
Presbyterians [like those found in the modern PCA, OPC, etc.])
Rutherford claims, "but it will not follow, that we may sweare a
plat-form of Divine truth framed and penned by men; but the connexion
notwithstanding of this remaineth sure, because Israel did sweare the Lord's
covenant, according to the true meaning and intent of the Holy Ghost, as it is
God's Word, and we also swear a National Covenant, not as it is man's word, or
because the church or doctors, at the churches [sic] direction, have set it
down in such and such words, such an order or method, but because it is God's
Word, so that we swear to the sense, and meaning of the plat-form of
confession, as to the words of God; now the Word of God, and sense and meaning
of the Word is all one; God's Law and the true meaning of the Law are not two
different things."
Observe how Rutherford concluded. The National Covenant (confession of
Faith) is to be sworn not because the church has required it, but because it is
an accurate representation of the sense of God's law. ***It is not, as the
Steelites claim, because the church's testimony tells us what to believe. The
church's testimony must be judged according to the word of God, and not vice
versa.***
["A Defence Departed," emphasis added -- LB]
We began the Bacon Bits series by contrasting the above slander from Mr.
Bacon with directly contradictory statements emitted by the Reformed Presbytery
in the first part of the 1800's, in their _ Explanation and Defence of the
Terms of Communion_ (available from Still Waters Revival Books). The quotes
there cited should readily have convinced the candid reader of the absurdity
and wickedness of Mr. Bacon's assertions that the Covenanters (sometimes called
Cameronians, Steelites, etc.) demand an "implicit faith" from their
adherents by elevating uninspired historical testimony to the level of Scripture.
The false charge that Covenanters hold to this Roman Catholic view is a
convenient one, however, and one which seems to die hard. Thus, it was deemed
appropriate to issue yet more evidence exposing Mr. Bacon's statements as the
lies they are.
The following is transcribed from Greg Price's (a modern Covenanter, and
pastor of Puritan Reformed Church, Edmonton and Prince George, Canada) sermon
on 1 John 4:1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
world." (This sermon is also available from Still Waters Revival Books,
and is entitled, "Testing Teachers, Separation and the Love of the
Truth" (cassette 1 of 3). All bracketed words or statements below have
been added by this writer, and emphases have been added according to Pastor
Price's inflection in the sermon.) It, like the previous quotations from the
_Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion_ vanquishes the allegations
made against faithful Covenanters (sometimes called Cameronians, Steelites,
etc.) that we hold to Roman Catholic views. May God grant his people to walk
according to the truth of the following exposition, and thereby return them to
"the footsteps of the flock" (Song 1:8), those "old paths"
(Jer. 6:16) so skillfully cleared by our Covenanted forefathers of the Second
Reformation.
You see, here's a passage -- in 1 John 4:1 -- that plainly teaches that it
is a sin to be gullible, a sin to be gullible in swallowing everything you hear
from one simply because he is a minister: and I include myself in that
category. You are sinning if you simply accept everything that I say simply
because I declare it to be so. If you are not scrutinizing, if you are not
examining, if you are not testing what comes from this pulpit, you are sinning
according to this passage. You see, even the Bereans are commended by the Lord
in Acts, chapter 17, because when the apostles brought the truth to them they
were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica because they searched the
Scriptures to *know* that what the apostles were saying was in agreement [with]
and conformable to the revelation and the truth of God. They searched the
Scriptures to find out if these things were so, and they were commended for
doing so. And these were the *apostles of Jesus Christ* and even with them they
checked out what they were saying. How much more so ministers like myself,
ministers who serve in other churches, elders, must continuously -- for *my*
well being, not only for the sake of the gospel, not only for the sake of the
truth, but for *my* well being so I do not veer off and go astray in what I am
proclaiming or believing. You should love me enough to come to me and to
declare to me the truth if I go astray. Otherwise, I would say you do not love
me; you do not really care for me if you allow me to go off in error and say
nothing to me. The only reason, dear ones, you should desire to follow me as
your pastor is *because I follow Christ, or insofar as I follow Jesus Christ.*
The only reason, dear ones, you should desire to *receive my words that I
preach and proclaim to you this day is because they are the words of Christ and
conformable and agreeable to his holy word.*
You see, dear ones, God would have Christians to avoid two extremes in this
regard as you consider the utterances of teachers throughout history. The first
extreme that the Lord would want you to avoid is this: an implicit faith in the
testimony of the martyrs and of the saints who contended for the faith, an
implicit faith in the decrees of assemblies wherein were gathered godly and
learned men, an implicit faith in the confessions and creeds of faithful
churches. *God does not want you to have an implicit faith.* It is
*unbiblical,* it is *ungodly.* An implicit faith, dear ones, is that which
simply believes matters of faith to be true *not because the conscience has
been satisfied from the word of God, but rather because a mere human authority
teaches it to be true and you believe it simply upon that human authority* --
[that is] upon the basis of that human authority. You see, this is the teaching
of Rome. Rome teaches, "You believe our doctrine and our faith because we
say so, because we believe God teaches we are infallible in all of our
declarations concerning the faith." That's implicit faith, and it's a
heinous and grievous sin. You see, such an implicit faith, dear ones, destroys
true liberty of conscience, true Christian liberty. *God has never given to us
freedom and liberty to believe what is contrary to his word. He has never given
us a liberty to violate his moral law -- his commandments. There is no civil
right in the world that can be granted to us to violate the word of God.* Our
conscience before God is free from all human commandments, human doctrines,
contrary to or beside the word of God in worship. You see, such an implicit
faith actually acknowledges that God is not the Lord of the conscience but man is
the lord of the conscience; whereas the Lord teaches through his apostle in 2
Corinthians 1:24 (*even an apostle says this*): "Not for that we have
dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith" --
that is, faith in God -- "ye stand." Not faith in us, not faith in my
teaching, not faith in what I command, but faith in the commandments of God,
faith in the truth of God. Therein will your conscience find satisfaction and
peace, and only there, in the truth of God.
And so in this regard, dear ones, we must carefully hear what our Confession
of Faith [i.e. the Westminster Confession of Faith] states concerning this
extreme of implicit faith in Chapter 31, Section 4: "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" -- *the rule*
-- "of faith or practice, but to be used *as an help* in both" faith
and practice. That is why such standards in our church as the Westminster
Confession, the Catechisms, the Directory for Public Worship, the Form of
Government, the Solemn League and Covenant, the National Covenant, our other
standards, these we declare to be *subordinate* standards. *Subordinate*
standards, not meaning they have no authority in the life of the church, but
meaning they have a *subordinate* authority to that of the word of God, meaning
that apart from being agreeable to the word of God they do not have authority
to bind men's consciences. *But insofar as they are agreeable and conformable
to the word of God it therefore is God in his own word that is speaking to us
in these areas* and we must submit our conscience. Even if it is in the words
of men but it is the truth of God that is being explained in the words of men,
that is to be submitted to. You don't find the word "Trinity" in the
Scriptures, *and yet as we articulate what the Trinity is you are to submit
your conscience to that as being agreeable to the word of God.* That is a
*biblical* doctrine. You see, none of our subordinate standards, and none of
the practices and teachings of this church can *in and of themselves* bind the
conscience unless again -- and I keep repeating this because I don't want you
to miss the point -- unless they accurately reflect what God declares in his
word. And when that is true, then you are obligated to obey. You are obligated
to obey it because it is not ultimately our word, it is *His* word that binds
you, it is *His* doctrine and *His* teaching that binds you.
For the Third Reformation,
Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ - follow FREE BOOKS link
swrb@swrb.com 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 403 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 403 465 0237
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
The title continues: "And more particularly, of that toleration granted
by the legislature in the revocation of the penal statutes against Papists in
England and Ireland. Addresses to all professors of the Protestant Reformed
religion." Very pertinent to our day, when so-called
"evangelicals" lay comfortably in bed with "the great whore that
sitteth upon many waters, and carries her capital character on her forehead,
Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots, and abominations of the
earth" (p. 5). Read everything that you can get your hands on by the
Reformed Presbytery -- it is some of the best Christian writing you will ever
find!
(Bound photocopy) $19.95-60%=7.98
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)
Since Steele forms a theological link with the faithful General Assemblies
of the Church of Scotland (1638-1649), this book is of great importance. Steele
held to the attainments of the second (or covenanted) Reformation -- which gave
us the Solemn League and Covenant and the Westminster Standards -- and those
who follow in this train today (walking in the footsteps of the British Covenanters
[as they followed Christ]) are sometime derisively branded as
"Steelites." Stewart notes that "this autobiography gives us a
great deal of information about Steele's life and thought, but the material is
not well organized historically because Steele was using this work as an
apology rather than a strict autobiography. In his reminiscences (p. 151)
Steele likens himself to "Old Morality" who in Sir Walter Scott's
_Tales of My Landlord_ went around with chisel and mallet in hand renewing the
tombstone inscriptions on the graves of Scottish martyrs of the 17th
century" (_A Brief History of the Reformed Presbytery_, p. 2). In the
preface Steele himself writes, "It is not expected that the present
publication will be popular with the present generation. The topics treated are
not adapted to the tastes of many in this age, and to most persons the
principles discussed will be as riddles -- quite enigmatical (Ps. 128:2). The
testimony of Christ's witnesses has never been acceptable to the world, least
of all to backsliders. Nevertheless, there is warrantable ground to expect that
what is contained in the following pages will be helpful to some in following
ages, who may be moved by the Spirit of God to inquire and search for the
"landmarks which the fathers have set." Among these will be found
that grand "international document," the Solemn League, ready to be
placed in the foundation of the millennial temple. "When the Lord shall
build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory," and, with an eye to that
highest and most desirable end, this contribution is with humble confidence
committed to his patronage." 265 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $39.95-75%=9.98
(Hardcover photocopy) $24.00 (US funds)
If you would like to know what we really believe about the authority of
Scripture (as opposed to the gross misrepresentations and lies found in Richard
Bacon's "Departed Departed"), or any of our other terms of communion,
why not get the information straight from the source? This is the most
extensive exposition of the six terms of "Ministerial & Christian
Communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Church" (Covenanter) ever produced
(to our knowledge). If you compare our beliefs, as set forth by Greg Price in
this series, with Bacon's caricature of our positions, we believe you will
immediately notice that Bacon's diatribe has completely missed the mark. Bacon
is fighting against a phantom, a fantasy of his own devising -- as our _Bacon
Bits_ are and will continue to demonstrate. "Then I sent unto him, saying,
There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of
thine own heart" (Neh. 6:8). *The first two lectures are especially
important because they demonstrate Bacon's lack of scholarship at the most
fundamental level*. By twisting our most basic beliefs into a form that no one
would recognize (including us), Bacon has rendered much (if not all) of his
critique completely useless. Thus, we heartily encourage the diligent student
of Scripture to compare our real beliefs, first with God's Word, then with the
straw man that Bacon has fashioned.
1. The Word of God ($5.96, 2 cassettes)
2. The Westminster Standards ($14.90, 5 cassettes)
3. Presbyterian Worship/Government ($5.96, 2 cassettes)
4. Covenants and Covenanting ($19.95, 7 cassettes)
5. The Martyrs & Historic Testimony ($5.96, 2 cassettes)
6. The Practice of Truth ($2.98, 1 cassette)
SUPER SPECIAL!
(The complete set of all 19 cassettes listed above in the _Terms of Communion_
series) 189.05-79%=$39.70
1 John #1 (Religious Experience Versus Biblical Reality), 2.98
1 John #2 (Truth, Holiness and Fellowship with God), 2.98
1 John #3 (Freedom from the Guilt of Sin), 2.98
1 John #4 (Sin and Its Remedy: Particular Redemption), 2.98
1 John #5 (How Do I Know That I know Christ), 2.98
1 John #6 (Apostolic Tests for Assurance), 2.98
1 John #7 (Assurance Attained by Avoiding Worldliness), 2.98
1 John #8 (Doctrine Essential to Assurance), 2.98
1 John #9 (The Second Coming of Christ as Righteous Motivation), 2.98
1 John #10 (Joyful Obedience Versus Legalism), 2.98
1 John #11 (To Love Christ is to Love God's Law), 2.98
1 John #12 (The Law of Love and Toleration), 2.98
1 John #13 (Conscience, Pretended Liberty, Assurance) 1/2, 2.98
1 John #14 (Conscience, Pretended Liberty, Assurance) 2/2, 2.98
1 John #15 (Testing Teachers, Separation, & the Love of Truth) 1/3, 2.98
1 John #16 (Testing Teachers, Separation, & the Love of Truth) 2/3, 2.98
1 John #17 (Testing Teachers, Separation, & the Love of Truth) 3/3, 2.98
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/SocCov.htm
This is chapter 21 from Samuel Rutherford's 1649 edition of _A Free
Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_. A number of the most
important issues [which were at the very heart of the covenanted Reformation]
taking place in England, Scotland and Ireland during the seventeenth century
are discussed here. The battle between the Presbyterians and the
"Sectaries" [Independents] is also evident throughout, while
Rutherford's views on civil government, covenanting and civil penal sanctions
all play prominent roles in this chapter. If you are interested in national
[and international] Reformation this is one of the most thoroughly thought out
books ever penned regarding Christ's absolute Kingship over the nations. It is
also a eminently anti-egalitarian treatise [just like Scripture] and it would
be hard to find a better refutation of the antichristian, democratic,
tolerationist heresies that abound in our day. If the present testimony
regarding Christ's Kingship is your concern then this is the chapter [and book]
for you! Rutherford was one of the leading Scottish Covenanters, a commissioner
to the Westminster Assembly, and already internationally respected as one of
the foremost theologians of his day by the time he penned this famous and
controversial work.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/FreeDis21.htm
We maintain that Scripture is prior to the church and the church is founded
upon Scripture. The Steelites are **fond of quoting** Augustine's famous dictum
that he would not have believed the Scriptures, had not the Authority of the
Church moved him. We agree rather with the Reformed professor who observed that
the Calvinistic Reformation was nothing less than the triumph of Augustine's
soteriology over Augustine's ecclesiology. It was precisely the belief that the
church is epistemologically prior to Scripture that plunged the church and all
of western civilization into the Babylonian captivity of the church until
1517ff, when the Protestant Reformation brought freedom....
**Steele was fond of quoting** Augustine who said he would not have believed
the Scriptures, had not the authority of the Church moved him.
["A Defence Departed," emphasis added -- LB]
The preceding quotes from Richard Bacon's essay are among the numerous
repetitions of his trite slander that faithful Covenanters (sometimes called
Cameronians, Steelites, etc.) hold to the Roman Catholic view of the church's
authority. As we have observed in Bacon Bits numbers 1 and 4, this allegation
is as false as it is convenient for those unable to muster cogent opposition to
a thoroughgoing return to our blessed Covenanted Reformation, so graciously
granted by the church's beloved Head and King. In this installment, we shall
examine "Augustine's famous dictum that he would not have believed the
Scriptures, had not the Authority of the Church moved him." In our
discussion, we shall provide a much more favorable (and likely) interpretation
of Augustine's words that harmonizes well with the Covenanter position; an
interpretation which adds to our growing mass of evidence showing the absurdity
and wickedness of Mr. Bacon's assertions that Covenanters demand an
"implicit faith" from their adherents by elevating uninspired
historical testimony to the level of Scripture.
Mr. Bacon has said that we are "fond" of quoting Augustine's
statement regarding the church's authority. He portrays things as though this
saying of Augustine were a shibboleth -- that is, a common saying or slogan --
among Covenanters. To the contrary, however, in all this writer's dealings with
the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton he does not recall ever hearing this
quote referenced. Further, this writer consulted with various men in the
church, and they unanimously agreed, some saying that they didn't recall
hearing or reading it at all, and others saying they seem to remember coming
across it once or perhaps twice in their reading. This in itself seriously
calls into question the accuracy of Mr. Bacon's assertion, and we thus challenge
him to produce evidence from Covenanter literature, especially literature
dating from David Steele's time and downward, that "Steelites are,"
in fact, "fond of quoting Augustine's famous dictum." Moreover, since
he has written his essay especially against the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton, we challenge him to bring forth proof that in *our* writings or in
Greg Price's sermons we demonstrate that we are "fond" of this
reference.
Perhaps in response Mr. Bacon will draw our attention to the **one
publication** by David Steele cited in his paper. It is suspected such would be
the case, given that Mr. Bacon alleges Steele's fondness for this quote as well
(see Bacon's assertions, above), and given that these words of Augustine just
happen to appear on the front of the tract in question, "The Testimony and
the Law."
Before proceeding further, we digress briefly and call the reader to observe
the almost complete absence of citations from Steele in Mr. Bacon's essay.
Given his derogatory and fallacious use of the title, "Steelite," and
the seriousness of the charges he's made against him and other Covenanters,
would not one expect more substantial evidence, demonstrated by multiple
quotations, showing that Steele in fact believed such things? Instead, what Mr.
Bacon offers is a **single quotation** (the other *two-word* citation in Mr.
Bacon's essay is actually from the publisher, not from Steele himself) from
this *ten paragraph* tract -- and, indeed, this excerpt is a miserable twisting
of Steele's obvious intent. Mr. Bacon therein draws attention to Steele's
emphasis on ascertaining the faithful actions of our forefathers, to be
emulated by us, "by history alone." As is apparent throughout this
brief article (and from his other writings, which Mr. Bacon would do well to
consult, now that they are becoming available again), Steele is simply
demonstrating what should be a self-evident truth: viz., that a *particular*
covenant by which we are bound cannot be known from abstract doctrinal
formulations (i.e. creeds and confessions), but rather must be ascertained from
*history,* because it is, in the nature of the case, an historical document
sworn by our covenantal representatives at a given point in history. This is no
different than saying that we can only ascertain Mr. Bacon's ordination (or
marriage, or whatever) vows "by history alone;" yet, Mr. Bacon paints
David Steele out to be a Romanist "who makes Isaiah's "law and
testimony" refer to the Scriptures plus uninspired history."
Notwithstanding the evidence proffered in Bacon Bits numbers 1 and 4, the
reader need only look at the **sentence immediately preceding Bacon's
quotation** to dispel any doubts as to Steele's affinity with Rome. There he
says, "By *uninspired history alone* can we know these important things
[about the Covenants -- LB], identify the parties, **try their proceedings by
the 'alone infallible rule,'** and join the fellowship only of those who were
faithful to their solemn vows" ("The Testimony and the Law,"
first emphasis original, second emphasis added).
Let it be forever settled, then, that David Steele taught that uninspired
historical testimony, though required as a term of communion (as are uninspired
creeds and confessions), was yet to be "tried by the alone infallible
rule," the Word of God. The wording Steele chose, "the alone
infallible rule," is very conspicuous, being identical to the wording of
the first term of communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Church (and in our
day, the Puritan Reformed Church, see my _Terms of
Ministerial and Christian Communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and In
Our Day, In the Puritan Reformed Church; With Explanatory Dialogue [Including
"The Biblical and Logical Necessity of Uninspired Creeds"]_, free
at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/TermsMin.htm
). Mr. Bacon has made many grave and condemnatory assertions as to Steele's
views, but the discerning reader is left waiting for the evidence to prove
these. Having seen in previous Bacon Bits that this is the same approach taken
toward the positions of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, the reader is
left to judge for himself how consistent such "scholarship" is with
the ninth commandment, and the honor of the One called "the Truth."
Having thus cleared David Steele of this gross and unwarranted aspersion, we
conclude by looking at the dictum of Augustine of which he (and the Covenanters
of Puritan Reformed Church, Edmonton) are allegedly "fond of
quoting." Since Augustine's words appear in the quotation on the cover of
Steele's pamphlet we will now consider that quote in its entirety. It reads (*
= italics, which are in the original):
"*An humane testimony may be an introductory preparation,* to believe
that which is Divine. And in this sense, there is a humane Witnesse to the
things of God. Thus the woman of *Samaria* witnessed of Christ, and they were
moved by her testimony, although afterwards they did believe, because of Christ
himself. Thus also *John Baptist* bare Witnesse of Christ; and in this sense
our Divines acknowledge the Authority of the Church, and so explain that [i.e.
"those words of" -- LB] *Augustine,* who said, *He would not have
believed the Scriptures, had not the Authority of the Church moved him.*"
There are a number of noteworthy things about this quote. First, is its
spelling. Second, is its physical position in the tract by David Steele. Third,
is its content. Fourth, is its clear indication that the view it presents, both
of human testimony and of Augustine concerning the church's testimony, is not
held only by its author. Fifthly, and finally, is its author himself.
Anyone familiar with the literature of the last three centuries will
recognize immediately that the spelling utilized does not match that typically
found in 19th century American publications. Those who have seen the pamphlet
itself will note also that this quotation does not appear in the body of the article,
but rather appears on the front page, underneath the picture of "Old
Mortality at a Covenanter's Tombstone." These data lead us strongly to
suspect that David Steele was not, in fact, the man that penned these words.
Its authorship notwithstanding, the quote itself does comport with what
Steele taught (and modern Covenanters teach) concerning human testimony. Such
testimony is not infallible (that is, incapable of error), but it can and does
offer "an introductory preparation to believe that which is divine,"
and insofar as it does this it should and must be received. Note, too, that
(according to the author of the quote) it is **in this sense** that Augustine
was referring to the Church moving him to believe the Scriptures, not in the
sense that Mr. Bacon imputes to him; that is, that at this point Augustine was
Romanist in his ecclesiology.
A careful scrutiny of this excerpt also reveals something else very
interesting, and we believe very embarrassing for Mr. Bacon (whether or not he
can actually produce any more evidence that Steele was "fond" of
Augustine's dictum than the quotation on the front of the tract). Note that its
author says that his opinion of uninspired human testimony is shared by a
number of others; to wit, "our Divines." As noted, the origin of this
quotation is suspect, and this terminology ("Divines") offers further
corroboration that Steele was not the author (both because the word itself is
archaic, and because Steele was not surrounded by many "Divines," since
he was part of a small, dissenting minority). More than this, though, it
presents to us a consensus on the subject of Church authority, a consensus of
men who were so well known, and well learned, to be referred to simply as
"Divines" -- indeed, "*our* Divines." But most devastating,
it presents a consensus -- of famous, learned, and well respected men -- not
simply on the subject of the Church's authority, but **on the interpretation of
Augustine on the Church's authority.** Its author clearly says that "**our
Divines** explain" the meaning of Augustine in the way set forth in the
preceding sentences, and **not** in the way Mr. Bacon does.
So, who was the author of the quotation here considered? Actually, his
identity is no mystery. The article was republished as a tract in 1992 (and is
distributed by Still Waters Revival Books), and the publisher chose both the
picture of "Old Mortality" and the quote -- including the author's
name and the book referenced -- for the front page. The man cited was a
"Steelite" par excellence, renowned for his learning and piety, and a
delegate to the Westminster Assembly of Divines: the venerable Anthony Burgess,
who penned the words herein discussed in his work, _Spiritual Refining_,
published in 1652. And -- given that it is agreeable to our alone infallible
rule, the Word of God -- if that Westminster Steelite was fond of quoting his
Augustinian shibboleth according to this meaning, and if his Puritan brethren,
"our Divines," did likewise, we are not averse to adopting their practice.
For the Third Reformation,
Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS
ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ - follow FREE BOOKS link
swrb@swrb.com
4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5
Voice: +1 403 450 3730
(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)
It is with sadness (and encouragement to prayer for those who oppose
themselves in Rowlett) that we read of (what could charitably be called) the
"blissful ignorance" found in Dick Bacon's most recent string of
written public blunders -- but I must admit that when I first heard that Mr.
Bacon was tarring Augustine with "Steelite errors," using a quote
taken from one of the *Westminster Divines* (NO LESS!), I could not contain
myself and had to laugh at the marvelous way in which our most gracious God
confounds the modern day malignants.
Reg Barrow
President
Still Waters Revival Books
The Martyrs' Testimony, Roman Catholic Tradition and the Importance of
History (1997)
What is historical testimony? How does the Reformed view of historical
testimony differ from the Roman Catholic view of tradition? Does the Reformed
view of historical testimony militate against Sola Scriptura?
What does Psalm 78 say about historical testimony? How did the Reformers view
this Psalm? How does history impact our terms of communion, our sanctification
(personal and corporate), etc.? These and many other important questions are
answered in this fascinating and faithful sermon -- expounding the views of the
Reformed faith against the errors of the Romanists, Anabaptists, Independents
and modern "evangelicals" on this topic. "Walk about Zion, and
go round about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks,
consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following"
(Ps. 48:12-13).
(Cassette) $2.98
(Video) $11.99
Our full length response to Richard Bacon (and the "Baconites" of
Rowlett) is now available FREE of charge on Still Waters Revival Books' web
page at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm
(SEE THE FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS AND LINKS BELOW)
The title of the book is:
The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics: A
Response and Antidote Primarily to the Neopresbyterian Malignancy and
Misrepresentations, and the Manufactured "Steelite" Controversy,
Found in Richard Bacon's _A Defense Departed_; With a Refutation of Bacon's Independency,
Popery, Arminianism, Anabaptism and Various Other Heresies (Including an
Exhibition of His Opposition to Scripture and the Covenanted Reformation, in
General; and His Opposition to John Calvin, John Knox, the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland [Especially 1638-1649], Samuel Rutherford, George
Gillespie, the Testimony of the Covenanter Martyrs, the Reformed Presbytery,
the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton and a Host of Other Prominent Reformers
from Past Generations, in Particular) -- With Copious Notes on Mr. Bacon's
Backsliding and His Blackening of the Blue Banner; as Well as Various Replies
to Other Modern Malignants
- by Greg Barrow (1998)
Though set in the context of a debate with one individual, this book (of 318
pages) addresses a number of specific problems which plague the Presbyterian
and Reformed churches of our day in general. As you will see by the "Table
of Contents" (provided below) this book covers a wide range of important
topics. It is written in an easy-to-read and easy-to-understand format and
defends the biblical teaching of the best Reformers, using their own words. It
is a treasure chest of Reformation truth, uncovering information from many rare
Reformation source documents -- from the Westminster Assembly's advice to the
English Parliament on the Lord's Supper (from the Journals of the House of
Lords and House of Commons in 1645) to the official records of Calvin's
Covenanting in Geneva (from the "Register of the Council of 24" in
1537). This book will, Lord willing, provide the reader with a helpful guide to
some of the most important nation-shaking doctrines of both the first and
second Reformations -- teachings which have been lost, buried and/or obscured
by the neopresbyterians and neoreformers of our day -- and, with God's
blessing, lead the church to the third and greatest Reformation yet! N.B. Those
interested in the particulars of the specific controversy between the
"Baconites" of Rowlett and the Covenanters in Edmonton may find it
helpful to read the appendices first. Those interested in the doctrinal issues
which separate neopresbyterians (like Richard Bacon, Doug Wilson, etc.) from
paleopresbyterians (like the elders of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton)
will find the body of the book most helpful.
Table of Contents page numbers below correspond to the page numbers found in
the printed book ($14.99, cerlox bound
photocopy; $25.00, Hardcover photocopy).
A. The Puritan Reformed Church considers Mr. Bacon an erring and disorderly brother in the Lord
B. The Puritan Reformed Church desires Mr. Bacon's correction
C. A description of the format of this response
D. Mr. Bacon has misstated the issues
A. Mr. Bacon appeals to the majority
B. Mr. Bacon condemns the Covenanter martyrs as being too rigid and implies that the Covenanters strayed from the doctrines of Second Reformation Presbyterianism
C. A Description of Richard Cameron's martyrdom
A. Mr. Bacon's charges are scandalously unqualified
B. The disposition of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton toward those who disagree with us
C. The true state of the question
D. The doctrinal position of the Puritan Reformed Church regarding the "being" and "well being" of the Church as it relates to the term "true church"
a. The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter (25:2) defines an essentially true church as having one mark, viz., the profession of the true religion
b. An examination of the Reformers doctrine regarding the "being" of the church
c. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton unequivocally states that there are many truly constituted churches (essentially considered) in the world
d. Distinguishing between the "being" and the "well being" of the church
e. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton agrees with both Samuel Rutherford and the 1560 Scottish Confession, while Mr. Bacon misrepresents all parties involved
f. What is Mr. Bacon really saying about all other churches when he attempts to form a new presbytery instead of joining an already existing one?
g. Mr. Bacon is a promoter of independent denominationalism
h. The worldwide vision of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
A. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton unequivocally states that it is NOT necessary to swear the Solemn League and Covenant to be a truly constituted church (as to "being" or essence)
B. The true state of the question
C. The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton maintains that, in a land already bound by the covenants, it is necessary to own and renew the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant to be a truly constituted church as to well being, viz., a faithful church
D. Mr. Bacon ignorantly compares us to keepers of Roman Catholic tradition
E. Mr. Bacon unwittingly becomes an Arminian spokesman
F. Mr. Bacon admits his confusion in his "Defense Departed"
G. A description of the Covenants, their binding nature, purpose, and relevance to the modern day church
a. The Original Intent of the Covenanters was to Swear an Everlasting Covenant Never to be Forgotten
o In what sense are these covenants deemed everlasting and perpetual?
o A definition of the term "moral person"
o The deep pit of covenant breaking
b. The National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant are intended to maintain and preserve the truly constituted church (bene esse), and are not intended to create a truly constituted church (esse)
o The Purpose of Swearing the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant
o Mr. Bacon says it is not necessary to take the Covenant of the three kingdoms
c. The covenanting parties in the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant
o Mr. Bacon disputes with John Cunningham, John Guthrie and Thomas M'Crie
d. Who are the posterity referred to in the Covenants?
o Canada and the United States were a part of "his Majesty's dominions" when the Covenant was sworn and consequently we are morally and formally bound to own, renew, and adopt these "everlasting covenants"
e. The Essence of Covenants _ Intrinsic Obligation
o Moral obligation without formal obligation is precisely what Mr. Bacon pleads for. This, in essence, destroys the whole concept of covenanting
f. Do the Circumstantial details of the Solemn League and Covenant bind us?
g. Positive Application of the Covenants to modern Times and Circumstances
o Covenant Renewal
o Alexander Henderson agrees with the Reformed Presbytery (the so-called Steelites)
h. The Negative Sanction of the Covenants _ Withdrawal, Censure and Separation
o Covenant subscription is a term of communion for all members of Church and State (in a Covenanted nation)
o An examination of the Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. (1638-1649 Inclusive)
o Excommunication of those who would not swear or subscribe the Confession of Faith in Geneva
o The faithful contendings of the "Protesters", exemplifying their steadfast application of the biblical principles of withdrawing and separating from corrupt individuals and pretended assemblies Samuel Rutherford refuses to serve communion with Reformed Presbyterian ministers, Robert Blair and James Wood
o The "Protesters" walk out of General Assembly of 1651, denying the "Resolutioners" pretended authority
o Distinguishing between the "settled" and "broken" state of the Church
A. Mr. Bacon has not done his homework - a direct refutation of his libel regarding the PRCE's view of their own subordinate standards
B. What are terms of communion?
C. An examination of Mr. Bacon's Popish principles
D. A Triple Standard in the Reformation Presbyterian Church?
E. An examination of Mr. Bacon's latitudinarian principles in regard to his terms of communion
F. The danger of latitudinarian schemes of union and fellowship
o The Apostles Creed as a Term of Communion?
G. Does Joining the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton require Implicit Faith?
H. How does one become a member of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton?
o The Rights of Visible Church Members
o What are the qualifications for Baptism?
o What are the qualifications for admission to the Lord's Table? _ (positive/negative)
o What did the Reformers mean by such as are "found to be ignorant" in Larger Catechism #173?
o The Westminster Divines define what they understood to be the minimal competent knowledge necessary to be admitted to the Lord's Table
o Mr. Bacon teaches something distinctly different from the Westminster Larger Catechism
o Positive and Negative Agreement in the membership and communion of the church
I. The Extensive Nature of Terms of Communion
a. Fully Subscribing to Confessions and Catechisms is a term of communion b. That Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation
c. Taking and Renewing Covenants are a term of communion
d. Historical Testimony as a term of Communion
o How did the General Assembly of Scotland view their own history?
o Are our terms of communion too lengthy?
e. Mr. Bacon absurdly condemns our last Term of Communion
J. Conclusion
Form of Examination for Communion approved by the Scottish General Assembly of 1592 (96 questions)
The Six Terms of Communion of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton
End of the book The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against Contemporary
Schismatics
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Those interested in further study concerning the RPCNA's corporate backsliding should consult David Steele's debate with James M. Willson, now titled _Apostasy in the RPCNA_, numerous articles in the magazines edited by David Steele [once again available through SWRB] and the Reformed Presbytery's _A Short Vindication of the Covenanted Reformation_. Some of the best Scriptural arguments for separation from bodies such as the RPCNA [OPC, PCA, etc.] can be found in the recently published _Protesters Vindicated_ [Anonymously written in 1716], Andrew Clarkson's _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church of Scotland_ and James Douglas' _Strictures on Occasional Hearing_. A very pertinent portion of Clarkson's _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting_, "The Reformed View of Schism" is free at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Schism.htm Also, remember that a full defense of the position of our covenanted forefathers is contained in the recently released _The Covenanted Reformation Defended_ by Greg Barrow, free at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm For the Third Reformation, Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ - follow FREE BOOKS link swrb@swrb.com 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5 Voice: +1 403 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 403 465 0237 (Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!) ***********************************************
All pricing in US funds.
Protesters Vindicated: Or, A Just and Necessary Defence of Protesting
Against, and Withdrawing from This National Church of Scotland on Account of
Her Many Gross and Continued Defections (1716)
The title continues: "More particularly, her approving of, and going into
the legal establishment of the Prelatic constitutions of England. The
generality of ministers swearing, in the Oath of Abjuration, to maintain
Erastianism, Prelacy, and English Popish Ceremonies. Non-Jurants joining with
Jurants, judicially approving that practice to be free of scandal. The Church's
establishing tyranny in government, against all who will not join in communion
with her, and approve her practices without redress of grievances. Wherein
these and several other causes of withdrawing are proven to be justly
chargeable on the Church, demonstrated to be contrary to the Word of God and
Reformed principles of this Church, and just grounds of withdrawing, and
setting up judicatures distinct from her; and the objections of Jurants and others
fully answered." This is a classic, detailed statement of the old
covenanted principles and the biblical attainments of the second Reformation
(like the Solemn League and Covenant, the Westminster standards, etc.). It is
also an excellent defense against the modern malignants who counsel Christ's
children to remain in the backsliding and covenant breaking denominations that
abound in our day. Very Rare! 270 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-85%=14.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $24.00 (US funds)
Records of the Kirk of Scotland, Containing the Acts and Proceedings of
the Generals Assemblies, From the Year 1638 Downwards, As Authenticated by the
Clerks of Assembly; With Notes and Historical Illustrations, by Alexander
Peterkin (1838 edition)
"The object of the present work is to present to the public, in a form
that may be generally accessible, the history of one of the most interesting
periods in the annals of our National Church, by the republication of the Acts
and Proceedings, at and subsequent to the era of her second Reformation; and,
combined therewith, such historical documents and sketches as are calculated to
preserve the memory of an important, and, ultimately beneficial revolution,"
notes Peterkin in his introduction. This is one the most valuable publications
we offer related to second Reformation history and the many important questions
that were debated (and oftentimes settled) during this watershed period -- before,
during and after the sitting of the Westminster Assembly. It also contains some
indispensable information on the Protester/Resolutioner controversy (which
reveals many valuable lessons for Reformed Christians today), including
excerpts from some lost books and papers written by the Protesting Covenanters.
The excerpts from James Guthrie's The Waters of Sihor, or the Lands
Defectione, in which Guthrie enumerates the errors of the
Resolutioners, as well as the marks of malignancy, is one prime example. Other
rare Protester documents (inveighing against the "pretended
Assemblies" of the Resolutioners), signed by the likes of Samuel
Rutherford and Robert Traill are also included. Very rare and very valuable --
a gold mine for the serious student of the second Reformation! 684 pages.
(Bound photocopy) $99.95-75%=24.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $34.00 (US funds)
Act, Declaration, And Testimony, For The Whole Of The Covenanted
Reformation, As Attained To, And Established In, Britain and Ireland; Particularly
Betwixt The Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive. As, Also, Against All The Steps Of
Defection From Said Reformation, Whether In Former Or Later Times, Since The
Overthrow Of That Glorious Work, Down To This Present Day (1876)
Upholds the original work of the Westminster Assembly and testifies to the
abiding worth and truth formulated in the Westminster family of documents.
Upholds and defends the crown rights of King Jesus in church and state,
denouncing those who would remove the crown from Christ's head by denying His
right to rule (by His law) in both the civil and ecclesiastical spheres.
Testifies to the received doctrine, government, worship, and discipline of the
Church of Scotland in her purest (reforming) periods. Applies God's Word to the
Church's corporate attainments "with a judicial approbation of the earnest
contendings and attainments of the faithful, and a strong and pointed judicial
condemnation of error and the promoters thereof" (The Original
Covenanter and Contending Witness, Dec. 17/93, p. 558). Shows the
church's great historical victories (such as the National and Solemn League and
Covenant, leading to the Westminster Assembly) and exposes her enemies actions
(e.g. the Prelacy of Laud; the Independency, sectarianism, covenant breaking
and ungodly toleration set forth by the likes of Cromwell [and the Independents
that conspired with him]; the Erastianism and civil sectarianism of William of
Orange, etc.). It is not likely that you will find a more consistent working
out of the principles of Calvinism anywhere -- and fittingly this work has been
called "the most profoundly reasoned document ever issued by the (R.P.)
Church." It deals with the most important matters relating to the
individual, the family, the church and the state. Sets forth a faithful
historical testimony of God's dealings with men during some of the most
important days of church history. A basic text that should be mastered by all
Christians.
(Rare bound photocopy) $19.95-70%=5.99
(Hardcover photocopy) $19.00 (US funds)
Saul in the Cave
of Adullam: A Testimony Against the Fashionable Sub-Calvinism of Doug Wilson
(Editor of Credenda/Agenda
Magazine); and, for Classical Protestantism and the Attainments of the Second
Reformation by Reg Barrow
Doug Wilson and others at Credenda/Agenda used their magazine to
publicly attack and slander Reg Barrow (President of Still Waters Revival
Books) in a column that they call the "Cave of Adullam." This
invective was Credenda's response to
Barrow's comments on Knox Ring (where Barrow noted that John Calvin would have
excommunicated John Frame for the apostasy that he manifests in his new book on
worship). Numerous private attempts were unsuccessfully made (by Barrow and
others) to call Wilson to repentance for this slander. Ultimately, charges for
violation of the ninth commandment were brought (in accord with Matt. 18:15-17)
against Wilson by Barrow. This book recounts the salient points of the
controversy (and the Matthew 18 proceedings) between Wilson and Barrow -- in
their actual email debates! Also included is Barrow's demonstration of why
Calvin would have excommunicated Frame and Greg Price's Testimony
Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism.
These debates are a classic example of the differences that exist today
between paleopresbyterians (Barrow) and neopresbyterians (Wilson). Wilson's
charges against Barrow, of Anabaptism, separatism, etc. are all refuted under a
mountain of quotations from Reformation source documents. Barrow's refutations
of Wilson's spurious charges bring to light many aspects of Reformation thought
that have been lost or forgotten in our day. Besides the initial controversy
(over Frame and worship) and the restoration process (set forth in Matthew
18:15-17), this book should be of special interest to all of those who love the
"old paths" of truth -- trod by our forefathers in the Reformed faith
-- for some of the most pressing issues of our day (regarding the individual,
church and state) are addressed herein. Classic statements, cited by Barrow,
not only exhibit the wisdom which God granted the best Reformers of both the
first and second Reformations, but also specifically demonstrate how Wilson and
many other modern Protestants actually reject the Reformation at many points
(all their protests not withstanding). "And they that shall be of thee
shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many
generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer
of paths to dwell in" (Isa. 58:12). This item is also available as a bound
photocopy for $7.98 (US funds) or a Hardcover photocopy for $19.00 (US funds).
Why the PCA is
Not a Duly Constituted Church and Why Faithful Christians Should Separate from
this Corrupted "Communion" by Larry Birger
Two letters from Larry Birger, Jr. to the session of his former congregation in
the PCA, with an historical introduction. Birger states, "This work is
emitted by way of testimony against the defections from the reformation of the
true religion granted by God in ages past, in hopes of playing some small part
in the edification of God's people currently languishing under such defected
and defecting denominations." It spotlights the differences between
classic Presbyterian thought [paleopresbyterianism] and what today is but a
pale imitation [neopresbyterianism] of the Reformation attainments that have
been won [at the cost of much suffering and many lives] in the past. This is a
good practical introduction to ecclesiology, testimony-bearing, and second
Reformation thought.
A Brief
Defence of Dissociation in the Present Circumstances (1996)
This work explains why Christians should separate themselves from those
churches which deny biblical truth and its implications. It defends this
position using many Reformation source documents. Samuel Rutherford has been especially misunderstood concerning
separation. Examples of misleading and seriously flawed presentations of
Rutherford's position on the church and separation have been seen in Walker's The
Theology and Theologians of Scotland 1560-1750, Bacon's The
Visible Church and Outer Darkness and a
host of other works -- all of which overlook foundational second Reformation
truths set forth by Rutherford and his fellow Covenanters. This book clearly
demonstrates, from Rutherford's own actions and teaching (during the
Protester/Resolutioner controversy in the Scottish church), how far off many
previous works on this subject have been. It is the best short introduction
to questions regarding the visible church and separation which we list.
(Bound photocopy) $9.95-60%=3.98
"The
Reformed View of Schism"
The Reformers often said "that to avoid schism we must separate."
This should give the perceptive reader some indication of how badly
misunderstood the biblical teaching regarding schism and separation (which
should be differentiated in many ways) has become in our day. Sadly, some of
the most anti-Reformed work on this subject has been written by contemporary
individuals, who, though calling themselves Reformed, "understand neither
what they say, nor whereof they affirm" (1 Tim. 1:7). This excerpt from Clarkson's
Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting
should contribute much to correcting the problem of unbiblical ecumenism and
place this doctrine (of biblical unity in the visible church) back on its
Scriptural foundation -- which was recovered during the Reformation. Clarkson
cites Beza, Rutherford, Gillespie, Dickson, Durham, McWard (Rutherford's
"disciple"), Marshal, Watson, Owen, Burroughs, and many others, while
defending the truth about schism. Objections brought against the Reformation
view of schism are also carefully answered. This is probably the single best
medium length treatment of this subject.)
Still Waters Revival Books
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order catalogue!
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5 Voice: (780) 450-3730
(Reformation resources at great discounts!) E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com/ (Many
free books here!)
IN CASE YOU MISSED ANY OF THE PREVIOUS "BACON BITS" (OR YOU WOULD
LIKE TO REFERENCE ONE OR MORE OF THEM AGAIN) THEY ARE NOW PUBLISHED ON OUR WEB
PAGE AT http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BaconBit.htm:
Bacon Bits:
Richard Bacon's Straw Man "Steelite Controversy" Torched By Faithful
Covenanters (Sometimes Called Cameronians, Steelites, etc.) by Greg
Price, Larry Birger, et al. (These short
"Bacon Bits" are not meant to be a full response to the sectarians in
Rowlett (who oppose the Covenanted Reformation and uniformity found in the
public subordinate standards and covenants emitted and upheld by the
Westminster Divines -- all which are agreeable to and based upon the alone
infallible standard, the Word of God). The full response, A Defense of the
Covenanted Reformation, can be accessed through Bacon Bit #6 above.
These "Bacon Bits" merely cover some of the more obvious blunders,
poor scholarship and misrepresentations of Bacon, one of the chief malignants
of our day.
FREE at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BaconBit.htm
Most books mentioned in "Bacon Bits" are available from Still
Waters Revival Books.